18 for Hauvette-Besnault's 'Ao apákov. Line 24 (23), which has aroused a good deal of discussion, is longer than the others and almost touches the inscription in the next column. The first editor reported "Avтóvoμos (espace vide) (nom effacé)", and in the majuscule copy for the "nom effacé" gave zo.. AI. Brinck saw that a proper name is not wanted here, but rather a "novum artificum genus”, and suggested κιθαρωιδοί or ραψωδοί. Capps (pp. 122 f.), however, argued that the clew to the correct heading is to be supplied by the identification of the class of performers to which the three following names belong, Philemon, Nicostratus, and Ameinias. Now these names occur in close juxtaposition in the list of comic poets victorious at the Lenaea' at Athens, C. I. A. II, 977 g. Judging by the position of these names with reference to that of Menander, the date of whose first Lenaean victory can be inferred within narrow limits, we learn that the first Lenaean victories of Nicostratus and Ameinias fell in the last years of the fourth century i. e. about twenty years before our inscription. For the elder Philemon we have more exact dates. His first Dionysian victory was won in 327 (Frag. Mar. Par., Wilhelm, Ath. Mitth. XXII, 187; cf. Anon. я. кwμ. II, p. 9 Kaibel), but he was active until extreme old age, dying about the time of the Chremonidean war, ca. 263 B. C. (Suid. s. v. Þýμwr). He could therefore have produced a play at Delos in 280. Now on the strength of these considerations Capps concluded that these three persons were кwμwidoоioi and proposed that this word (which is used in the other Delian inscriptions) or its equivalent (#)o[n]aì [kwμwidiŵv] should be restored as the heading. And in fact moinтai kwμwidia is found on the stone. Though the letters have been somewhat mutilated, they can still be made out with absolute certainty. It is hard to see how they could have escaped the French editor. For the sake of clearness I reproduce my copy of III, omitting the part pertaining to the Dionysia, where my copy agrees entirely with that given in the Bulletin. Επὶ ἄρχοντος Χάρμου (280 B. C.) οἶδε ἐχορήγησαν εἰς ̓Απολλώνια (παί)δων Δημοκράτης, Πύρραιθος Φιλαίθου, Ἱερόμβροτος Εὐδήμου, 5 ̓Αλκίμαχος Προξένου. 1 Not the Dionysian list; cf. Am. Jour. Phil. XX (1899), 388 ff. 16 οἶδε ἐπεδείξαντο τῶι θεῶι· αὐληταί· Αὐτόνομος, Ν ..... ποιηταὶ κωμωιδιῶν 25 Φιλήμων, Νικόστρατος, ̓Αμεινίας. We are glad to know the names of a few of the comic poets who brought out plays at Delos. In VII, 1. 25 (263 B. C.) we have Nicomachus the Athenian, and in VIII, 1. 26 (259 B. C.) Chrysippus. We now possess three more names. Philemon is probably, as I have indicated above, Philemon the elder, rather than his son, who was known as veάrepos and is so designated in the Athenian record C. I. A. II, 975, col. III, 1. 11; cf. Suid. S. v. Φιλήμων νεώτερος. Our Nicostratus must be the poet of the New Comedy. Meineke Hist. Crit. I, p. 346 thought that there was but one poet of the name, but fresh light is brought by C. I. A. II, 977 g. 1. 14 and by our Delian inscription. One Nicomachus is assigned to the Middle Comedy by Athen. 587 d. He must be the one who is reported to be the son of Aristophanes and confounded with Philetaerus, and may be identical with the comic poet of the Icarian inscription C. I. A. IV, 2, 1281 b, as Buck surmised (see Kirchner, No. 11038). The other poet is assigned to the New Comedy by Harpocration s. v. opbevτýs. We know nothing further about Ameinias than that he is identical with the poet of the Athenian list, mentioned above. See Pauly-Wissowa, Suppl. I Heft, s. v. Ameinias. 