Chapter 6. Literary History in the Parian Marble

Biographies of ancient Greek poets and musicians frequently rely on information found in the Parian Marble. [1] The inscription is held as a reference point, even when the validity of dates is called into question. [2] Yet inquiry into how biographical details were attained rarely goes beyond matters of chronology and source criticism. In this chapter I shall explore the methods and attitudes that the Parian Marble shares with ancient Greek traditions of thinking about the literary past. I begin by discussing the nature of literary history in ancient Greece, and the extent to which it is of primary interest in the Parian Marble.

Literary history as a discipline studies past processes and events related to the production, performance and reception of literature. It examines materials and contents (texts in both their oral and literate dimensions), agents (composers, writers, performers, sponsors, audiences, judges, readers, and interpreters), and institutions (occasions of performance, schools, libraries, etc.). In ancient Greece, literary history was not an intellectual discipline in its own right, but reflection on the literary past is attested from early times. [3]

Before the fourth century BCE, matters of literary history, including references to both poets and musicians, appear embedded in works of historians, such as Pherecydes, Hellanicus, [4] and Herodotus, as well as sophists, such as Theagenes of Rhegium and Hippias of Elis. Evidence is fragmentary and atomistic, often incidental, and always focused on famous individuals, rarely attaining abstraction and generalization through reflection on genres, periods, or styles. Main centers of interest were the genealogy of poets, their relative chronology, and first inventions. [5] In the last half of the fifth century BCE, [6] when issues of literary history were staged in Athenian comedies (Cratinus’s Archilochuses, 450/449 BCE, and Aristophanes’s Frogs, 405 BCE), questions of style (and perhaps of ideological stance too) seem to have prevailed over issues of chronology or development. Literary history fully emerged in the transition to the fourth century BCE, gaining independence from general historiography, especially in the works of Aristotle [7] and his school. [8] The lists of victors at the Pythian games compiled by Aristotle and Callisthenes [9] and the Dionysiac Victories, on Athenian Tragedy, Comedy, and Dithyramb, [10] both probably based on archival work, provided a chronographic grid, essential to historical research on poetry. [11] Of narrative nature were the monographs on poets, written by Glaucus of Rhegium, a precursor in the field, [12] as well as by Aristotle, Phainias of Eresus, and Demetrius of Phalerum. Similar works on individual poets (or poets per genre, e.g. Lysanias of Cyrene’s On the Iambic Poets) were written by Heraclides of Pontus, Chamaeleon of Heracleia, and the Epicurean Metrodorus of Lampsacus. [13] Judging from surviving fragments, those monographs added an interest in biographical detail, with a special inclination for anecdotes and aetiological explanation, to the common genealogical, chronological, and heurematic outlook. However, by the time these monographs were written a body of biographical interpretation had already conflated with local traditions, thanks to the well-known tendencies of extrapolating from poetic works biographical details, and explaining texts by details of their authors’ biographies. [14]

Literary history is very prominent in the Parian Marble, as has long been noted. [15] However, its uniqueness in this respect among ancient chronographic material has not been fully appreciated. Literary history is entirely unprecedented in ancient Mesopotamian chronicles [16] and appears in the ancient Greek chronographers sparsely. The verse chronicle of Apollodorus (FGrH 244 F 1–61), written in the second century BCE, included some intellectual history, but the extant fragments focus particularly on philosophers [17] (Diogenes Laertius, the main intermediary, may be responsible for somewhat distorting the picture). [18] Thus, reference to ancient intellectuals (poets, philosophers, historians, and orators), [19] as Diodorus’s occasional closing of a year’s account by reference to cultural figures indicates, [20] seems to characterize the Hellenistic approach to chronography. [21] And yet, the Parian Marble is extraordinary in two respects. First, it displays a high number of cultural figures and events, in relation to political and military ones. Indeed, the inscription mentions fifty-six figures and events from the cultural field (twenty-nine percent), sixty-nine from the political field (thirty-six percent), forty-eight military events (twenty-five percent) and eighteen religious events (ten percent; distribution is discussed in detail in chap. 4, sect. 2). [22]

A second outstanding feature of the Parian Marble is that cultural figures and events belong almost exclusively to the fields of poetry, music, and drama. Indeed, the majority of cultural figures mentioned are poets and musicians, thirty-one in total: [23]

Hyagnis of Phrygia	(A10)
Orpheus	(supplemented in A14)
Mousaeus	(A15)
Hesiod	(A28)
Homer	(A29)
Terpander of Lesbos	(A34)
Sappho	(A36)
Susarion	(A39)
Hipponax	(A42)
Thespis	(A43)
Hypodicus of Chalcis	(A46)
Melanippides of Melos	(A47)
Aeschylus	(A48, A50, A59)
Simonides the elder	(A49)
Euripides	(A50, A60, A63)
Stesichorus	(A50)
Simonides of Ceos	(A54, A57)
Epicharmus	(A55)
Sophocles of Colonos	(A56, A64)
Telestes of Selinus	(A65)
Aristonous	(A67, partly restored)
Polyidus of Selymbria	(A68)
Philoxenus	(A69)
Anaxandrides	(A70)
Astydamas	(A71)
Stesichorus of Himera, the second	(A73)
Timotheus	(A76)
Philemon	(B7)
Menander	(B14)
Sosiphanes I	(B15)
Sosiphanes II	(B22) [24]

In contrast, only four intellectuals from other fields are named: [25]

Socrates	(A60, A66)
Anaxagoras	(A60)
Callippus	(B6)
Aristotle	(B11)

Other ancient chronological lists contrast sharply with the Parian Marble. The following examples, representative of chronological materials on stone and papyrus and of those known through indirect transmission, will clarify the tendency of early Greek chronography to record a broader spectrum of fields but many fewer intellectuals.

