| [......]ασ[—] | |||
| [Καρκί]νος ΔΙ | |||
| 10 | — | [Ἀστ]υδάμας ΓΙΙ [—?] | |
| [Αἰ]σχύ[λος —] | [Θεο]δέκτας ΓΙΙ | ||
| [Εὐ]έτης Ι | [Ἀφα]ρεύς ΙΙ | ||
| [Πο]λυφράσμ[ων —] | [....ω]ν ΙΙ | Αι | |
| [Νόθ]ιππος Ι | ...... | Φρ- | |
| 15 | [Σοφ]οκλῆς ΔΓΙΙΙ | ......... ΙΙ | Ὁμ- |
| [....]τος ΙΙ[—?] | ΔΙ | ||
| [Ἀριστι]ας [—] | Ξ- |
Dr. Reisch has propounded an ingenious and plausible theory with reference to the housing of the Didascaliae and the Victors’-Lists (cf. op. cit., pp. 302 ff.). He believes that these catalogues were prepared for the master of contests (the agonothete, see [p. 271], above) for the year 278 B.C., who also erected a special structure in the precinct of Dionysus Eleuthereus to receive them. The dedicatory inscription is extant, but unfortunately the name of the agonothete is broken away. He supposes this building to have been hexagonal, with three sides of solid wall and the other three left open. This arrangement was designed to afford a maximum of light for reading the inscriptions on the interior of the building. On the left wall, as one passed through the main entrance, were cut the tragic Didascaliae of the City Dionysia. On the architrave above was the Victors’-List for the tragic poets at this festival, and on the architrave over the adjoining (open) side to the right was the Victors’-List for the tragic actors. On the next wall to the right were the comic Didascaliae of the City Dionysia, and on the architrave above that side and the adjoining (open) one were the Victors’-Lists of the comic poets and actors who had won victories at this festival. On the third wall stood both the comic and also the tragic Didascaliae of the Lenaea. On the architrave above this wall were the Victors’-Lists of the comic poets and actors at the Lenaea, and on the architrave above the sixth (open) side were those of the tragic poets and actors at the same festival. Dr. Reisch’s reconstruction may be incorrect in some minor details, but must certainly be accepted in principle.
One matter in connection with all these inscriptions has been a subject of keen controversy among scholars, and the end is not yet. The problem is too complicated to be discussed upon its merits here, but the general situation may be outlined. When a poet did not serve as his own didascalus but brought out his play through someone else, did the name of the didascalus or that of the poet appear in the records? On a few points general agreement is possible. For example, when a poet had applied for a chorus in his own name but died before the festival and someone else had to assume his didascalic duties, care seems to have been taken at all periods to indicate the original didascalus. Again, in cases of deliberate deception, as when a man without dramatic powers secured the consent of a playwright to bring out the latter’s work as his own and applied for a chorus as if for his own play, naturally the name of the pseudo-author would be the only one to appear in the records. The crucial case remains, viz., when a dramatist wished to be relieved of the burden of stage management and arranged for a didascalus to ask for a chorus and assume responsibility for the performance. The matter becomes important with reference to Aristophanes and the correct restoration of the Victors’-Lists for comic poets at the City Dionysia and the Lenaea.
When Aristophanes had written his first play, the Banqueters, youth, inexperience, diffidence, or some other motive for desiring to avoid the responsibility of staging his play caused him to intrust it to Callistratus for production at the Lenaea of 427 B.C. The same process was repeated at the City Dionysia of 426 B.C. and the Lenaea of 425 B.C., when Callistratus brought out Aristophanes’ Babylonians and Acharnians, respectively. The former piece was apparently unsuccessful, but the latter was awarded the first prize. At the Lenaea of 424 B.C. Aristophanes was equally successful with the Knights, which, however, he produced in his own name. In vss. 512 ff. of this play the chorus declares that many Athenians approached the poet and expressed their surprise that he had not long before asked for a chorus in his own name. This passage implies that the real authorship of Aristophanes’ earlier pieces was known to a large section of the public, and makes it clear that he had produced no earlier plays in his own name. Therefore if he had won a City victory during this period the comedy with which he won it must have been brought out in the name of another. The earliest City Dionysia, then, at which he could have produced a play in his own name was in 424 B.C., two months later than the Knights. Now in the Victors’-List for comic poets at the City Dionysia ([Fig. 78]),[378] the letters Ἀρι appear in line seven of the second column. Is the name of Aristophanes or that of Aristomenes to be restored here?
