The Date of Euripides' "Erectheus" Calder, William M Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1969; 10, 2; ProQuest pg. 147

FOR MARGARETE BIEBER ON HER NINETIETH BIRTHDAY 

The Date of Euripides' Erectheus 
William M. Calder III 

THE RECENT and exemplary publication by Colin Austinl of the 
third-century B.C. Sorbonne papyrus (PSorb. Inv. 2328) has 
roughly doubled the extant remains of Euripides' Erectheus. 2 

The briefest glance at the plates of the new papyrus reveals the debt 
owed by scholars to the keen eye and patient expertise of Austin, who 
only modestly alludes to the difficulties of decipherment.3 Austin 
immediately followed his editio princeps with a second publication of 
the papyrus, together with the fragments preserved in the indirect 
tradition.4 In the editio princeps Austin5 dates the production of 
Erectheus to "421 avant ].c. ou peu avant," citing Plutarch, Nicias 9.5 
and drawing attention to the youthful but persistent view of Wilamo­
witz6 that Erectheus was part of the Supplices tetralogy of 421 B.C. 

Austin argues, as others had before him, a terminus ante quem of 411 
from datable Aristophanic parodies. In his second edition, Austin7 

twice gives the date as 423 B.C. No mention is there made of his earlier 
dating to ca. 421 B.C. His second proposal has been independently 
advanced by H. J. Mette.s Austin is contradictory and inaccurate; 
Mette uncritical. Further, there are reasons to believe that neither 
421 nor 423 is correct. Clearly the evidence requires fresh exam­
ination. 

At Nicias 9.5 Plutarch cites without author's name or title the first 

1 Colin Austin, "De nouveau fragments de l'Erechthee d'Euripide," in Recherches de 
Papyrologie IV (PublFacLett Paris-Sorbonne, "Recherches" 36, TravlnstPap 5, Paris 1967) 11-67 
with plates I and II; henceforth: AUSTIN, Rechercltes. 

2 For the correct Latin spelling see W. Schulze, "Orthographica et Graeca Latina," 
Sussidi eruditi 14 (Rome 1958) 78 with n.l. 

3 See Austin, Recherches 13 with n.l. 
4 C. Austin, Nova fragmenta Euripidiea in papyris reperta (Kleine Texte 187, Berlin1968) 

22-40. 
S Austin, Recherches 17 with n.1. 
6 See infra p.153. 
7 Austin, op.cit. (supra n.4) 22, 31 ad fr.60 A. (369 N.2). 
8 See H. J. Mette, Lustrum 12 (1967) 112: "Auffiihrung etwa Marz 423." Mette cites 

Pluto Nic. 9.7 (correct to 9.5), which, however, he has not correctly understood. 

147 



148 THE DATE OF EURIPIDES' ERECTHEUS 

verse of Euripides, fr.369 N.2 (60 A.). The same verse with six (?) 
following verses is quoted at Stobaeus, Eclogae 4.14.4 (vol. 4.372.lOff 
Hense), who attributes the lines to Euripides, Erectheus. Plutarch is 
discussing Nicias' strenuous efforts in the cause of lasting peace. 
Amphipolis (Nicias 9.2-3) claimed the lives of Kleon and Brasidas. 
Thucydides writes (5.12.1) that the battle was fought toward the end 
of summer 422 B.C., possibly as late as the second half of October.9 

Plutarch next (Nicias 9.3-4) describes Nicias' diplomatic activity among 
Spartans and the Athenian factions in an effort to find some agreement 
for peace negotiations. At Nicias 9.5 the author suddenly intrudes the 
pluperfect tense to describe an earlier event outside of chronological 
sequence. I should translate the passage thus: 

Earlier they had made a year-long armistice with one 
another during which, while they met together and tasted 
the sweets oJ[after Holden ad loc.] security, leisure, and visitors 
at home and abroad, they fervently desired a normal life 
\vithout war, gladly listening to choruses when they sang such 
words as "Ke{aOw ... " and gladly recalling the one who said 
that in peace not trumpets but roosters awaken sleepers. 

