The Suda tells us the following about the elder Theodectas, the Phaselian orator and tragedian:Footnote ¹

As with many entries in the Suda,Footnote ² the information provided contains various errors and is the source of much debate. This includes incorrectly dating the funeral games for King Mausolus to the 103rd Olympiad (368/7–365/4 b.c.),Footnote ³ and uncertainty over the identity of Theodectas’ father,Footnote ⁴ which Isocrates competed in the funeral games,Footnote ⁵ and whether the statement concerning Theodectas’ death at the age of 41 should be assigned to his homonymous son, also an orator and subject of the following entry in the Suda.Footnote ⁶ One sentence, however, has attracted little comment despite its textual difficulties: καὶ ἐνίκησε μάλιστα εὐδοκιμήσας ἐν ᾗ εἶπε τραγῳδίᾳ. As it currently stands, this sentence is textually defective. The most likely construal of ἐν ᾗ εἶπε τραγῳδίᾳ is as a relative clause which has suffered absorption with attraction, that is, that this phrase in its uncompressed form is ἐν τῇ τραγῳδίᾳ ἣν εἶπε. This means that the relative clause is incomplete, missing, for example, a direct object for εἶπε or perhaps an adverb. Various scholars have attempted to make sense of this sentence. Shrimpton translates it as ‘Theodectas won with great distinction because he spoke in tragic verse’, Heath as ‘and he [Theodectas] won, after gaining much approval for his tragic oration’, and Morison gives ‘and (Theodektes) won, having been especially esteemed because he spoke in tragic verse in his (oration)’.Footnote ⁷ All three versions, however, have their limitations: Shrimpton lends the relative clause a causal force, Heath paraphrases the relative clause and in doing so makes τραγῳδίᾳ adjectival, and Morison similarly renders the relative clause causally and supplies the plausible but -non-existent ‘oration’. A new solution is required: emendation.

Indication of how this sentence could be corrected is given by εὐδοκιμήσας. As Hartwig has demonstrated,Footnote ⁸ εὐδοκιμέω can be used to refer to success in a dramatic context. In his hypothesis to Sophocles’ Antigone, Aristophanes of Byzantium recounts how it was alleged that Sophocles was deemed worthy of a generalship on Samos after a successful production of his Antigone: φασὶ δὲ τὸν Σοφοκλέα ἠξιῶσθαι τῆς ἐν Σάμῳ στρατηγίας, εὐδοκιμήσαντα ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῆς Ἀντιγόνης.Footnote ⁹ Here, Aristophanes uses εὐδοκιμήσαντα to indicate Sophocles’ triumph. εὐδοκιμέω is also found in a papyrus fragment dated to the second century a.d. and containing a commentary on one of Aristophanes’ comedies (conjectured to be Anagyrus).Footnote ¹⁰ This fragment preserves a remark made by the Alexandrian scholar Eratosthenes that the plays of the comic poet Plato enjoyed great success when produced by others, but that Rhabdouchoi, produced by Plato himself, finished fourth and saw him relegated back to the Lenaea: Ἐρατοσθένης περὶ Πλάτωνος ὅτι ἕως μὲν [ἄλ]λοις ἐδίδου τὰς κωμῳδίας εὐδοκίμει, δι’ αὑτοῦ δὲ πρῶτον διδάξας τοὺς Ῥαβδούχους καὶ γενόμενος τέταρτος ἀπεώσθη πάλιν εἰς τοὺς Ληναϊκούς.Footnote ¹¹ Here too, εὐδοκίμει retains a similar meaning to the previous passage, describing Plato's success in dramatic competitions. The Suda's εὐδοκιμήσας most likely has the same technical sense, especially given its juxtaposition near ἐνίκησε. This means that τραγῳδίᾳ should be understood as referring to a tragedy rather than to a ‘tragic verse’ or ‘tragic oration’. Moreover, Aristophanes’ use of εὐδοκιμήσαντα with ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ in his hypothesis to Sophocles’ Antigone provides a parallel for understanding the Suda's ἐν ᾗ εἶπε τραγῳδίᾳ as a relative clause which has suffered absorption with attraction. This would confirm that τραγῳδίᾳ is its antecedent, with the clause presumably giving further details about the tragedy. If εἶπε still stands, then the extra information would most likely be a quotation from the play or a paraphrase of one of its verses as the main function of this verb in the Suda is to introduce both.Footnote ¹² Excerpts from, or a summary of, part or all of Mausolus are, however, unlikely to feature in the entry for Theodectas, since the Suda's biographies of tragedians do not cite lines from their subjects’ plays or give paraphrases, providing only a list of titles by each tragedian.Footnote ¹³ This means that information in the relative clause was most likely the play's title and that εἶπε should be emended. The likeliest alteration is to a verb such as ἐπέγραψε, with γραψε incorrectly omitted by copyists presumably as an error after mistakenly writing εἶπε. Elsewhere, ἐπέγραψε can be used to provide the title of a play. For example, in his biography of Menedemus, Diogenes Laertius uses ἐπέγραψεν to cite Lycophron's Menedemus as the satyr drama in which Lycophron discusses the dining habits of the philosopher: ἃ πάντα φησὶν ὁ Λυκόφρων ἐν τοῖς πεποιημένοις σατύροις αὐτῷ, οὓς Μενέδημος ἐπέγραψεν.Footnote ¹⁴ Given this emendation and from comparison with the content of the Suda's biographies of other tragedians, a gap containing the title of Theodectas’ now-lost play, the direct object of ἐπέγραψε, should also be placed in the relative clause.

