Posted on March 30, 2021

2. Text and Translation

Chapter 2. Text and Translation

1. Introduction

For more than a century, Jacoby’s has been the authoritative text of the Parian Marble, first through his 1904 Habilitation thesis, later through the collection of historical fragments (FGrH 239), hereafter referred to as Jacoby’s edition. His work was timely, indeed. By 1904, section B of the inscription, just discovered (1897), had already been edited by Krispi and commented upon by Wilhelm, and two outstanding scholars, Munro and Hiller von Gärtringen, had performed autopsies of both the Ashmolean and the Parian fragments. [1] Although Jacoby did not see the inscriptions but worked with photographs, he was in a position to examine the entire tradition with the tools and perspectives of philology and epigraphy. He established the value of the main witnesses for the constitution of the text by detailed philological analysis. [2] Furthermore, Jacoby, in addition to his own experience of working on ancient Greek chronography, [3] counted on Wilamowitz’s supervision and on the insights of Hiller von Gärtringen, Munro, and other scholars through correspondence and personal communication. [4] Yet his edition, as with most scholarly work, cannot be definitive—although not because new readings have emerged from autopsy. The damage to the Ashmolean section is so extensive that nothing new can be gained from it (although innovative digitization techniques may bring some unexpected surprises), whereas the Parian section is in relatively good shape, except for major lacunae at the center of the last twelve lines. The problem with Jacoby’s edition is that it gives too much, especially for the lost part of the inscription.

Indeed, the situation of the first forty-five lines (twenty-nine entries) of the Parian Marble is often desperate. For its constitution we depend entirely on Selden. [5] His majuscule and minuscule transcriptions, published at the beginning of the seventeenth century, do not conform to current standards of epigraphical notation and are not equivalent to diplomatic and edited transcriptions of texts. A crucial difference lies in the use of dots for signaling the presence of lacunae, rather than the probable number of missing letters based on traces seen on the surface. [6] The unreliable nature of Selden’s dots has been made clear by the control of the Ashmolean section. [7] Sometimes the number of dots exceeds the number of letters missing. [8] Occasionally Selden has dots for lacunae that cannot be seen on the stone. [9] In most cases, it seems that the number of Selden’s dots is significantly smaller than the size of the lacunae (e.g. A41), or lacunae are omitted where traces can be seen, especially at the end of lines (e.g. A45). [10] Indeed, Jacoby’s detailed study of line-length indicates that even if the average line of A was between 90 and 110 letters long [11] (in B, between 110 and 130), in many cases a quarter of the line is missing, if not more. Often Selden simply made mistakes, as Jacoby’s detailed comparison of his transcription against Munro’s autopsy of the Ashmolean fragment suggests. [12] To the problems in the editio princeps one should add a difficulty inherent in the inscription itself—namely, the irregularity in the lines’ length, due to a marked contrast in the width of letters. [13]

Jacoby was acutely aware of the hazardous nature of restoration when the number of missing characters is unclear, and thus gives supplements as examples, [14] but he operates differently in each section. In his edition of the Parian fragment (B), he was extremely cautious and rejected some of the supplements proposed by Wilhelm. [15] In the lost and the Ashmolean fragments (A), however, although his judgment is in most cases sound, he often indulged in over-restoration, perhaps under the burden of a long philological tradition. [16] There is also a difference between the 1904 and the FGrH editions. In the early edition, the conjectural character of supplements was graphically marked by the use of a smaller font, [17] but his FGrH edition, following the general style of the collection, displays both transmitted and restored text in the same font size.

A declaration that supplements are given exempli gratia is not enough. Jacoby’s text has become canonical, including everything printed between square brackets. [18] As my predecessors were well aware, without knowing the exact length of lacunae, restoration is little more than guesswork. Nor can we predict where the author followed or departed from known traditions. I therefore avoid the more substantial supplements, indicating in footnotes where I depart from Jacoby’s FGrH edition. Similarly, maintaining the editio princeps’s dots for most of A, as Jacoby did, would wrongly encourage restoration (as if the dots did represent the precise number of missing characters). [19] I have therefore avoided dots in the lost part of the inscription, marking instead the presence of lacunae of unknown size. When possible, I add Jacoby’s or my own approximate figures for the sizes of those lacunae. The result is less of the Parian Marble than we used to have. Yet by giving a more precise account of our witnesses and by omitting speculation, we may nonetheless get closer to the original text.

I have used the Leiden system, which sometimes differs from Jacoby’s sigla:

[αβγ]	restoration of missing letters
⟨αβγ⟩	addition and substitution
{αβγ}	suppression of letters seen on the stone (instead of Jacoby’s ⟦αβγ⟧)
[- – – ]	lacuna of unknown extent, instead of Jacoby’s asterisk (I use it also for places, especially in A, where Jacoby gives dots, even though the extent of missing characters is unknown)
[- – – ca. 20 – – – ]	lacuna with estimate number of missing letters
⟨⟨abc⟩⟩	erasures (which Jacoby mentions only in his apparatus)
α̣β̣γ̣	in the lost section of A, dots mark departures from Selden’s editio princeps; [20] from A35 on they indicate uncertain letters
ΑΒΓ	letters of uncertain interpretation

I omit underlining to mark letters seen by earlier authors, which can no longer be seen (the case of the first 45 lines). Question marks signal the more tentative character of restoration, as in Jacoby’s edition, though not necessarily in the same places. To aid reading and consultation, the text is structured upon entries with vertical lines and accompanying line numbers (e.g. ⎜₂) indicating line breaks on the stone. [21]

My English translation attempts to render the formulaic style of the inscription. It includes square brackets marking restoration, three dots signaling lacunae, and minor additions between round brackets. To aid the readers, I give Jacoby’s conversion of years to the Common Era.

2. Greek Text

3. English Translation

A1: The Lost Fragment

The first part of the inscription, found in Smyrna in 1627 and published by Selden, is lost. The section containing the first forty-five entries depends on Selden’s transcription.

. . . of all sorts . . . I recorded the . . . , starting from Cecrops, the first king of Athens, until . . . uanax was archon in Paros, and Diognetus in Athens.

(A space of three to five letters possibly marks a new section) [129]

1. From the time Cecrops became king of Athens, [130] hence [131] the land formerly called Actica—from Actaeus, born from the earth—was called Cecropia, 1318 years (= 1581/0 BCE). [132]

2. From the time Deucalion became king on Mount Parnassus in Lycorea, when Cecrops was king of Athens, 1310 years (= 1573/2 BCE).

3. From the time a trial occured in Athens between Ares and Poseidon over Halirrhothius, Poseidon’s son—hence the place was called Areopagos—1268 years (= 1531/0 BCE), when Cranaus was king of Athens.

4. From the time a flood (kataklysmos) occured in Deucalion’s days, and Deucalion escaped the waters from Lycorea to Athens towards, . . . and es[tablished] the t[e]mple of Zeus (?) . . . [133] and made the sacrifices of deliverance, 1265 years (= 1528/7 BCE), when Cranaus was king of Athens.

5. From the time Amphictyon, son of Deucalion, became king in Thermopylae and gathered together those dwelling near the sanctuary—hence named them Amphictyons—and . . . where the Amphictyons still make sacrifices nowadays, [134] 1258 years (= 1521/0 BCE), when Amphictyon was king of Athens.

6. From the time Hellen, son of Deuc[alion], became king of [Phthi]otis—hence they were named Hellenes, being formerly called Greeks—and the contest . . . , 1257 years (= 1520/19 BCE), when Amphictyon was king of Athens.

7. From the time Cadmus, son of Agenor, went to Thebes . . . [and] founded the Cadmea, 1255 years (= 1518/7 BCE), when Amphictyon was king of Athens.

8. From the time . . . became kings, 1252 years (= 1515/4 years), when Amphictyon was king of Athens.

9. From the time a shi[p . . . o]ars [135] sailed from Egypt to Hellas—hence it was called pentekontoros—and Danaus’s daughters . . . and . . . Helike and Archedike, chosen by lot by the rest . . . and made sacrifices on the shore in . . . in Lindos of Rhodes, 1247 years (= 1510/9 BCE), when . . . was kin[g of Athens]. [136]

10. [From the time Erich]thonius yoked a chariot in the first Panathenaea that took place, and showed forth the contest and . . . the Athenians, [137] [a]nd [an image] of the Mother of the [g]ods appeared on the ridge of Cybele, and the Phrygian Hyagnis first invented the auloi in C [138] . . . the Phrygian ones . . . and he first played on the auloi [the mode (harmonia) c]alled Phrygian and the other nomoi of the Mother, of Dionysos, of Pan, and the . . . , 1242 years (1505/4 BCE), when Erichthonius, who yoked the chariot, was king of Athens.

11. From the time Minos . . . [bec]ame [k]ing . . . founded A[pol]lonia (?), [139] and iron was discovered on Ida, an invention of the Idaean Dactyls, Celmis a[nd Damnameneus . . . years], when Pandion was [ki]ng of Athens.

12. From the time Demeter, after arriving at Athens, planted grain, [140] and the [fi]rst [festival of ploughing (?)] was brought about . . . of [T]riptolemus, son of Celeus and Neaera, [141] 1146 ? years (= 1409/8 BCE), when Erichtheus was king in Athens.

13. From the time Tripto[lemus] . . . sowed (the grain?) in the Rarian land called Eleusis, 1[1]45 years (= 1408/7 BCE), when [Erichtheus] was king of Athens.

14. [From the time . . . Orpheus] . . . so[n] . . . made his poetry public, namely, [142] Kore’s rape and Demeter’s quest, [143] and the . . . [144] of those who received the grain, 1135 years (=1398/7 BCE), when Erichtheus was king of Athens.

15. [From the time Eumolpus (?)] . . . instituted the mysteries in Eleusis and made the po[e]ms of his [father M]ousaeus publ[ic], . . . [years, when Erichthe]us, son of Pandion, [was king of Athens].

