LEWIS, R. G., An Alternative Date for Sophocles' "Antigone" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:1 (1988:Spring) p.35 An Alternative Date for Sophocles' Antigone R. G. Lewis T HIS PAPER suggests that the generally accepted dating of An­ tigone in the late 440's is insecure, and proposes an alternative possibility: that it was first produced in 438. The argument for that too is not altogether solid, depending as it does on a special interpretation of evidence normally used for the conventional dating, in combination with a fairly conservative reading of a textually un­ stable and frequently over-emended passage from the ancient Life of Sophocles. As we have it this is a late Hellenistic compilation, prob­ ably accumulated in layers from various sources, which undoubtedly purveys a great deal of rubbish. I It also seems, however, to contain a measure of sound information, and the particular item in question is difficult in its essentials to impugn or discard. There is anyhow a prima Jacie case to discuss. Together with the rest of our evidence about the historical context, the redating inevitably has implications, not so much for our understanding of the playas drama, but for our view of Sophocles' motives and intentions, and on these too sugges­ tions are offered-in full awareness that there is room for difference of opinion. The Year Argument for traditional dating is familiar, and vulnerable. The Hypothesis attributed to Aristophanes of Byzantium records the view that "esteem from his production of Antigone earned Sophocles ap­ pointment as general on Samos."2 Androtion (FGrHist 324F38=!. I Analysis centres on (a) the Hypothesis to Antigone attributed to Aristophanes of Byzantium; (b) §9 of the anonymous Life of Sophocles, in its extant version hardly earlier than the second century A.D., but in part derived from much earlier material (F. Leo, Die griechisch-romisch Biographie [Leipzig 1901] 22f). For the point here at issue these two works may easily offer variants of the same item derived ultimately from the same original source (nn.2, 21 infra). For critique of the Life see M. Lefkowitz, The Lives of the Greek Poets (Baltimore 1981) 75-87, who reviews all the main questions; I differ over some of the answers, but there is scope for that. 2 Hyp. Ant. 1, cJ>aO'I a£ Tau I.ocJ>OICA.Ea 71Eti~0'8a, Tilr fU I.aJo'C!l O'TpaT1Jy{ar £vaoIC'Jo'~O'aUTa fU Til a,aaO'ICaA.{g. Tilt; 'AuTlyoU1Jt;; cf Radt, TrGF IV 44f. To reject this rules out any 35 LEWIS, R. G., An Alternative Date for Sophocles' "Antigone" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:1 (1988:Spring) p.35 36 AN ALTERNATIVE DATE FOR ANTIGONE Aristides p.485 DindorO includes him in his list of "generals on Samos," apparently for 441/0. Production at the City Dionysia of 441 is however unlikely on two counts. The first is not overwhelming. What limited evidence we have indicates that normally the annual strategic elections preceded the City Dionysia. Irregular postpone­ ment to a date after that festival evidently could certainly occur, but nothing suggests that it may have happened in 441. It might still be conceded, if nothing more were required,3 but to put the play in that year also necessitates the additional belief that it was not one of a winning entry in the dramatic competition, known from the Marmor Parium (FGrHist 239 A.60) to have been won by Euripides. That too is theoretically possible but far less likely; for most scholars the conjunc­ tion of both presuppositions together involves too much unwarranted hypothesis. The standard alternative is to accept the consequent gap between the successful premiere and Sophocles' election as general but for obvious reasons to minimise it and so date the play to the City Dionysia of 442. This however in my view holds good only if the chief hellenotamias named in the tribute list of 44312 B.C. (- - - ]OcpOKA€S' KOAO[ - - -) is not the poet. That has been maintained, on the grounds that the earliest attested (fourth-century) demotic of the poet (and of others from Kolonos) is always given as EK KOAwvOV, not possible on the stone. There KOAov66fV could be restored, but is attested late and weakly, whereas KOAov-ij6fV is the regular demotic of two other demes both named KOAwvaL Arguably therefore the poet and treasury official are different persons. However, the existence of the variant form Ko­ AOV66fV in the fifth century is not in the least unlikely. What is in the highest degree implausible is the existence of two persons named Sophocles of the same social, financial, and political standing re­ quired to hold either of these offices and belonging to almost homony­ mous demes-whereas for one person to progress quickly from this treasurership to the strategia is natural, plausible, and paralleled.4 In attempt at dating whatever-a theoretical option, but patently sterile and almost certainly wrong. 