The technical word used of bringing out a play was διδάσκειν (“to teach”), and the technical name for the director of the performance was didascalus (διδάσκαλος) or “teacher.” We have already noted (p. 198, above) that didascalia (διδασκαλία; “teaching”) was the name for a group of plays brought out by a tragic playwright at one time, and the same word was applied to a record of the theatrical contests. At the beginning the didascalus and the author were identical, for the reason that the primitive poets taught the choreutae what they were to sing, that the poets in the one-actor period carried the histrionic parts themselves and still taught the choreutae their rôles, and that even when they had ceased to act in their plays they yet continued to train those who did.

The Athenian archons seem to have kept records of the contests at the Dionysiac festivals, the archon eponymus for the City Dionysia and the king archon for the Lenaea. These records, of course, were not compiled in the interests of literary research such as flourished in Alexandrian times but merely for the private convenience of the officials and for documentary purposes. Apparently they consisted of a bald series of entries, chronicling the choregi, tribes, poet-didascali, actors, plays, and victors in the various dithyrambic and dramatic events. In the fourth century B.C. these archives were published by Aristotle in a work entitled Didascaliae. His service probably was mainly that of unearthing the material and arranging it in chronological sequence and of making it available to a wider public, for Dr. Jachmann has made it seem clear that he did not edit the archons’ record to any great extent. In consequence Aristotle’s book contained too much and was overloaded with unimportant details. Its main value consisted in being a court of last resort and a source from which smaller and less unwieldy lists might be compiled.

Some of these indirect products of Aristotle’s industry were entered upon stone and are still preserved in fragments. The first of these is for convenience referred to as the Fasti (“calendar” or “register”) and contained the annual victors in each event at the City Dionysia from about 502/1 B.C. when volunteer comuses were first given a place in the festival program. This inscription was cut upon the face of a wall built of four rows of superimposed blocks and almost six feet in height. The text was arranged in vertical columns. There were originally sixteen of these and most of them contained one hundred and forty-one lines. The presence of a heading over the first five columns, however, reduced the lines upon them to one hundred and forty. For the most part the lines in adjoining columns were placed exactly opposite one another, but toward the bottom of col. 13 the writing was crowded so that this column perhaps contained no less than one hundred and fifty-three lines. As the entries for 346-342 B.C. fell in this space, most authorities accept Dr. Wilhelm’s conclusion that the body of the inscription was cut at that period and received additional entries, year by year, for subsequent festivals until about 319 B.C.[373] Whoever was responsible for the original inscription must have excerpted the appropriate items from Aristotle’s Didascaliae and, for the brief period intervening between the publication of Aristotle’s book and 346-342 B.C., from the original archives.

The character of the Fasti will appear most clearly from Fig. 75,[374] a transcript and restoration of two fragments on which were originally cut the tops of cols. 3-5. The Greek letters within brackets are restorations where the stone is broken away or illegible. Inasmuch as the entries follow a fixed order from year to year and occupy a definite number of lines, except as slight changes were occasionally introduced into the program, it is often easy to restore everything but proper names. Of the heading of the inscription, which extended over the first five columns, only the center is preserved. When complete it probably read somewhat as follows: οἵδε νενικήκασιν ... ἀφ’ οὗ πρῶτ]ον κῶμοι ἦσαν τῶ[ι Διονύσωι Ἐλευθερεῖ (“The following gained the victory ... since first there were comuses in honor of Dionysus Eleuthereus”). Let us examine more closely the record of the year which begins at line nine in the second column of Fig. 75 (col. 4 in the complete inscription). The entries for each year begin with ἐπί (“in the time of”), followed by the name of the Athenian archon eponymus in the genitive case. The archon for this year was Philocles, whose term ran from July, 459 B.C., to July, 458 B.C. Since the festivals came in the spring the record under consideration is for the City Dionysia of 458 B.C. The inscription is so formulaic and condensed that it has necessarily been expanded somewhat in the following translation:

• In the archonship of Philocles.
• The tribe Oeneis was victorious with a dithyrambic chorus of boys;
• Demodocus was choregus.
• The tribe Hippothontis was victorious with a dithyrambic chorus of men;
• Euctemon of Eleusis was choregus.
• In the contest of comedians:
• Euryclides was choregus,
• Euphronius was didascalus.
• In the contest of tragedians:
• Xenocles of Aphidnae was choregus,
• Aeschylus was didascalus.