16. From the time a purification first occured . . . 12 [years], when Pandion, son of Cecrops, was king of Athens.

17. From the time the gymnic [contest] at Eleusis . . . the Lycaea [145] occured in Arcadia and . . . of Lycaon were given . . . to the Hell[e]ne[s] . . . [years], when Pandion, son of Cecrops, was king of Athens.

18. From the time . . . Heracles . . . when Aegeus was king in Athens.

19. From the time there was a [deart]h of grain in Athens, and [Apo]llo advised (?) the Athe[nians] . . . consulting him to undert[a]ke the [compensa]tion . . . th[at] Minos would consider just, 1031 years (= 1294/3 BCE), when Aegeus was king of Athens.

20. From the time Thes[eus] . . . [became king] of Athens and united the twelve cities and bestow[ed] the constitution and the democracy . . . of Athens . . . established the Isthmian contest after killing Sinis, 995 years (= 1259/8 BCE). [146]

21. From the . . . of the Am[az]on[s . . . 9]92 [years] (= 1256/5 BCE), when Theseus was king of Athens.

22. From the time the Argives with Adras[tus waged] war [against Th]ebes and [e]st[abl]ished the contest in [Neme]a . . . , 987 years (= 1251/0 BCE), when Theseus was king of Athens.

23. From the time the [Helle]nes w[a]ge[d] war against Troy, 954 years (= 1218/7 BCE), when [Men]estheus was king of Ath[ens], in his thirteenth year.

24. From the time Troy was conquered, 945 years (= 1209/8 BCE), when [Menesthe]us was king of Athens, in his ⟨twenty⟩ [147] second year, in the month of Th[argeli]on, in the seventh day, (counting) from the end of the month.

(A space of 3 to 5 letters possibly marks a new section) [148]

25. From the time . . . [a trial occur]ed in the Areopagos (between) Orestes . . . and Ae]gisthus’s daughter [Erig]on[e] . . . of [Aegisthus] and . . . , which Orestes won . . . , 944 ? years (= 1208/7 ? BCE), when Demophon was king of Athens.

26. From the time Teucer founded [Salamis in] Cyprus, 938 years (= 1202/0 BCE), when Demophon was king of Athens.

27. From the time Ne[l]eus founde[d Milet]u[s] . . . Ephesus, Erythrae, Clazomenae, P[ri]ene, Lebedus, Teos, Colophon, Myus, [Phoc]a[ea], Samos, [Chios, and] the [Pan]ioni[a] came into being, [149] 813 yea[rs] (= 1077/1075, 1087/1 BCE), when Me⟨don⟩ was king of Athens. [150]

28. From the time [Hes]iod the poet [appear]ed, . . . [151] years (= 937/5 ? BCE), when . . . was king of Athens.

29. From the time Homer the poet appeared, 643 years (= 907/5 BCE), when [D]iognetus was king of Athen[s].

A2: The Ashmolean Fragment

The second part of A, the inscription found in Smyrna, currently in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

30. From the time the Argive Ph[ei]don [152] mad[e] [the] meas[ures] public [and] determined [we]ights and produced silver coins in Aegina, being eleventh from Heracles, 631 years (= 895/3 BCE), when [Pherecl]es was king of Athens.

31. From the time Archias, [153] son of Euagetes, being tenth from Temenus, led the settlement from Corinth [and founded] Syracu[se, . . . years], when Aeschylus w[a]s [k]ing of Athens, in his twenty-first year.

32. From the time the archon held the magistracy yearly, 420 years (= 683/2 BCE).

33. From the time . . . , [154] 418 years (= 682/1, 681/0 BCE), when Lysia[des] was archon in Athens.

34. From the time the Lesbian Terpander, son of Derdenes, . . . -ed the [kith]a[r]od[ic] nomoi and aulet[ic] [155] . . . and changed the music of old, 381 years (= 645/3 BCE), when Dropides was archon in Athens.

35. From the time A[lyatte]s [be]came kin[g] over the Lyd[ians], [3]41 years (= 605/3 BCE), when Aristocles was archon in Athens.

36. From the time Sappho sailed from Mytilene to Sicily, fleeing . . . , when the elder Critias was [arch]on in Athens, and in Syracuse the landowners seized power.

37. [From the time] the Am[phict]yo[ns ma]de sacri[fices] [a]fter de[fe]ating Cyrrha in war, and the gymnic contest was established with money prizes [156] from the spoils, 327 years (= 591/0 BCE), when Simon was archon in Athens.

38. From the time [in Delph]i [the c]rown contest was reestablished, 318 years (= 582/1 BCE), when Damasius the second was archon in Athens.

39. From the time a [cho]r[os] of komo[idoi] was [esta]blished in Ath[en]s, the Icarians [setting it up fi]rst, an invention by Susarion, and the prize consisted at first [157] of a baske[t] of dried fi[gs] and a me[a]sure of wine . . . [158]

40. From the time Pisistratus became tyrant of Athens, 297 years (= 561/0 BCE), when C[o]m[e]as was archon [in Athe]ns.

41. From the time Croesus . . . [159] [from] Asia [to] Delphi, 292 [years] (= 556/5 BCE), when Euthydemus was archon in Athens.

42. From the time Cyrus, the king of Persia, seized Sardis and Croesus . . . And Hipponax too (lived) at that time, the iambic poet.

43. From the time Thespis the poet first [act]ed (?), who produced [160] . . . [and] the goat was established [as prize], . . . years, [161] when . . .-naeus the elder was archon [in] Ath[ens].

44. From the time Darius became king of Persia, after the magus died, [2]56 years (= 520/19, 519/8 BCE), when . . . was archon in Athen[s].

45. From the time Harmodius and [Aristoge]iton kill[ed Hippa]rchus, s[uc]ces[sor] (?) of Pisistratus, and the Athenians [expell]ed the Pisistratids from t[he P]elasgian wall (= 511/0 BCE), 248 years, when Ha[r]p[actides] was archon in Athens.

46. From the time choruses of men first competed, which (?) Hypo[di]cus of Chalcis produced and won, 246 (?) years (= 510/8 BCE), when Lysagoras was archon in Athens.

47. From the time Me[lan]ippid[es] of M[elos wo]n in Athens, 231 years (= 494/3 BCE), when Pythocritus was archon in Athens.

48. From the time the battle in Marathon occured, the Athenians [162] (fighting) against the Persians and Ar[taph]e[rnes], Darius’s neph[ew, an]d [Da]tis the commander, which the Athenians won, 227 years (= 490/89 BCE), when [Ph]a[i]n[i]p[pid]es t[h]e second was archon in Athens. In this battle fought Aeschylus the poet, being 35 years of age.

49. From the time Simonides, grandfather of the poet Simonides, himself a poet too, won in Athens, and Darius dies, and his son Xerxes becomes king, [2]26 years (= 489/8 BCE), when Aristides was archon in Athens.

50. From the time Aeschylus the poet first won in the tragic competition, [163] and Euripides the poet was born, and Stesichorus the poet a[rrive]d in Hellas, 222 years (= 485/4, 486/5 BCE), when Philocrates was archon in Athens.

51. From the time Xerxes erected the bridge in the Hellespont and crossed (Mount) Athos, and the battle in Thermo[py]lae occured, and the naval battle of the Hellenes against the Persians near Salamis, which the Hellenes won, 217 years (= 480/79 BCE), when Calliades was archon in Athens.

52. From the time the battle in Plataea occured, the Athenians (fighting) against Mardonius, Xerxes’s commander, which the Athenians won, and Mardonius died in the battle, and the fire erupted [in] Sicily at the (Mount) Aetna, 216 years (= 479/80 BCE), when Xantippus was archon in Athens.

53. From the time G[e]lon, son of Deinomenes, became tyrant of S[yrac]u[se], 215 years (= 478/7 BCE), when Timosthen[es] was archon in Athens.

54. From the time the Ceian Simonides, son of Leoprepes, who invented the mnemonic art, won in Athens as producer, and the statues of Harmodius and Aristogeiton were set up, 213 (?) years (= 477/6 BCE), when [A]deimantus was archon in Athens.

55. From the time Hieron became tyrant of Syracuse, 208 years (= 472/1 BCE), when Cha[r]es was archon in Athens. And Epicharmus the poet too lived at this time.

56. From the time Sophocles, son of Sophillus, of Colonos, won in the tragic competition, being 28 years of age, 206 years (= 469/8 BCE), when Apsephion was archon in Athens.

57. From the time a meteorite fell in Aegospotami, and Simonides the poet died, being 90 years of age, 205 years (= 468/7 BCE), when Theagenides was archon in Athens.

58. From the time Alexander died, and his son Perdiccas became king of Macedonia, 199 years (= 461/0 BCE), when Euthippus was archon in Athens.

59. From the time Aeschylus the poet, being 69 years of age, died in [Gel]a on Sicily, 193 years (= 456/5 BCE), when Calleas the elder was archon in Athens.

60. From the time Euripides, being 44 (?) years of age, first won in the tragic competition, 1[79] years (= 442/1 BCE), when Diphil[us] was [ar]chon in Athens. Socrates and Anaxagoras too lived at Euripides’s time.

61. From the time Archelaus becomes king of Macedonia after Perdiccas died, 1[57] years (= 420/19 BCE), when Astyphilus was [ar]chon in Athens.

62. From the time Dionysius became tyrant of Syracuse, 147 years (= 408/7 BCE), when Euctemon was archon in Athens.

63. From the time Euripides, being . . . years [of age, d]ied, 145 years (= 407/6 BCE), when Antigenes was archon in Athens.

64. From the time Sophocles the poet, being 92 years of age, died, and Cyrus went up (from the coast), [143 years] (= 406/5 BCE), when Callias the elder [was arch]on in Athens.

65. From the time Telestes of Selinus won in Athens, 139 years (= 402/1 BCE), when Micon was archon in Athens.

66. From the time [the Greeks who] went [wi]th Cyrus returned, and Socrates the philosopher died, being 70 years of age, 137 years (= 400/399 BCE), when Laches was archon in Athens.

