This paper is based on two separate, though partly overlapping, registers of male Athenian citizens known to have been in the public eye between theyears 432/1 and 405/4 B.C., inclusive. Register I comprises those who are known inthis period to have held important elective public office, or to have proposed andcarried resolutions in the Assembly; a total of 176 persons. These are singled out fromthe much wider range of ‘officials’, most of them chosen by lot, to be found in theprosopography (...) of Develin 1989, because they are those who actively, and in somemeasure successfully, competed for the political favour of the Athenian public. Theimportant elective public offices I take to be those of general, proboulos , member of any embassy, and delegate for swearing to an international treaty. Register II comprises those who are known in this period to have been referred to asindividuals in Athenian comedies; a total of 224 persons. Both lists inevitably havesomewhat fuzzy edges, mainly over questions of identification and dating; doubtfulcases are briefly discussed in the notes to the Registers. Probably no other scholar willagree with every one of my decisions in these matters, but the general validity of thepicture here presented is unlikely to be affected. Within Register II can be identifiedtwo small but important subgroups: those who are referred to not, as is normal, fordisparagement but for praise; and those to whom is devoted an entire play or a largepart of one. I will be returning to these. (shrink)
Our information about the Athenian politician Syrakosios is entirely derived from Ar. Birds 1297 and the scholia thereon. Syrakosios here figures among a long list of Athenians who are said to be nicknamed after various birds:δοκε δ κα ψήισμα τεθεικέναι μ κωμδεσθαι νομαστί τινα, ς Φρύνιχος ν Μονοτρόπ ησί [fr. 26 Kock]· “ψρ' χοι Συρακόσιον. πιανς γρ ατ κα μέγα τύχοι. είλετο γρ κωμδεν ος πεθύμουν.” διπικρότερον ατ προσέρονται, ς λάλ δ τν “ κίτταν” παρέθηκεν.
This article challenges the conclusion of Kovacs (2009) that Oedipus Tyrannus 1468-1523 is an interpolation, arguing that the evidence he brings is insufficient (except possibly in regard to 1500-02), that his proposal regarding Sophocles' original conclusion to the play is unsatisfactory and that in 1468-1523 several significant features of the play's opening scenes are repeated or reversed.
Dikaiopolis, having borrowed a beggar's disguise from Euripides, is about to return to the place where he has set the butcher's block over which he will make his defence of his private peace-treaty. He finds, however, that his is reluctant to take the plunge. ‘Forward now, my soul,’ he says to it, ‘here's [or ‘there's’] the . What does mean here? Plainly we are meant to think of a foot-race; but is the ‘line’ in question the starting line or the (...) finishing line? The question has implications for production. If it is the starting line, Dikaiopolis must point to an imaginary line on the ground just in front of him; if the finishing line, he must point to the block. The scholia take ypanfiri to mean ‘starting line’ here; but this sense has no fifth-century support. At this date ypanfiri in connection with races meant always ‘finishing line’ (Pind. Pytb. 9. (shrink)
The adjective μøιμτωρ occurs, so far as our evidence goes, twice in Greek literature: in Aeschylus' Herakleidai and in Euripides' Andromache . And the ancient authorities are unanimous that it means, in the words of P. T. Stevens, ‘sons of the same father by different mothers, i.e. half-brothers’.
Diggle has followed Stevens in rejecting 1279–82. Stevens' objections to these lines were that they ‘should [sc. directly] follow a striking demonstration that birth is more important than wealth in marrying and giving in marriage', and that the lines do not form an apt comment on the fates of Peleus and Neoptolemos. The cogency of these objections will be examined presently; but first a counter-objection will be presented against the hypothesis of interpolation.
This passage has long embarrassed interpreters, and many, beginning with Kock, have condemned it as spurious. But this would mean that Aeschylus' only answer to Dionysus' question ‘what safety have you for the city?’ would be, in effect, ‘none’ : and this would hardly justify the general confidence expressed in the final scene that Aeschylus will in fact be able to save the city. The most recent editor, Stanford, rightly rejects the idea of interpolation here.