This book focuses on the three best known epigraphical records of Athenian ancient theatre, which have been the subject of more than a century of archaeological, philological and epigraphical studies (U. Köhler [IG II], E. Reisch, A. Wilhelm, E. Capps, J.B. O'Connor, J. Kirchner [IG II/III2], P. Ghiron-Bistagne, A. Pickard-Cambridge, H.J. Mette). M. and O. seek to offer a much needed update to the last edition of Mette, Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen (1977). The first catalogue, the Fasti (IG II2 2318), consists of a record of men's and boys' choruses, poets, actors and choregoi, who won at the dithyrambic and dramatic competitions of the City Dionysia every year. The second catalogue, the Didascaliae (IG II2 2319–23a), records both participating and winning poets at the Lenaea and Dionysia along with their protagonists and the titles of their plays. The third catalogue, the Victors Lists (IG II2 2325), contains chronological lists of the winning comic and tragic poets and actors at the Lenaea and Dionysia, followed by the number of their victories. Two similar records of contests for actors (SEG XXVI 208 and IG II2 2324) are also republished here. In the appendix, the three largest of the so-called ‘Roman fragments’ (IGUR 215, 216, 218) are included, which record artists participating or winning at the Athenian dramatic competitions in the fifth–fourth centuries b.c.e.
These long and extremely fragmentary inscriptions represent the most precious and in many cases our only source for the history of the dramatic and dithyrambic contests in the Athenian theatre from the early fifth to the second century b.c.e. For this reason they need to be examined and treated with the utmost care and caution, which unfortunately this study does not. In the foreword M. and O. announce their intention to dismiss some of the earlier research, as ‘doctrinal’ or ‘ill-founded’ and offer instead some new categorical statements which, however, are rashly presented and in some cases (see below) not supported by the evidence.
M. and O. re-examined the fragments of the three records kept at the Epigraphical Museum of Athens and at the Agora Excavations, and they provide dimensions and technical details. The reproduced photographs are courtesy of the Epigraphical Museum, Agora Excavations and A.P. Matthaiou. As noted by M. and O. (p. xi), several of these fragments are in worse condition today than in Reisch's and Kirchner's time (Didascaliae and Victors List were examined by H.R. Goette and myself in 2007). It should be noted, however, that the squeezes made by Kirchner and kept in the archives of the Inscriptiones Graecae, can enable us to read several letters no longer visible. M. and O. renumber most of the inscriptions and change the collocation of some fragments, but these changes can only be considered speculative: most of the originals are lost and we have to take into consideration possible exceptions, which cause more or fewer lines (for example the artist Ameinias still ἔϕηβος ὢν ἐνεμήθη [IG II2 2323a, year 311], more or fewer participants, years with no contexts, etc.).
The chronology of the crucial events of the Athenian theatre, as we construe it from certain familiar dates, is not affected by their recalculations (p. 25). The texts of the inscriptions are followed by ‘epigraphical notes’, consisting of an accurate description of the shapes of the dotted letters and including superfluous details, such as a number of impossible readings. Their supplements and readings (more or less dotted letters) substantially correspond with the former editions, but one misses an apparatus criticus that systematically mentions the different readings and supplements (both accepted and refuted) and their authors. In the following section ‘Prosopographical Notes and Comments’ essential information about artists, plots of plays and identity of sponsors is summarised. Space does not allow me to mention the many omissions of earlier readings and supplements.
In Chapter 1, ‘The Fasti: IG II2 2318’, the possible total of the lines is recalculated. The actual result of their long ‘numerical’ reflections is that the fragment i, usually dated to 333/2 b.c.e., is shifted one year later, which in the absence of cogent arguments can only be considered as a possibility. Some of the photographs of IG II2 2318 are too bright to be fully legible (pp. 9, 19, 21, 23).