This was the year in which Aeschylus competed in Athens for the last time and was victorious with his Orestean trilogy.

About 278 B.C. two other inscriptions were compiled from Aristotle’s publication of theatrical records. I refer to the stone Didascaliae and to the Victors’-Lists. The former gave the full program of the dramatic, but not the dithyrambic, events for each year and fell into four divisions, dealing respectively with tragedy and with comedy at each of the two festivals. Fig. 76a[375] gives a transcript of two fragments which reproduce the programs of tragedy at the City Dionysia in 341 and 340 B.C. They may be freely translated, as shown on p. 323.

There are several matters here which are worthy of comment. It will be noted that by 341 B.C. the tragic poets no longer closed each group of plays with a satyric drama, but one satyr-play was performed instead as a preface to the tragic contest. It followed that the playwrights, the number of whose dramas now corresponded to that of the star performers, were no longer handicapped by being allotted the exclusive services of a single star and his troupe but were placed upon terms of perfect equality by having all the stars in turn at their command, each for a different tragedy. This explains why in 340 B.C., when we must suppose that three players of the first rank with their supporting companies were for some reason not available, the number of tragedies presented by each playwright was likewise reduced to two and the histrionic talent was thus kept evenly distributed. The fact that the tragic writers no longer devoted whole trilogies to different aspects of the same theme made it easy to reduce the number of tragedies in any year in order to conform to an emergency in the histrionic conditions. Furthermore, old tragedies were not now permitted to compete with new ones, as was said to have been the practice in the case of Aeschylus’ plays after his decease (see p. 203, above); but beginning at the City Dionysia of 386 B.C., as we learn from the Fasti, an old tragedy was performed, outside of the contest, every year. It is interesting to observe that in both these years and again in 339 B.C. (see next to the last line in Fig. 76a) plays of Euripides were chosen for this purpose, and this is in accord with the steady growth of that poet’s popularity as compared with Aeschylus and Sophocles. As already stated, the Didascaliae were inscribed in 278 B.C., but the record was kept up to date by contemporaneous entries for over a century subsequently.

Fig. 76b.—Translation of Inscription in Fig. 76a.

• In the archonship of Sosigenes (342/1 B.C.). Satyr-play:
• — was poet with his —.
• Old tragedy: Neoptolemus
• acted in Euripides’ Iphigenia.
• Poets: Astydamas was first
• with the Achilles acted by Thettalus
• with the Athamas acted by Neoptolemus
• with the Antigone acted by Athenodorus;
• Evaretus was second with the Teucer
• acted by Athenodorus
• with the Achilles acted by Thettalus
• with the — acted by Neoptolemus;
• Aphareus was third with the Daughters of Pelias
• acted by Neoptolemus
• with the Orestes acted by Athenodorus
• with the Auge acted by Thettalus;
• the actor Neoptolemus was victor.
• In the archonship of Nicomachus (341/0 B.C.). Satyr-play:
• Timocles was poet with his Lycurgus.
• Old tragedy: Neoptolemus
• acted in Euripides’ Orestes.
• Poets: Astydamas was first
• with the Parthenopaeus acted by Thettalus
• with the Lycaon acted by Neoptolemus;
• —cles was second with the Phrixus
• acted by Thettalus
• with the Oedipus acted by Neoptolemus;
• Evaretus was third
• with the Alcmeon acted by Thettalus
• with the — acted by Neoptolemus;
• the actor Thettalus was victor.