67. From the time Ar[i]sto[nous . . . won] in Athens, 135 years (= 399/8 BCE), when Aristocrates was archon in Athens.

68. From the time Polyidus of Selymbria won in the dithyrambic competition in Athens, . . . years, . . . [when . . . was archon in Athens].

69. [From] the time the dithyrambic poet Philoxenus dies, being 55 years of age, 116 years (= 380/79, 379/8 BCE), when Pytheas was archon in Athens.

70. From the time Anaxandrides the com[edy-poet] . . . [when] Calleas [was archon] in Athens.

71. From the time Astydamas won in Athens, 109 years (= 373/2, 372/1 BCE), when Asteius was archon in Athens. And [the temple in Delphi] then burned down too.

72. [From the time the battle in Leuctra o]ccured, between Thebans and Lacedaemonians, which the Thebans won, 107 years (= 371/0, 370/69 BCE), when Phrasicleides was archon in Athens. Also, Al[exander . . .] became king [of Macedonia].

73. From the time Stesichorus of Himer[a], the second, [164] won in Athens, and Megalopolis was founded [in Arcadia, 105 years (= 370/68, 368/7 BCE), when . . . was archon in Athens].

74. From the time the Sicilian Dionysius died, and his son Dionysius became tyrant, and Alex[ander] . . . became [k]ing [of Macedonia], 104 years (= 368/7, 367/6 BCE), when Nausigenes was archon in Athens.

75. From the time Phocis [seized . . . ] the o[racle] in Delphi, . . . [years] . . . when Cephisodorus [was archon in Ath]ens.

76. From the time Timotheus, being 90 years of age, died . . . yea[rs, when . . . was archon in Athens].

77. [From the time Philip, son of Amyntas] became king [of Ma]cedonia, and Artaxerxes died, and his son Ochos b[ecame king, . . . years, . . . when . . . was archon in Athens].

78. [From the time . . .] won [in Athens], 93 years (= 357/6, 356/5 BCE], when Agathocl[es] was archon in Athens.

79. [From the time . . . o]ccurred, 91 years (= 355/4, 354/3 BCE), when Callist[ratus] was archon in Athens . . . –sophos (?) . . . (at) that (time?). [165]

80. From the time Calli[ . . . yea]rs, . . . when . . . was archon [in Athens].

B: The Parian Fragment

The second part of the inscription, found on Paros and published in 1897, is currently displayed at the Archaeological Museum of Paros. There is a gap of 19 years between this and the previous section.

1. . . . [Philip d]ie[d, and Ale[xand]er became king, 72 years (= 336/5 BCE), when Pythodelus was archon in Athens.

2. From the time Alexander [waged] war against the Triballi and the Illyrians, and after the Thebans rose up and besieged the guard, he returned, conquered the city, and destroyed it, 71 years (= 335/4 BCE), when Euaenetus was archon in Athens.

3. From Alexander’s crossing to Asia and the battle near the (river) Granicus, and from Alexander’s battle against Darius in Issus, 70 years (= 334/3 BCE), when Ctesicles was archon in Athens.

4. From the time Alexander took possession of Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Egypt, [166] 69 years (= 333/2 BCE), when Nicocrates was archon in Athens.

5. From the battle of Alexander against Darius at Arbela, which Alexander won, and Babylon was conquered, and he discharged the allies, and Alexandria was founded, 68 years (= 332/1 BCE), when Nicetes was archon in Athens.

6. From the time Callippus made (his) astrology (i.e. astronomy) public, [167] and Alexander seized Darius, and hung Bessus, 66 years (= 330/29 BCE), when Aristophon was archon in Athens.

7. From the time Philemon the comic poet won, 64 years (= 328/7 BCE), when Euthycritus was archon in Athens. Also, the city of Hellenis was founded by the (river) Tanais.

8. From the time of Alexander’s decease [168] and Ptolemy’s dominion over Egypt, 60 years (= 324/3 BCE), when Hegesias was archon in Athens.

9. From the war [169] that occured near Lamia, the Athenians (fighting) against Antipater, and from the naval battle of the Macedonians against the Athenians that occured at Amorgos, which the Macedonians won, 59 years (= 323/2 BCE), when Cephisodorus was archon in Athens.

10. From the time Antipater seized Athens, and Ophelas was dispatched [170] by Ptolemy to Cyrene, 58 years (= 322/1 BCE), when Philocles was archon in Athens.

11. From the time Antigonus crossed over to Asia, and Alexander was buried in Memphis, and after waging war against Egypt Perdiccas died, and Craterus, and Aristotle the sophist [171] died, 57 years (= 321/0 BCE), being 50 years of age, when Archippus was archon in Athens. Also, Ptolemy marched to Cyrene. [172]

12. From the death of Antipater, and Cassander’s withdrawal from Macedonia, and from the siege of Cyzicus, which Aridaeus laid, and from the time [173] Ptolemy seized Syria and Phoenicia, 55 years (= 319/8 BCE), when Apollodorus was archon in Athens. Precisely in the same year the Syracusans appointed Agathocles as absolute commander of the Sicilian defence.

13. From the naval battle of Cleitus and Nicanor near the temple of the Calchedonians, and when Demetrius set laws in Athens, 53 years (= 317/6 BCE), when Demogenes was archon in Athens.

14. From the time Cassander returned to Macedonia, and Thebes was founded, and Olympias died, and Cassandreia was founded, and Agathocles became tyrant of Syracuse, 52 years (= 316/5 BCE), when Democleid[es] was archon in Athens. Also then Menander the comic poet won in Athens for the first time.

15. From the time Sosiphanes the poet dies, 49 years (= 313/2 BCE), when Theophrastus was archon in Athens, being 45 years of [age].

16. From the time the sun eclipsed, and Ptolemy prevailed over [174] Demetrius in Gaza and dispatched Seleucus to Babylon, [4]8 years (= 312/1 BCE), when Po[lem]on was archon in Athens.

17. From the time Nicocreon died and Ptolemy takes possession of the island (of Cyprus), 47 years (= 311/0 BCE), when Si[moni]des was archon in Athens.

18. From the time Ale[x]a[nder, son of Alexander], dies, as well as another, (son) of Artabazus’s daughter, Heracles, and Agathocles crossed over to Carched[on] (i.e. Carthage) . . . [4]6 [years] (= 310/9 BCE), when Hieromnemon was archon in Athens.

19. From the time the city of L[ysi]macheia was founded, and Ophelas . . . to [Ca]rch[edon] (i.e. Carthage) . . . and Ptolemy the son was born on Cos, [175] and Cl[eop]atra die[d] in Sardis . . . [45 years (= 309/8 BCE), when D]emetrius [was archon] in [A]then[s].

20. From the time Demetrius, son of Antigonus, besieged the [P]iraeus and seized it, . . . [176] [44 years (= 308/7 BCE)], when Caerimus [was archon] in Athens.

21. From the time Demetrius destroyed Munichia and seized Cyprus, and Phil[i]p . . . [4]3 [years] (= 307/6 BCE), when Anaxicratus was archon in Athens.

22. From the time Sosiphanes the poet wa[s born (?). . . 42 years (= 306/5 BCE), when C]oroebus [was archon in Athe]n[s].

23. From the siege of Rhodes, and from the time [Pt]olemy t[o]ok ove[r] the kingdom, [41 year]s (= 305/4 BCE), [when Euxenippus was archon in Athens].

24. [From th]e ear[th]quake that [oc]cured in Ionia, and when Demetrius [sei]zed Chalc[is] by agreement and . . . of [De]metrius, 40 years (= 304/3 BCE), when Pherecles was archon in Athens.

25. From the time [a comet] ap[p]eare[d], and Lysimach[u]s [crossed over to Asia (?), 39 years (= 303/2 BCE), when] L[eost]r[atus was archon in Athens].

26. F[rom] the time a truce [occured] between Cassander and Demetrius . . . Cassan[d]er . . . [di]ed], 38 [years] (= 302/1 BCE), when Nicocles was archon in Athens.

27. [From the time . . . of [Deme]trius’s ascent to Chalcis, and the Athenians . . . Cas[sander] . . . Ptolem- . . . , 35 years (= 299/8 BCE), . . . [when Euctemon was archon in Athens].

Footnotes

[ back ] 1. See chap. 1, sec. 3 above.

[ back ] 2. For the lost fragment, Jacoby depends mainly on Selden, with a number of readings by Reinhold Forster and Chandler, although some of them, particularly Chandler’s, may have resulted from conjecture.

[ back ] 3. Möller 2006.

[ back ] 4. Jacoby 1904a:ix (Jacoby believed that little could be read on the stone beyond what Hiller von Gärtringen and Munro reported from autopsy).

[ back ] 5. Selden 1628 provided two transcriptions: one in majuscule, one in minuscule (the latter with parallel Latin translation). Modern editors (Boeckh, Hiller von Gärtringen, Jacoby) consider only the majuscule transcription relevant for the constitution of the text, as well as the Errata at the end of his 1628 edition (Jacoby 1904b:75–76). Selden’s minuscule edition, aimed at aiding the reader, offers no division into lines or entries (epochae), unlike the majuscule text that was divided by lines. The minuscule edition rarely includes supplements or conjectures, which can be found in his notes.

[ back ] 6. In many cases, numbers of dots in the majuscule transcription differ from the minuscule one. For example, at the end of A23 (lines 38–39) the dating formula requires supplementing six or eight letters: βασιλεύοντος Ἀθη|[νῶν (or Ἀθή|[νησιν) Μεν]εσθέως. Selden has ΒΑΣΛΕΥΟΝΤΟΣ ΑΘΗ | . . . ΕΣΘΕΩΣ and βασιλεύοντος Αθ . . . . . . . , with three and seven dots respectively.