The subject of the finite verbs is 'the Spartans and the Athenians'. 
This implies that Erectheus was produced at the City Dionysia rather 
than at the Lenaia, which (perforce) only Athenians attended CAr. 
Ach. 502ff with scholia). The Dionysia in spring attracted a large 
international crowd.10 Which Dionysia does Plutarch mean? "They 
had made a year's armistice." The words recall Thucydides 4.118.12 
(T~V EKeXELp{cxv elvcxt EVLCXV7'()V). Thucydides dates the armistice to 14 
Elaphebolion 423 B.C., presumably, as Gomme has eloquently 
argued,11 the day following the Dionysia of that year. The armistice, 

9 Thus G. Busolt, Griechische Geschichte 1II.2 (Gotha 1904) 1174 n.5; cf Schmid-Stahlin, 
Geschichte der griech. Literatllr 1.4 (Munich 1946) 280 n.7 (henceforth: SCHMID-STAHLIN): "etwa 
Mitte Oktober 422." Eratosthenes' alleged asserrion (FGrHist 241 F 39) that the battle 
occurred eight months before the production of Ar. Pax at the Dionysia of 421 must be 
discounted. He presumably was misquoted: see A. W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary OJ! 

Thucydides III (Oxford 1956) 656. 
10 See Sir Arthur W. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, ed. 2 rev. by 

John Gould and D. M. Le\vis (Oxford 1968) 58-59 and esp. 58 n.6, where Pickard-Cambridge 
stresses jllst this contrast between the two festivals. 

11 See Gomme, op.cit. (supra n.9) 111.603, 678-79, but note the caveat of Pickard· Cambridge , 
op.cit. (supra n.lO) 64. Pickard-Cambridge might more accurately have reported that 
Thue. 5.23.4 says that the Lacedaemonians will renew the treaty "when they go to Athens 
for the Dionysia." Thucydides does not say that business was conducted during the festival. 
I am inclined, therefore, to agree with Gomme. 



W1LLIAM M. CALDER III 149 

then, would have been in effect until 14 Elaphebolion 422 B.C. Plu­
tarch's text, therefore, is consistent only with a performance of 
Erectheus at the Dionysia of 422 B.C.12 "Plutarch ist ein stilistisch 
hervorragender, historisch urteilsloser, chronologisch un bekummer­
ter mann," warned Wilamowitz13 long ago. We cannot control 
whether Plutarch here is vague or inaccurate. We can say that any 
modern scholar who places Erectheus elsewhere than in 422 B.C. con­
tradicts what the text of Plutarch, Nicias 9.5 says. 

The last part of Plutarch's sentence CNicias 9.5) has been uniformly 
ignored by scholars. The identity of 'TOU €l7TOV'TOS' is intriguing. A 
dramatic poet is required Cxopwv). Plutarch has quoted a nameless 
tragedian. One expects a nameless comedian. The barnyard confirms 
the suspicion. at..€K'TpVWV, 'rooster', is the comic word.14 at..EK'TWp, 

'chanticleer', became the vox tragica15 and is even used metaphorically 
in poetry (Ion, fr.39 N.2) and by Demades (apud Athen. 99D), "who 
was a precieux" (see Starkie on Ar. Nubes 663), in prose. The noun is 
rare and normally paratragic in comedy (e.g., Ar. Vesp. 1490 with 
Starkie). The rare verb acpV1TvL~ovaL too suggests old comedy (Cratinus, 
fr.306 K; Pherekrates, fr.191 K.), although once found in tragedy at 
Euripides, Rhesus 25.16 There is an obvious parallel to the sentiment 
in the historiographical tradition. Polybius (12.26.1) attacks Timaios 
(FGrHist 566 F 22.31ff) because he set into a speech of Hermokrates a 
trite remark: KOLVW,..d.vovS' 'TaV op()pov EV fLEV 'Tip 7TOA.EpCf! DL€Y€LPOVat 

a<x'\mYYES', K(x'Ta DE 'T~V Elp~V7Jv Ot opVt()ES' .17 It is a coincidence that Timaios 
continued to cite a fragment of Euripides (453 N.2) in praise of peace. 
In short the suspicion exists that 'TOU €l7TOV'TOS' refers to a comic poet. 
Plutarch further provides a chronological hint. ~8EWS' DE fL€fLV7JfLEVOL is 
a conscious antithesis to ~8EWS' fLEV .•. aKot5oV'T€S'. They heard a contem­
porary tragedy and recalled an earlier comedy. Of Aristophanes only 
Daitales (427 B. c.) or Babylonici (426 B. c.) would be possible. More 

12 This date was reached by Paul Geissler, Chronologie der altattischen Komodie (Philologische 
Untersuchungen 30, Berlin 1925) 49 and is adopted by T. B. L. Webster, WS 79 (1966) 116, 
and The Tragedies of Euripides (London 1967) 116, who in neither place cites Geissler. 

