¹ To the various references collected by Norwood, G., Essays on Euripidean Drama (London, 1954), p. 170 n. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar, we may now add the following: a third-century date was regarded as likely by: Webster, T. B. L., Art and Literature in Fourth-Century Athens (New York, 1969), p. xviGoogle Scholar; Lesky, A., Greek tragedy (transl. by Frankfort, H. A., London, 1965), p. 202Google Scholar, and id., A History of Greek Literature (transl. by Willis, J. and de Heer, C., London, 1966), pp. 632, 744Google Scholar; A. W. H. Pickard-Cambridge, OCD ² v. Moschion; Snell, B., Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, i (Göttingen, 1971), p. viiGoogle Scholar; Diehl, E., RE xvi_i, 345Google Scholar; Guthrie, W. K. C., A History of Greek Philosophy, iii (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 61 n. 1, 81Google Scholar. The latter, however, admits (op. cit., pp. 81 f.) that the progress-fragment is certainly in the spirit of the late fifth or fourth century. On the other hand, a fourth-century date for Moschion was suggested by: Haigh, A. E., The Tragic Drama of the Greeks (Oxford, 1896), App. 1 p. 469Google Scholar, who wrongly identified Moschion with a parasite ridiculed in the Middle Comedy; Norwood, G., Greek Tragedy (London, 1942), p. 37 n. 5Google Scholar; Ziegler, K., RE ² vi A₂ (1965), n. 27Google Scholar. In the Oxford Book of Greek Verse a date c. 350 b.c. is suggested. Edelstein, L., The Idea of Progress in Classical Antiquity (Baltimore, 1967), pp. 65 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, discusses briefly Moschion's passage in his survey of the idea of progress in the fourth century.

² PV 442–506; Ant. 332–75: though the primitive era is not depicted in this stasimon on human δειν⋯της, the praise of man's progress in all the skills of human activity presupposes the same evolution; Supp. 201–18; Sisyphus 43F19 Snell, op. cit.; d. rer. nat. 5, esp. 1105 ff.: the fullest account of prehistory preserved from antiquity.

³ Fr. 154 DK. 2. 173. For Democritus' concept of progress see Cole, T., Democritus and the Sources of Greek Anthropology (Cleveland, 1967), pp. 56–9, 106 ff.Google Scholar, and passim; VM 3; Paneg. 28 ff., Panath. 119–48, where the theories on progress are put to a patriotic use: the Greek world owes its civilization to Athens; Prt. 320c–322d; D.S. 1. 8. 1–9. For further pieces of Kulturgeschichte in antiquity see Edelstein, op. cit., passim; Cole, op. cit., pp. 4 ff.

⁴ Erg. 106–201 on the schematic myth of Five Races. For the Golden Age in general from Hesoid onwards see: Guthrie, W. K. C., In the Beginning (London, 1956), ch. 4Google Scholar; Greene, W. C., MOIPA (New York, 1963), pp. 31 fGoogle Scholar. and App. 7 (with rich literature); for Hesiod's myth with parallels from oriental civilizations see West, M. L.'s edition, Hesiod, Works and Days (Oxford, 1978), pp. 172–7Google Scholar (with further bibliography).

⁵ Further references to the Golden Age and to praises of primitive man from the fifth century onwards (Attic Comedy, Cynics, Dicaearchus, Theophrastus, and Aratus) are cited by Edelstein, op. cit., pp. 42 f., 58 ff., 134 f., 139; see also Guthrie, , HGP iii, 79 ff.Google Scholar, Dodds, E. R., The Ancient Concept of Progress and other Essays on Greek Literature and Belief (Oxford, 1973), pp. 16 fGoogle Scholar.

⁶ For Xenophanes' affirmation of progress as anticipating the later expositions of the kind see Edelstein's extensive discussion, op. cit., p. 3 ff.; Guthrie, , HGP iii, pp. 62 f.Google Scholar; Dodds, op. cit., pp. 4, 6.

⁷ Expressions of progressivism in the oratory, historiography, philosophy and art of the fourth century are discussed by Edelstein, op. cit., pp. 64 ff.