Chapter 2, ‘The Didascaliae: IG II2 2319–23a, SEG XXVI 203’.Footnote 1 M. and O. refute Reisch' theory of a single building for both Didascaliae and Victors Lists, without having undertaken a new archaeological or architectonical investigation: ‘the walls on which the Didascaliae were inscribed were in fact much too thick to have stood below the architrave blocks that preserve the Victors Lists, and the two sets of inscriptions must accordingly be dissociated’ (pp. 59, 138). As to their basic criticism, one need not accept that the architrave blocks are too small. Their preserved maximum thickness is very similar to those of the wall-fragments (23–5 cm). Furthermore the architrave does not need to be as thick as the walls, as it may have single, double or triple rows of dressed stones (R. Ginouvès, Dictionnaire méthodique de l'architecture grecque et romaine, II [1992], pp. 112 and 114, pl. 59).
Regarding the single fragments: IG II2 2320. Ibid. l. 15 (l. 13 IG) Ὀρέστηι is no longer legible on the stone, but it is clear on the squeeze. IG II2 2323. Col. II l. 132 (l. 112 IG) -]σε M. and O., -]σει or Πο]σει(δίππου) cett. (with the following observation about the iota ‘this supposed letter is simply damage on the stone’: the squeeze however confirms that it is an iota and not damage). The new supplement in Col. IV l. 457 (l. 220 IG) [ὑπὸ] Εὐερ[- M. and O. instead of [ἐπὶ] Εὐερ[γέτου οὐκ ἐγένετο] cett., is not a cogent refutation of Meritt's supplement. In Col. IV l. 461 (l. 223 IG) the new supplement ἐπὶ Ἀρισ[τόλα οὐκ ἐγένετο] M. and O. instead of ἐπὶ Ἀρισ[τόλα παλαιᾶι] cett. (year 161/0) is unlikely, because the following lines contain the beginning of a competition. IG II2 2319. The claim (p. 108) that the fragment should be separated into two is unfounded, but I shall set out the detailed evidence elsewhere. In IG II2 2321 l. 4 (l. 87 IG) the possible restoration suggested by M. and O. Ἀριστοϕ[ῶν (Ἀριστοϕ[άνης? cett.) is not new (see Wilhelm, pp. 84–6).
Chapter 3, ‘Actors Competitions: SEG XXVI 208 (= Hesperia 7 [1938], 116–18, no. 22) and IG II2 2324’. The first document is a well-known list of competitions with old plays, discussion of which is relegated to footnote 3 (pp. 123–4). On IG II2 2324 not belonging to the Didascaliae, cf. already Wilhelm (p. 88); Kirchner, IG 2.
Chapter 4, ‘The Victors Lists: IG II2 2325 A–H’. In 2325E col. IV l. 56 (l. 156 IG) M. and O. print the new supplement Πύρ[ρος] as more usual than Πυρ[ρήν] (cett.) or Πυρή̣[ν] (Wilhelm, with explanation of his reading, p. 129). On the squeeze Πυρ̣ία̣[ς] is legible.
Τhe appendix, ‘The Roman Fragments (IGUR 216, 215, 218)’, does not include the smaller fragments (217, 219, 220, 221, 222). M. and O. say that these fragments ‘perhaps decorated the walls of one of the imperial libraries in Rome (thus Körte)’, but Moretti in IGUR p. 184 has suggested more interestingly a provenance from the Vereinshaus of the technitae.Footnote 2
A bibliography and indexes of poets, actors, choregoi and archons close the book.
Errors: pp. 16, 26 and 40 παρεδίδαξαν οἱ τραγ̣[ωιδαί] instead of τραγωιδοί; p. 226 ἀναδίδαξ]ε instead of ἀνεδίδαξ]ε; ibid. Μορχίδου instead of Μορυχίδου.
Sadly this study does not really update Mette's edition. We need an apparatus criticus mentioning all the significant supplements and readings with names of their authors in order to enable us to understand what is new and what is not. In the absence of a new archaeological and architectonical investigation of both epigraphical and architectonical elements, the rejection of the theory of one monument for Didascaliae and Victors Lists cannot be considered well founded. Furthermore, the erroneous statement on IG II2 2319 risks being a step backwards in the study of these most valuable inscriptions.