The Victors’-Lists were prepared at the same time as the stone Didascaliae and were likewise derived from Aristotle,[376] but they were very different in character. They recorded the aggregate of victories won by poets and actors in tragedy and comedy at each of the two festivals—eight lists in all. I shall content myself with citing one fragment from the list of tragic poets who were victorious at the City Dionysia (cf. Fig. 77 a and b).[377] The names were arranged in the chronological order of their first victory at the festival in question, in this case the City Dionysia; and after each name was entered the total number of victories gained at that festival. We are especially interested in two names in this list, Aeschylus and Sophocles. Of course the former’s name did not originally head the list; it stood in the eleventh line. The numeral is broken away from behind his name, but we know from other sources that he won thirteen (ΔΙΙΙ) victories. He died before the establishment of the tragic contest at the Lenaea, so that his competition was restricted to the City Dionysia. But Suidas reports that according to some Aeschylus had gained twenty-eight victories. Perhaps the larger number is not to be rejected as worthless but is to be regarded as including the victories which Aeschylus’ plays are said to have won after his decease in competition, at both festivals, with the works of living tragedians. To Sophocles the inscription assigns eighteen (ΔΓΙΙΙ) victories at the City Dionysia, and that is the number which most authorities give. But Suidas, who regularly records the aggregate of victories at both festivals, credits him with twenty-four victories. Sophocles must, therefore, have been victorious six times at the Lenaea. Euripides’ name does not appear upon any extant portion of the Victors’-List. He is usually stated to have won five victories, but some notices report fifteen. Possibly we are to understand that he won ten Lenaean victories. His comparative lack of success while living thus stands in striking contrast to his popularity subsequently.

Dr. Reisch has propounded an ingenious and plausible theory with reference to the housing of the Didascaliae and the Victors’-Lists (cf. op. cit., pp. 302 ff.). He believes that these catalogues were prepared for the master of contests (the agonothete, see p. 271, above) for the year 278 B.C., who also erected a special structure in the precinct of Dionysus Eleuthereus to receive them. The dedicatory inscription is extant, but unfortunately the name of the agonothete is broken away. He supposes this building to have been hexagonal, with three sides of solid wall and the other three left open. This arrangement was designed to afford a maximum of light for reading the inscriptions on the interior of the building. On the left wall, as one passed through the main entrance, were cut the tragic Didascaliae of the City Dionysia. On the architrave above was the Victors’-List for the tragic poets at this festival, and on the architrave over the adjoining (open) side to the right was the Victors’-List for the tragic actors. On the next wall to the right were the comic Didascaliae of the City Dionysia, and on the architrave above that side and the adjoining (open) one were the Victors’-Lists of the comic poets and actors who had won victories at this festival. On the third wall stood both the comic and also the tragic Didascaliae of the Lenaea. On the architrave above this wall were the Victors’-Lists of the comic poets and actors at the Lenaea, and on the architrave above the sixth (open) side were those of the tragic poets and actors at the same festival. Dr. Reisch’s reconstruction may be incorrect in some minor details, but must certainly be accepted in principle.

One matter in connection with all these inscriptions has been a subject of keen controversy among scholars, and the end is not yet. The problem is too complicated to be discussed upon its merits here, but the general situation may be outlined. When a poet did not serve as his own didascalus but brought out his play through someone else, did the name of the didascalus or that of the poet appear in the records? On a few points general agreement is possible. For example, when a poet had applied for a chorus in his own name but died before the festival and someone else had to assume his didascalic duties, care seems to have been taken at all periods to indicate the original didascalus. Again, in cases of deliberate deception, as when a man without dramatic powers secured the consent of a playwright to bring out the latter’s work as his own and applied for a chorus as if for his own play, naturally the name of the pseudo-author would be the only one to appear in the records. The crucial case remains, viz., when a dramatist wished to be relieved of the burden of stage management and arranged for a didascalus to ask for a chorus and assume responsibility for the performance. The matter becomes important with reference to Aristophanes and the correct restoration of the Victors’-Lists for comic poets at the City Dionysia and the Lenaea.