⁸ For Aeschylus' concept of progress divine providence and human intelligence, the latter having Prometheus as a symbol, can coexist: see Dodds, op. cit., pp. 5 ff. In Euripides' Supplices Theseus interprets human progress as a result of the beneficence of an unnamed god; but doubts have often been expressed as to whether Euripides himself entirely shared such a view; cf. for instance Guthrie, , HGP iii, p. 63Google Scholar, Dodds, op. cit., p. 7, and in particular Conacher, D. J., TAPA 87 (1956), 8–26Google Scholar, esp. pp. 20 f. and Euripidean Drama (Toronto, 1967), pp. 97 ffGoogle Scholar. In the Platonic Protagoras the credit for human progress is transferred from the unnamed gods to an omnipotent Zeus named explicitly. Zeus himself granted αỉδώς and δ⋯κη to men, which guarantee political order. But serious difficulties are involved in distinguishing the views of Protagoras, who is said to be a religious agnostic (cf. fr. 4 DK ii 265 and Pl. Tht. 162d-e), from those of Plato. For different opinions on the Platonic Protagoras' attitude to the gods see Guthrie, , HGP iii, pp. 64 f.Google Scholar, In the Beginning, pp. 84 ff.; Dodds, op. cit., pp. 9 f.; Lloyd-Jones, H., The Justice of Zeus (London, 1971), pp. 130 fGoogle Scholar.

⁹ Though the poet stresses the possible destructive effects of δειν⋯της. For δειν⋯της in Sophocles see Butaye, D., LEC 34 (1966), 111 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ cf. Guthrie, , In the Beginning pp. 85–9Google Scholar, Romilly, J., Le Temps dans la Tragédie grecque (Paris, 1971), pp. 36 fGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ For the traditional depiction of Prometheus as the benefactor of mankind cf. Hes. Erg. 48 ff., Th. 565 ff.; A. PV 109–11, 251–4, 443–5, 457–506; Pl. Prt. 321c–322, Plt. 274c; Sch. A.R. Arg. 2, 1248–50a (Wendel²).

¹² Snell, op. cit. 97 F 6 prints σπ⋯σας, which is grammatically balanced with παρασχών (v. 22). Metaphorical σπ⋯ω, a stronger word than ἕλκω, means ‘carry away, draw aside’: LSJ s.v. 5; cf. S. El. 561, Pl. Lg. 1. 644e.

¹³ For the content, the authorship, and the date of this work (late fifth or early fourth century) see Guthrie, , HGP iii, pp. 71–4, 314 fGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ On its meaning in accounts of cultural rise see Cole, op. cit., p. 41 and n. 27.

¹⁵ Demeter and Persephone set alongside Dionysus: Hdt. 2. 123.1 (with How and Wells' note); Pi. I. 7. 3–5 (and Sch. ad loc). For the association of Demeter, Kore and Dionysus in mystic worship see Farnell, L. R., Cults of the Greek States, iii, pp. 360 ff.Google Scholar, Guépin, J. P., The Tragic Paradox (Amsterdam, 1968), pp. 266 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ The association recurs in D.S. 4. 3. 5, Sch. Arat. Diosem. 1068 (Martin). For the passage of the Bacchae and its earlier echoes of philosophic thought see Dodds' note ad loc.

¹⁷ See below p. 000.

¹⁸ Moschion has improperly been-compared to Critias (in the fragment cited above n. 2). For such a comparison see, for instance, Guthrie, , HGP iii, p. 63Google Scholar. Critias, the dramatist and sophist, described with cynical frankness religious beliefs as a useful political invention to inspire a fear of the law and thus to ensure the good behaviour and subjection of all citizens. The character in Moschion's play is far from promulgating such an atheistic view. On Critias see Guthrie, , HGP iii, pp. 243 f., 298–304Google Scholar.

¹⁹ The animal-like life of primitive men is a stock theme in the anthropological accounts: E. Supp. 201 f., strongly reminiscent of the adesp. fr. 470. 2 f. N.², assigned variously to Aeschylus and to Euripides (see C. Collard's note at Supp. ad loc., vol. ii, p. 439); Critias, Sisyphus, op. cit. 1 f., with the same pair of words (ἄτακτος κα⋯ θηριώδης β⋯ος) as in D.S. 1. 8. 1; VM 3; Isoc. Nicocl. 6, Paneg. 28, Bus. 25, Antid. 254; Dem. Aristog. 1. 20; Ditt. SIG ³ 704, p. 324. 12–15; Cic. De invent. 1. 2; Lucr. 5. 932.