[ back ] 7. Line 54 (A38–A39) is a good example of Selden’s arbitrary allocation of lacunae (Lacunae falso indicatae, cum de supplementis vix dubitari possit. Vides hic quoque quid Seldeni punctis tribuendum sit, Hiller von Gärtringen’s note to line 54); cf. Jacoby “S’ unbrauchbare lückenangaben” (1904a:105).

[ back ] 8. At the beginning of line 8, for example, Selden has two dots where a single broad letter must be missing: . . ΤΗ and . . τη for ἔτη. Similarly, Selden’s transcription of the end of line 48, ΗΡ. . ΕΝ . . Ρ . . ΩΝΕΤ . . ΗΗΗΗΔΔ, later reported by Munro’s autopsy as ΗΡΞΕΝΟΑΡΧ̣ΩΝ, represents ἦρξεν ὁ ἄρχ̣ων, ἔτη ΗΗΗΗΔΔ. That is, in the first, third, and fourth places, the pair of dots stand for single broad letters, Ξ, Χ, Η, and in the second place for two letters, ΟΑ. At the beginning of line 69, Selden has 5 dots, where Munro (1901b:358) confirms that only one letter is missing.

[ back ] 9. As in A48 (line 62), after Πέρσας (Munro 1901b:357).

[ back ] 10. Jacoby 1904b:72.

[ back ] 11. Jacoby (1904a:26) suggests that letters in the first three lines of the inscription may have been slightly bigger, so as to facilitate reading.

[ back ] 12. Jacoby 1904b:63–76.

[ back ] 13. Jacoby 1904b:73–74, Rotstein 2014:7.

[ back ] 14. Jacoby 1904a:xi and 1904b:72–75, FGrH 239 (commentary):665. For lacunae that could not be confirmed, Hiller von Gärtringen also notes the maximum number of dots found in Selden. The problem was already discussed by Dopp 1883:2 regarding Boeckh’s edition.

[ back ] 15. B20 (Demetrius of Phalerum) is the only long supplement that Jacoby allowed in the Parian fragment.

[ back ] 16. Munro’s review (1905) of Jacoby’s 1904 edition relates precisely to this flaw.

[ back ] 17. Jacoby’s 1904 apparatus offers a more comprehensive review of the history of restoration than his FGrH one. Some omissions are tendentious, for example, in A17 and A18 restorations pointing at the Olympic games are rightly omitted from the text (Hiller von Gärtringen includes it in A17), but not so from the apparatus. I note some of those omissions in the notes on the Greek text.

[ back ] 18. So, for example, restored sections of the Parian Marble are cited as evidence for the origins of the Nemean Games in Opheltes’s funerary games (BNP s.v. ‘Opheltes’, by A. Ambühl, cf. notes to A22), or tragedy and the City Dionysia having being held under Pisistratus (e.g. DTC² 69 based on A43, cf. Connor 1990:26–32). Munro’s comments (1901a:149–150) regarding Boeckh’s edition, which he deeply admired, can be applied to Jacoby’s: “It is the foundation on which all later editors have built, and enjoys such unquestioned acceptance that even in scholarly works Boeckh’s restorations are commonly quoted as if they had the authority of the Marble itself. Boeckh has indeed done more for the restoration and interpretation of the text than anyone since Selden, and more than anyone will ever be able to do again. But his edition has not the finality which has sometimes been attributed to it. Perhaps no edition can ever be final, for the reconstruction of the text is a very difficult matter.”

[ back ] 19. Munro 1905 and Dopp 1905 criticized the young Jacoby precisely for that.

[ back ] 20. As in Jacoby’s edition, e.g. μ̣ετ̣’ Ἀδράσ[του instead of Selden’s ΝΕΥΑΔΡΑΣ (A22, line 37); Jacoby 1904 uses square brackets to mark the μ and the τ.

[ back ] 21. As in Jacoby’s edition. Jacoby 1904a is organized upon lines.

[ back ] 22. Jacoby has * ΟΥ * [ἐξ ἀναγραφῶ]ν (?) παν[τοί]ων [καὶ ἱστοριῶν κοι]νῶν (?) ἀνέγραψα τοὺς ἄν[ωθεν] χρό|νους] ἀρξάμενος.

[ back ] 23. Jacoby’s apparatus has Selden’s Ἀστ]υάνακτος (Selden 1628:72), omitting Boeckh’s Εὐρ]υάνακτος and Πολ]υάνακτος.

[ back ] 24. On the likelihood that the space left by Selden was seen on the stone, see chap. 5, sec. 2 below.

[ back ] 25. Jacoby has πρὸ[ς Κρανα]όν, καὶ τοῦ Διὸ[ς το]ῦ Ὀ[λυ]μ[πί]ου τὸ ἱ[ε]ρὸν ἱδ[ρύσατ]ο [καὶ] τὰ σωτήρια ἔθυσεν (Prideaux and Chandler combined). Selden’s transcription reads: ΠΡΟ . . . ΟΝΚΑΙΤΟΥΔΙΟ . . ΥΟ . . . Δ . . . ΜΤΟΥΤΟΙΡ . . ΟΝΙΔ . . . . . . Ο . . ΤΑΣΩΤΗΡΙΑΕΘΥΣΕΝ. Chandler’s το]ῦ Ὀ[λυ]μ[πί]ου requires too many corrections and overlooks gaps; more probable is Prideaux’s τὸ ἱ[ε]ρὸν ἱδ[ρύσατ]ο.

[ back ] 26. Here, in A66 (Socrates), A69 (Philoxenus), and B15 (Sosiphanes), the inscription omits the article ὁ, but only here and in A66 Jacoby supplements it.

[ back ] 27. Jacoby has συνῆγε (Selden). Wilamowitz’s συνήγειρε, preferred by Hiller von Gärtringen, may be better for Selden’s three dots at the beginning of line 9.

[ back ] 28. Jacoby marks Hiller von Gärtringen’s π[ροέθυσε]ν with a question mark. Jacoby 1904a has Le Paulmier’s Π[υλαία]ν.

[ back ] 29. Jacoby has {τὸν ἀγῶνα Παναθ . . ναι . . . . . . . . ωι}. Since the first Panathenaic games are mentioned in entry 10, a reference to the Panathenaea must be a mistake, either Selden’s or probably the cutter’s, but τὸν ἀγῶνα may not be part of the mistake (cf. Boeckh’s Πανελλήνια ἔθεσαν). Selden’s two dots in Παναθ . . ναι may represent a broad letter such as H. After Παναθ⟨η⟩ναι a large lacuna must be assumed (the line has only seventy-eight letters).

[ back ] 30. Jacoby has ναῦ[ς κατασκευασθεῖσα ὑπὸ Δαναοῦ πρώτη πεντ]ή[κοντα κωπ]ῶν, partly based on Chandler (Selden locates an Η in the middle of the lacuna). The reference to the ship’s name with consecutive καί supports the supplement κωπ]ῶν.

[ back ] 31. Jacoby has [τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς τῆς Λινδίας τὸ ἱερὸν * * ἱδρύσ]αντ[ο].

[ back ] 32. Selden marks two dots, but as his suggested corrections (1628:74) indicate (ΠΑΡΑΡΑΔΙ or ΠΑΡΑΓΑΔΙ), they probably represent a single broad letter.

[ back ] 33. Jacoby has Le Paulmier’s Ἐριχθονίου, but Hiller von Gärtringen’s Ἀμφικτύονος (apparatus) cannot be ruled out.

[ back ] 34. Jacoby has [ὠν]όμ̣[ασε (with Boeckh and Hiller von Gärtringen).

[ back ] 35. Jacoby has Κ * * ΝΑΙΩΝ (Selden’s own correction to Κ . . ΑΝΝΑΙ). If the supplement [καὶ ἁρμονίαν τὴν κ] is correct, at least ten letters are missing after the K.

[ back ] 36. Jacoby has [ὁ] πρ[ότερος (?) ἐ]βα[σίλευσε Κρήτης καὶ] (Boeckh). At least thirty letters are missing at three different points of the line.

[ back ] 37. Jacoby’s correction of Selden’s reading in the Errata: Δ . . . ΑΩΝΙΑΝ; Hiller von Gärtringen conjectured Κνωσὸν καὶ Κυδω]νίαν.

[ back ] 38. Jacoby has ἔτη ΧΗ * * , but the precise location of the year number in the lacuna is unclear.

[ back ] 39. Jacoby has ἐφ[εῦρ]εν. Hiller von Gärtringen’s ἐφύ[τευσ]εν is consistent with the inscription’s preference for the aorist, but the imperfect cannot be ruled out (cf. Selden’s ἐφύ[τε]υεν for his repported ἐφύ . . υεν / ΕΦΥ. . .ΥΕΝ, see chap. 4, n. 21 below).

[ back ] 40. With Hiller von Gärtringen I omit Boeckh’s and Jacoby’s δ[είξαντος and add a question mark after Munro’s πρ[οηροσία.

[ back ] 41. Assuming that the chronicle never gives the same number to two different entries, Munro supplements the numeral ⟨I⟩ (ΧΗΔΔΔΔ

⟨Ι⟩= 1146) to distinguish it from the following ΧΗΔΔΔΔ

= 1145 (but Lydiat and Boeckh read ΙΙ instead of

in Α13, i.e. ΧΗΔΔΔΔΙΙ = 1142).

[ back ] 42. Jacoby has Τριπτό[λεμος ἐθέρισε τὸν καρ|πόν, ὃν]. A longer piece of text is missing, probably including the word καρπόν.

[ back ] 43. Prideaux’s supplementation of Orpheus is highly probable, see chap. 6, n. 44 below.

[ back ] 44. Jacoby’s ΥΙΟ . . [τ]ὴ̣[ν ἑ]αυτοῦ (for Selden’s ΥΙΟ . . . Ν . . . ΑΥΤΟΥ) does little justice to the lacuna in line 26, where at least thirty-five letters are missing.

[ back ] 45. Jacoby and Hiller von Gärtringen regularize the word into πο⟨ί⟩ησιν.