13 See U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Aristoteles und Athen II (Berlin 1893) 290; cf. 
R. C. Flickinger, Plutarch as a Source of Information on the Greek Theater (Chicago 1904) 61. 

14 See the numerous examples listed by O. J. Todd, Index Aristophaneus (Cambridge 
[Mass.] 1932) 12 [A] s.v., and H. Iacobi, Comicae Dictionis Index I (Berlin 1857) 156 S.v. 

1. E.g., Aesch. Ag. 1671: see D. W. Thompson, A Glossary of Greek Birds2 (Oxford 1936; 
repr. alms 1966) 33, and W. Richter, Der Kleine Pauly II (1967) 1239. 

16 See W. Ritchie, The Authenticity of the Rhesus of Euripides (Cambridge 1964) 153. 
17 For simple~ opvts as <fowl' see Thompson, op.cit. (supra n.15) 33; and for roosters as 

ancient alarm-clocks see ibid. 38-39 and Headlam on Herondas 4.12. 



150 THE DATE OF EURIPIDES' ERECTHEUS 

likely the source was another comedian, not impossibly Cratinus. 
Let us next examine whatever other evidence exists for the date of 
Ereetheus to see if it allows production in 422 B.C. 

In support of Plutarch's 422 I submit two passages in Aristophanes' 
Pax that may reveal the influence of Euripides, fr.369 N.2 (60 A.).1B 
The Euripidean chorus wish to lean their spears against the wall and 
never use them again. Thus Trygaios prays never to use his shield 
again (Pax 437-38). While the Euripidean chorus. free of spear. yearn 
to devote their old age to private reading, the lusty farmers' chorus 
of Pax 1127ff, free of helmet,19 long for an old age roasting chestnuts 
by the fire with wine and friends, occasionally flirting with the maid 
when the wife is away. Pax was produced the very next year at the 
Dionysia of 421 B.C. ;20 and Aristophanes has created his comic version 
of Euripides' popular chorus. 

The next evidence for the date of Ereetheus are three known Aristo­
phanic parodies, all specifically attested in antiquity and regularly 
cited by scholars.21 

1. Fr.363 N.2 (54 A.), EtS fLEV AOYoS fLot OEVP' aEt 'TT'EpatvETat equals 
Aristophanes, Lysistrata 1135. A second citation of the fragment (Anec. 
Bachm. 1.191.29) proves that the scholiast on Lysistrata 1131 refers in 
fact to Lysistrata 1135.22 The parody, which made an otherwise 
innocuous line memorable, apparently concerned the Euripidean 
penchant for OEfJP' aEt, hue usque.23 Aristophanes, Lysistrata is dated by 
its hypothesis to 411 B.C., presumably the Lenaia.24 

2. Etymologieum Magnum 153.32-34 (Gaisford) reveals that Aristoph-

18 Naturally the passages may have been quite independent of each other and simply 
reflect a conventional trope: cf Ar. Ach. 279. Euripides' source was Bacchyl. fr.4.69-72 
(Snell): cf H. W. Smyth, Greek Melic Poets (London 1906) 446-47, who held (445) that Eur. 
fr.453 N.2 derived from Bacchylides. The tragedian thus would know the paian. 

18 Whether spear, shield or helmet is specified, arms in general are meant: see van 
Leeuwen on Ar. Pax 1127-29. 

10 The hypothesis dates the play: see further Schmid-Stahlin I.4.280-81. 
II See e.g., Schmid-Stahlin 1.3.428 n.8; P. Geissler, op.cit. (supra n.12) 49; A. Lesky, Die 

tragische Dichtung der Hellenen (G6ttingen 1956) 177-78; Austin, Recherches 17 n.1. P. Rau, 
Paratragodia, Untersuchung einer komischen Form des Aristophanes (Zetemata 45, Munich 1967) 
215 omits fr.370 N.2 and Thesm. 120. 