²⁰ Ἣμερος τροɸή (v. 23), ‘corn-growing, cultivation of land’, entails a settled form of life in communities and social order, and is thus associated with ἥμερος δ⋯αιτα (v. 29). On the other hand, ignorance of cultivated food characterizes primitive societies; cf. D.S. i. 8. 5. The Athenians claimed to have been the originators both of corn-growing and of political order: Isoc. Paneg. 28 ff.; Ditt. SIG³ 704 (see above n. 19); D.S. 13. 26. 3; Xen. H.G. 6. 3. 6.

²¹ Edelstein, op. cit., pp. 65, 66, saw in Moschion's statement polemic overtones directed against the cynic contention that according to the law of nature even the eating of human flesh is not impious: see Snell, op. cit. 88 F1, 1 d, for the defence of cannibalism in Diogenes' tragedies.

²² The remaining part of the verse after ⋯κ⋯μων is usually thought to be corrupt; but none of the conjectures suggested so far (mentioned by Nauck, ad loc.) seems to be convincing: cf. Kern, O., Orphicorum Fragmenta² (Berlin, 1963), p. 303Google Scholar. The verse as it stands fits the context: the earth was ⋯κ⋯μων, ‘barren’, κωɸε⋯ουσα, ‘senseless’ (not feeling, sc. the plough: cf. v. 9), and ῥ⋯ουσα, ‘streaming down’ (probably through erosion).

²³ Hes. Erg. 116–20; Pl. Plt. 272a. Dicaearchus, ap. Porph. de abst. 4. 2 ff. (= fr. 49 Wehrli) is in accord with Plato when he says that in the time of Cronos everything grew of its own accord without the aid of men who had not yet learned the art of agriculture or indeed any other art at all.

²⁴ The view was held by many scholars: cf. Kern's note ad loc.; Norden, E., Agnostos Theos (Leipzig, 1913), p. 371 and n. 2Google Scholar; Heinimann, F., Nomos und Physis (Basel, 1945), p. 151Google Scholar; Pohlenz, M., Die Griechische Tragödie² (Göttingen, 1954), Erläut. p. 192Google Scholar.

²⁵ For different interpretations of Horace's passage see C. O. Brink's note ad loc.

²⁶ On Orphism see, for instance: Guthrie, , Orpheus and Greek Religion (London, 1952)Google Scholar; Dodds, , The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley, etc. 1953), ch. 5Google Scholar; Guépin, op. cit., pp. 227 ff. Earlier literature is cited by Greene, op. cit., App. 9.

²⁷ C. Wachsmuth (note at Stob. 1. 8. 38) was followed by Nauck, A., Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta² (Hildesheim, 1964), p. 815Google Scholar; cf. also Walker, R., Addenda Scenica (Paris, 1923), p. 224Google Scholar. Others rightly reject such a view: cf., for instance, Pohlenz, loc. cit.

²⁸ cf. D. S. 1. 90. 1…τ⋯ μ⋯ν πρ⋯τον ⋯λλήλους κατεσθ⋯ειν κα⋯ πολεμεῖν, ⋯ε⋯ το⋯ πλ⋯ον δυναμ⋯νου τ⋯ν ⋯σθεν⋯στερον κατισχύοντος.

²⁹ Plt. 271e; Dicaearchus, op. cit. (above n. 23).

³⁰ JHS, 76 (1956), 57 n. 24.

³¹ Though the concept of Violence, Β⋯α, and Power, Κρ⋯τος, as closely associated with Zeus is not lacking: Hes. Th. 385–8 (an aetiological explanation of the belief: see West's note ad loc, p. 272); A. PV 12 ff.; Call. Jov. 67. Moschion has thus parallels to draw upon for his depiction of Zeus enthroned with Violence. Critias similarly portrays primitive life as a slave of force (Sisyphus, vv. 1 f), and asserts that the laws prevented the open deeds of violence (v. 10), which had happened in the disordered state of life. For δ⋯κη and β⋯α see Hirzel, R., Themis, Dike und Verwandtes (Hildesheim, 1966), pp. 129 ff.Google Scholar, and for Δ⋯κη as π⋯ρεδρος Δι⋯ς, ibid, pp. 412 ff.

³² West, ad loc. distinguishes the instances when Dike is sent by Zeus to write a report of men's misdeeds and those where Dike's seat beside Zeus is treated as something permanent.

³³ The fragment is also quoted and discussed by Lloyd-Jones in his Appendix to the Loeb edition of Aeschylus, fr. 282. and by the same author, op. cit., pp. 59 f., and in The Justice of Zeus, pp. 35 n. 40, 99 f.