We happen to know of a tragedy by Theodectas whose title would fit this newly created lacuna. In his Attic Nights, Aulus Gellius records a contest of eulogies at the funeral games of King Mausolus:Footnote ¹⁵

The title of Theodectas’ Mausolus and Gellius’ inclusion of this play in an anecdote concerning the funeral games must surely indicate some connection with the Halicarnassian king, with the tragedy most likely performed at the games, if not enjoying its premiere there and being produced specifically for the occasion.Footnote ¹⁶ Since Gellius explicitly describes Mausolus as a tragedy and as the Suda now records that Theodectas was victorious with a tragedy, Mausolus was almost certainly the tragedy which earned Theodectas his prize at the funeral games. This means that Μαύσωλον should be inserted into the relative clause ἐν ᾗ ἐπέ<γραψε> in the Suda's entry for Theodectas, perhaps previously omitted through haplography with Μαυσώλῳ found just before discussion of the tragedy. With these emendations, the restored sentence now reads: καὶ ἐνίκησε μάλιστα εὐδοκιμήσας ἐν ᾗ <Μαύσωλον> ἐπέ<γραψε> τραγῳδίᾳ (‘and [Theodectas] won, gaining great honour for the tragedy he entitled < Mausolus>’).

This emendation allows us an insight into one of Theodectas’ most intriguing plays, particularly its performance context. The communis opinio is that there were two competitions at the games, one of eulogies which Theopompus won and at which Theodectas may have delivered a speech, the other a dramatic contest where Theodectas was victorious with Mausolus.Footnote ¹⁷ The presence of εὐδοκιμήσας and the use of this verb in relation to success in a dramatic competition might seem to support the two-contest hypothesis. But since Gellius and the Suda are otherwise unaware of any dramatic competition, εὐδοκιμήσας may have been used simply because Theodectas was victorious with a tragedy.

Perhaps an alternative solution is possible. In his account of the games, Gellius is aware of just one competition, listing its entrants and giving Theopompus as the victor. The Suda provides a similar list of competitors, but notes confusion over the eventual winner, giving both Theodectas with Mausolus and Theopompus. The details found in both works indicate that the funeral games featured a contest of eulogies which Theopompus won, but how to account for Theodectas’ victory with Mausolus? The wider dramatic tradition may supply an answer. Between 472 and 468 b.c., Aeschylus visited Sicily on the invitation of Hieron I of Syracuse and, while there, produced his Women of Aetna, a tragedy commemorating the foundation of Aetna and perhaps performed not for a dramatic contest but simply in a celebratory function (that is, in a non-competitive context).Footnote ¹⁸ Similarly, a re-performance of an ‘old tragedy’ featured as part of the City Dionysia at Athens from 386 b.c.Footnote ¹⁹ While these ‘old tragedies’ were produced in a competitive setting, they were not part of the main contest itself, performed before the ‘new tragedies’. Might Theodectas have composed his Mausolus in a similar context? In this case, Theodectas would have been invited to participate in the funeral games, specifically to produce a play honouring Mausolus. This invitation may have been extended to Theodectas because of, among other reasons, his success in Athenian dramatic competitions, coming first at the City Dionysia on seven occasions,Footnote ²⁰ and, while at Halicarnassus, Theodectas was awarded a prize for his play. Later writers were unaware of the reason for Theodectas’ prize, but knew of its existence, Theodectas’ presence at the funeral games, the contest of eulogies (or at the very least in honouring Mausolus) and its victor Theopompus, and a play by Theodectas entitled Mausolus.Footnote ²¹ Since Theodectas was also an orator like the other competitors, writers may have assumed that he too participated in the contest of eulogies where he produced Mausolus.Footnote ²² This in turn would have then led to confusion over the victor in the competition of the eulogies with the Suda or with one of its sources positing two winners: Theodectas with Mausolus and Theopompus. This would also explain why the Suda uses language better suited to the context of a competition in relation to Mausolus (ἐνίκησε μάλιστα εὐδοκιμήσας), because of the assumption that it was for winning a contest, here that of eulogies.

As for the plot of Mausolus, little can be said. The attestation of its performance at the funeral games of Mausolus together with its title must surely confirm the hypothesis, which can scarcely be doubted, that the play was written in praise of its subject.Footnote ²³ The best conjecture for the plot of Mausolus remains that of Hornblower, who posits that the play dealt with an invented heroic namesake on the basis of Pseudo-Plutarch's De fluuiis.Footnote ²⁴ This work mentions the river Indus, noting that it was previously named Mausolus after the son of Helios: Ἰνδὸς ποταμός ἐστι τῆς Ἰνδίας, ῥοίζῳ μεγάλῳ καταφερόμενος εἰς τὴν τῶν Ἰχθυοφάγων γῆν· ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ πρότερον Μαυσωλὸς ἀπὸ Μαυσωλοῦ τοῦ Ἡλίου.Footnote ²⁵ Hornblower suggests that the river referred to in this section is the Indus in Caria (the river Dalaman Çayı in modern-day Turkey) rather than the more famous river in India, and thus that Theodectas’ play connected the deceased king with the son of Helios.Footnote ²⁶ The lack of information, however, means that other suggestions are possible, including that the play was a historical or biographical tragedy,Footnote ²⁷ which treated an episode from Mausolus’ life or that of one of his ancestors.Footnote ²⁸

Though a great deal of uncertainty remains over the Suda's entry for Theodectas, our emendation hopefully goes some way to dealing with one of the most difficult sections of the text. In turn, by emending our problematic sentence, we have gained a new insight into Theodectas’ Mausolus, a play which, until any new evidence comes to light, must remain tantalizingly, but frustratingly, beyond our grasp.