3 Arist. Ath.Pol. 44.4 (with P. J. Rhodes, Historical Commentary [Oxford 1981] 537) notes fourth-century practice, whereby the strategic elections were "held in the first prytany after the sixth in which there were good omens," and therefore normally in the seventh, which only rarely indeed, if ever, could include Elaphebolion 18, the first possible day for an election after the City Dionysia. However, Aristotle's is perhaps not ideal evidence for the mid-fifth century, and at that date, before the adoption of the Metonic cycle, correlation of the civic and conciliar years-difficult enough for the later period-is even more hazardous. For a valiant attempt at further penetration, L. Woodbury, Phoenix 24 (1970) 218-23. 4 The inscription is IG J2 202; cf ATL II 18, III 68; R. MEIGGS, The Athenian LEWIS, R. G., An Alternative Date for Sophocles' "Antigone" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:1 (1988:Spring) p.35 R.G.LEWIS 37 strict logic, of course, to deny identity is not quite out of the question, but for practical purposes the case for accepting it is overwhelmingly more persuasive. That persuasion, I believe, makes it impossible to date Antigone to the City Dionysia of 442. It will not do to dismiss the office of hellenotamias as a sinecure unlikely to be taken very seriously by the genial poet or to interfere with the more demanding business of dramatic composition and presentation.5 For one thing, Antiphon's speech On the Murder of Herodes refers to the condemnation of a whole board of hellenotamiai, all of whom but one were executed before the charge was found to be false, an incident unlikely to encourage negligent insouciance in later boards and which probably occurred before 443.6 Second, it is very difficult to believe that the board of 443/2 was not intimately involved in that year's abnormal reassessment of allied tribute, not due until 442/1. A measure of reor­ ganisation resulted, but only minor alterations in levies. 7 It might perhaps be conjectured that it was one purpose of this premature revision in the wake of the ostracism of Thucydides son of Melesias (443), whose criticisms of Pericles had stressed his use of tribute to finance his spectacular building-programme in Athens, to reassure the allies that there would be no marked increase to fund yet more projects for the greater glory of the imperial city and its quasi-Olym­ pian leader. 8 Appointment to the board-indeed apparently to head it-of Sophocles the poet, while no proof of political sympathy with Empire (Oxford 1972 [hereafter 'Meiggs')) 244f; V. Ehrenberg, Sophocles and Pericles (Oxford 1954) 120f. For a careful account of the evidence, D. M. Lewis, BSA 50 (1955) 12-17 (but see also B. D. Meritt, AJP 80 [1959] 189); undue scepticism in H. C. Avery, Historia 22 (1973) 509ff; commonsense in P. Karavites, Klio 58 (1976) 359-65; see now also D. Whitehead, The Demes of Attica (Princeton 1986) 73f, showing some variation in the formation of deme-names, especially in the fifth century. For progression from hellenotamias to general, compare Pericles the younger in 410/09 (M.IL. 84); 407/6 (1) (fG P 117; M.IL. 91); 406/5 (Xen. Hell. 1.5.16f, 29; 7.16f, 21; Diod. 12.74.1). 5 E.g. Ehrenberg (supra n.4) 136, despite his belief that the post was one "of great responsibility"; Woodbury (supra n.3) 223. Orthodox dating goes back to Wilamo­ witz, Aristoteles und Athen II (Berlin 1893) 298 n.14, logical but incomplete (re­ capitulated by W. M. Calder III, GRBS 10 [1968] 389f). See also K. Reinhardt, Sophokles (Frankfurt am Main 1933) 25lf, resolutely agnostic. The most persuasive statement of the orthodox dating is in G. MUller's edition of Antigone (Heidelberg 1967) 24f, but it incorporates special emendation and interpretation of V.Soph. 9. 