¹ Suda θ 138 Adler = TrGF i 72 T 1 = FGrHist 115 T 6a.

² Even just among Theodectas’ fellow fourth-century tragedians, the Suda contains a large number of errors, labelling Chaeremon a ‘comic poet’ (κωμικός, Suda χ 170 Adler = TrGF i 71 T 1 with Bartsch, H., De Chaeremone poeta tragico [Mainz, 1843], 11–17Google Scholar) and assigning Carcinus II one victory rather than the twelve (eleven Dionysian, one Lenaean) attested in inscriptional records (IG ii² 2325 Ia col. III.9, SEG XXVI 203 col. I.11 = TrGF i 70 T 2; Suda κ 394 Adler = TrGF i 70 T 1 with Köhler, U., ‘Die von Herrn Bohn auf der Akropolis gefundenen Inschriften’, MDAI(A) 5 [1880], 317–30, at 326Google Scholar). The Suda also describes how Astydamas I was a pupil of Isocrates before becoming a tragedian (α 4264 Adler = TrGF i 59 T 1), impossible since this Astydamas debuted in 398 b.c., whereas Isocrates was not a professional educator until the 390s b.c. Instead, this information should be assigned to Astydamas’ homonymous son, also a tragedian and the subject of the next entry (α 4265 Adler = TrGF i 60 T 1, thus Capps, E., ‘Chronological studies in the Greek tragic and comic poets’, AJPh 21 [1900], 38–61, at 44Google Scholar).

³ ρϛ́ in the above text is owed to Jacoby (FGrHist iib page 527), corresponding with Diod. Sic. 16.36.2 which dates Mausolus’ death to 353/2 b.c.

⁴ Plutarch names Theodectas’ father as Aristarchus in De frat. amor. 478B, though manuscript W of this treatise gives Aristomachus. The tendency has been to accept the Suda as correct, emending Plutarch accordingly.

⁵ [Plut.] Vit. X Orat. 838B assigns a eulogy for Mausolus to the Athenian Isocrates, and Aulus Gellius may also have assumed this Isocrates to have competed at the funeral games given his comment that ‘there are even some who attest that Isocrates himself competed with [the other entrants in the contest of eulogy]’ (sunt etiam qui Isocratem ipsum cum his certauisse memoriae mandauerint, NA 10.18.5 = TrGF i 72 T 6 = FGrHist 115 T 6b). The Suda is almost certainly correct in identifying Isocrates as the Apollonian orator (thus Blass, F., Die attische Beredsamkeit [Leipzig, 1887–98²], 449Google Scholar), since it is unlikely to have confused the Apollonian Isocrates with his far more famous Athenian counterpart (thus Flower, M.A., Theopompus of Chios: History and Rhetoric in the Fourth Century b.c. [Oxford, 1994], 56Google Scholar).

⁶ Radermacher, L., ‘Θεοδέκται’, AAWW 74 (1939), 62–9Google Scholar among others transferred τελευτᾷ δὲ ἐν Ἀθήναις ἐτῶν ἑνὸς καὶ μ́, ἔτι τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ περιόντος to Suda θ 139 Adler (= FGrHist 113 T 1), the entry for the younger Theodectas, on the basis of Plut. Alex. 17.8 (= TrGF i 72 T 4?). Here, Plutarch details a visit made by Alexander the Great to Phaselis, during which he and a group of his companions garlanded a statue of Theodectas which stood in the agora. The date of Alexander's visit (335/4 b.c.) provides a terminus ante quem for Theodectas’ death, which would date his birth to c.376/5 b.c. in line with the Suda. These dates, however, are incompatible with that of Theodectas’ first victory in the City Dionysia, which occurred at some point between 371 and 365 b.c. (IG ii² 2325.11 = TrGF i 72 T 3; Wilson, P.J., ‘Amymon of Sikyon: a first victory in Athens and a first tragic khoregic dedication in the city? (SEG 23, 103b)’, ZPE 118 [1997], 174–8, at 178 prefers 371Google Scholar b.c.; Capps [n. 2], 40 suggests 365 b.c.) Given this and since Theodectas is also unlikely to have been invited to the funeral games for King Mausolus in 353/2 b.c. at the age of 23 or 24 (thus Capps [n. 2], 41), Radermacher assigned the sentence concerning Theodectas’ death to the younger Theodectas. Capps (n. 2), 39–41 and T.B.L. Webster, ‘Fourth-century tragedy and the Poetics’, Hermes 82 (1954), 294–308, at 303, however, prefer to keep this sentence in Suda θ 138 Adler. They argue that Plutarch does not indicate a date for when the statue was set up nor for Theodectas’ death, meaning that he could have died and that his statue could have been erected many years before Alexander's visit, perhaps shortly after Theodectas’ participation in the funeral games (thus Capps [n. 2], 40). This would date Theodectas’ birth to c.390 b.c. (thus Webster [n. 6], 303), fitting with the inscriptional evidence for his career as a tragedian.