23 See Nauck on fr.363 N.2, rightly approved by J. van Leeuwen on Ar. Lys. 1131-35. F. 
DObner, Scholia graeca in Aristophanem (Paris 1842) 506 must be corrected. 

13 For Euripidean examples see A. S. Owen on Eur. Ion 56; A. C. Pearson on Eur. Hel. 
761; and P. Groeneboom, Aeschylus' Eumeniden (Groningen 1952) 182 n.l. 

14 Thus e.g., J. van Leeuwen, Aristophanis Lysistrata (Leiden 1903) 4 n.7: "initio anni 411." 
M. Lang, AJP 88 (1967) 181, sums up the convincing case: "Apparently in February the 
forces of reaction were still a joking matter; by March polities were (had to be?) studiously 
avoided in favor of literary escapism." 



WILLIAM M. CALDER III 151 

anes parodies &<TL&8os- KP0.,)f1-ct:Ta (fr.370 N.2, 64 A.).25 The phrase 
would have occurred in a lyric celebrating victory. Aristophanes puts it 
into a lyric at Thesmophoriazusae 120,26 a play securely dated to Dionysia 
411.27 In 412 Aristophanes had apparently been reading Erectheus. 

3. Fr.357 N.2 (47 A.) reads ~€OyoS' Tpt7TapO€vov. The expression is 
logically inaccurate because it refers to a yoke of more than two, SC. 

ca pair of three maidens' (see L5] s.v. ~€OyoS' III). Hesychius (~125 Latte) 
cites the Aristophanic parody (fr.576 K.) ~€OyoS' Tpt8ovl\ov from Horae.28 

Horae is dated29 between 420-411 B.C. by the parody of Erectheus, 
whose production provides the terminus post quem, and the deaths of 
Chaerephon (PI. Apol. 2lA) and Androkles (Prosop.Att. 870; d. 411 B.C., 

see Thuc. 8.65.2), who were alive at the time of production. A tradition 
exists that Erectheus was an alternative title for Horae, and ingenious 
speculation has tried to surmise his role in the play.30 Presumably a 
character in the play was erroneously cited as the title. There are 
Sophoclean parallels for this kind of mistake.3! In any case the parody 
in Horae provides no clue for the date of Erectheus. The Aristophanic 
parallels in conclusion yield only the meager information that Erec­
theus was certainly produced before 411 B.C. 

In 1925 Thaddaeus Zielinski, following an earlier suggestion of 
Gottfried Hermann, proved that Euripides' iambic trimeters grew 
progressively more tolerant of resolutions.32 His brilliant and care­
fully argued discovery, with the refinements of E. B. Ceadel, T. B. L. 
Webster and A. M. Dale,33 has become the most reliable criterion for 

26 "The notes of Asia" mean the primitive Lesbian kithara: see U. von Wilamowitz­
Moellendorff, Timotheos, die Perser (Leipzig 1903) 77 n.2, who cites Pluto Mor. 1133c (cf. 
Eur. Cye. 443, Hyps. fr.64.101 [Bond]; FGrHist 76 F 81), and Abert, RE 1 A (1920) 1762.35ff. 
The reference here may have been a compliment to Timotheus: see T. B. L. Webster, The 
Tragedies of Euripides (London 1967) 18 with n.25. 

28 See F. G. Welcker, Die griechischen Tragodien II (Bonn 1839) 725. Welcker (ibid. 439) 
dates the play no more precisely than "Vor 01. 92, Z" (411). 

27 See Wilamowitz, op.cit. (supra n.13) II. 343ff, and recently C. Austin, Gnomon 37 (1965) 
619 with n.4. 

IS For Aristophanic parody of such numerical circumlocutions see P. Rau, op.cit. (supra 
n.Z1) 135. 

It See Geissler, op.cit. (supra n.12) 49, followed by Schmid-Stahlin 1.4.195 with n.17. R. 
Goossens, Euripide et Athenes (MemAcadBelg 55.4, Brussels 1962) 476 n.Z, suggests "Uneennes 
de 4Z1?" This is pure fancy. 