1 The stone AP, as H.-B., but Capps' correction (p. 120 f.) is likely. 2 Kirchner, Prosop. Att. No. 14276, following Köhler, distinguishes a third comic poet Philemon, and he must be right if insc. II, 975, col. III is to be dated ca. 184/3. The designation vɛά(Tɛpoç) was in that case intended to distinguish him from the second of the name, the son of the great Philemon. And the Philemon in the victor's list C. I. A. II, 977 / might seem to favor this view. But the dates at present assigned to the fragments of 975 cannot be regarded as even approximately correct; cf. Dittenberger, Syl.9, No. 697, n. 7. Wilhelm's long-awaited edition of these inscriptions will doubtless settle this and many other open questions on the chronology of the comic poets. IV, 279 B. C.; B. C. H. VII, 108. In 1. 5 for K. . iou read Kvai@ov. The name is not found in Pape's Eigennamen nor in Fick-Bechtel's Personennamen; cf., however, Пúppados, which occurs in II and III, and Þíλaudos, which is found in III. V, 268 B. C.; B. C. H. VII, 110. In 1. 32 the stone reads 'Iepávμos, as Capps (p. 119) conjectured, not 'Iépwvos. This is the comic actor whose name occurs also in III. He appears as victor at the Lenaea at Athens in the year 289 (C. I. A. II, 972; cf. Am. Jour. Arch. IV (1900), 74 ff.) and was four times victorious at that festival (C. I. A. II, 977 uv). In l. 33 Xópnyos is the reading on the stone, Hauvette-Besnault read xopny.., taking it as a caption. Paris (B. C. H. IX, 153) conjectured xopny[ós]. But Brinck (p. 197) restored it as a proper name, the name of a comic actor, like Ergophilus who precedes. There can now be no doubt about this. Before Choregus we have the famous comic actor 'Iepávμos and after him the names of Ká[\]\ɩñ(#)os and Kλcóĝevos. Callippus has been identified with the comic actor at the Lenaea at Athens in 306 B. C. (C. I. A. II, 1289) and credited with four Lenaean victories in C. I. A. II, 977 uv, while Cleoxenus is one of the comic actors at the Soteria in the year 272. Choregus must, therefore, also be the name of a comic actor. A. Muller1 conjectures that he was a grandson of the comic poet Choregus mentioned in C. I. A. II, 977 f. The name is not, in fact, a common one, no Athenian of this name being known, for example (cf. Kirchner). VII, 263 B. C.; B. C. H. VII, 112. In 1. 8 before 'Availéμidos the stone gives ΗΣ and the name must be [Πάχ]ης ̓Αναξιθέμιδος, who in V was choregus at the Apollonia and in VI (265 B. C.) at the Dionysia. We have a good many cases in these inscriptions of the recurrence of the same name among the choregi of different years (Von Schöffer, p. 141, n. 121), but if my reading of HE here is right, we have the first case of a man serving three times, and that within ten years. Brinck, (p. 199), who thought of this possible restoration, regarded it as improbable on this account, though Von Schöffer seems to restore as I have done. In 1. 12 I read Avoidμov for Av[σavi]ov. In 1. 24 after the comic actor avions Hauvette-Besnault indicates space for five letters and then -αρχος. But there is space for only about three letters; 1 Philologus LXI (1902), 160. Both he, and Körte in the Suppl. to PaulyWissowa, seem not to have known that the credit for the correct interpretation of this word belongs to Brinck. I read ["Iπ]aрxos, the stone showing traces of the two first letters. No comic actor of this name is known from other sources. Our actor could scarcely be the ὑποκριτής, Νεαίρας ἐραστής, οἱ [Dem.] 59. 26, who Kirchner (Prosop. 