⁷ Shrimpton, G.S., Theopompus the Historian (Montreal, 1991), 199Google Scholar; M. Heath, ‘theta, 138’, in D. Whitehead (ed.), Suda On Line (2001) [http://www.stoa.org/sol-entries/theta/138], consulted 02/01/2019, and W.S. Morison, ‘Theopompos of Chios (115)’, in BNJ (2014) [http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1873-5363_bnj_a115], consulted 02/01/2019.

⁸ Hartwig, A., ‘The date of the Rhabdouchoi and the early career of Plato Comicus’, ZPE 174 (2010), 19–31, at 24Google Scholar.

⁹ Ar. Byz. hyp. Soph. Ant.

¹⁰ Hofman, Thus H., ‘Ein Kommentar zum “Anagyros” des Aristophanes (P.Oxy. 2737)’, ZPE 5 (1970), 1–10Google Scholar.

¹¹ P.Oxy. 2737 fr. 1 col. ii.10–17 = Ar. fr. 590.44–51, Plato Com. T 7 K.–A. See further Hartwig (n. 8), 24 for this use of εὐδοκιμέω.

¹² Cf. e.g. Suda α 3909 Adler = Eur. Bacch. 836; Suda ν 28 Adler = Men. Ship Owner fr. 246 K.–A.

¹³ The sole exception is the Suda's biography for Carcinus II (κ 394 Adler = TrGF i 70 T 1) which may cite the opening words of his Semele, though in this entry the Suda is quoting Ath. Deipn. 13.559f (= Semele fr. 2 TrGF) to indicate the source of its information for Carcinus’ plays; see further T. Sims, ‘A commentary on the fragments of fourth-century tragedy’ (Diss., University of Nottingham, 2018), 127, 158.

¹⁴ Diog. Laert. 2.140 = Lycoph. Menedemus fr. 3 TrGF.

¹⁵ NA 10.18.5 = TrGF i 72 T 6 = FGrHist 115 T 6b; see discussion in n. 5 above.

¹⁶ The general consensus from Märcker, C.F.T., De Theodectis Phaselitae vita et scriptis commentatio prima (Mainz, 1835), 26Google Scholar onwards is that Theodectas composed his Mausolus specifically for the funeral games. Snell (TrGF i page 228), however, suggests an Athenian premiere, though the title of Theodectas’ play must surely support the communis opinio. Xanthakis-Karamanos, G., Studies in Fourth-Century Tragedy (Athens, 1980), 17Google Scholar also argues that poor relations between Athens and Mausolus’ regime in the 350s b.c. would rule out Theodectas’ producing this play at Athens (Diod. Sic. 16.7.3). None the less, Mausolus could have had an Athenian re-performance after the 350s b.c., especially if, as conjectured by Hornblower, S., Mausolus (Oxford, 1982), 261, 335–6Google Scholar, the play focussed on an invented mythical namesake; cf. Euripides’ Archelaus which may have similarly been performed at Athens (see further Scullion, S., ‘Euripides and Macedon, or the silence of the Frogs’, CQ 53 [2003], 389–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar). Cf. also Dionysius I who, after many decades of hostility between Athens and Syracuse, competed several times in Athenian dramatic competitions in the 360s b.c., winning first prize at the Lenaea of 367 b.c. with a dilogy comprising Ransoming of Hector and another tragedy whose title is now lost (Diod. Sic. 15.74, Tzetz. Chil. 5.178–81 = TrGF i 72 T 1, 3, thus Webster [n. 6], 298).