When Aristophanes had written his first play, the Banqueters, youth, inexperience, diffidence, or some other motive for desiring to avoid the responsibility of staging his play caused him to intrust it to Callistratus for production at the Lenaea of 427 B.C. The same process was repeated at the City Dionysia of 426 B.C. and the Lenaea of 425 B.C., when Callistratus brought out Aristophanes’ Babylonians and Acharnians, respectively. The former piece was apparently unsuccessful, but the latter was awarded the first prize. At the Lenaea of 424 B.C. Aristophanes was equally successful with the Knights, which, however, he produced in his own name. In vss. 512 ff. of this play the chorus declares that many Athenians approached the poet and expressed their surprise that he had not long before asked for a chorus in his own name. This passage implies that the real authorship of Aristophanes’ earlier pieces was known to a large section of the public, and makes it clear that he had produced no earlier plays in his own name. Therefore if he had won a City victory during this period the comedy with which he won it must have been brought out in the name of another. The earliest City Dionysia, then, at which he could have produced a play in his own name was in 424 B.C., two months later than the Knights. Now in the Victors’-List for comic poets at the City Dionysia (Fig. 78),[378] the letters Ἀρι appear in line seven of the second column. Is the name of Aristophanes or that of Aristomenes to be restored here?

We know that Eupolis, whose name stands next below in the list, won a victory at the City Dionysia of 421 B.C. and that Hermippus and Cratinus were successful at the City festival in 422 and 423 B.C., respectively. This leaves the City Dionysia of 424 B.C. for some unknown victor, who may have been Aristophanes producing a play in his own name. But, on the other hand, these victories of Hermippus and Cratinus were certainly not their first, and it is possible that the victory of Eupolis in 421 B.C. was also not his first. If any of these men was in fact the City victor in 424 B.C., Aristophanes’ name could be read at this point on the stone only by supposing that he had won a City victory at some date prior to the Knights and consequently with a play which had been brought out by another. If this hypothesis is correct, it would automatically be established that at this period victories were credited to the actual poet rather than to his didascalus. The argument here is by no means conclusive, however, and most authorities follow Dr. Wilhelm in restoring the name of Aristomenes, another poet who belonged to the same general period.

The same problem recurs in connection with the comic Victors’-List for the Lenaea (Fig. 79).[379] Here Aristophanes’ name is certainly to be restored somewhere in the lacuna below the name of Eupolis in the first column. But whether his name stood in a position corresponding to his own victory in 424 B.C. or in one corresponding to his victory through the agency of Callistratus in the previous year, or whether (to state it differently) the name of Callistratus must be restored ahead of Aristophanes’ own name because of his victory in 425 B.C., are questions which are still incapable of categorical answers. Lack of space will prevent a further argument of the matter, and I must close with a summary of Dr. Jachmann’s conclusions. His discussion is not only the latest but takes certain factors into account which had previously been ignored. He points out that the archons’ records, Aristotle’s Didascaliae, and the different types of inscriptions must be sharply differentiated and that the first named are the ultimate source of all the others. The archons, of course, kept their records with no thought of later literary investigations but mainly with a view to having a definite list of men whom they were to hold responsible for different events upon their programs. Naturally, then, they had no interest in current or subsequent charges of plagiarism, pretended authorship, etc. Jachmann maintains that prior to about 380 B.C. the archons entered the name of the didascalus alone, but after that date they recorded the names of both didascalus and poet when these differed. He supposes the change to have been due to a law, which was made necessary by the increasing practice of intrusting plays to men who were not their authors and to the consequent differentiation of function between poets and didascali. According to Jachmann the same situation probably obtained also in Aristotle’s Didascaliae; but in the Victors’-Lists and the inscriptional Didascaliae only the didascali were listed before 380 B.C. and after that date only the poets. In the Fasti, on the contrary, only the didascali, as the use of the verb ἐδίδασκε would indicate, appeared at any time.