Let us begin with two epigraphical testimonies, the Roman Chronicle and the Getty Table, the only instances of the count-down chronicle, examined in our treatment of the genre of the Parian Marble (chap. 3). [26]

Column B of the Roman Chronicle, covering 200 years of Greek history (from the early sixth century BCE until 385/4 BCE) in twelve entries and twenty-eight lines, mentions ten figures and events from the cultural field (forty-eight percent), five from the political field (twenty-four percent), six military events (twenty-eight percent). [27]

Cultural figures include: [28]

Anacharsis	(B, line 4)
the Wise Men	(B, line 7)
Aesop	(B, line 9)
Pythagoras	(B, line 13)
Socrates	(B, line 22)
Heraclitus	(B, line 23)
Anaxagoras	(B, line 23)
Parmenides	(B, line 24)
Zenon	(B, line 24)
Thucydides	(B, line 26)

Thus, the Roman Chronicle has a high proportion of cultural figures and events, but mostly from the field of Philosophy (seven out of ten), [29] whereas the Getty Table (II B) [30] includes an equal number of philosophers (three) and poets (three): [31]

the Wise Men	(II B, line 6 suppl.)
Chilon	(II B, line 7)
Aesop	(II B, line 9)
Simonides	(II B, line 16)
Anaximander	(II B, line 17)
Anacreon	(II B, line 21)
Ibycus	(II B, line 22)
Pythagoras	(II B, line 25)
Xenophanes	(II B, line 30)

If these two miniature chronicles were located originally in libraries (see chap. 3), perhaps the content of the book collections influenced the emphasis of each tabula.

Let us now turn to a papyrus text known as the Oxyrhynchus Chronicle (Chronicon Oxyrhynchi), [32] an Olympic victor list with historical notices covering the period 355–315 in ten Olympiads. It was written in the first half of the third century CE. Six columns of text have been preserved, approximately thirty-six lines each. In more than 200 lines, we find only three figures from the cultural realm:

Plato	(1, Olympiad 108.1)
Speusippus	(1, Olympiad 108.1)
Isocrates	(2, Olympiad 110.3)

Things are similar in the Olympic victor list compiled by Eusebius of Caesarea in the first quarter of the fourth century CE, which is the most complete of its kind (from the first to the 249th Olympiad) and has reached us through the manuscript tradition. [33] Eusebius’ list has few historical notices, among them only two references to cultural events: the first Carneian festival (26th Olympiad), an important event for ancient chronography since Hellanicus’ Carneian Victors, and Nero’s kitharodic victory (211th Olympiad).

It is only in Jerome’s Chronicle (380/381 CE) that we find a continuous ancient chronographic text where intellectual history features prominently. This Latin work is a translation of Eusebius’ Canons (Chronici Canones), completed by 325 CE. [34] The section of Jerome’s Chronicle overlapping the thirteen centuries of Greek history presented by the Parian Marble mentions 100 intellectuals (they make about twenty-five percent of Jerome’s historical notices). [35] Half of them are poets and musicians. Since an Armenian translation and a few Byzantine chronicles attest the vast majority of the references, they may well be considered as representing Eusebius’ original. Eusebius, in turn, excerpted earlier chronographic sources, both Greek and Christian, among them Alexander Polyhistor, Castor of Rhodes, Diodorus, Porphyry and Iulius Sextus Africanus; some information may have been derived from Eratosthenes and Apollodorus. [36] It is indeed difficult to determine the stage of the tradition to which Jerome’s selection of poets belongs, whether to Eusebius or any of his intermediaries or their sources. Still, albeit a late witness, Jerome’s Chronicle supports the view that cultural history was conceived as an integral part of chronography in the late antiquity. The scope, however, is broader than that of the Parian Marble. Literary history includes pre-Homeric musicians (9, with Terpander and Aristoxenus for the historical period) and epic poets (8), and we find elegy, iambos and lyric poetry (19) better represented than the dramatic genres (12). Intellectual history is prominent as well, including philosophers (25), law-givers (3), sages (5), historians (6), sophists (4), orators (2), scientists (3). Even a painter and a sculptor are not missing.

As this brief survey indicates, the Parian Marble is rather idiosyncratic among ancient Greek chronographic materials. While Olympic victor lists, the best represented genre of ancient chronography, contain but few references to cultural figures, they feature prominently in the known examples of the count-down chronicle. Even if the use of cultural figures is typically Hellenistic, as Wiseman suggested, and as the much later Chronicle of Jerome may perhaps imply, the unusual prominence of poets and musicians in the Parian Marble suggests that literary history is essential to the text’s original intent. An additional feature of the inscription further supports this claim.

As we have seen, by virtue of their synchronization with other people and events, poets and musicians often function as chronological milestones. However, in a number of entries (thirty percent, twelve out of thirty-seven entries) there is no correlation between poets and musicians and other people or events. Such is the case of Terpander (A34), the victories of Melanippides (A47), Telestes (A65), Aristonous? (A67), Polyidus (A68), and Anaxandrides (A70 suppl.); similarly, with the death of Aeschylus (A59), Euripides (A63), Philoxenus (A69), Timotheus (A76), Sosiphanes I (B15), and Sosiphanes II (B22). The references are unnecessary from a pure chronographic point of view, for they add no relevant intervals nor create synchronies. Were they absent, no significant gap would be noticed. Hence, the dating of poets in those cases is an end in itself. Most of the superfluous references are artists of the so-called New Music (Melanippides, Telestes, Polyidus, Philoxenus, Timotheus, and possibly Aristonous) and post-classical dramatists (Anaxandrides, Sosiphanes I and II), which reveals a special interest in contemporary performance poetry. If the Parian Marble was located in the Archilocheion (see chap. 1, sect 5 above), it may have promoted the performance of current poetry along with Archilochus’s poems.

In sum, the high incidence of poets and musicians on the Parian Marble, many of them inconsequential from a purely chronographic point of view, strongly supports the notion that embedding literary history in panhellenic history was a main purpose of the inscription. Although information was culled from a number of sources, the emphasis on poets is probably a tendency of the author. The rest of this chapter will be devoted to examining the methods by which this purpose was achieved, in the context of the ancient Greek traditions of literary history.