30 See Kock on Ar. fr.564-65 K. 
Sl For examples see GRBS 7 (1966) 50 n.103. 
32 See Thaddaeus Zielinski, Tragodoumenon Libri Tres (Krakow 1925) 133-Z40. 
33 See E. B. Ceadel, "Resolved Feet in the Trimeters of Euripides and the Chronology of 

the Plays," CQ 35 (1941) 66-89; T. B. L. Webster, "Chronological Notes on Euripides," WS 79 
(1966) 11Z-20 (really a supplement to Zielinski); and, for informed approval of Zielinski's 
method, A. M. Dale, Euripides, Helen (Oxford 1967) xxiv-xxviii. 



152 THE DATE OF EURIPIDES' ERECTHEUS 

the relative dating of Euripidean tragedies not fixed by external 
evidence. In spite of the obvious statistical risks34 involved in applying 
his scale to the highly select remains of lost tragedies, Zielmski 
analyzed the fragments. In the case of Erectheus he reported:35 
" <Erechtheus' (sic) externis testimoniis anno 421 vindicatur. Neque 
obstant quae in 114 ejus trimetris 19 occurrunt solutiones, quae 
16.6 % efficiunt modulum semisevere stile aptissimum." T. B. L. 
Webster36 reports the first count that includes the Louvre papyrus: 
"the new fragment may raise the percentage of resolutions to about 
20 %." In short the metrical evidence with a count of ca. twenty per 
cent of resolved syllables puts Erectheus into Zieliiiski's Group II, 
"the semi-severe style" of 427-416 B.C. and is consistent with Plutarch's 
422 B.C. 

Further evidence exists that has never been brought forward in this 
context, and provides the first identifiable external terminus post quem. 
In two passages the author of Erectheus refers to <golden Corgo'.37 
Fr.351 N.2 (41 A.) is Praxithea's (7) invocation to Athena: 

Cry aloud in prayer, women, that the goddess may 
come with the golden Corgo, a helper for the city. 

At fr.360.46-49 N.2 (50.46-49 A.) Praxithea remarks: 

Nor in place of the olive and the golden Gorgo shall 
Eumolpos and his Thracian host crown with wreaths 
a trident set up straight in the bowels of the city 
where Pallas shall nowhere be honored. 

Corgo was never golden but, as the Furies with which she is compared, 
black.3s Rather we have to do with a typical Euripidean anachronism.39 

For an Athenian audience of 422 B.C. Euripides clearly referred to the 

34 G. Zuntz, The Political Plays ofBuripides (Manchester 1955) 93, astutely drew attention 
to the difference in percentage of resolutions between the two great speeches from Breetheus 
preserved in the indirect tradition. Fr.360 N.2 (50 A.) yields 30.9 %; fr.362 N.2 (53 A.) 11.8 %. 
Zuntz here and at p.89 with n.2 misunderstands Plutarch and dates the play to 421 B.C. 

He cites as his source, but without a reference, Meineke. Presumably he took this reference 
from Nauck, TGP p.465, who cites "Meineke, Zeitsehr.J d. Alterthumsw. 1843 p. 185." This 
last paper I have not seen, but it presumably was a beginning of error. 

35 Zielinski, op.cit. (supra n.32) 223. 
36 Webster, op.cit. (supra n.25) 130. 
37 In a chauvinistic play where Athene herself played a major role, Euripides surely 

followed the Attic version of Athene yopyoq,6vos (Eur. Ion 1478): see Wilamowitz on Eur. 
Here. 883 and Ion 989 and Roscher, Lex. 1.2 (1886-90) 1696.37ff. This would be no place for 
Argive Perseus. 

38 See Aesch. Bum. 52, Cho. 1049, and Eur. Here. 882 (NVKTOS ropy6JV). 
39 See Schmicl-Stahlin 1.3.763 with n.12 (they were "an cler Tagesordnung"), and more 

generally E. Mulder, De tragieorum anaehronismis (Amsterdam 1880). 



WILLIAM M. CALDER III 153 

shield of Pheidias' Athene Parthenos. E. B. Harrison in her recent 
study of this shield observes,4o "we know from the inventories that the 
gorgoneion of the shield was made of gilded silver." The evidence is 
IG ll2 1388.52-53. Philochoros (FGrHist 328 F 121) refers to the dedica­
tion of the completed cult image in 438/7 B.C.,41 which becomes there­
by the terminus post quem for Erectheus. 