Besides some other inscriptions of lesser importance than those already discussed, Aristotle’s Didascaliae was the source, directly or indirectly, also of several treatises, collections of classified data, catalogues, etc., dealing with various phases of Greek theatrical history and compiled by such men as Dicaearchus, Callimachus, and Aristophanes of Byzantium. I shall close with an account of one of these. I refer to the system of numbering which was applied to ancient plays. Thus, according to the ancient hypothesis (argument) to Sophocles’ Antigone that drama “was counted the thirty-second” (λέλεκται δὲ τὸ δρᾶμα τοῦτο τριακοστὸν δεύτερον), and the first hypothesis to Aristophanes’ Birds declares that that comedy “is the thirty-fifth” (ἔστι δὲ λέ). Before going farther it will be best to state that the latter numeral is inexplicable under any theory, but that Dindorf’s substitution of ιέ for λέ (“fifteen” for “thirty-five”) is a satisfactory and convincing emendation. With the publication of the Vatican hypothesis to Euripides’ Alcestis in 1834 a third numeral came to light: τὸ δρᾶμα ἐποιήθη ι̅ζ̅ (“the drama was made seventeenth”). By far the most significant numeral, however, was published in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri in 1904. Here at the top of the last column of a hypothesis to Cratinus’ lost Dionysalexandros stood the following heading, doubtless repeated from the beginning of the hypothesis, which is now lost:

Finally, one of the fragmentary hypotheses to two of Menander’s plays published in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri of 1914 begins as follows: “The Imbrians, commencing ‘For how long a time, Demeas, my good man, I ... you.’ This he wrote in the archonship of Nicocles, being his [7·]th play (ταύτην [ἔγρα]ψεν ἐπὶ Νικοκλέο[υς..]την καὶ ἑβδομηκοστ[ήν]), and he gave it for production at the Dionysia; but on account of the tyrant Lachares the festival was not celebrated. Subsequently it was acted by the Athenian Callippus.” This numeral is partly illegible, but was in the seventies, probably seventy-first, seventy-third, seventy-sixth, or seventy-ninth, possibly seventy-fourth or seventy-fifth.

The interpretation of these numerals has suffered from the fact that they did not become known simultaneously and from the further fact that for the most part explanations have been advanced by editors who contented themselves with proposing the most plausible interpretation of the particular numeral before them without taking the others into consideration. Of the many suggestions offered I shall here confine my discussion to two, the chronological and the alphabetical. The former interpretation is the oldest and receives confirmation from the fact that Terence’s comedies are not only arranged chronologically in our manuscripts but are provided with numerals on that basis in the didascalic notices which are prefixed to these Latin plays. These numbers, of course, would trace back the system only to the Romans and to about the time of Varro in the first century b.c. But inasmuch as Aeschines’ speeches are arranged on the same principle, there can be no doubt that the Alexandrian Greeks were familiar with it. The chronological interpretation, however, has been open to three objections: (1) It is impossible for Aristophanes’ Birds to have been thirty-fifth in a chronological arrangement of his plays. This obstacle may be evaded by accepting Dindorf’s emendation. (2) The Antigone and Alcestis numerals are somewhat smaller than we might expect, since they seem to assign too few plays to the earlier years of Sophocles’ and Euripides’ activity as playwrights. This is not a serious objection but must be taken into account. (3) The Alcestis took the place of a satyric drama and therefore stood fourth in its group. Consequently its numeral ought to be divisible by four, and the number seventeen does not satisfy this requirement and does not seem consistent with the tetralogic system employed at the City Dionysia during this period.

