Ταξίαρχοι (Introduction)

367

Αν. 353; A. fr. 182.1; the Oath of Plataea (Rhodes-Osborne #88.25; inscribed
mid-4th century BCE); Lys. 3.45; 13.79; 15.5; [Arist.J Ath. 61.3; Poll. 8.115;
Christ 2001. 400-3, 407-8; Crowley 2012. 28-32. That there were not enough
real Athenian taxiarchs at one time to fill out a comic chorus seems unlike-
ly to have bothered the original audience; cf. Phrynichus Comicus’ Mousai
(“Muses”, of whom there ought properly to have been only nine: Od. 24.60;
Hes. Th. 60-1, 76-9, 916-17; see Harvey 2000. 106-8; Stamma 2014. 190-1).
Alternatively, Taxiarchoi might mean “Taxiarchs and their Associates” or the
like, like e. g. Cratinus’ Archilochoi (“Archilochuses = Archilochus and Other
Blame Poets?”) or Telecleides’ Hesiodoi (“Hesiods = Hesiod and Other Early
Hexameter Poets?”).
Content We know from the test, i-ii that the god Dionysus and the Athenian
general Phormio were characters in Taxiarchoi, and that at some point
Phormio instructed Dionysus in matters having to do with war (test, i); fr.
274 (mentioning soldier’s beds) is supposedly drawn from this section of the
play. Frr. 275 (someone describes a simple diet that includes items typically
consumed by soldiers in the field) and 276 (one character tells another how
to hold a shield in order to defend himself) have also been connected with
the Dionysus-Phormio scene, although all that can really be said is that they
touch on a similar theme. Nor does the fact that Phormio seems to be speaking
in fr. 268d show that his interlocutor is Dionysus, and to insist that he must
be is to fall into the trap of attempting to force every fragment we have of a
lost play into the one scene about which we have a bit of general information.
The combination of a chorus of taxiarchs (see on Title), a general and a
new recruit suggests a marshalling site192 or a military camp as setting, and
the reference in fr. 272 to the arrival of a male figure anticipating regular
baths, i. e. a luxurious life, makes it clear that not everyone in the play was—at
least initially—an advocate of the rough military lifestyle with which Phormio
was traditionally associated. That the problematic character in question was
Dionysus is a reasonable guess, given the contrast between his traditional fin-
ery and the need to go dirty (sc. now that he has become a soldier?) lamented
in fr. 280. But Dionysus need not have been the only would-be or unhappy
soldier in the play, and all we really know is that he appeared somewhere in
the action, not that he played a leading role in the play.193 So too in fr. 269,

192 The Lykeion (located just outside the city walls to the east) is referred to as a
marshaling spot for hoplites at Ar. Pax 353-6 (see Olson 1998 on 356); X. HG 1.1.33).
But the precise spot chosen may well have varied depending on the circumstances.
193 Why Dionysus should have chosen to become a soldier is unclear, and some of
the humor of the play might have depended on precisely this absurdity {viz. Who