Misdating of the play has derived from two sources: misinterpreta­
tion of Plutarch, Nicias 9.5, and the persistent assumption that Erectheus 
was part of the Supplices tetralogy. This view sprang from a fancy of 
the young Wilamowitz. In 187542 he dated without argument Erec­
theus to «ca. 421" and cited Plutarch, Nicias 9. Later in the same book43 

he assigned Erectheus with Supplices to 421.44 His candor is disarming. 
He admits45 that he seems to have done this «sine causa" and as an 
explanation adds "nam non potest certis rationibus probari." None­
theless, he tries.46 He argues from the demonstrable similarity of 
theme shared by the two tragedies. In both plays foreigners invade 
Attica. Both plays, Wilamowitz thought,47 had a Nebenchor, Supplices 
of boys, Erectheus of women. Erectheus and Theseus quarrel with a 
foreign captain. Both plays are concerned with contemporary politics. 
Wilamowitz sees a connected trilogy in the manner of Troades (415 
B.C.) but is unable to come up with the third play. Ion tempts him but 
he resists to support Hippolytus. In 1895 he repeated his conviction48 

and dallied with the idea that Herakles was the second play of the 
trilogy. He repeated his view again in 1904 but without further 
argument.49 There was, however, a difference. Wilamowitz now 

40 Hesperia 35 (1966) llI. 
U See Jacoby ad loc. and C. Lippold, RE 19 (1938) 1926.8ff. 
uSee U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Analecta Euripidea (Berlin 1875) 151 (henceforth: 

WILAMOWITZ, AnEur). The date had earlier been argued by A. Meineke (see n.34 supra). 
43 Wilamowitz, AnEur 173-74. 
U For the contested date ofEur. Supp. see especially: C. Busolt, op.cit. (supra n.9) III.2.1196 

n.2 (422 B.C.); C. H. Macurdy. The Chronology of the Extant Plays of Euripides (Diss. Columbia 
1905) 46-56 (420 B.C. after Bockh and Hermann): Schmid-Stahlin 1.3.454-55 (417/16 B.C.); 
A. Lesky, op.cit. (supra n.21) 176 (424 B.C.? after Zuntz); and Zuntz, op.cit. (supra n.34) 88ff 
(424 B.C.). 

4. Wilamowitz, AnEllr 173 . 
.t6 Wilamowitz, AnEur 174. 
47 For the female Nebenchor in Erectheus Wilamowitz (AnEur 174 n.1) rightly cites fr.351 

N.s (41 A.), and such a Nebenchor strikes me as easier than B. Snell's suggestion that the 
fragment is taken from a narrative (see Austin ad fr.41 A.). For Euripides' use of a Nebenchor 
see Wilamowitz, Herakles 12 (Berlin 1895) 116 n.13 where, however, he wrongly makes the 
soldiers in Erectheus the Nebenchor. The view is refuted by fr.65.7-10 A. (cf fr.369 N.2, 60 A.). 

48 Wilamowitz, Herakles I2.134 n.27. 
uSee U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Griechische Tragoedien 14 (Berlin 1904) 20R 

(henceforth: WIlAy\OWITZ, GrTr 14). 



154 THE DATE OF EURIPIDES' ERECTHEUS 

dated Supplices and Erectheus to 422.50 "In den Hiketiden habe ich die 
Sunden meiner Ausgabe von 1875 gut zu machen."51 

Not until 1921 was Wilamowitz' suggestion cleverly refuted. 
Johanna Schmitt52 argued that the best reasons why the plays were 
not in the same trilogy were precisely the similarities which Wilamo­
witz had detected and to which Prl. Schmitt adds.53 The audience 
would feel as put upon as though they had seen Helena and Iphigenia 
among the Taurians in the same program. She more reasonably suggests 
that the two plays were performed in successive years.54 Schmitt's 
refutation unaccountably has been ignored by scholars and Wilamo­
witz' fancy uncritically perpetuated by the most influential authori­
ties, A. Dieterich,55 M. Pohlenz,56 A. Lesky,57 R. Goossens,58 and 
finally C. Austin.59 One ought rather to conclude that only assertion 
can support Wilamowitz' suggestion that Erectheus and Supplices were 
part of the same trilogy. J. Schmitt has shown that contrarily the 
balance of probability is against the hypothesis. 