¹⁷ Thus Märcker (n. 16), 26 and Ridgeway, W., ‘Euripides in Macedon’, CQ 20 (1926), 1–19, at 10–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ Vit. Aesch. 9 with Herington, C.J., ‘Aeschylus in Sicily’, JHS 87 (1967), 74–85, at 75–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Stewart, E., Greek Tragedy on the Move: The Birth of a Panhellenic Art Form c.500–300 b.c. (Oxford, 2017), 103–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ IG ii² 2318.201–3. Known examples of re-performed plays include one of Euripides’ Iphigenia tragedies in 341 b.c. and Euripides’ Orestes in 340 b.c. (IG ii² 2319–23.1–2, 18–19 respectively).

²⁰ IG ii² 2325.11 = TrGF i 72 T 3. Theodectas’ funeral inscription indicates that he was victorious eight times in dramatic competitions (Steph. Byz. 660.3–4 = FGE 1574–5 = TrGF i 72 T 2); the eighth victory could have been at the Lenaea or at another Athenian festival (thus Xanthakis-Karamanos [n. 16], 20). Assuming that each of Theodectas’ victories in the City Dionysia was with at least a trilogy, twenty-one of Theodectas’ plays would have won first prize. Since Theodectas wrote fifty plays, this is a forty-two-percent victory rate, far higher than that of his rivals Astydamas II and Carcinus II; see further Sims (n. 13), 71, 74–5, 135, 137, 249–50.

²¹ Manuscripts of Mausolus must have been in circulation until at least the second century a.d. given Gellius’ remark that the play was extant when he was writing.

²² Later writers may also have added Theodectas to this list since he, like the other competitors, was a pupil of the Athenian Isocrates; perhaps there was a tendency to treat this group of individuals as a unit (cf. Phot. Bibl. 176 page 120b.31–2 = TrGF i 72 T 8 = FGrHist 115 T 3a).

²³ Thus Ullman, B.L., ‘History and tragedy’, TAPhA 73 (1940), 25–53, at 30Google Scholar.

²⁴ Thus Hornblower (n. 16), 335–6.

²⁵ De fluuiis 25.1.

²⁶ Thus Hornblower (n. 16), 336.

²⁷ Snell, Thus B., Szenen aus griechischen Dramen (Berlin, 1971), 137CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Except for Python's Agen, a satyr drama whose surviving fragment ridicules Harpalus and his lust for courtesans, no other fourth-century biographical or historical tragedies are known. Dionysius I supposedly wrote biographical plays which treated the death of his wife Doris (frr. 9–10 TrGF with Sanders, L.J., Dionysius I of Syracuse and Greek Tyranny [New York, 1987], 2Google Scholar) and his encounters with Plato (fr. 11 TrGF with Suess, W., ‘Der ältere Dionys als Tragiker’, RhM 109 [1966], 299–318, at 300Google Scholar). The citation of all three fragments, however, in a section of Lucian's Aduersus indoctum (31.15), which ridicules Dionysius’ abilities as a tragic poet, must surely reduce our confidence in the existence of such plays.

²⁸ Cropp, Thus M., ‘Lost tragedies: a survey’, in Gregory, J. (ed.), A Companion to Greek Tragedy (Oxford, 2005), 271–92, at 291CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Webster, T.B.L., Art and Literature in Fourth-Century Athens (London, 1956), 65Google Scholar respectively.