What kind of information about poets and musicians does the Parian Marble offer? At first sight, it seems biographical. We read about poets’ births and deaths, travels and exiles and, most of all, victories. But perhaps this perception results from our own tendency to use the Parian Marble as a repository of biographical data. Yet, the value of such data depends on the sources of information used and on the methods by which it was obtained. [37] For the sake of the argument, I propose to distinguish four major tendencies, though things may be less clear cut than the following classification suggests.

I. Biographical/Chronographic Information

II. Bibliographical Information:

III. Heurematic Information:

IV. Agonistic Information:

Details regarding birth, death, travels, and military service may seem to have a documentary basis. However, much biographical information derives from traditional modalities of thought or stems from the application of techniques for chronological computation, one of which is the building of genealogies.

A pervading modality for making literary history, perhaps one of the earliest, is tracing the ancestry of poets and musicians. Indeed, genealogies of poets are a recurrent topic among the fragmentary historians. [38] Such genealogies may well reflect the concerns of later biographers, from whom information was actually received. Still, for some ancient historians such as Hellanicus, genealogy was part of their general approach to the past. [39] Genealogical thinking was predominantly used in the biographies of Homer and Hesiod, whom Hellanicus, Pherecydes, and Damastes asserted descended from Orpheus (and Mousaeus), [40] noting a span of ten generations between them. However, whether the 492 years between Orpheus and Homer in the Parian Marble involve some genealogical computation is unclear. [41] Thus, it remains uncertain whether the Parian Marble endorses Hesiod’s and Homer’s descent from Orpheus.

The dating of Orpheus (A14) and Mousaeus (A15) is rather unusual, when compared to other ancient testimonies. From the sixth century BCE on Orpheus was linked to the Argonauts. [42] Hence, he would have been active one generation before the Trojan War. [43] The Parian Marble, however, locates Orpheus and Mousaeus much earlier, [44] reflecting a view most probably promoted by Eleusis and received through Athenian historiographical sources (I shall return to this point in section 2.II of this chapter). Mentioning one after the other suggests a father and son genealogical link. [45] Thus, notwithstanding textual difficulties, genealogical thinking may lay behind the Parian Marble’s reference to Orpheus and Mousaeus.

Why is this important? One could argue that genealogies have mere antiquarian interest. However, as studies in oral history suggest, genealogies were remembered, even partly invented, because they were useful. [46] As genealogies of kings or families supported claims to land ownership, to rights and power, genealogies of poets and musicians may have been disseminated at local sanctuaries, as well as by musical performers and rhapsodes, such as the Homeridai and the Lesbian kitharodes, who claimed descent from Homer and Terpander. [47] Furthermore, genealogies may provide a glimpse into the professional training of rhapsodes and musicians, who may have received it from their fathers or other male relatives. [48]

Genealogies of poets, often modulated by local or professional patriotism, may also have a historiographical role. Through genealogies literary development can be seen diachronically, at a supra-individual level. The claim that Homer and Hesiod come from the same family and are descendants of Orpheus or Mousaeus perhaps attempts to account for the transmission of creative talent. Similarly with claims that Terpander descended from Homer or Hesiod (Suda s.v.) [49] and Stesichorus from Hesiod (Philochorus FGrH 329 F 213, a Locrian tradition). [50] Thus, genealogies afford quasi-genetic explanations of poetic history by applying a biological metaphor (with some historical basis on the professional training of poets and musicians) to cultural development. It may not be surprising that ancient and modern scholars alike resort to duplicating poets when faced with difficulties in their biographies, not only as homonymous but also as biologically related. [51] The notion that poetic creativity “runs in the family” underlies the mention of Simonides and his otherwise unknown grandfather (A49). [52] The inconsistency between Sosiphanes’ death at B15 and his reappearance at B22, if not a cutter’s mistake, suggests two poets of the same name, construed by some scholars as father and son. [53]

If genealogical thinking is a possible background of some references to poets and musicians in the Parian Marble, relative chronology is more pervasive. Indeed, any historical pursuit requires a systematic structure of time. Historical explanations, whatever form they take, require temporal scenarios. Literary history is no exception. Locating poets in a chronological grid has implications that go beyond the individual biographies of poets. Indeed, statements on influence, imitation, and parody make no sense unless set against a definite chronology. In ancient Greece, literary history had a peculiar connection to chronology. Backed up by poetic texts that were orally transmitted and widely known, as well as by living musical traditions, authors became milestones in the creation of general chronology. [54] The most outstanding examples of synchronism between poets and other people or events are found in Herodotus, whose references to almost all the poets appear synchronized: Archilochus and Gyges (1.12.2), Arion and Periander (1.23), Homer and Hesiod (2.53). [55]

Relative chronology is the backbone of literary history in the Parian Marble too. As we have seen, most entries mentioning poets synchronize them with other people or events (seventy percent). In the cases of Hipponax (A42) and Epicharmus (A55), the technique is made explicit through the expression κατὰ τοῦτον, synchronizing Hipponax with Cyrus’s conquest of Sardis and Epicharmus with Hieron’s seizing power in Syracuse. The fact that both references appear as postscripts suggests that they were added at a later stage of the chronicle’s composition, a testimony to the high consideration poetic matters entertained. [56] Those synchronies, however, do not offer precise dating, but rather a general contemporaneity, probably referring to the period of creative peak, the acme (also known by the Latin floruit, “flourished”), set at the age of 40 by Apollodorus, possibly by Aristoxenus before him. [57]

In a system that dates poets by synchrony and intervals, controversies over antedating one or another, Hesiod or Homer, Archilochus or Terpander, had potential implications for the entire chronological scheme. [58] The relative positioning of poets also played a historiographical role. It often reveals a hierarchic view of cultural production, where “earlier” carries the added value of “better” or more authoritative. [59] Similar values may be attached to the genres that poets represented. [60] Such controversies, however, are absent from the Parian Marble, which records single views on dating, as suits its genre and purpose. [61]