We know that Eupolis, whose name stands next below in the list, won a victory at the City Dionysia of 421 B.C. and that Hermippus and Cratinus were successful at the City festival in 422 and 423 B.C., respectively. This leaves the City Dionysia of 424 B.C. for some unknown victor, who may have been Aristophanes producing a play in his own name. But, on the other hand, these victories of Hermippus and Cratinus were certainly not their first, and it is possible that the victory of Eupolis in 421 B.C. was also not his first. If any of these men was in fact the City victor in 424 B.C., Aristophanes’ name could be read at this point on the stone only by supposing that he had won a City victory at some date prior to the Knights and consequently with a play which had been brought out by another. If this hypothesis is correct, it would automatically be established that at this period victories were credited to the actual poet rather than to his didascalus. The argument here is by no means conclusive, however, and most authorities follow Dr. Wilhelm in restoring the name of Aristomenes, another poet who belonged to the same general period.
Fig. 78.—Wilhelm’s Transcription and Restoration of Four Fragments of the Athenian Victors’-List.
| [Ἀστικαὶ ποητῶν] | [Τηλεκλεί]δης ΙΙΙ | Νικοφῶ[ν —] | |
| [κωμικῶν] | [.........]ς Ι | Θεόπομπ[ος —] | |
| [Χιωνίδης —] | — | Κη]φισό[δοτος —] | |
| — | — | ...]ι[ππος? —] | |
| 5 | — Ι | Φερ[εκράτης —] | — |
| [.........]ς Ι | Ἕρμ[ιππος —] | — | |
| — | Ἀρι[στομένης —] | — | |
| [Μάγνη]ς ΔΙ | Εὔ[πολις —] | — | |
| [......ο]ς Ι | Κα[λλίστρατος —] | — | |
| 10 | [Ἀλικιμέ]νη[ς] Ι | Φρύ[νιχος —] | — |
| [......]ς Ι | Ἀμ[ειψίας —] | — | |
| [Εὐφρόν]ιος Ι | Πλά[των —] | — | |
| [Ἐκφαν]τίδης ΙΙΙΙ | Φιλ[ωνίδης —] | — | |
| [Κρατῖνος] ΓΙ | Λύκ[ις —] | — | |
| 15 | [Διοπ]είθης ΙΙ | Λεύ[κων —] | — |
| [Κρά]της ΙΙΙ | |||
| [Καλλία]ς ΙΙ |
The same problem recurs in connection with the comic Victors’-List for the Lenaea ([Fig. 79]).[379] Here Aristophanes’ name is certainly to be restored somewhere in the lacuna below the name of Eupolis in the first column. But whether his name stood in a position corresponding to his own victory in 424 B.C. or in one corresponding to his victory through the agency of Callistratus in the previous year, or whether (to state it differently) the name of Callistratus must be restored ahead of Aristophanes’ own name because of his victory in 425 B.C., are questions which are still incapable of categorical answers. Lack of space will prevent a further argument of the matter, and I must close with a summary of Dr. Jachmann’s conclusions. His discussion is not only the latest but takes certain factors into account which had previously been ignored. He points out that the archons’ records, Aristotle’s Didascaliae, and the different types of inscriptions must be sharply differentiated and that the first named are the ultimate source of all the others. The archons, of course, kept their records with no thought of later literary investigations but mainly with a view to having a definite list of men whom they were to hold responsible for different events upon their programs. Naturally, then, they had no interest in current or subsequent charges of plagiarism, pretended authorship, etc. Jachmann maintains that prior to about 380 B.C. the archons entered the name of the didascalus alone, but after that date they recorded the names of both didascalus and poet when these differed. He supposes the change to have been due to a law, which was made necessary by the increasing practice of intrusting plays to men who were not their authors and to the consequent differentiation of function between poets and didascali. According to Jachmann the same situation probably obtained also in Aristotle’s Didascaliae; but in the Victors’-Lists and the inscriptional Didascaliae only the didascali were listed before 380 B.C. and after that date only the poets. In the Fasti, on the contrary, only the didascali, as the use of the verb ἐδίδασκε would indicate, appeared at any time.