To sum up what can be known: Erectheus was surely performed 
between 438/7 and 411 B.C., and if Plutarch, Nicias 9.5 is precise, at the 
Dionysia of 422. Is there some contemporary historical event which 
suggested the subject matter of the tragedy to Euripides? 

The date of the beginning of the construction of the Erechtheion is 
a vexed problem in the history of fifth-century Athenian architecture. 
J. M. Paton, to whom I am indebted for much of what follows, in his 

50 Wilamowitz, GrTr I4.216.; cf Kleine Schriften I1I.3Sl. 
61 Wilamowitz, GrTr I4.282. 
62 See Johanna Schmitt, Freiwilliger Opfertod bei Euripides (l{eligions-geschichtliche Versuche 

und Vorarbeiten 17.2, Giessen 1921) 64. 
53 See Schmitt, op.cit. (supra n.52) 64 n.5. 
54 See Schmitt, op.cit. (supra n.52) 64, who suggests the years 422 and 421 but is not clear 

which play goes in which year. 
55 See A. Dieterich, RE 6 (1907) 1259. 1l ff. 
56 See M. Pohlenz, Griechische Tragodie I2 (G6ttingen 1954) 359; cf I12.14S. 
67 See A. Lesky, Die griechische Tragodie3 (Stuttgart 1964) lSI, 203. Earlier he was more 

cautious: see op.cit. (supra n.21) 177-7S, where he has been influenced by a recent reading 
of G. Zuntz. At his Geschichte der griechischen Literatur2 (Bern, Munchen 1963) 416, Lesky is 
non-committal: " ... der Erechtheus (sic), den man vermutungsweise derselben Triologie 
(sic) zuweisen wollte wie die Hiketiden." 

58 See Goossens, op.cit. (supra n.29) 476 n.2 (tentatively). 
59 See Austin, Recherches 17 n.1, who cites without criticism the hypothesiS ofWilamowitz, 

and compare D. F. W. van Lennep, Euripides IIOIHTHL: L:OlPOL: (Amsterdam 1935) 66 n.1. 
For the date 421, although with no mention of Supplices, see further M. A. Schwartz, 
Erechtheus et Theseus apud Euripidem et Atthidographos (Lei den 1907) IS, and J. Geffcken, 
Griechische Literaturgeschichte, I: von den Anfiingen bis auf die Sophistenzeit (Heidelberg 1926) 
190. 



WILLIAM M. CALDER III 155 

magisterial history of the buildingso sets forth the unsatisfactory 
evidence. Epigenes in 410/9 appointed a committee of five to examine 
the condition of the unfinished building on the acropolis that is now 
called61 the 'Erechtheion' (IG 12 372). Study of the inscription shows 
that work is already advanced.62 The problem of dating the com­
mencement of work becomes the insoluble one of how much time was 
required to construct what was there in 410/9.63 But first what halted 
construction? Paton64 suggests three reasonable possibilities: (1) Funds 
were required for the Sicilian Expedition of 415 65 and the building 
program naturally suffered; (2) the occupation of Decelea by the 
Spartans in spring of 413 B.C.; (3) the disaster at Syracuse in autumn 
413 B.C. If 415 or 413 was the date of breaking off work, Paton con­
cludes "the latest date at which the temple could have been begun, 
in view of its advanced condition in 409 B.C., would seem to fall in the 
brief interval of Athenian prosperity which followed the Peace of 
Nicias (421 B.C.), and since a certain interval must be allowed for the 
accumulation of funds after the heavy expenses of the ten preceding 
years of war, the commencement of the work may be conjecturally 
placed as not later than 419 or 418 B.C." Paton, with admirable candor, 
adds, "There is, however, absolutely no direct evidence on this point."66 

Paton continues to present the alternative and earlier dating pro­
pounded by Dorpfeld "before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian 
War in 432 B.C."67 The Erechtheion then becomes a part of the general 

60 See J. M. Paton, apud J. M. Paton, ed. The Erechtheum: measured, drawn, and restored by 
G. P. Stevens, text by L. O. Caskey, H. N. Fowler, J. M. Paton, G. P. Stevens, I: Text (Cam­
bridge [Mass.] 1927) 452ff (henceforth: PATON, Erechtheum). 

til The modern name was not general in antiquity: see Paton, Erechtheum 452 n.6. Austin, 
Recherches 58, does not know PS.-Plut. X Ofat. 843E. 

