Page:History of the Literature of Ancient Greece (Müller) 2ed.djvu/404

382 3S2 HISTORY OF THE from being interpolated at the caprice of the actors;* and soon afterwards they were rather read in the closet than heard in the theatre, and became identified with the existence of the later Greeks and Romans. Their contemporaries among the tragedians must be regarded as, for the most part, far from insignificant poets, inasmuch as they main- tained their place on the stage beside them, and not unfrequently gained the tragic prize in competition with them. Yet, though their separate productions may have been in part happy enough to merit most fully the approbation of the public, the general character of these poets must have been deficient in that depth and peculiar force of genius by which the great tragedians were distinguished. If this had not been the case, their works would assuredly have attracted greater attention and have been read more frequently in later times. § 2. Neophron, of Sicyon, must have been one of the most ancient of these poets, if the Medea of Euripides was really in part an imita- tion of one of his plays :f in that case he must be distinguished from a younger Neophron, who was a contemporary of Alexander the Great. Ion, of Chios, lived at Athens in the time of iEschylus and Cimon, and in the fragments of his writings speaks of the events of their day as from personal knowledge. He was a very comprehensive writer, and, what was very uncommon in ancient times, a prose author as well as a poet. He wrote history in the dialect and after the manner of Herodotus, except that he paid more attention to the private life of dis- tinguished individuals : he also composed elegiesj and lyrical poems of various sorts. He did not come forward as a tragedian till after the death of iEschylus (Olymp. 82 ), whose place, it seems, he expected to fill on the stage. The materials of his dramas were in a great measure taken from Homer ; they may have been connected in trilogies like those of -ZEschvlus ; the few remains,§ however, hardly allow us to trace the connexion of these trilogical compositions. Although correct and careful in the execution, his productions were de- ficient in that higher energy which is remarkable in the more genial poets. || works of the three poets were kept in the archives of Athens, and it was the duty of the public secretary (yguf*ftu.rsvs ry; ■rokias) to see that the actors delivered this text only. See the life of Lycurgus in Plutarch's Vitae decern Oratorum, where the words, ouk uvat ya.^ a.uTa.„ aXXui vfoxgivifftlai have been properly added. j See the didascalia to the Medea of Euripides (where it would be best to change yi» Nso^'uvos S.),and Diog. Laert.ii. 134. But a good deal might be said against this account, and perhaps the relation between the two plays was prec sely the converse. X See Chap. X. § 7. p. 113. notes. § Iuiiis Chii fragmenta collegi.t Nieverding. Lipsiae, 1836. j| According to the judgment, of the critic Longinus de Sublim. 33.
 * According to a law, proposed by the oralor Lycurgus, authentic copies of the