[ back ] 46. Jacoby has αὐτου[ργηθέντα ὑπ’ αὐτῆς σπόρον | καὶ τὸ πλῆ]θος (combining Diels’s and Wilamowitz’s conjectures). In line 27, at least thirty-five letters are missing at the beginning and the end.

[ back ] 47. I added a question mark.

[ back ] 48. Jacoby has ἔτη ΧΗ * in the lacuna. Almost forty letters are missing in line 28, at the beginning, before Μ]ουσαίου, and at the end.

[ back ] 49. With at least forty-five letters missing, Jacoby, following Hiller von Gärtringen, avoids restoration; the word πρώτωι may be distinguished.

[ back ] 50. A numeral ending with twelve. Jacoby has Lydiat’s supplement: [ἔτη Χ

]ΔΙΙ; Hiller von Gärtringen’s Χ[- – ]ΔΙΙ is less speculative.

[ back ] 51. At least thirty letters are missing in line 30. Hiller von Gärtringen’s supplement ἀφ’ οὗ [τὰ Ὀλύμπια ἐν Ἤλιδ]ι [κ]αὶ τὰ Λύκαια is omitted from Jacoby’s apparatus. On the question whether ΑΦΟΥ could mark the beginning of a new entry, see Jacoby 1904a:77–79.

[ back ] 52. Selden reports two dots in the majuscule transcription, none in the minuscule. Jacoby omits them, while Hiller von Gärtringen has [ἐν (?)].

[ back ] 53. Jacoby has τοῖς Ἕλλ[η]σι[ν ἔτ]η . . N . . βασιλεύον|₃₂τος. At least thirty letters are missing in nine different spots of line 31.

[ back ] 54. Among the long and daring supplements that Jacoby omits from his FGrH apparatus, is one by Boeckh, alluding to Olympia: ἀφ’ οὗ κα[τερ]γ[ασάμενος τὰ ἐν] Ἤ[λ]ι[δ]ι Ἡρακλῆς [τὸ τέμε]ν[ος καθιέρ]ω[σε τοῦ] Δ[ι]ός (at least forty-five letters are missing in line 32).

[ back ] 55. Jacoby follows Hiller von Gärtringen in combining Le Paulmier’s and Boeckh’s restorations (Hiller von Gärtringen gives more detail: ἔχ̣ρ̣η[σε τοῦ Ἀνδρόγεω φό|νου δίκα]ς), which requires omitting two lacunae (which Selden reports by two dots each) and ignoring a lacuna between the end of line 33 and the beginning of 34. I mark the lacunae but leave the restoration, adding a question mark. There is scope for rethinking Ἀπό]λ̣λων ἔχ̣ρ̣η[σε | δίκα]ς ὑποσχε⟨ῖ⟩ν [- – – ] ἃ[ς] ἂμ Μίνως for Selden’s . . ΑΛΩΝΕΝΗ . . | . . . . . . . ΣΥΠΟΣΧΕΝ . . Α . . ΑΜΜΙΝΩΣ. The syntax of the restored entry is more complex than usual in the inscription.

[ back ] 56. Hiller von Gärtringen, following Boeckh, has ἀπ[έδ]ω[κε (Selden’s transcription: ΑΠΡΕΩ . . . . .).

[ back ] 57. Selden’s majuscule transcription has ΑΠΟΤΗΣΑΜΜΟΝ . . . ΤΗ . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . ΔΔΔΔ. Jacoby has ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀμα̣ζ̣όν[ων εἰς] τὴ[ν Ἀττικὴν στρατείας, ἔτη

ΗΗΗΗ

]ΔΔΔΔΙΙ, the text “brilliantly restored by Boeckh,” as Jacoby (1904a:87) puts it; Jacoby adds that Selden’s corruption of AZ into M is apparent. I add a question mark to the restored word Ἀμαζόνων. The attested numbers for the previous and following entries support the restored number of years (992). At least twenty-five letters are missing from line 36, part at the beginning of entry 21.

[ back ] 58. Jacoby has [Νεμέ]α[ι ἔ]θ[εσ]αν (with Le Paulmier and Chandler), highly probable in the context, but with line 37 missing at least thirty-five letters, the spaces represented by Selden’s dots (ΚΑΙΤΟΝΑΓΩΝΑ . Ν . . Α . . . ΗΘ . . ΑΝ . . . |) may be bigger. Jacoby also accepts Boeckh’s supplement [ἐπ’ Ἀρχε|μόρωι], whose speculative nature is marked by Hiller von Gärtringen with a question mark. Jacoby and Hiller von Gärtringen are probably right in suspecting that Selden omitted a lacuna at the end of line 38.

[ back ] 59. Since the thirteenth year of Menestheus’s reign is mentioned in entry 23, and there is a nine-year interval between entries 23 and 24 (i.e. years 954 and 945), it is highly probable that the Parian Marble dated the fall of Troy to the twenty-second year of Menestheus’s reign. The omission of εἰκοστοῦ may have been the cutter’s or Selden’s, pace Munro 1901a:154.

[ back ] 60. Jacoby restores the entry as follows: ἀφ᾿ οὗ Ὀρέστη[ι τ]ῶ̣ι̣ Ἀ[γαμέμνονος (?) καὶ τῆι Α]ἰγίσθου θυγατρὶ [Ἠριγ]όν[ηι ὑπὲρ Αἰ]γίσθου καὶ Κ̣λ̣υ[ταιμήστρας δίκη |₄₁ ἐγένε]τ̣ο ἐν Ἀρείω̣ι̣ πάγωι, ἣν Ὀρέστης ἐνίκησεν [ἴσων γενομένων τ]ῶν [ψήφων], ἔτη [

]ΗΗΗΗΔΔΔ[ΔΙΙ]ΙΙ (?), βασιλεύοντος Ἀθηνῶν Δημοφῶντος. At least 25 letters are missing from line 40 (granting a space of five letters between entries 24 and 25), and at least twenty letters are missing from line 41. In addition to Jacoby’s numeral (= 944), [

]ΗΗΗΗΔΔΔ[ΔΙ]ΙΙ (= 943) and [

]ΗΗΗΗΔΔΔ[

ΙΙ]ΙΙ (= 939) have been suggested.

[ back ] 61. Jacoby gives Boeckh’s restoration: Νη[λ]εὺς ὤικισ[ε Μίλη]τ̣[ον καὶ τὴν] ἄλλ̣ην̣ ἅπ̣[α]σ[αν | Ἰωνί]αν, Ἔφεσον. Selden’s transcription reads: ΑΦΟΥΝΗ . . ΕΥΣΩΙΚΙΣ . . . . . . Γ . . . . ΑΛΑΗΧΑΡ . . . ΣΙ . . | . . . . . . ΑΝΕΦΕΣΟΝ. Miletos was probably the subject of ὤικισ[ε, perhaps by zeugma, but not necessarily represented by the Γ (corrected into T). Restoration of Priene, Lebedos, and Teos is plausible given the context, but cf. Selden’s reported ΗΝΚΑΤΑΓΡΟΝΟΝΥΠΟ.

[ back ] 62. Jacoby has Μέ{νεσθέως τρεισκαιδεκάτου} ⟨δοντος⟩ [ἔτο]υς (Selden: ΜΕΝΕΣΘΩΣΤΡΕΙΣΚΑΙΔΕΚΑΤΟΥ . . . ΥΖ. Munro (1901a:154) suggests reading ἐννεακαιδεκάτου instead of τρεισκαιδεκάτου, thus the nineteenth year of Menestheus’s reign. I include the restored name of Medon but seclude the reference to thirteen years as a repetition from entry 23 (editors have proposed correcting the number 13 into 10, 11, 13, and 19).

[ back ] 63. I follow both Jacoby FGrH and Hiller von Gärtringen in avoiding restoration of the year number in entry 28. The Parian Marble makes Hesiod earlier than Homer, but the precise time span is unattested. Selden has two dots after the numerals, not necessarily representing two missing letters. Possible restorations imply an interval of one generation:

ΔΔ[Δ] (= 680, Selden),

ΔΔ[ΙΙ] (= 672, Lydiat),

ΔΔ[ΙΙΙ] (= 673, Boeckh, followed by Jacoby 1904a),

ΔΔ[

Ι] (= 676, Jacoby in the apparatus of his FGrH edition).

[ back ] 64. Jacoby adds cruces before Pheidon’s and Archias’s names, indicating a possible confusion of entries 30 and 31, which he proposes to read as follows (see the apparatus to his 1904 edition): [ back ] 30. ἀφ᾿ οὗ Ἀρχίας Εὐαγήτου ἐκ Κορίνθου ἤγαγε τὴν ἀποικίαν καὶ ἔκτισε Συρακούσσας, ἑνδέκατος ὢν ἀφ’ Ἡρακλέους, ἔτη

ΗΔΔΔΙ, βασιλεύοντος Ἀθηνῶν Φερεκλείους. [ back ] 31. ἀφ᾿ οὗ Φείδων ὁ Ἀργεῖος δέκατος ὢν ἀπὸ Τημένου ἐδήμευσε τὰ μέτρα καὶ σταθμὰ κατεσκεύασε καὶ νόμισμα ἀργυροῦν ἐν Αἰγίνηι ἐποίησεν ἔτη * * βασιλεύοντος Ἀθηνῶν Αἰσχύλου. [ back ] Jacoby switched the order of the entries, placing Pheidon as tenth from Temenos (instead of eleventh from Heracles) and Archias eleventh from Heracles (instead of tenth from Temenos). He attributes the mistake to the stone-cutter or the author. I omit Jacoby’s cruces. Indeed, disagreement with Ephorus (FGrH 70 F 115 20–24) is not necessarily an indication of textual corruption.

[ back ] 65. From here up to the end of section A, the constitution of the text follows not only Selden’s transcription, but also the legible sections of the Ashmolean fragment, with the aid of the autopsy reported by Munro 1901a and b, and Hiller von Gärtringen.