The most famous controversy regarding the relative dating of poets involved Homer and Hesiod. The Parian Marble positions Hesiod one entry before Homer (between thirty-eight or thirty seven and thirty years earlier), possibly following Ephorus, [62] which is consistent with the Contest of Homer and Hesiod (45), where Homer is a younger contemporary of Hesiod. [63] Beyond the relative positioning of the poets (relative to each other, as well as to other events, such as the Trojan War, the Ionian migration, etc.), the Parian Marble does not offer specific biographical information. The verb used for Homer and supplied for Hesiod is ἐφάνη, “appeared.” [64] It does not mean “came into being” or “was born,” for which the inscription consistently uses ἐγένετο. [65] The “appearance” of Homer and Hesiod may point more generally to their creative peak or acme. [66]

The Parian Marble perhaps transmitted one side of the controversy regarding the relative chronology of Archilochus and Terpander. Supplementing Archilochus in A33, as Baumgarten suggests, would make him earlier than Terpander, in accord with Phainias of Eresos (FGrH 4 F 85b) and Glaucus of Rhegium (ap. [Plutarch] On Music 1132e). [67] Terpander, however, was considered later than Archilochus by Alexander Polyhistor (FGrH 273 = [Plutarch] On Music 1133a), and perhaps by Hellanicus too. [68] In either case, relative dating would result from synchrony with other events not mentioned in the inscription. Alternatively, it may stem from a view on the development or importance of the genres that Archilochus and Terpander represent, iambos and kitharody, [69] if not simply an instance of local patriotism. If Baumgarten’s restoration of A33 is accepted, both Archilochus and Terpander would each occupy an entry of his own, which would indicate that they are dated for their own sake. That the Parian Marble mentioned Archilochus seems very plausible, due to the central role of Archilochus in ancient Greek chronography and the location of the inscription on his native Paros; A33 is the only suitable entry for supplementing his name. However, such considerations should not influence the constitution of the text. [70] Hence, the Parian Marble’s position on the relative dating of Terpander vis à vis Archilochus remains uncertain.

Some of the information in the Parian Marble on the travels and deaths of poets seems to derive from biographical traditions. Sappho’s travel or exile to Sicily (A36), not known from other sources, [71] is treated as factual by most biographers. [72] At any rate, information about a statue of her in Syracuse (Cicero Verres 1.4.1257), as well as the lack of local traditions regarding her death, suggest a death away from Lesbos. [73] As for the reference to Aeschylus’ fighting at Marathon (A48), an event registered in his funerary epigram, it was probably transmitted in connection to the date of death, although the ultimate source could be Aeschylus’ own poetry. Other dates of birth seem to result from chronological computation, of the author or his sources. Indeed, ancient chronographers often calculated birth backward, departing from the acme, or taking into account a generation interval from a figure considered older. The synchronism of Euripides’ birth with Aeschylus’ first victory (A50) raises suspicion that Euripides’ year of birth is reached by a combination of backwards computation from Euripides’ first victory (understood as acme) with the acme of Aeschylus. [74] In the same entry, Euripides’ birth and Aeschylus’ first victory are synchronized with Stesichorus’ arrival in Greece. Although the date is too late, [75] information may derive from a tradition developed from an actual visit of Stesichorus to the Peloponnese, as argued by Bowra. [76]

The treatment of the thinking and techniques behind the dating of seemingly biographical events reveals many insights into the historiography of poetry and music, but offers little of factual weight. The travels of Sappho and Stesichorus may reflect local traditions, but information on the early poets (Hyagnis, Orpheus, Mousaeus, Hesiod, and Homer) points towards scholarly views on their relative chronology (relative to other poets and other events). However, it seems that most references to the deaths of fifth- and fourth-century BCE poets (Simonides, A57; Aeschylus, A59; Euripides, A63; Sophocles, A64; Philoxenus, A69; Timotheus, A76; and possibly Sosiphanes I, B15) may have had some literary basis. [77] Indeed, year of death has a better chance of being remembered, recorded, and transmitted than year of birth. References to the years when poets died were probably used, along with dates of first victories, for the computation of some of the information regarding age at the time of death, as well as the year of birth (in the case of Euripides, A50).

In my treatment of time in the Parian Marble (chap. 5), I suggested that the fall of Troy marks the beginning of the tempus historicum (A24, 1209/8 BCE). Before that, the inscription mentions three figures related to music and poetry, namely Hyagnis, the restored Orpheus, and Mousaeus (A10, A14 suppl., A15). How was their status understood by the author and his audience? Contemporary reference works regard them as mythical figures, but for many ancient audiences and scholars they were historical; they actually existed in the past. [78] As we have seen, some early historians placed Orpheus, [79] as well as Mousaeus, [80] in the genealogies of Homer and Hesiod, and they were often set at the very beginning of musical history. [81] We shall expand later in this chapter on the role of Hyagnis as inventor of the aulos. As for Orpheus, he was often held to be the inventor of the lyre and the hexameter, as well as the first kitharode. [82] Furthermore, hymns circulated under Orpheus’ name, and oracles under Mousaeus’. [83] The distinction we drew in chapter 5 between ontology and epistemology will be of help here. Thus, rather than mythical figures that may have never existed, it may be better to characterize Hyagnis, Orpheus, and Mousaeus as proto-historical poets and musicians, that is, figures about whom already in antiquity knowledge was known to be obscure.

It is therefore surprising that two of the proto-historical poets and musicians, Orpheus and Mousaeus (A14 suppl., A15), are not treated as first inventors, while Hyagnis is (that heuremata may have been mentioned in the lacunae in both entries cannot be ruled out). Instead, we have references to the publication of their work. [84] As for Orpheus, there is information about specific poems, their content, and even their titles, and similar information may have been given for Mousaeus’ poetry in the lost parts of A15.

Three entries in the extant inscription allude to the dissemination of knowledge: the references to the poetry of Orpheus and Mousaeus, and to Callippus’ Astrology (πο⟨ί⟩ησιν ἐξέθηκε, A14; ποιήσ[ει]ς ἐξέθηκ[εν, A15; ἀστρολογίαν ἐξέθηκεν, B6). Since ancient astronomical records indicate the summer solstice of 330 BCE as the beginning of the first Callippean year, [85] the Astrology may have consisted in Callippus’ computations of the solar year. This was consequential for ancient professional chronography. What could be the rationale behind the reference to the publication of poetic texts by Orpheus and Eumolpus?