These difficulties are not insuperable, but first I wish to refer to another interpretation, which has enjoyed great popularity. There is no doubt that the Greeks were acquainted, and at an early date, with the alphabetical arrangement of titles. The Oxyrhynchus arguments to Menander’s plays, for example, seem to have been arranged in accordance with this principle. The objection that there would be no point in recording numerals derived from an alphabetical system for the reason that it would be as easy to turn to a given play by means of its initial letters as by means of its number is invalid because in alphabetical lists the Greeks ignored all letters except the first. For example, fifteen of Euripides’ extant titles begin with alpha, and there was no a priori method of knowing which of the fifteen places available the Alcestis would occupy (Fig. 80).[380] It becomes necessary, then, to examine the alphabetical explanation without prejudice, and fortunately it is now possible to reach an incontrovertible conclusion. The numerals have never lent themselves cordially to this interpretation, but the final coup de grâce was delivered by the recent discovery of the numeral for Menander’s Imbrians. Menander is said to have written from one hundred and five to one hundred and nine pieces, but only eighty-six titles are now known. Fifty-one of these, however, have initial letters which come after iota in the Greek alphabet. Now the smallest restoration which is possible for the Menander numeral is seventy-one, and seventy-one plus fifty-one make one hundred and twenty-two, or thirteen more than the largest number recorded by any authority as the aggregate of Menander’s works. Therefore the alphabetical explanation must be rejected.

We may now return to the chronological interpretation, and first let us note the light which the Dionysalexandros numeral throws upon the situation. It is significant that this number is not incorporated within the hypothesis but stood at the top of the last column and had doubtless appeared also at the beginning of the hypothesis (now lost). In my opinion this was the original form of such a notice and shows why in the fuller form of statement found elsewhere a different verb is employed in each case—λέλεκται, ἔστι, ἐποιήθη, and ἔγραψεν. When Aristophanes of Byzantium, or whoever was responsible for the change, transferred these items from the heading and made them integral parts of the hypothesis, finding no verb in the original version before him and resting under the necessity of now using one, he did not deem it essential to paraphrase the information always in the same way but, as was natural, employed now one expression and now another. If it be true that the original function of the numerals was as we find it in the Cratinus hypothesis, only one explanation is possible—it was a device for the convenience of some library, probably that at Alexandria. If so, every play in the collection would bear a number and these numbers would run consecutively for each author. In other words if any play were not preserved in the library, that fact would not be indicated by an unoccupied number being left as a gap in the enumeration. Of course it is conceivable that the basis of arrangement was purely arbitrary and even varied with each author, and in fact there has been a distinct tendency among recent authorities to accept some such pessimistic conclusion. But it is more probable, until the contrary be proved, that some rational system (alphabetical, chronological, etc.) was employed and employed consistently.

Now there can be little room left for doubt as to what system was actually chosen, when it is observed that the foregoing statement of the numerals’ purpose and use obviates two of the three objections to the chronological interpretation. Euripides produced his first play in 455 B.C. and died in 406 B.C. He is said to have written ninety-two plays, or an average of one and four-fifths per annum. If the Alcestis were actually his seventeenth piece he must have written less than one play a year between 455 B.C. and 438 B.C., when the Alcestis was produced, and two and one-third plays a year thereafter. It is true that Euripides’ career opened slowly and that many of his later works are characterized by hasty and careless execution. But this disparity is too great, even apart from the objection that ex hypothesi the Alcestis numeral ought to be a multiple of four. If we suppose, however, that only the plays that were preserved received a number, the situation at once clears. We are informed that seventy-eight of Euripides’ works (four of them spurious) were preserved. This is confirmed by the fact that seventy-two of his titles are now known, for the number of titles now extant generally approximates closely the number of an author’s plays which were known by the ancients. If, then, the Alcestis was seventeenth among the seventy-eight works which were passing under the name of Euripides in antiquity and if it retained the same relative position as in the complete list, it must have been about the twentieth play which he brought out. This number, being divisible by four, would be suitable for the last play of a tetralogy and would have the merit of reducing slightly the disproportion between the earlier and the later activity of the poet. Moreover, since the earlier plays of a dramatist are more likely to have been lost than the later ones, it is possible to suppose that the Alcestis may have been twenty-fourth or even twenty-eighth in a complete list (chronological) of his writings. The point is that the purpose of the numerals as deducible from the Dionysalexandros instance is capable of obviating all objections to the chronological interpretation of the Alcestis numeral.