6 Antiph. 5.69-71. The speech dates later than 427, perhaps as late as 416-414. This passage asks the older jurymen to recall the incident. 7 Meiggs 244 on fG J2 202. 8 Meiggs 121, 132f, 139, I 55ff, 186, on Pluto Per. II, 12, 14; Cic. Off. 2.60; H. T. Wade-Gery, Essays in Greek History (Oxford 1958) 239-70. For Cimon's attitude towards the allies, Ion FGrHist 392F13; P1ut. Cim. II, 12, 16. On Pericles' policies, Meiggs 79, 85, 110, 132f, 139f, 155f, 176f, 189ff, 194, 197, 202f, 378f. LEWIS, R. G., An Alternative Date for Sophocles' "Antigone" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:1 (1988:Spring) p.35 38 AN ALTERNATIVE DATE FOR ANTIGONE Pericles, might well contribute much to this end, if, as is altogether likely, he already enjoyed many friendships among leading citizens of Ionian and Aegean communities.9 However that may be, if he was indeed hellenotamias in 44312, in any case the task that year was surely no sinecure, to be discharged briskly in the early months, the remnant of the sailing (and campaigning) season, with ample leisure to follow for theatrical production. There is some reason to think that for one man to undertake both functions in the same year was well­ nigh impossible. The poet's four plays might indeed already be writ­ ten, or at least sketched, with sample passages to beguile the archon who was to accept them for the festival, but even after that (equally) there might remain substantial amounts of writing to be done, and in any case even to produce and direct them all-normally the task qf the poet-would require very considerable time and effort, especially, with a large amateur element in the cast. It was not without grounds that chorus members were excused from military service,lo or that it was one of the first tasks of the archon in his year to decide which poets should compete in the following spring, and he would be a rash archon indeed who 'assigned a chorus' to a poet who was an elected hellenotamias, and a rash hellenotamias who applied for one. I I Quite apart from special tasks such as tribute-reorganisation in 44312, which might perhaps have been foreordained, there was in any case the risk of sudden administrative, financial, military, or political crisis in autumn or winter. Besides, it was precisely at the City Dionysia in the spring that the hellenotamiai were responsible for receiving and receipting the tribute from the allies. 12 Their intimate 9 For Ion of Chi os, G. Huxley, GRBS 5 (1965) 129-46; M. L. West, BICS 32 (1985) 71-78; F. Jacoby, CQ 41 (1947) 16f; FGrHist 392T5b, F6; V.Soph. 20 (emended). For Ion's relations with Cimon, F13; cf. T5a, FF14, 15; for Cimon and Sophocles, Pluto Cim. 8. Possibly a compliment to Cimon's memory at Soph. OT 158: cf. ~ Aeschin. 1.128, Paus. 1.17.1, on the shrine of Ph erne erected to commemorate Cimon's victory at Eurymedon-in OT a "daughter of Elpis"-reminiscent of Cimon's half-sister Elpinice? For Sophocles and Herodotus, Pluto Mor. 785A; Soph. Ant. 904f (cf. Hdt. 3.119); OT 981 (cf. Hdt. 6.107.1); OC 337-41 (cf. Hdt. 2.35); El. 62,417 (cf. Hdt. 4.95, 1.108). Note also OT 387 p.ayov, common in Hdt. (Powell, Lexicon, S.V.; see also K. J. Rigsby, GRBS 17 (1976) 109-14, for the meaning 'political conspirator', prob­ able here); for Hermesilaus, Sophocles' (and Ion's) host on Chios, Ion F6, where there also appears an 'Eritrean' (Erythraean?). For Cimon's 'circle', Meiggs 275. 10 A. W. Pickard-Cambridge The Dramatic Festivals of Athens 2 (Oxford 1968) 77, citing Oem. 21.15. II Pickard-Cambridge (supra n.lO) 75f, 86, citing especially Ath.Pol. 56.3 for early choice of XOP'IIyol, which implies also early selection and allocation to them of poets; see also 84 and evidence there cited. 