The status and date of Orpheus and Mousaeus were disputed in antiquity. Herodotus (2.53) participates in an ongoing polemic when he rejects the possibility of other poets (probably implying Orpheus and Mousaeus) preceding Homer and Hesiod. [86] While the figure of Mousaeus emerged with the Eleusinian cult, ancient sources from the sixth century BCE on connected Orpheus with the Argonauts—that is, one generation before the Trojan War. Such chronology does not appear in the Parian Marble, where Orpheus is dated 190 years before the fall of Troy. Instead, the Parian Marble places Orpheus, along with Mousaeus, at the beginnings of the Eleusinian cult, a connection attested in our sources from the fifth and fourth centuries BCE. [87] The unusual reference to the publication of Orpheus’s works may be a residue of polemics regarding his date and, perhaps too, regarding the identity of the first Greek poet, which is resolved through an Attic and Eleusinian point of view. The Parian Marble’s author was probably following a written source, perhaps the work of one of the Atthidographers, as Jacoby suggests (cf. Philochorus FGrH 328 F 77). Such a source may have supported the historicity and antiquity of Orpheus and Mousaeus precisely by appealing to oral or written evidence—namely, to their poetry.

The search for first inventors, protoi heuretai, is characteristic of ancient Greek thought on creativity and change. [88] Naming individuals as discoverers helps to visualize origins (archai) and causes (aitiai). Heuremata offer concrete answers to difficult questions: how did cultural products come into being? How did they develop? In the history of mousike, first inventors usually help to account for the origins of musical instruments and the emergence of genres of poetry and song.

On the historiographical role of heuremata, the second-century treatise On Music attributed to Plutarch is illuminating. We learn that discussion of first inventors was a desideratum in historical accounts of mousike. [89] An example clarifies the abstract tenet: Olympus skipped a note while playing the kithara in the diatonic genus and thus invented the enharmonic genre almost by mistake, [90] an extraordinary scene of a musician at work. Heuremata, then, are innovations or even contributions that introduce something new into preexisting forms. As a speaker of the dialogue puts it, music grows through inventions. [91] Another clear example appears in a passage from Proclus’s Chrestomathia, where the definition of nomos involves a step-by-step account from Terpander to the New Music. [92] Thus, innovations and contributions were often construed as chains of development. [93] Time and again, heuremata are far from simple ex nihilo creation, but rather help pinpoint stages in cultural processes.

Controversies about protoi heuretai were common not only within literary and musical history, as in On Music, but also among historians, as ancient sources on the origins of dithyramb indicate. [94] Even Pliny’s later catalogue of inventions records contesting opinions (Natural History 7.191–215). In contrast, the simple matching of inventors and inventions, apparent in Clement’s Stromata (1.74–80) is probably characteristic of the didactic use of heuremata.

The history of cultural inventions features prominently in the earliest part of the Parian Marble. [95] In some cases the inscription uses the language of invention (εὗρειν), in others heuremata are conveyed by the adverb “first,” or supported by tradition. [96] Heuremata include:

Hypodicus choruses of men A46 implied Athens Half of the heuremata in the Parian Marble regard two major themes in the history of mousike: the development of music, with Hyagnis and Terpander, and the emergence of Attic institutionalized choral and dramatic competition, with Susarion, Thespis, and Hypodicus. Let us first look into the two entries on musical history.

The Parian Marble attributes to Hyagnis (A10) the invention of auloi and certain auletic nomoi. The Phrygian nature of the invention is emphasized (the adjective Phrygian appearing three times), as well as the cultic link to the Mother of the gods, Dionysus, and Pan. Terpander (A34), in contrast, is described by details such as patronymic and city of origins (“Terpander son of Derdenes, the Lesbian”). His entry does not speak about beginnings but about change (“changed the music of old”). He belongs to a step-by-step account, comparable to those we mentioned before. Could the Parian Marble’s source have construed both Hyagnis and Terpander, even though separated by more than 800 years, as stages in a single process? Apparently not. Hyagnis invented the aulos and auletic nomoi, whereas Terpander belongs to the history of the kithara and kithara playing. The Parian Marble, however, includes the word “auletic” in Terpander’s entry (τοὺς νόμους τοὺ[ς κιθ]α[ρ]ω ι ̣δ̣[ικ]οὺς καὶ αὐλητ[ικ), which was deleted by Wilamowitz, Hiller von Gärtringen, and Jacoby. Nonetheless, as Kivilo points out, two nomoi attributed to Terpander, the Apothetos and the Schoinion, were auletic. [98] The Parian Marble may well reflect a marginal tradition where Terpander made contributions to aulos music. [99] Furthermore, if A14 included a now lost reference to Orpheus’ contribution to kithara music, Terpander could have represented a step in the development of both branches, kitharistic and auletic.

Unlike Terpander, [100] Hyagnis is rather marginal in the history of ancient Greek music. [101] For the invention of the auloi and auletic nomoi, other figures are usually named, such as the Phrygian Olympus and Marsyas, as well as Clonas, [102] Ardalus of Troezen, [103] or Athena and Apollo. [104] These various protoi heuretai probably reflect regional traditions of musical history, as well as local patriotism. [105] The Phrygian branch of this tradition will eventually connect Hyagnis, Marsyas, and Olympus by genealogy or diadoche. [106] In its characteristic uncontroversial style, the Parian Marble’s author follows a single tradition, known also from Aristoxenus, [107] Alexander Polyhistor, [108] and [Plutarch] On Music. [109] But most points of contact are found in an epigram of the late third-century BCE poet Dioscorides of Nicopolis: Noting that the epigram mentions Hyagnis’s invention of the auloi in connection to the epiphany of the Mother of the gods on Cybele, Reizenstein concluded that Dioscorides and the Parian Marble must have used a similar source, the lost work Peplos, [111] attributed to Aristotle. [112] Let us briefly consider the nature of that book.