Similarly, Sophocles is said to have written one hundred and twenty-three plays, and his career extended from about 468 B.C. to 406 B.C., yielding an average of about two plays per annum. Inasmuch as the Antigone was probably performed in 441 B.C. and bears the numeral thirty-two, an unmodified chronological interpretation would give an average of one and one-seventh plays a year for Sophocles’ earlier period and of two and three-sevenths for his later period. But we now have fragments of somewhat more than one hundred Sophoclean plays; and if the Antigone was thirty-second among these and retained the same relative position as at first, it would have been about the thirty-seventh play which Sophocles wrote. Of course this is a mere estimate, but again this solution has the merit of assigning a slightly larger number of plays to the earlier years of the poet and of reducing, to that extent, the only objection to the chronological interpretation of this numeral.

Aristophanes’ first comedy was produced in 427 B.C., and his last one not much later than 388 B.C. To him were attributed forty-four plays, four of which were considered spurious. Apparently all of his works were known to the ancients. The Birds was produced at the City Dionysia of 414 B.C. in the fourteenth year of his activity as a playwright. There is, therefore, no a priori reason for refusing to believe that it was Aristophanes’ fifteenth play. Nor does any obstacle arise from the chronology of the plays, so far as they can be dated. On the other hand the traditional numeral, thirty-five, is inexplicable under any logical system of enumeration, while Dindorf’s emendation is paleographically simple. Therefore we must accept the substitution and the chronological interpretation.

Cratinus’ career began about 452 B.C. and closed in 423 B.C. or soon thereafter. Most scholars suppose his Dionysalexandros to have been brought out in 430 or 429 B.C., though I was myself at first inclined to favor an earlier date. He is said to have written twenty-one plays. Twenty-six titles, however, were accepted for him by Meineke and Kock in their editions of the Greek comic fragments. Probably a few of these titles must be rejected as spurious or transferred to the younger Cratinus, but it is also possible that Cratinus was much more productive than is commonly supposed and that twenty-one was the number of his preserved works in Alexandrian times, not of all that he had composed. As the custom of publishing comedies seems to have started only at about the beginning of Cratinus’ career (see p. 55, above), it would not be surprising if many of his plays, especially of his earlier plays, were lost. At any rate in a chronological arrangement of twenty-one comedies, whether they were the whole or only the preserved part of Cratinus’ work, the Dionysalexandros could be the eighth. These conclusions are acceptable to Professor R. H. Tanner, who will shortly publish a dissertation dealing with the chronology of Cratinus’ plays and whose results on the point now under discussion he has kindly permitted me to summarize here. He follows Croiset in assigning the Dionysalexandros to the Lenaea of 430 B.C.; six plays he definitely dates before the Dionysalexandros, and a seventh somewhat less positively. In the thirteen remaining he has found nothing to indicate a date prior to 430 B.C. Some of them certainly belong to the period subsequent to 430 B.C. It will be seen that these conclusions are in thorough accord with my interpretation of the numeral.

The chronology of Menander’s life is not free from uncertainties, but these do not seriously affect the present discussion. His first play was performed perhaps as early as 324 B.C., and his decease probably took place in 292/1 B.C. During these thirty-three or thirty-four years he composed some one hundred and nine pieces or slightly over three per annum. Now Nicocles was archon in 302/1 B.C. If, then, the hypothesis is correct in assigning the Imbrians to the archonship of this man, the number seventy-one (the smallest restoration which is possible) or seventy-nine (the largest possible) would almost perfectly fit the requirements of the case. Eighty-six Menandrian titles are now known, and it is not likely that many of his plays were lost in Alexandrian times.

We may, therefore, summarize the preceding discussion as follows: If we follow Dindorf in reading ιέ for λέ in the hypothesis to Aristophanes’ Birds, the numerals are capable of a uniform interpretation; they were a library device and were assigned to the plays represented in some collection, most probably that at Alexandria, according to the dates of their premières. It is needless to state that in establishing the chronological sequence of the plays in their possession the library authorities would depend upon Aristotle’s Didascaliae or other handbooks derived therefrom.