12 Pickard-Cambridge (supra n.lO) 58, citing Aeschin.3.43, Oem. 21.74, Ar. Ach. 502-06; see also Meiggs 237. LEWIS, R. G., An Alternative Date for Sophocles' "Antigone" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:1 (1988:Spring) p.35 R. G.LEWIS 39 involvement in dramatic production during their year of office is all but inconceivable. These considerations, I think, virtually exclude 442 as a possible date for presentation of Antigone and its companion pieces. If how­ ever both 443/2 and 44211 (see above) can thus most probably be eliminated, all the less likely also becomes the suggestion that the source of Aristophanes of Byzantium contrived the connection be­ tween the success of the play and election to the generalship simply from knowledge of the dates and argument post hoc ergo propter hoc, for to move the date further backwards to 444/3 or earlier ipso facto reduces the plausibility of this view. It is no improvement to shift the play down to 44110, with another generalship in 440/39 (though the latter in the present state of the evidence remains a distinct possi­ bility), for besides delayed elections (see supra), we also need to postulate sufficient leisure during the known military responsibilities of 441/0, which again one would have expected to disqualify the poet from competition that year. Transfer of the production from City Dionysia to the Lenaia (presumably of 442/1) is no remedy: there is no good evidence that there was any tragic competition at the Lenaia at all quite as early as this. 13 Failure to find a wholly satisfactory date for Antigone before 439, together with the known end of the Samian war in that year and Soph­ ocles' known absence from the board of generals for 439/8, who concluded the settlement with the Samians shortly afterwards, 14 might encourage the sceptical to abandon the evidence of the Hy­ pothesis altogether. That would be over-hasty: there are other possi­ bilities. Traditional dating turns on identification of the generalship on Samos mentioned in the Hypothesis with that attested for the Samian war, evidently in 44110, by Androtion (F38) and implied for that year or the next, with a role in those operations, by Ion of Chios (F6). Of itself that combination is not unreasonable, but is not neces­ sary and in the light of all other considerations is arguably incorrect. Salient points from the story of the Samian war provide the essen­ tial context. The intransigence of the oligarchic government on Samos in the face of Athenian intervention in the island's war with Miletus brought a relatively mild reaction. Apparently in 441/0, Pericles with forty ships installed a democracy and a small garrison, taking oligar- 13 Pickard-Cambridge (supra n.lO) 40f, 112-14, 125 on IG IF 2325. 14IG P 48 (M.lL. 56), showing Dem[ocleides] as general for a tribe which in limited space on the stone can only be Aigels, that of Sophocles, whatever generals' names are supplied. For doubts about them, C. W. Fomara, The Athenian Board a/Generals from 501 to 404 (=Historia Einzelschr. 16 [1971]) 50f. LEWIS, R. G., An Alternative Date for Sophocles' "Antigone" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:1 (1988:Spring) p.35 40 AN ALTERNATIVE DATE FOR ANTIGONE chic hostages to Lemnos for intemment.l 5 The success of the Samian dissidents in rescuing them and mounting a counter-revolution at home, however, not to mention gaining the adherence of Byzantium, sympathy from Sparta (with probably much of the Peloponnesian League), and assistance from Pissouthnes, satrap of Sardis, posed an extremely serious threat to Athens' whole imperial position}6 In the summer of 440 all-out war ensued for over eight months, evidently hard-fought and bitter. 17 At all events, the final settlement imposed by Athens was by no means lenient. Samos lost her walls, fleet, hostages, and a war-indemnity, while democracy was reimposed, this time firmly}8 Diodorus (presumably from Ephorus) adds punishment of "the guilty"-evidently execution of those deemed responsible for the revolt-and Plutarch records public protest even at Pericles' cele­ brated funeral speech over the Athenian dead. 19 Not all the Samian oligarchs, however, were killed or captured. Significant numbers es­ caped to seize a defensible position at Anaia, not far away on the mainland opposite, and reappear in Thucydides under 428 and 413/2 as an irritant to Athens and a threat to the Samian democrats.2o There is however no necessity at all to infer that after 440/39 it had taken them anything like as long as twelve years to possess Anaia, or for the Athenians to move against them there, and neither suppo­ sition is in the least plausible. When we find in the manuscripts of the ancient Life of Sophocles the notice that the Athenians elected him general in his middle or late sixties (variant figures, corrupt), seven years before the Peloponnesian conflict in the war against the Anai­ ans, on any reasonable view the poet's age must be corrected,21 but IS Thuc. 1.115.2f; Diod. 12.27.1f; Pluto Per. 25.1-3. 