[ back ] 66. The stone is broken at this point. Jacoby has ἀφ᾿ οὗ . . . . . . . ο . . υ * | . . . . . . . . . , keeping the number of dots in Selden’s majuscule transcription, seven, two, and nine (the minuscule transcription has two, two, and seven). The supplement Archilochus, proposed by Baumgarten ([Ἀρχίλοχ]ο[ς ἐκ Πάρο]υ [εἰς Θάσον τὴν ἀποικ|ίαν ἤγαγεν]), suits the number of dots reported by Selden, though it is difficult to believe that the dots represent here an exact number of letters (see section 1 in this chapter). Although Selden does not mark dots after the Y, there probably was a lacuna at the end of the line (at least fourteen letters seem to be missing at the end of line 48). The supplement Archilochus should remain outside the text, as in Jacoby’s edition (though he includes it in 1904a, cf. Hiller von Gärtringen 1934:56: ἀφ᾿ οὗ [Τελεσικλῆς ὁ Πάριος Θάσον ὤικισεν]; see chap. 6, sec. 2.I).

[ back ] 67. Jacoby has τοὺς νόμους τοὺ[ς κιθ]α[ρ]ωι̣δ̣[ικ]οὺς {θαιαυλητ . . } [ἐκαι|₅₀νοτόμ]ησε (for Selden’s ΤΟΥΣΝΟΜΟΥΣΤΟΥ . . . . Α . . . ΩΝ . . . Δ . . ΟΥΣΘΑΙΑΥΛΗΤ . . ; since the top right part of the Ashmolean fragment is broken, we depend on Selden’s transcription for the text after τοὺς νό-). Hiller von Gärtringen’s τοὺ[ς κιθ]α[ρωι]δ[ικ]ούς is very plausible in the context. There is no need to excise θαιαυλητ, which may stand for καὶ αὐλητ-, perhaps καὶ αὐλητ[ικούς], if not αὐλητ[αῖς] (Le Paulmier) or αὐλητ[άς] (Chandler). These and other supplements are found only in Jacoby’s 1904 edition.

[ back ] 68. Jacoby has [ἐκαι|νοτόμ]ησε. Many aorist verbs would do for Selden’s . . . ΛΗΣΕ if the lambda is corrected, but Le Paulmier’s συνηύ]λησε (or simply ηὔλησε ?) deserves attention, in the context of musical history.

[ back ] 69. Thus Hiller von Gärtringen. Jacoy has Λυδῶ̣[ν, but from Selden’s reported ΣΛΥΔΟ Munro could see only ΣΛ (from correspondence with Hiller von Gärtringen, see his note to line 50).

[ back ] 70. From this point on, dots underneath letters represent traces of characters partially seen (or reported to have been seen) on the stone.

[ back ] 71. Jacoby has φυγοῦσα . . . . . . ΟΛ . . . . . Θ . . . . . | ἄρχο]ν̣τος (with wrong brackets: ἄρχο[ν̣τος, and omitting an opening square bracket after φυγοῦσα). I follow Hiller von Gärtringen and Jacoby 1904a, omitting the doubtful majuscules and signaling a lacuna (Jacoby [1904a:100] considers Selden’s reported Θ to be a mistake, whereas from ΟΛ only the O could be partially seen). The year number, between 340 and 328, is missing. According to Hiller von Gärtringen, after φυγοῦσα 25/26 letters are missing, or 11/15 if ἔτη ΗΗΗΔΔΔ- is supplemented (Hiller von Gärtringen’s note to line 51). Schoene’s suggestion that Alcaeus was mentioned along with Sappho is not recorded in Jacoby’s apparatus ([καὶ Ἀλκαῖος] ὁ Λ[έσβιος ἐξέ]θ[ηκε τὰ στασιωτικά,), but cf. his 1904a edition.

[ back ] 72. “The double σ in Συρακούσσαις is plainly legible” (Munro 1901b:356).

[ back ] 73. Restoration depends on Munro’s readings (as reported by Hiller von Gärtringen, note to line 52).

[ back ] 74. The text partially transmitted by Selden was written in an erasure (Munro, as reported by Hiller von Gärtringen, note to line 53).

[ back ] 75. The text transmitted by Selden was written in an erasure (Munro, as reported by Hiller von Gärtringen, note to line 54).

[ back ] 76. Jacoby has Ἀθήνησι, but a final N was reported by Munro 1901b:356.

[ back ] 77. Of Selden’s ΑΦΟΥΕΝΑΘ . . . ΑΙΣΚΩΜΩ . . . . Ρ . . . ΕΘΗ . . . . . ΣΑΝΙ at the end of line 54, Munro could only read ΣΑΝ (1901b:356; Hiller von Gärtringen suggests that the final vertical stroke was a mistake). κωμω[ιδῶν χο]ρ[ός is Boeckh’s conjecture, ἐτ]έθη is Le Paulmier’s. Perhaps Le Paulmier’s κωμω[ιδία π]ρ[ῶτον ἐτ]έθη, though not a performance term, deserves attention. Selden’s ΚΩΜΩ stands in contrast with the spelling κωμοιδοποιός at B7 and B14. Boeckh’s [ηὑρ]έθη is missing from Jacoby’s apparatus.

[ back ] 78. ἆθλον . . . οἴνου is Mill’s reading, reported by Buckham 1830:176, οἴνου με[τ]ρητής is Munro’s (1901b:356).

[ back ] 79. Jacoby has [ἔτη ΗΗ * *, ἄρχοντ]ος [Ἀθήνησιν |₅₆ . . . . . . . . . It is highly likely that the dating formula was found in the lacuna of 23/24 letters, but the position of the ΟΣ reported by Selden is unclear (Munro 1901b:356).

[ back ] 80. Δελφούς instead of Selden’s ΔΕΛΦΟΣ is partially secured by Munro’s reading. Selden marks only two dots after ΔΕΛΦΟΣΑ for a lacuna of at least 15 characters. Jacoby supplements ἀ[πέστειλε θεωρούς (?) (ἀπέστειλε is Le Paulmier’s supplement, θεωρούς is Flach’s). Munro further suggested ἀ[πέπεμψε τὰ ἀναθήματα] (Munro 1901b:357). Although the entry most probably refers to the events told by Herodotus 1.85, it is preferable not to restore the precise phrasing.

[ back ] 81. Jacoby has ὑπο . . . . . . ησσφαλ . . . . , with Selden’s number of dots.

[ back ] 82. Jacoby has [ἔτη ΗΗ

ΔΔ

ΙΙ (?), ἄρχοντος Ἀθήνησι * * |₅₈. The dating formula was most probably at the end of the line, but the result may be too long. The lacuna’s size is given by Hiller von Gärtringen.

[ back ] 83. The coordinant δέ seems to be the rule in postscripts (A36, A55, A60, A71, B7, B11, B12, B14; only A72 has καί, asyndeton in A48; cf. chap. 4, sec. 1).

[ back ] 84. Munro reported seeing ]το πρῶτος or even ]ατο πρῶτος; [ὑπεκρίνα]το is Keil’s restoration.

[ back ] 85. Jacoby has ὃ̣ς ἐδίδαξε δ̣ρ̣ᾶμ[α ἐν ἄ]στε̣ι̣ (similarly, Hiller von Gärtringen). Given the importance of this restoration for the history of tragedy and the City Dionysia, I follow Connor’s more conservative text (1990:26–32). The lacuna indicated by Selden with three dots (ΟΣΕΔΙΔΑΞΕΝΑΛ . . . ΣΤΙΝ) was supplemented by him and by other early editors as Ἄλ[κη]στιν. The restoration ἐδίδαξεν Ἄλκηστιν was rejected by Boeckh, and is missing from Jacoby’s apparatus. By the end of the seventeenth century no traces of ΑΛ . . . ΣΤΙΝ could be seen (Bentley ap. Connor 1990:29). The Ν may or may not belong to the verb ἐδίδαξε.

[ back ] 86. Jacoby has Boeckh’s ΗΗ

[ΔΔ . ] (between two and four characters are missing).

[ back ] 87. The text transmitted by Selden was written in an erasure (Munro, as reported by Hiller von Gärtringen, note to line 61).

[ back ] 88. Με[λαν]ιππίδ[ης] ἐνίκησ]εν (Bergk) is supported by Munro, who reports also an M after Melanippides’s name, which he supplements Μ[ήλιος (1901b:357).

[ back ] 89. ΕΝΑΘΗΝΗΣΙΝΕ, transmitted by Selden, was written in an erasure, replacing [ΔΙ]ΘΥΡΑΜΒΟΠΟΙΟΣ (Munro, as reported by Hiller von Gärtringen, note to line 62).

[ back ] 90. Τ.ΝΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΟΝΗΝΕΝΙΚΩΝ in an erasure (Munro, as reported by Hiller von Gärtringen, note to line 63; Hiller von Gärtringen, however, omits the ΗΝ, which Munro [1901b:358] saw on the stone). Jacoby has [Δᾶ]τι̣ν, but Munro suggests Τ.Ν, where Selden’s majuscule transcription has ΤΟΝ.

[ back ] 91. ΑΦΟΥΣΙΜΩΝΙΔΗΣΟΣΙΜΩΝΙΔΟΥΠΑΠΠΟΣΤΟΥΠΟΙΗΤΟΥ was written in an erasure (Munro, as reported by Hiller von Gärtringen, note to line 64). Jacoby added a crux before πάππος, indicating the implausibility of the reference, given that at A57 (= 468/7 BCE) the inscription states that Simonides died at ninety years of age. Accordingly, he would have been almost seventy years old by the time his grandfather won his victory in A49 (= 489/8 BCE). Perhaps the word πάππος is used in a general sense, indicating an uncle (Jacoby 1904a:113). At any rate, the Parian Marble presents Simonides the elder as a relative of the famous Simonides (mentioned again in A54 and A57).

