88

Ζωγράφοι ή Γεωγράφοι (vel -ος) (Zographoi e Geographoi)
(‘Painters’ or ‘Geographers’)

Discussion Meineke 1839 1.370-1; 1840 III.167; 1847. 577; Bothe 1855. 421;
Kock 1884 11.140; Edmonds 1959 11.50—1; Long 1986. 173 n. 1; Kassel-Austin
1991 11.244; Sanchis Llopis et al. 2007. 246
Title Although the alternate titles have the look of orthographic variants,
Pollux’ statement suggests otherwise (see fr. 14). In this instance, the double
title obviously did not result, as often is the case, from using both the chorus
and the main character for the name (e.g. Eubulus Λάκωνες ή Λήδα). Perhaps
there were two plays, one of them a revision of the other, like e. g. Antiph.
Αγροίκος ή Βουταλίων (cf. Ath. 8.358d [Antiph. fr. 68]), despite the fact that
no such assertion is made in the testimonia (but note test. 2, which claims
that Anaxandrides destroyed unsuccessful plays). The final possibility is that
the double title results from two important characters, or in this case perhaps
two groups of characters39, like Diphilus Ευνούχος ή Στρατιώτης (although
that instance is complicated); cf. E. Hipp., called Φαίδρα in L. As none of these
solutions seem satisfactory, the best explanation is perhaps that Pollux has
misunderstood the alternatives, presumably found in his source, as a true
double title rather than evidence for uncertainty about the correct reading; cf.
Meineke 18391.370. The Antiatticist cites the play once by the title Γεωγράφος
(fr. 15; for the variation in number from Pollux, see below), but seems to cite it
a second time as Ζωγράφος (cf. fr. 14n.), although these might merely be the
result of the abbreviated condition of the Antiatticist. For concise discussion of
double titles and the problems associated with them, see Hunter 1983. 146-8.
Of further relevance is Kock’s claim that ‘geographiae quae proprie dicitur
geographorumque nomen...non ante Eratosthenem exstitisse consentaneum
est’; the only possible exceptions are [Arist.] Mu. 393b20, if the work is taken as
genuine, and Democr. FVS 68 B 28a (the title of one of his works as given by D.L.
9.48). Most important, both fragments strongly suggest a concern with painting

39 Two groups of characters could suggest a divided chorus (cf. Taplin 1993. 57-8);
although painters are common enough, however, that they could presumably
have been stereotyped, that is much more doubtful in the case of geographers.
Furthermore, the common modern opposition between art and science was not
felt as strongly if at all in antiquity, nor would geographers be a natural choice
for representing such a group aside from the similarity of their name to that of
painters, which is a weak basis for the plot of a play.