16 Thuc. 1.40.5, 115.4f, 8.76.4; IG P 48.12. 17 Thuc. 1.116f; Pluto Per. 28.1; Diod. 12.27.3-28.4. 18 Thuc. 1.117.3; Pluto Per. 28.1; Diod. 12.28.3f; Nep. Timoth. 1.2; Isoc. 15.111. The costs of the war were enormous-over 1400 talents in IG P 293 (M.IL. 55); cf G. F. Hill, Sourcesfor Greek History2 (Oxford 1951), 306f; Meiggs 192ff. 19 Diod.12.28.3, lCoAaO'as ~f TOVS alTlovs; Pluto Per. 28.6; cf n.41 infra. 20 Thuc. 3.19.2, 32.2; 4.75.1; 8.19.1, 61.2. 21 V.Soph. 9, lCat 'A87}J1a'io, a' aVTOv ~8' (v.I. ~E') €roov &vTa O'TpanrYOv EYAOVTO '7rpO TooV IIEAO'7rOIlIl71O',aICOOV fTfO"V (, EV Tq, '7rpOS 'Avalovs '7rOA'P.~' For full apparatus, see Radt, TrGF IV 33. Variant readings and emendations abound. One method is to change the date to fit the (preferred) age and Thuc. 3.19 (etc.) on the Anaians in 42817: thus G. Perotta, Sofoele (Messina 1935) 42, inserts after IIEAo'7rOVv71O',alCoov; Ko­ lisch deletes '7rPO, reading ETil for fTfO"V. Another is to alter the date to fit the generalship on Samos-thus Bergk and Ribbeck (Evv'a: 71' or (J')-which presumably also requires a change in the age to suit, as '7rEVT~ICOvTa '7r'VTE (Lessing, Seidler) or VE' (Schultz, prob. Jacoby), with or without the further change r.ap.lovs for' Allalovs (vel. sim.-see infra), as Seidler, Jebb (cf r.ap.ov), Valckenauer. These expedients are unnecessarily radical. The best approach is that of Brunck, to emend the age only, reading '7rEVT~ICOvTa f'7rTa (from v(')-an evident palaeographic possibility. It is easy LEWIS, R. G., An Alternative Date for Sophocles' "Antigone" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:1 (1988:Spring) p.35 R.G.LEWIS 41 there is no good case for altering the date-on exclusive reckoning 43817, or inclusively 437/6-or for rejecting the evidence outright, though in accepting it we have to say that Sophocles (and his col­ leagues on that expedition, if any) achieved no permanent solution to the problem. Given a war between Athens and the Anaians at this time and given that Sophocles held a command in it, these years become new possibilities for dating Antigone.22 That the Hypothesis locates (V l:a/J-'P (not (71'"1. or 7I'"pOS l:a/J-ov) the command which resulted from the production is no bar, but if anything confirmation, since Samos would quite certainly be the Athenian base for any such campaign. Any attempt at closer chronology turns on somewhat more intricate argument. An ordinal numeral for the date in the Vita would require inclusive reckoning, but the cardinal actually used appears to allow both that and, perhaps rather more probable, exclusive reckoning also.23 The other consideration is that we may suppose either a delay of eleven months between the play's presentation and the elections of the next year, or else that the elections were postponed and came only a short time after the festival, in the same year. By inclusive reckon­ ing, then, we may have (i) production of Antigone 438, election spring 437, command 437/6; or (ii) production 437, election (postponed) 437, command 437/6. By exclusive reckoning we can add (iii) produc­ tion 439, election 438, command 43817; or (iv) production 438, enough to derive the erroneous A YTONE0ETON (avTov[lhTWV), and easier still the variant A YTONEEETON (avTov!HTWV), from an original A YTONNZETON (avTovv(£­ TWV). It should be noted for completeness that the reading' Avalovs is found in the margin of one MS. only (cJ ' Avlovs in its text and in one other), but is usually adopted for the more common readings, surely corrupt per vitium Christianum, avavta, avavtw, avatav, apavt/cov, avavwvs. The emendations' Avalav (Turnebus) and' Ava,'Tizs (Ritter, normative) are possible but again unnecessary. For very full (but not quite ex­ haustive) discussion of Sophocles' possible generalships, see Woodbury (supra n.3) 213-15, needlessly complex in my view. Some posit an even more chaotic state of affairs (e.g. T. B. L. Webster, Introduction to Sophocles [Oxford 1936] 17; Ehrenberg [supra n.4] 117 n.1; H. D. Westlake, Hermes 84 [1956] 110). The best analysis of the problem of the Vita may well still be that of Leo (supra n.1). 