Il numero dei drammi satireschi sofoclei: Sofocle alle Lenee ed i drammi prosatirici
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to provide arguments for a lower number of satyr plays in the corpus of Sophocles than usually assumed. Since in classical Athens playwrights used to enter the dramatic competition at the Great Dionysia with a set of three tragedies plus one satyr play, the common belief in modern research is that roughly a quarter of Sophocles’ literary output – amounting to 120 dramatic pieces – must be satyric and not tragic (§ 1). The present paper puts forward two sets of arguments to confute this method of reasoning. First (§ 2), a case is made for the hypothesis that Sophocles staged plays not only at the Great Dionysia, but also at the Lenaia, where only tragedies and no satyr plays at all were performed (a major piece of evidence in support of this hypothesis is IG II2 2319, which may record a victory of Sophocles at the Lenaia in 419-18 BC). Secondly (§ 3), it shows why it cannot be ruled out that Sophocles, like Euripides, also wrote ‘prosatyric’ plays (“Alcestis-like” cases). Since the number of Sophoclean satyr plays is therefore likely to have been lower than traditionally assumed, the paper urges future researchers to greater caution when proposing new identifications of satyr plays in the body of this poet’s fragments (§ 4).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".