[ back ] 92. Selden’s majuscule transcription reads ΤΗΝΕΛΛΑΔΑΑ . . . . (with four dots), but his Errata give ΤΗΝΕΛΛΑΔΑ . . . .; later editors disregard the correction. The supplement ἀ[φίκετ]ο goes back to Le Paulmier (1668, published in Maittaire 1732:217), whom Bergk and Flach credit, but not Jacoby and Hiller von Gärtringen. Le Paulmier further conjectured εἰς at the end of line 65, where no lacuna was reported by Selden. Hiller von Gärtringen has εἰ[ς] and Jacoby εἰς, suggesting that at least part of the preposition may have been seen, which in turn would support restoration of a verb of movement. One could infer ab silentio from Munro’s note to A50 (1901b:358) that he did not object to the supplement on the basis of autopsy. The date is too late for Stesichorus, but see chap. 6, n. 76 below for further references to the traditions possibly underlying the entry.

[ back ] 93. ΟΓΕΙΤΟΝΟΣΕΤΗΗΗ was written in an erasure (Munro, as reported by Hiller von Gärtringen, note to line 70), but it is unclear what numerals Munro could actually see (“one would rather restore 214, but it is a tight fit,” Munro 1901b:358). Jacoby’s apparatus has ΟΓΕΙΤΟΝΟΣΗΗΔΙΙΙΙ, with small question marks on top of the Δ and the second Ι, which may render what was in Munro’s unpublished work).

[ back ] 94. Jacoby excises a numeral, giving Η

ΔΔΔΔ

ΙΙΙ{Ι} (not so Hiller von Gärtringen and Jacoby 1904a).

[ back ] 95. The reading ΒΙΩΣΑΣΕΤΗ

(thus Selden’s majuscule transcription) was written in an erasure (Munro, as reported by Hiller von Gärtringen, note to line 74; the numeral H

in Jacoby’s apparatus is wrong).

[ back ] 96. Munro’s reading ΔΔΔΔΙΙΙΙ, with small question mark on top of the first iota, is reported by Jacoby (probably deriving from personal communication). If the date of the entry is right (see following note), ΔΔΔΔΙΙΙ (Selden, Hiller von Gärtringen) would be the correct reading, since Euripides’s birth is dated in entry A50. Munro, however, may have seen the number fourty-four, and noted the inconsistency with A50 with a question mark.

[ back ] 97. The restoration Η

Δ[Δ

ΙΙΙΙ, unattributed in modern editions, goes back to Le Paulmier’s (Maittaire 1732) correction of Selden’s Η

Δ[ΔΔ (Selden 1628:111, in the canon chronicus; both transcriptions give Η

Δ). Le Paulmier’s supplement was adopted by Chandler 1763:31, whereas Boeckh, following a different computation, has Η

Δ[Δ

ΙΙΙ.

[ back ] 98. Munro’s reading, as reported by Hiller von Gärtringen’s commentary to line 72.

[ back ] 99. Jacoby excises two numerals, giving ΗΔΔΔΔ

(not so Hiller von Gärtringen and Jacoby 1904a).

[ back ] 100. Jacoby has βι[ώσας ἔτη

ΔΔ

. . (?). The numeral has been restored as

ΔΔ

III (Boeckh),

ΔΔ

II (Hiller von Gärtringen), and

ΔΔ

IIII (Jacoby 1904a). Euripides’s age at death, between seventy-seven and seventy-nine, cannot be retrieved, since the inscription is damaged at this point, but seventy-seven results from computation.

[ back ] 101. Jacoby adds a crux before the numeral, suggesting the reading ΗΔΔΔΔΙΙΙΙ, even though there are no doubts about the transmitted text, but about Euripides’s date of death (see note above).

[ back ] 102. The qualification of Callias as “first” appears mistaken (Le Paulmier corrected it to δευτέρου), since “Calleas the first” was mentioned already (A59, and cf. Calleas at A70; it is unclear whether the orthographical difference between Callias and Calleas is significant). Munro, however, clearly read προτέρου (Munro 1901b:358), though it may have been a repetition from A59.

[ back ] 103. Hiller von Gärtringen and Jacoby supplement the article (without noting it), namely Σωκράτης ὁ φιλόσοφος. According to Munro 1901b:358, however, there is no space for the article, and it was not in Selden’s transcriptions either.

[ back ] 104. Jacoby has Ἀρ[ι]στό̣[νους, following Wilamowitz (Hiller von Gärtringen’s note to line 80). Munro read Ἀρ[ι]στ[ο or Ἀρ[ι]στ[α. The archon’s name Ἀριστοκράτους is suspect of repetition. Hiller von Gärtringen, following Wilamowitz, has Ἀρ[ι]στο̣[νους ὁ κιθαρωιδὸς ἐνίκη|σεν], homeland (Jacoby) or patronymic may have been mentioned in the lacuna; cf. chap. 6, sec. 2.IV below, for a possible identification with a winner kitharode at Delphi (Plutarch Life of Lysander 18.5) and/or with Aristonous of Corinth (contra Jacoby).

[ back ] 105. Munro’s reading, confirmed by Hiller von Gärtringen. Selden did not transmit the name of the poet, but Baumgarten suggested either Polyidus or Timotheus (Munro 1901b:358).

[ back ] 106. Jacoby has κωμο̣[ιδοποιὸς ἐνίκησεν Ἀθήνησιν, ἔτη ΗΔΙΙΙ, ἄρχοντος] (for spelling, cf. κωμοιδοποιός at B7 and B14). A formulaic reference to victory, as well as the number of years, is most plausibly missing, but the resulting line is somewhat too long (135 letters). Boeckh’s πρῶτον ἐδίδαξεν is omitted from Jacoby’s apparatus (cf. his 1904a edition; Capps 1900:55n1).

[ back ] 107. Munro (1901b:359) reports clearly seeing κατεκάη on the stone, the supplement κα[ὶ ὁ ἐν Δελφοῖς ναός] is his.

[ back ] 108. Jacoby has Ἀ[μύντας τελευτᾶι, Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ ὁ υἱὸς Μακεδόνων], but Munro (1901b:359) saw traces of Ἀλ[, which suggests Ἀλ[έξανδρος. The phrasing of Hiller von Gärtringen’s restoration (following Boeckh’s) suits the general style of postscripts: Ἀλ[έξανδρος ὁ Ἀμυντοῦ κατὰ τοῦτον Μακεδόνων].

[ back ] 109. The numeral could also be Η

Ι (Hiller von Gärtringen).

[ back ] 110. While Jacoby has Ἀλεξ̣ά̣ν̣δ̣ρ̣[ου τελευτήσαντος Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Ἀλωρίτης Μακεδόνων βα], Hiller von Gärtringen, following Munro, prefers Perdiccas as the subject of the verb βασιλεύει, because “Ptolemy was not the legitimate sovereign” (Munro 1901b:359). However, the author’s or his source’s position on the matter cannot be guessed with confidence.

[ back ] 111. Jacoby has ἔτη ΗΙΙ, the year of Kephisodorus (the name is “plainly legible,” Munro 1901b:359). However, since our sources date the event to the archonship of Agathocles, it seems preferable to omit supplementation, with Hiller von Gärtringen.

[ back ] 112. At the end of the Ashmolean section less than half the lines survive (fifty-four letters in line 88, fifty-two letters in line 89, forty-six letters in line 90, thirty-six letters in line 91, twenty letters in line 92, ten letters in line 93). The last two lines depend on Selden’s transcription.

[ back ] 113. This is most probably an agonistic victory (Munro 1901b:360, Jacoby 1904a:123), but the name of the poet is lost. None of Jacoby’s editions record Capps’s supplement of Alexis ([. . . . . καὶ Ἄλεξις ὁ κωμοιδοποιὸς τότε πρῶτον] ἐνίκησεν) (Capps 1900:60, cf. Wilhelm and Kaibel 1906:249).

[ back ] 114. Jacoby has . . . . . ΣΟΦΟΣ (?) . . . . Τ . . . ΤΟΥΤΟΥ (?), both the reading and the number of dots derive from Selden’s majuscule transcription. Hiller von Gärtringen prints | -ἐπὶ τού]του (for similar postscripts, cf. A42, A55 and chap. 4, sec. 1). Munro’s reading (1910b:360) is of little help: . . . Σ . . . . . . . ΕΥΤΟΥ (“the letter before Σ looks like Α or Η, and the letters next after Σ suggest ΑΓΩ or ΑΜ rather than Σ[ΟΦΟΣ].” Tod (1957:132n2) writes: “We should expect some reference to Plato, but I know no event in Plato’s life dated in that year which would call for notice.”

[ back ] 115. Jacoby has ἀφ’ οὗ ΚΑ̣Λ̣Λ̣ * * * |, but Forster’s reading supports Καλλι[, as in Hiller von Gärtringen’s edition.

[ back ] 116. The last line of section A disappeared by the time Munro and Hiller von Gärtringen examined it; the reading depends on Selden’s transcription.

[ back ] 117. Jacoby’s text follows the first edition of Krispi and Wilhelm, with occasional contributions by Hiller von Gärtringen and Munro.

[ back ] 118. The first line of this section is completely lost, except for the horizontal bottom strokes of some letters, from which Munro could make out ΔΟ. At the beginning of line 2, ca. fifteen letters are missing.

[ back ] 119. Jacoby has ἐστράτευσε. Although restoration seems correct, I prefer to render it as ἐστρά[τευσε] (with the first editors, Krispi and Wilhelm 1897, and Jacoby 1904a), since the stone is broken at the end of the line.

[ back ] 120. There is an erasure equivalent to two broad letters (17 mm, with traces) before the word ΛΑΜΙΑΝ, and the correction of -ΝΑ into -ΑΝ at the end of the word is still visible. The cutter seems to have corrected ΣΑΛΑΜΙΝΑ into ΛΑΜΙΑΝ (Munro 1901b:360).

[ back ] 121. Jacoby has ⟨ὁ⟩ ποιητής, but there is no room for a regular omicron (before ποιητής there is a vertical scratch, perhaps a mistaken vertical stroke, that may conceal a small omicron). The article has been omitted in A5 too.