22 Some advocates of traditional dating find in Ant. 1118f-KAvTizv 8s ap.4>'7THS 'IraAlav-a reference to Thurii and hence a terminus post quem in the middle 440's. If that approach is legitimate at all, better to take 1037-39, €p.7ToAan T' a7To I.apa£wv TjAt"lCTPOV, £t {30VAHT8£, Kat TOV 'IvatKOv XPVCTOV, as a reference to the aid given to Samian rebels in 440/39 by Pissouthnes. While without further support this is hardly completely convincing, if composition can be dated on independent grounds to 439/8, it is still very tempting to suppose that an Athenian audience at that time would take it as an allusion to Pissouthnes' activities. For Pericles' imperviousness to his bribes, see the stories in Pluto Per. 25.5f. On Pissouthnes, supra n.16. 23 Compare for problems with dates on the Marmor Parium T. J. Cadoux, JHS 68 (1948) 83-86. In the Vita exclusive reckoning seems rather more likely. LEWIS, R. G., An Alternative Date for Sophocles' "Antigone" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 29:1 (1988:Spring) p.35 42 AN ALTERNATIVE DATE FOR ANTIGONE election (postponed) 438, command 43817. Of these theoretical possi­ bilities (iii) is the most vulnerable. Great precision in our chronology of the Sam ian war is not attainable, but combination of the famous fragment of Ion of Chios with Thucydides does make it at least possible and perhaps rather likely that Sophocles was a general and involved in operations against Samos not only in 44110, deducible from Androtion, but also in 440/39.24 Ifso, in view of the seriousness of the war, not to mention his undoubted patriotism, one may ques­ tion whether the poet, whatever his skills and facility, could have had the leisure to produce Antigone (if not also in large part to write it), together with two other tragedies and a satyr-play, for the City Dio­ nysia of spring 439. Besides, while the eleven months' gap between production and election required both in this option and in (i) is not impossible, the causal relationship between them reported by Ari­ stophanes of Byzantium makes far better sense if it is eliminated. The case against production in 437 followed quickly by election to com­ mand for 437/6 is if anything even more tenuous, but perhaps not quite weightless. Exclusive reckoning seems to be marginally prefer- 24 Unfortunately there is no certainty. Thuc. 1.115.2 puts the start of the Samian troubles-apparently, pace A. W. Gomme, Historical Commentary on Thucydides I (Oxford 1945) 352, the first moves of the Samians against Miletus, rather than the later outbreak of serious fighting with Athens-"in the sixth year" after the peace of 446/5, which will yield nothing more precise than spring 440 for the first Athenian intervention. Samos fell "in the ninth month" (of the siege, it would seem), and the final treaty was sworn by the generals of 439/8-probably early in their year, since the scholiast to Ar. Vesp. 283 makes the war end in the archon year 440/39. There is no reason to suppose an unusually long interval between surrender and treaty, for Athens had recent and ample prior experience in drafting such settlements-although there may have been some debate over the terms in this case (46 infra). If it was not too long, the mission of Sophocles to get help from Chios and Lesbos, when he was certainly a general (Ion F6; normally taken with Thuc. 1.116.1 f), could belong to the year 440/39 rather than 441/0. Further help came later from Chi os and Lesbos, almost certainly in 440/39 (Thuc. 1.117.2), and there is no particular reason (except economy in handling the sources) why Sophocles' mission should not rather have been concerned with that. According to the Vita (1) Sophocles was general with not only Pericles, but also a prominent bearer of the name Thucydides-presumably supposed to be the son of Melesias rather than the historian. Neither supposition can be right, but the error might have originated in the fact of a generalship in 440/39 as colleague of a third and more obscure Thucydides recorded serving against Samos in Thuc. 1.117.2. Late and admittedly suspect evidence has the poet-general Sophocles defeated in battle by the Samian philosopher-general Melissus. If that is historical at all, it should belong in 440/39, during the absence from the main scene of operations of the commanders-in-chief on both sides, Pericles and Stesagoras (only Suda. s. v. Mt"A'