7599) suggests may be the tragic actor of C. I. A. II, 977 o, for the date of this oration is between 343 and 340 according to Blass (Att. Bered. III, I, 536). I may add here a note on the omission of the bar in e and A, which led to Hauvette-Besnault's strange error of ovμaтOTOLÓS for Bavμarоotós (Dragoumis in B. C. H. VII, 384). Dragoumis suggested that the point of the e and the bar of the A escaped the eye of the copyist. This is not the case, for neither exists on the stone in this inscription and are often omitted in other inscriptions of this series. They were undoubtedly painted in, and whenever in these inscriptions we find E for E, A for A, or o for e, we may be certain, I think, that the missing stroke was supplied in color, of which distinct traces still remain, especially in VIII. . VIII, 259 B. C.; B. C. H. VII, 114. In ll. 19, 20, if the reading 'Iepokλe[ous] were correct, the preceding name would have had fourteen or fifteen letters, which is not probable. The stone actually gives at the end of 1. 19 IEPOKAEI and in 1. 20. . . . Read therefore 'Iepokλeions, as Capps (p. 119) suggested. In the space before this name, accordingly, stood the name of a comic actor and his ethnicon, in all probability. In 1. 21 the stone reads clearly ΑΚΑΡΝΑΝΔΙΣΠΑΡΑΜΟΝΟΣ and in 1. 22 . ΛΚΙΔΕΥΣ, confirming Capps' conjecture (p. 119) Σωτίων ̓Ακαρνὰν δίς, Παράμονος Χαλκιδεύς for Hauvette-Besnault's ̓Ακαρν[άν, Η]λις Παραμόνο[υ] ..... ] deús. The editor evidently did not see the lower line of the A. It is not so well cut as the rest of the letter, but it still exists and was of course perfectly clear when the color was fresh. We have the name of a Paramonos, probably a Chalcidian, in an inscription 'Εφ. Αρχ. 1902, 111, Παράμονος ̓Απολλοδώρου. The ethnicon is not given, but the inscription was found at Chalcis. In 1. 24 the majuscule copy gives " ΟΝΣΙΕΠΠΟΣ vide”. But 'Ονήσιππος is clear. A name followed, but the stone is so mutilated that I could not read it. IX, not long after 263 B. C.; B. C. H. VII, 115. KATATON reported in 1. 9 should be read in the line below. The text in 1. 9 is KATEOYN, omitted altogether by the editor. X, 201 B. C.; B. C. H. VII, 117. In 1. 34 read Ka▲Ɛ, not ΚΑΛΩΣ. The same word kádos occurs in the inventories in V, VI, VII, and VIII. In 1. 59 the stone gives roPTIEION, not TOPEYTON. The piaλn yopyielos occurs several times in XII. XII, 171 B. C.; B. C. H. IX, 147. In ll. 76, 77 Paris read Λυ . . . δος as a proper name. Wilhelm proposed λv[pi]dós as a caption; Capps (p. 121)1 av[aw]dós. The reading is ^Y^I^oɛ. The third letter cannot have been P; therefore the performer was certainly an αὐλωιδός. While studying these choregic inscriptions at Myconos I took occasion to look at No. 270, published in B. C. H. XIV (1890), 389 ff. At the end of this inscription Homolle reads eis tò λ [ογε]ίον τῆς σκηνῆς | .... μον τετράπηχυν. The word λογεῖον was considered a probable restoration by Dörpfeld, but doubted by his collaborator Reisch. Both make the mistake of including the in the brackets, for it is clear on the stone and is given in Homolle's copy. The source of the dispute which has arisen about this word lies in the simple fact that it is always given as Al[oye Jior, which is not possible, since there is not space enough at the beginning of the line for three letters before -ov. My reading was, at the end of 1. 134, AC, and at the beginning of 1. 135 -EION. Homolle's reading must therefore be simply changed to do [y]eîov. I feel sure that any epigraphist, after an examination of the stone, would agree that this is the correct reading. DAVID M. ROBINSON. His av[w]doi on p. 121 is evidently a misprint; cf. p. 137 av[¿wi]dós. 2 Griech. Theat., p. 148 and p. 301. |