³⁴ A moral development – or simply a change in attitude (cf. Lloyd-Jones, , Justice of Zeus, pp. 95–103Google Scholar, JHS, op. cit. 57, 66 f.) – on Zeus' part, especially as portrayed by Aeschylus in the Promethean trilogy, has often been suggested. To the references quoted by Lloyd-Jones, op. cit. 56 and nn. 19–21, and Dodds, , The Ancient Concept of Progress, p. 42 n. 1Google Scholar, we may add: Thomson, G., Aeschylus and Athens (London, 1941), pp. 338, 340Google Scholar; Smyth, H. W., Aeschylean Tragedy (Berkeley, 1924), pp. 118 ff.Google Scholar; Dodds, , Greeks and the Irrational, pp. 32 fGoogle Scholar.

³⁵ For Plato's being the first in Greek thinking to conceive of an unchanging god see Dodds, , The Ancient Concept of Progress, p. 42Google Scholar, with his view approved by Lloyd-Jones, op. cit. 57 f.

³⁶ Especially in the final reconciliation (predicted in PV 186–92) between Zeus, the supreme divinity, and Prometheus, the symbol of man's restless inventiveness. On this reconciliation in PV cf. Thomson, op. cit., pp. 337 f.; Lloyd-Jones, op. cit., pp. 66 f., Justice of Zeus, p. 97; Dodds, , The Ancient Concept of Progress, pp. 40 fGoogle Scholar.

³⁷ See below p. 415 on the possible theme of the play. The pattern is familiar in tragedy and especially in Euripides; cf. Johansen, H. Friis, General Reflection in Tragic Rhesis (Copenhagen, 1959), pp. 42, 49Google Scholar.

³⁸ Moschion's concluding verses involve remarkable parallels of language and sentiment (especially the sanction of the burial law) with Theseus' bold reply to the Theban herald who had claimed that the bodies of the Argive leaders should be left unburied: see esp. vv. 524–8, 538–10, 670–2.

³⁹ v. 245. Zuntz, G., The Political Plays of Euripides (Manchester, 1955), pp. 7, 20Google Scholar and passim, aptly pointed out – though contrast Conacher, TAPA, op. cit. 13 – that the basis of the play lies in the conception of a safeguarded world, well ordered by rational laws.

⁴⁰ Supp. 563 οὐ γ⋯ρ… | ν⋯μος παλαι⋯ς δαιμ⋯νων διεɸθ⋯ρη Cf. vv. 19, 301, with Collard's notes ad loc. and at v. 526.

⁴¹ Obviously not a formally enacted law but a traditional custom sanctioned by immemorial usage. Accurate definitions of the two main uses of ν⋯μος are set forth by Guthrie, , HGP iii, pp. 56 fGoogle Scholar.

⁴² Ribbeck, O., RhM 30 (1875), 159Google Scholar; Ravenna, O., RSA 7 (1903), 761 ff.Google Scholar; Duchemin, J., L''Aγών dans la Tragédie grecque² (Paris, 1968), p. 106Google Scholar.

⁴³ cf. Duchemin, loc. cit. For the dramatic debate in the Pheraioi see also Xanthakis-Karamanos, G., CQ n.s. 29 (1979), 72 f10.1017/S0009838800035175CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁴ For the ascription of the passage on progress to the Pheraioi cf. Ribbeck, loc. cit., and Ravenna, loc. cit. However, such an attribution of these two unnamed fragments to the Pheraioi is difficult to prove in view of the very restricted knowledge concerning this poet's poetic activity: only three titles (Themistocles, Telephus, and Pheraioi) are preserved.

⁴⁵ See Conon, Narrat. 50 (FGrHist 26), Plut. Pel. 35, Sch. Hom. Il. 24. 428.

⁴⁶ Thus the majority of scholars: Ribbeck, op. cit. 155 ff.; Schrammn, F., Tragicorum graecorum hellenisticae quae dicitur aetatis fragmenta (Diss. Münster, 1929), p. 68Google Scholar; del Grande, C., ΤΡΑΛΩΙΔΙΑ² (Milano, 1962), pp. 188 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁷ Since the burial custom is attributed to Athenians: Ael. VH 5. 14; cf. Paus. 1. 32. 5, D.S. 4. 65. 9. I owe a large part of my translation to Guthrie, , HGP iii, 82Google Scholar.