62 See Paton, Erechtheum 453. Once work was started up again, although few laborers 
were employed, the building was complete by 406 B.C. 

63 With a few exceptions (e.g., Temple G at Selinus) one ought not to be misled by the 
analogy of mediaeval cathedrals. Ancient building was more rapid. The Parthenon took 
less than fifteen years: see J. Wiesner, RE 18 (1949) 1915.54ff. The rapidity was noteworthy 
(Plut. Per. 13.1). The Propylaea required only five years: see plut. Per. 13.7, and for Plutarch's 
sources H. N. Fowler, HSCP 12 (1901) 211-20. The Pyramid of Cestius, we know from its 
inscription (Oessau, ILS 917), was completed in 330 days. Hagia Sophia needed only five 
years (532-537): see A. A. Vassiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire 324-1453 (Madison 1952) 
187-89. Archaeologists could provide far more examples. 

64 See Paton, Erechtheum 453. 
6. For the cost of the Sicilian Expedition, the largest extraordinary expense of the Empire, 

see the calculations of B. O. Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery and M. F. McGregor, The Athenian 
Tribute Lists III (Princeton 1950) 356-57 and my remarks at GRBM 4 (1963) 6off. 

66 See Paton, Erechthellm 453, and further L. Caskey, ibid. 298: "No definite information 
exists as to the length of the period of inactivity, nor as to the date 'v hen the temple was 
begun." 

67 See Paton, Erechtheum 454: for detailed references consult the notes of Paton. 



156 THE DATE OF EURIPIDES' ERECTHEUS 

Periclean building program. Paton shows that architectural considera­
tions are not conclusive: " ... there is no more positive testimony for 
this date than for the later one." He concludes by stating the insoluble 
problem: "there seems no decisive reason for insisting on one hypothe­
sis to the exclusion of the other. The unsatisfactory conclusion is thus 
inevitable that in the light of our present knowledge the year in which 
the Erechtheum was begun cannot be definitely determined."68 

PSorb. Inv. 2328 contains the magnificent speech of Athene, delivered 
from the 8EOAo,)!ELOV, that ended Erectheus. The goddess (fr.65.90-91 
A.) informs the widowed Praxithea that she is ordering the construc­
tion of a sanctuary69 with stone (marble? see LS] s.v. Aat:voS' and Jebb 
on Soph. OC 1596) enclosing walls for the slain Erectheus. 

I ~\ ........... " , '\ 
7TOOH OE TctJ octJ OYJKOV EfL fLEOTl 7TOI\Et 

'TEvgaL KEAEVW 7TEptf3oAOtat Aai"vOts. 

And for your husband I order a shrine to be constructed in the 
middle of the city with enclosing walls of stone. 

The goddess continues to discuss the cult to be offered him. It would 
be false precision to specify whether Athene refers to the earlier 
shrine of Erectheus (Hdt. 8.55) or to the building yet to be erected.70 

In either case the reference becomes peculiarly a propos if in the very 
year that the poet wrote his verses, the EKKAYJO{CX had decided to begin 
the new Erechtheion. It is not impossible that the grand plan for 
reconstruction was indeed ultimately Periclean but that work was 
postponed until completion of the Parthenon and Propylaea. The 
coincidence of the date of production for Euripides' play with one 
of the alternative dates for the beginning of construction on the 
Erechtheion reinforces the assumptions both that Plutarch's date for 
the performance of Euripides' play is correct and that Paton's rather 
than Dorpfeld's date for the beginning of construction on the Erech­
theion is preferable.71 

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 

May, 1969 

68 See Paton, Erechtheum 456. 
69 The word CTTJK6, is ambiguous, 'temple' or 'precinct': see Stephanus-Dindorf. TGL 

8.1710 £I, and Austin, Recherches 58; and compare, e.g., Eur. Ion 300, of the shrine of Tro­
phonios at Lebadeia. 

70 I find Austin's confidence (Recherches 59) premature. 
71 I should like at the end to express my gratitude to Professor John Vaio for valuable 

and learned criticism.