Scanned text contains errors.
the scholiast on the passage from the Clouds, above quoted, in which the Daetaleis is referred to, explains the phrase irais erepa as meaning $i\(avi$ris K.a\ KaAAicrr paras, and Dindorf, by putting together this passage and the above inference, imagines that the Daetaleis was brought out in the name of Philonides (Frag. Arist. Daet.) ; but the scholiast is evidently referring, not so much to the bringing out of this particular play (for irais erepa cannot mean two persons, nor were dramas ever brought out in more than one name) as to the practice of Aristophanes with respect to several of his plays. There is, therefore, no reason for the violent and arbitrary alteration of the words of the grammarian, who, as above quoted, expressly says that the play was exhibited di& Ka\\i<TTpd.Tov. There is, therefore, no evidence that Aristophanes exhihited under the name of Philonides previous to the date of the Knights ; but that he did so afterwards we know on the clearest evidence. His next play, the Clouds (b. c. 423), we might suppose to have been brought out in the name of Philonides, on account of the statement of the grammarian, that Aristophanes assigned to him the plays against Socrates and Euripides, coupled with the known fact that the Frogs were exhibited in the name of Philonides ; but, however this may be, we find that, in the following year, b. c. 422, Aristophanes brought out two plays, the Proagon and the Wasps, both in the name of Philonides, and gained with them the first and second prize. This statement rests on the authority of the difficult and certainly corrupted passage in the Didascalia of the Wasps, into the critical discussion of which we cannot here enter, further than to give, as the result, the following amended reading, which is founded on the Ravenna MS., adopted both by Dindorf and Bergk, and of the correctness of which there can now hardly be a doubt : — 'ESiSaxfli? en-l apxovros JA,uu-«£iAa>j/i8ou ei/ T?7 it$ oAujinnaSi : /3' (i. e. rjv. els Arfvaia : /cat ei>i'/ca irpooros 4>iA«-Hpoaywi, AevKcoy TLpevgeffi y' (i.e. rpiros) ; from which we learn that the Wasps was exhibited at the Lenaea, in the 89th Olympiad, in the year of the Archon Amynias, under the name of Philonides, and that it gained the second place, the first being assigned to the Tlpodyuw, which was also exhibited in the name of Philonides, and which we know from other sources to have been a play of Aristophanes (see the Fragments), and the third to the ripeo-ggts of Leucon.*
In the year b. c. 41 4 we again find Aristophanes exhibiting two plays (though at different festivals), the Amph'taraus, in the name of Philonides, and the Birds, in that of Callistratus (Arg. in Av.) ; and, lastly, we learn from the Didascalia to the
' «/ f
Frogs, that that play also was brought out in the name of Philonides. We thus see that Aristophanes used the name of Philonides, probably, for the Clouds (see Bergk, 1. c. pp. 913, 914), and certainly for the Wasps, the Proagon, the Amphia-raus, and the Frogs. The Daetaleis, the Babylo-
* Clinton (F. H. vol. ii. p. xxxviii. n. i.) gives a very good account of the extraordinary errors which have been founded on this passage ; to which must be added his own, for, on the strength of a reading which cannot be sustained, he makes the passage mean that Aristophanes gained the first prize with .the Wasps, and some poet, whose name is not mentioned, the second with the Proagon.
nians, the Acharnians, the Birds, and the Lysis-trata, were brought out, as we have seen, in the name of Callistratus. Of the extant plays of Aristophanes, the only ones which he is known to have brought out in his own name are the Knights, the Peace, and the Plutus. His two last plays, the Cocalus and Aeolosicon, he gave to his son Araros. The Thesmophoriazusae and the Ecdesia-zusae have no name attached to them in the Di-dascaliae.
These views are further supported by Bergk, in an elaborate discussion of all the passages in Aristophanes and his scholiasts, which bear upon the matter ; which must be read by all who wish to master this important question in the literary history of Aristophanes.
There still remain, however, one or two questions which must not be passed over. Supposing it established, that Aristophanes brought out many of his plays in the names of Callistratus and Philonides, might they not also be the chief actors in those plays, and, if not, who and what were they ? From what has been said in the early part of this article, a strong presumption may be gathered that the persons in whose names the dramas of others were exhibited were themselves poets, who had already gained a certain degree of reputation, but who, from advancing years, or for other reasons, might prefer this sort of literary partnership to the risk and trouble of original composition. Indeed, it would appear, on the face of the thing, an absurdity for a person, who did not profess to be a poet, to enrol his name with the archon as the author of a drama, and to undertake the all-important office of training the performers. But we have the evidence of Aristophanes himself, that those in whose names he exhibited his dramas, were poets, like himself, erepoifft iroitirous (Vesp. 1016; com p. Schol.) : we have already seen that Philonides was a poet of the Old Comedy ; and with reference to Callistratus, we have no other information to throw doubt on that contained in the above and other passages of Aristophanes and the grammarians. The fact, that we have only three titles of plays by Philonides, and none by Callistratus, accords with the view that they were chiefly employed as 8i5c«r-Ka\oi of the plays of Aristophanes. We have seen, indeed, that one or two of the grammarians state that they were actors; but, with all the evidence on the other side, there can be little doubt that this statement has merely arisen from a mistake as to the meaning of the word 5ta in the Didascaliae. That word has its recognized meaning in this connection, and no one hesitates to give it that meaning in the Didascaliae of the earlier plays: there is no good authority for supposing it to designate the actor : the Didascaliae were not designed to record the name of the actor, bat that of the poet, whether real or professed ; the terms StSao--/caAos, x0po5i5c£(TKaAos, Kuucpb'oo'ib'dffKaXos, are used as precisely equivalent to Troi^r-rfs and Kto/x<p8o-TToiTjTTjs : and the notion that the %opo5j5aa-/caAos and the chief actor could be the same person involves the almost absurd idea of the chief actor's training himself. The common story about Aristophanes taking upon himself the part of the chief actor in the Knights is shown by Bergk to be, in all probability, a mere fabrication of some grammarian, who mistook the meaning of ISuJax^? Si avrov tqv 'Apioro^afous in the Didascalia ; and there is no clear case, after the regular establishment of the