[ back ] 122. From this point on, all lines have major lacunae in the middle.

[ back ] 123. Jacoby has Σ̣Ω̣Ι̣ (?) after the lacuna, following a tentative reading of Wilhelm on a squeeze (who further proposed νό]σωι, Krispi and Wilhelm 1897:207), but Munro could not “make it out on the stone” (1901b:361). I omit the letters, with Krispi and Hiller von Gärtringen.

[ back ] 124. Jacoby has [καὶ Δημήτριος ὁ Φαληρεὺς ἐξέπεσεν Ἀθηνῶν, ἔτη ΔΔΔΔΙΙΙΙ, ἄρχοντος], combining Wilhelm’s (καὶ Δημήτριος ὁ Φαληρεύς) and his own (ἐξέπεσεν Ἀθηνῶν) supplements. This is the sole substantial supplement that Jacoby includes in section B of the inscription.

[ back ] 125. Jacoby has Φιλλ.π (?); I could make out the second iota. Munro (1901b:361) read ΦΙΛΛΠ, reading the second lambda as alpha and the mark before π as an accidental scratch (“one might be tempted to restore φ[υ]λ[αὶ π[ρος”); Krispi and Hiller von Gärtringen give Φίλα.

[ back ] 126. Jacoby has ἐ̣γέ̣[νετο (?) καί (with Krispi’s [ἐγένετο καί] and Hiller von Gärtringen’s ἐ]γ[ένετο). Munro suggested ἐ̣τ̣έ̣[λεύτησεν, or Sositheus instead of Sosiphanes, to avoid another Sosiphanes, otherwise unknown (Munro 1901b:361, contra Jacoby 1903 and Jacoby 1904a:127–128). Partial upper horizontal strokes are still visible in the squeezes at the IG archive, consistent with either ΕΓΕ or ΕΤΕ (a drawing at the IG archive, probably by Hiller von Gärtringen (Klaus Hallof, personal communication), suggests that he may have been able to recognize the vertical of Γ, perhaps the vertical of a following N). The text should not be corrected, even though a mistake by the cutter or the author, whether in the verb (ΕΓΕΝ-, ΕΤΕΛ-, ENIK-?) or the name of the poet, cannot be ruled out. Without further evidence, one must agree with Jacoby that the Parian Marble mentions two poets of similar name.

[ back ] 127. Jacoby has ἐ̣φ̣ά̣ν̣η̣. I give ἐφ̣[ά]ν[η], with Hiller von Gärtringen (I can make out ΤΗΡΕΦ on one of the IG squeezes, there is space for eight to ten letters before).

[ back ] 128. Krispi and Wilhelm’s restoration, I add a question mark with Hiller von Gärtringen.

[ back ] 129. See chap. 5, sec. 2 below.

[ back ] 130. A proleptic reference, since the Athenians get their name in A10 (FGrH 239 [commentary]:671).

[ back ] 131. Inferential or consecutive καί, found also in A3, A5, A6, and A9. The feature appears only in these entries, which may suggest a provenance from sources used for the very early periods.

[ back ] 132. Conversion to the Common Era (i.e. BCE) is that of Jacoby in his FGrH edition.

[ back ] 133. Jacoby’s restored text reads: “to [Crana]us, and es[tablish]ed the t[e]mple of Zeu[s] O[ly]m[pi]an, and made the sacrifices of deliverance.”

[ back ] 134. The only reference to present time in the extant text, though it may have been drawn from a source.

[ back ] 135. Jacoby’s restored text reads: “a shi[p furnished by Danaus for the first time with fifty o]ars . . .”

[ back ] 136. Jacoby supplements Erichthonius; Hiller von Gärtringen prefers (apparatus) Amphictyon.

[ back ] 137. Jacoby’s restored text reads: “and named the Athenians.”

[ back ] 138. A word beginning with C can be restored as Cybele (Jacoby) or Celaenae (Le Paulmier).

[ back ] 139. Jacoby’s restored text reads “From when Minos [the] fi[rst] (?) ru[led over Crete and] founded A[pol]lonia.”

[ back ] 140. Jacoby has “invented grain.”

[ back ] 141. Sic, probably mistaken for Metaneira.

[ back ] 142. Epexegetic or explanatory τε.

[ back ] 143. The accusatives “rape” and “quest” are in apposition to “poetry.” West (1983:24) suggests the poem could be the Homeric Hymn to Demeter. On the content of poetry attributed to Orpheus in antiquity, see Bernabé PEG II.1 frr. 379–402.

[ back ] 144. Boeckh restored a reference to Orpheus’s own descent to Hades.

[ back ] 145. I.e. the Lycaean festival.

[ back ] 146. From here on Hiller von Gärtringen’s conversion to BCE years differs from Jacoby’s.

[ back ] 147. On the plausibility of the supplement, see note on Greek text.

[ back ] 148. See n. 24 above.

[ back ] 149. The Panionian league. One could think of “the Panionian festival came into being,” but the verb ἐγένετο is not the usual one for establishing games.

[ back ] 150. The inscription reads “when Menestheus was king of Athens, in his thirteenth year.” On the reasons for restoration, see note on the Greek text.

[ back ] 151. The number is incomplete. Several restorations are possible (672, 673, and 676, see note on the Greek text).

[ back ] 152. Due to disagreement with ancient testimonies (see note on the Greek text), Jacoby marked Pheidon’s and Archias’s names with cruces. In his 1904a edition he suggested the following restoration: [ back ] 30. From the time Archias, son of Euagetes, led the settlement from Corinth and founded Syracuse, being eleventh from Heracles, 631 years, when Pherecles was king of Athens. [ back ] 31. From the time the Argive Pheidon, being tenth from Temenus, made the measures public and determined weights and produced silver coins in Aegina, . . . years, when Aeschylus was king of Athens, in his twenty-first year.

[ back ] 153. See the note above.

[ back ] 154. Some editors supplement Archilochus here; see note on the Greek text and chap. 6, sec. 2.I.

[ back ] 155. Jacoby’s restored text reads “made innovations in the kitharodic nomoi,” omitting a reference to the aulos, which cannot be ruled out (perhaps: “the kitharodic and auletic nomoi”? see note on Greek text and chap. 6, sec. 2.III below).

[ back ] 156. “Chrematic,” i.e. granting material rewards.

[ back ] 157. Adverbial (at first), rather than attributive (first prize).

[ back ] 158. The date is lacking. Jacoby gives an equivalent as 581/0–562/1.

[ back ] 159. Supplements include “sent envoys” (ἀ[πέστειλη, Prideaux; θεωρούς, Flach) or “sent offerings” (ἀ[πέπεμψε τὰ ἀναθήματα, Munro).

[ back ] 160. Jacoby’s restored text reads: “who produced a play in town”; see note on the Greek text.

[ back ] 161. The number of years is incomplete, Jacoby has 2[70] with a digit missing, a date he converts into 536/5–532/1.

[ back ] 162. Instrumental-comitative dative (not possessive dative, see also A52, B9, and B26). The pattern ἡ . . . μάχη ἐγένετο + dat. (Ἀθηναίοις) + πρός + acc. (πρὸς Πέρσας) seems to be equivalent to a construction of nominative (Ἀθηναῖοι) ἐμάχοντο πρὸς + acc. (τοὺς Πέρσας).

[ back ] 163. This dative is locative (in the tragic competition) rather than instrumental (with a tragedy), cf. LSJ s.v. νικάω (πυγμῇ, Iliad 23.669, ἵππῳ, Herodotus 6.122, ἵππῳ ἢ συνωρίδι ἢ ζεύγει, Plato Apology 36d, λαμπάδι, 4.42, etc.). It also appears in A56, A60, and A68.

[ back ] 164. More than 100 years separate this otherwise unknown Stesichorus from the one mentioned in A50.

[ back ] 165. On the possibility of a postscript naming a philosopher, see note on the Greek text.

[ back ] 166. The concept of “becoming lord, taking possession” (κυριεύειν) appears here with reference to Alexander and later in B8 (noun) and B17 with reference to Ptolemy.

[ back ] 167. The verb “making public” appears in A14 and A15 with reference to Orpheus’s and Mousaeus’s poetry. The year coincides with the beginning of the first Callipean period (of 76 years, see chap. 5, n. 17).

[ back ] 168. Τhe word μεταλλαγή (“change,” applied to death) appears only in relation to Alexander’s death; otherwise the inscription has the verb τελευτάω (“bring to pass, finish,” used absolutely, “die”).

[ back ] 169. Sole appearance of the word πόλεμος; otherwise the word μάχη is used.

[ back ] 170. The Greek has the participle ἀποσταλείς.

[ back ] 171. Tod (1957:135) suggests that the range of Aristotle’s studies may partly explain why σοφιστής and not φιλόσοφος is used.

[ back ] 172. A very dislocated entry. In addition to a postscript, Aristotle’s age at death is separated from the reference to his death. There are no signs of correction or erasures on the stone.

[ back ] 173. Repetition of the formula “from the time” in the middle of the entry.

[ back ] 174. The verb “winning” is applied here to prevailing over a person; elsewhere, it is used for prevailing in a contest or in battle.

[ back ] 175. The birth of Ptolemy Philadelphus is the only instance noting the birth of a political personality (cf. the birth of Euripides at A50 and possibly of Sosiphanes II at B22).

[ back ] 176. Jacoby’s restored text reads: “when Demetrious of Phalerum was banished from Athens;” see note on the Greek text.

Luke Hollis

Author

2. Text and Translation

2. Text and Translation

Chapter 2. Text and Translation

1. Introduction

2. Greek Text

A1. The Lost Fragment

A2. The Ashmolean Fragment

Β: The Parian Fragment [117]

3. English Translation

A1: The Lost Fragment

A2: The Ashmolean Fragment

B: The Parian Fragment

Footnotes

Luke Hollis