The Peplos was a miscellaneous work written in both prose and verse. It dealt with topics relating to the Trojan War: genealogies of commanders, the number of ships, including epigrams about them. [113] The scholiast to Aristides gives a list of ancient contests that derive from Aristotle’s Peplos. [114] The list includes the order in which ten contests were founded and the occasion for their foundation. Wendling (1891) made a compelling case for the work’s inclusion of a catalogue of inventions too. Thus, the Peplos seems to share with the Parian Marble an interest in genealogy, heuremata, and agonistic institutions. Authorship has been a matter of dispute. Only late writers, such as Porphyry, Eustathius, and Tzetzes, attributed the Peplos to Aristotle. Others attributed it to Theophrastus. [115] If the testimony of the scholiast to Aristides is given proper weight, the Peplos would be in tune with Aristotle’s and his school’s active role in recording agonistic information. [116] But considering the scanty evidence, it may be enough to conclude with Gutzwiller that the Peplos reflects peripatetic methods. [117]

Back to Hyagnis, the fact that both the Parian Marble and Dioscorides mention Hyagnis as protos heuretes of the auloi and do so in connection to the cult of Cybele suggests the use of a common source, perhaps a work of peripatetic orientation, such as the Peplos seems to have been. [118] A further point of contact will be apparent soon, as we discuss Thespis.

Let us now examine the entries on the emergence of Attic institutionalized choral and dramatic competitions. The Parian Marble mentions comedy first (A39), then a production by Thespis, i.e. tragedy (A43), and finally choruses of men (A46). As we shall see in the next section, these entries differ from agonistic references in their lack of formulaic language, which suggests a narrative source. They also differ from references to the foundation of festivals (Eleusis, Lycaea [?], Isthmia, Nemea, and Delphi) with the emphasis on individuals. Thespis, Susarion, and Hypodicus, however, are far from obvious choices for the origins of Athenian comedy and choral performances.

The entry on comedy (A39), though faulty at a crucial point (“a [cho]r[os] of komo[idoi] was [esta]blished in Ath[en]s,” ἐν Ἀθ[ήν]αις κωμω[ιδῶν χο]ρ[ὸς ἐτ]έθη), seems to have been plausibly restored. The first competition is thus set in Athens between 582/1 and 561/0 BCE (archon’s name and number of years are lost), that is, before comedy victor lists started to be kept and well before democracy (which the inscription sets fifty years later, A45). The Attic demos of Icarium appears as the first to have staged the competition [στε]σάν|[των πρώ]των Ἰκαριέων. Susarion, though clearly conceived as an inventor, is an otherwise obscure figure, mentioned only by late sources. [119] The prize recorded is a basket of dried figs and a measure of wine. We shall soon return to this prize, but at this point it is important to note the qualification “at first,” implying that prizes were later changed (not “the first prize,” in contrast to other prizes in the same competition). [120]

Scholars have found it difficult to reconcile this portion of the Parian Marble with other literary and visual evidence on the origins of comedy, often dismissing the entry as too early and as making too unusual claims, or taking it as evidence for precursors of the Athenian competitive genre. For our purpose, it is important to note that this entry reflects a tradition on the origins of comedy as a competition first held by the demos Icarium, possibly in a Dionysiac context (as the prizes suggest), before the establishment of democracy and before tragedy.

The entry on tragedy (A43) locates Thespis’ first production [121] between 540 and 520 BCE. It is not clear, however, whether the first production was conceived as invention or as a step in the consolidation of tragedy. The entry in its faulty state displays no generic term (though Boeckh suggested δ ̣ρ ̣ᾶμ[α), but the reference to tragedy is clear. Unlike Susarion, Thespis is a more tangible figure in the literary record, [122] and although the inscription does not mention his hometown, tradition has him as Icarian. The prize established, a goat, has a long history in modern attempts to understand the origins of tragedy, linking the “goat song” to the performers or the prize offered, [123] or as a residue of the ritual context. [124] Whatever the realia behind the text, the Parian Marble here reflects a tradition that located this type of dramatic competition before the establishment of democracy.

The entries on Susarion and Thespis have much in common. They both refer to a stage prior to the documented competitions, usually believed to have emerged after democracy. Furthermore, the Parian Marble seems to follow a theory, which originated in Attica and is later attested, for example, by Athenaeus, that comedy preceded tragedy. [125] Furthermore, both genres would have had a common origin in the demos of Icarium. [126] Clues to the whereabouts of such a theory may be found in the tradition regarding the prizes of early comedy and tragedy. The prizes of figs and wine for comedy and a goat for tragedy are suitable to a Dionysiac context, though the connection may be aetiological. [127] Such prizes, which rarely appear in our sources, emerge in an epigram by Dioscorides on Thespis: In this epigram, Thespis asserts his invention of the tragic song, referring to a festival to Bacchus including a goat (tragedy) and a basket of figs (comedy) as prizes (later changed, cf. ἔτι, line 4). The same prizes are mentioned by Plutarch in a description of a Dionysiac procession (Moralia 527d). [129] Jacoby suggested Attic historiographical writings as a source for the dramatic heuremata. [130] Reitzeinstein, however, noting the similarities between the Parian Marble and Dioscorides’ epigram on Thespis, suggested, as he also did with Hyagnis, that Dioscorides and our chronicle used the same source, namely, the Peplos. [131] It is possible that the Peplos or a similar miscellaneous work of Athenian origins and peripatetic inspiration acted as intermediary.

About Hypodicus of Chalcis (A46; Sutton 3, Ierano T 91) there is little to remark. He is a real hapax in the history of choral performance. [132] Although the choruses of men are usually understood as a reference to dithyramb, this need not be so. [133] The term may well refer to the category of competition also termed “cyclic choruses,” only partly overlapping with the genre of dithyramb. [134] From the reference to choruses of men, some scholars made a misguided inference that choruses of boys were active beforehand. The qualification, however, may equally derive from viewing the past from a period in which there were competitions for choruses of both men and boys. Still, Hypodicus rightly deserves a place in accounts of the early dithyramb, as possibly reflecting Euboean choral traditions, [135] although his date may be too early. [136] Since the entry before Hypodicus mentions the end of Pisistratus’s rule, it has been suggested that the Parian Marble refers to the first choral competition of this sort that was held under the democracy. [137]

The information we find in the Parian Marble regarding the earliest competitive performances of comedy, tragedy, and choruses of men is unorthodox, and the dates are nowadays suspected as guesswork. [138] Some of the unusual details, however, appear in Dioscorides, who also coincides with the Parian Marble on much of the information given for Hyagnis. Dioscorides had a remarkable interest in the history of poets and musicians. [139] Could the reference to the first competition of choruses of men, won by Hypodicus, also derive from the common source of Dioscorides and the Parian Marble?

The musical heuremata mentioned early in the Parian Marble regard developments outside Attica (Phrygia with Hyagnis, A10, Lesbos or perhaps Sparta with Terpander, A34). In contrast, the heuremata relating to institutionalized competition are located in Attica, deriving probably from a source tainted, as many ancient discussion on the origins of poetry, by local patriotism. [140] From that point on, with the sole exception of Epicharmus (A55), the inscription remains focused on Athens.

The epigraphical record was a major source for literary history in antiquity no less than today. [141] Indeed, a great number of agonistic inscriptions (lists of winners and prizes, dedications, etc.) outline a history without narrative. [142] But extant official inscriptions, such as the Athenian Fasti and Didascaliae, are only part of what must have been a broader record kept in archives of cities and sanctuaries. [143] From the fifth century BCE on, scholars combined archival materials, inscriptional evidence, and oral traditions in works that established the dates of poets, anchoring them in the general chronological setup. Hellanicus has been held as the founder of literary history [144] precisely because his Carneian Victors, a list of winners at the Carnean Games, provided a chronographic grid, essential to historical research on poetry. [145] Aristotle continued the tradition of research into competitive public performances (Pythian Victories, Dionysiac Victories, and Didascaliae), [146] as did his school (e.g. Dicaearchus’ On Musical Contests) and perhaps Callimachus too (the lost On Contests, fr. 403 Pf.). Thus, the agonistic record in its literary or epigraphical form had a strong impact on ancient Greek literary history, making poetic victories the most widely attested literary event. [147]

This tendency is reflected in the Parian Marble, too. Indeed, fifteen out of thirty-one poets and musicians are mentioned in relation to victories at Athens. Most entries dealing with literary history from 510/508 BCE on (nineteen out of twenty-five entries, seventy-six percent) record poetic victories (see Table 5 in Chapter 4, section 2). Five of them are not synchronized with other events, which points to their intrinsic importance.

Agonistic information appears in the Parian Marble in rather formulaic terms, with the past verb “won” (ἐνίκησε/ν) and a qualification regarding contest or simply “in Athens.” As we have seen above, references to Susarion, Thespis, and Hypodicus do not share this formula, which suggests that they derive from narrative sources and were, for that reason, discussed among heuremata.

Half of the agonistic entries in the Parian Marble include information about specific contests. In four instances, the category of competition is indicated in the dative case, namely tragedy (τραγωιδίαι, Aeschylus at A50, Sophocles A56, Euripides A60) and dithyramb (διθυράμβωι, Polyidus A68). In four cases, the category of competition may be inferred from the qualification ὁ κωμοιδοποιός (Philemon B7, Menander B14, Anaxandrides A70: ὁ κωμο̣[ ) and διθυραμβοποιός (Philoxenus A69). [148] However, the following victories are given without reference to the category in which they were achieved:

Melanippides of Melos (61 Sutton, T 93a Ierano) is probably the New Music poet admired by Xenophon (Memorabilia 1.4.3). [149] His victory is most likely a dithyrambic one. The elder Simonides (7 Sutton, T 93b Ierano) of A49 is not attested elsewhere. He may be an older relative [150] of the famous Simonides of Ceos, easily identified in A54 by patronymic, birthplace, and the invention of mnemotechnics. The latter is also recorded as winning as didaskalos; thus, this was a choral competitive performance, most probably in the category of cyclic choruses. Telestes of Selinus (36 Sutton, T 78 Ierano) is known as a dithyrambic poet [151] and also as a musical innovator. [152] His victory could be dithyrambic, as well as kitharodic. Aristonous, [153] probably the famous kitharode who, according to Plutarch, won six times at Delphi (Life of Lysander 18.5), [154] may be the same Aristonous of Corinth whose hymns to Hestia and Apollo were inscribed on the Athenian treasury at Delphi and which are probably to be connected to the New Music. [155] The victory recorded in the Parian Marble is most probably a kitharodic one, perhaps achieved at the Panathenaea. [156] Two tragic poets named Astydamas are known in the fourth century, father and son (Suda A 4264, 4265); the reference in A71 is probably to the younger (TrGF 60). [157] Of Stesichorus the second nothing is known but the victory noted by the Parian Marble. In sum, the seven victories qualified as having taking place “in Athens” range from dithyrambic and kitharodic to tragic. Incidentally, three of these victories occupy an entry on their own: Melanippides (A47), Telestes (A65), and Aristonous (A67), all related to the so-called New Music.

In all probability, victories mentioned in the Parian Marble, even if not always qualified as “first,” were at the time considered to be the first ones ever achieved by the poets, or the first at a given contest. [158] The inscription, however, makes no reference to specific festivals. For the dramatic and dithyrambic poets we may assume that it was the City Dionysia to which chronographers usually refer. If Aristonous’s victory was indeed achieved at the Great Panathenaea, perhaps information may derive in this case from a Panathenaic victor list.

The Parian Marble is inconsistent in the range of agonistic information it offers, notwithstanding the formulaic language. Categories of competition are explicit sometimes, as with Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides (“in tragedy”) and Polyidus (“in dithyramb”). Sometimes a qualification of the poet clarifies the type of competition, as with Philemon, Menander, and Anaxandrides (komoidopoios), as well as Philoxenus (dithyrambopoios). However, the victories of a few poets are generally qualified as achieved “in Athens” (Melanippides, Simonides the elder and the younger, Telestes, Aristonous, Astydamas, and Stesichorus the second). These three modalities in the agonistic references may ultimately derive from different sources. It is striking that no information on the festivals in which victories were achieved appears, nor any reference to choregoi or tribes for the dithyramb (apart from the qualification of Simonides as didaskalos). Such omissions of common didascalic information may indicate that none was available, perhaps because lists were used indirectly. Alternatively, information about specific festivals may have been deemed unimportant outside Athens. Indeed, the specification that ten poets won their victories “in Athens” [159] makes better sense if the chronicle was composed for a non-Athenian audience.

The Parian Marble shows that agonistic documentation was probably the most visible manifestation of literary history within ancient Greek communities, both in the official memory maintained by public records and in the scholarly approach to the biographies of poets. From the end of the sixth century BCE, entries provide information almost exclusively on poetic victories, thus reflecting the cultural conditions of production of musical and poetic works and their consumption in classical Athens, as well as the construction of a history based upon them. In its emphasis on being first, implied both by poetic victories and heuremata, the Parian Marble reflects the general perception of literary history as a scene of competition.

To conclude this chapter, a rather pragmatic question is in order. Can a literary historian trust, and to what extent, the dates transmitted by the Parian Marble? Most information regarding victories and deaths of poets seems to rest on solid traditions, written or oral. The dates are not necessarily right, but they do not appear to result from techniques of chronological computation, genealogical thinking, or synchronization. Not, perhaps, to be trusted are the dates before the fifth century BCE, including early heuremata, as well as the origins of choral and dramatic competitions. The real value of the Parian Marble, therefore, lies in the possible implications of its idiosyncratic choice of poets and events more than in their chronology.

The objective style of the inscription may seem to convey objective data, but literary history in the Parian Marble is intentional, not less than general history is (see chap. 4, sect. 5). [160] Beginning as a record of pan-Hellenic achievement, with Hyagnis, Orpheus, Mousaeus, Homer, Hesiod, Terpander, Sappho, and Hipponax, the chronicle limits its scope to Attica and Athens. If general history appears to stream centrifugally from Athens towards East and West, literary history seems to be drawn centripetally towards Athens. That author and audience may have construed such an Athenocentric view on the development of poetry as teleological would be an interesting, though speculative, suggestion.

Limitation of scope is not only geographical. The extant inscription dispenses with orators and historians. Among philosophers, Socrates, Anaxagoras, and Aristotle are mentioned, but not Plato. [161] As for poetry, comparison with the so-called canonical authors is illuminating. [162] For epic poetry only the indisputable Homer and Hesiod are mentioned, not Antimachus, Panyassis, or Pisander. Iambic poetry is represented by Hipponax, but elegy is absent. [163] Lyric poetry features Sappho, Simonides, and Stesichorus, but the dithyramb seems to dominate, [164] and if Alcaeus [165] and Pindar are missing, the New Music is well represented, with Melanippides, Telestes, Polyidus, Philoxenus, Timotheus, and possibly Aristonous too. [166] Susarion and Epicharmus denote Comedy. Aristophanes is most conspicuously missing in the extant text, but New Comedy is represented or instantiated by at least three poets: Anaxandrides, Philemon, and Menander. Tragedy includes not only the triad of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, but also the “modern” Astydamas, Sosiphanes I, and Sosiphanes II. In sum, the Parian Marble most clearly favors the competitive genres performed at Athenian festivals: tragedy, comedy, and dithyramb. Such an institutional approach to literary history, partly depending on the sources available, may explain why minor poetic genres were for the most part disregarded. [167]

The question whether the selection of poets and their distribution belongs to the author or his sources is difficult to gauge. The Parian Marble was composed within a tradition in which poets functioned as chronographic milestones, especially figures that could be synchronized with major historical events, such as Homer with the Trojan War. A great amount of information became available with the Athenian agonistic records of the fifth and fourth centuries precisely for the competitive genres of classical Athens. Research on the lives of poets by Glaucus of Rhegium and others surely provided materials for the biography of poets, including inventions and first victories. Similarities with Dioscorides suggest the Peplos or other similar works as possible intermediate sources in those realms. However, beyond the availability of information for literary history, many of the poets are chronographically unnecessary and were mentioned for their own sake, which may be an indication of authorial purpose. Similarly, the intriguing list of poets may be interpreted as the result of the author’s choice. Indeed, it is striking that twelve poets are mentioned after the death of Euripides (A63) and Sophocles (A64). The number of poets is significantly smaller in the Parian fragment (B), which mentions only Philemon (B7), Menander (B14), Sosiphanes I (B15), and Sosiphanes II (B22). This may be due to the general change in focus to other parts of the Mediterranean (chap. 4, sect. 4), to the political demise of Athens, to the lack of appropriate sources for poetic victories in more recent periods, or to a combination of any of these factors. Still, a third of the poets and musicians mentioned in the Parian Marble are representatives of the late fourth-century poetry, [168] New Music, New Comedy, and perhaps New Tragedy, as well. In this sense, the Parian Marble’s outlook differs utterly from the ancient lists of best authors developed in Hellenistic Alexandria. [169] These are much better reflected in the late antique Chronicle of Jerome (and its Greek original, the Canons of Eusebius) where we find fewer fifth-century dramatists than iambic, elegiac and lyric poets, and no fourth-century poets at all (see n. 35 above). The Parian Marble’s alternative canon of poets, to use a somewhat provocative term, seems to have developed separately, combining chronographic traditions and techniques and available scholarly works with a taste for contemporary performance poetry. Such independence is consistent with the idiosyncratic count-down of years, the lack of chronographic sophistication, and perhaps also with the avoidance of papyrus format in the layout of the inscription. [170] Whether the Parian Marble’s stance regarding literary history was unique remains a question for further investigation. However, if the chronicle was conceived for display and consultation at a site for literary activities such as the Archilocheion (chap. 1, sect. 5 above), didactic concerns may have played a role in the selection of authors. Thus, along with the major events of panhellenic history and the classical poets, late fourth-century poetry appears to have been part of the knowledge expected from an educated man, perhaps even worthy of study, collection, and re-performance.