Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy [2. revised] 0198142277, 9780198142270

Citation preview

DITHYRAMB TRAGEDY AND COMEDY BY THE LATE

SIR A R T H U R PIC K A R D -C A M B R ID G E

SE C O N D E D IT IO N

REVISED BY T . iS. L. W E B S T E R PROFESSOR OF GREEK U N IV E R S IT Y CO LLE G E , LONDON

O X FO RD AT T H E C L A R E N D O N PR ESS 1962

Oxford University Press, Amen House 9 London E XL 4 G LA SG O W

N EW YORK

TO R O N T O

BOM BAY

CA LC U TTA

M ADRAS

C A PE T O W N

SALISBURY

M ELBO U RN E

N A IR O B I IBA D A N

K U A LA LU M PU R

W E L L IN G T O N

KARACHI LAHORE

H O N G KONG

© Oxford University Press ig6s

PRINTED

IN

GREAT

DACCA

ACC RA

BRITAIN

FROM PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION M u c h lias been written during the last thirty years upon the origins and early history of the Greek Drama. The con­ clusions reached by some of the writers appeared to me to be so speculative and even incredible, that I began the Studies, of which the results are summed up in this volume, with the object of examining the evidence, and ascertaining what conclusions it would really justify. The result has too often been to show that no conclusions are possible, least of all some of those which have been put forward ; and although I hope that these Studies will be found to yield some positive results, it must be admitted that they are in a measure critical ; an unkind reader might describe them as

Proving false all written hitherto, And putting us to ignorance again. This, however, if faithfully done, may itself be a modest service to scholarship. For the ingenuity and the imaginative power which the writers, to whom I refer, possess in a far higher degree than myself, I have the most sincere respect and gratitude. I have learned from them more than I can estimate. But I think it is one of the most important tasks of scholarship at the present moment—at least in regard to these subjects—to ascertain what can really be said to be proved or probable, and to draw the line sharply between history on the one hand, and attractive and interesting speculation, not founded upon evidence, on the other. It is with this end in view that these chapters have been written. They do not profess to be literary essays, but simply a dis­ passionate attempt to ascertain historical truth or probability by methods as logical as the subject permits. . . . It is unfortunate that the authorities for the early history of the Greek Drama and Choral Lyric are for the most part late, and the information which they give very fragmentary.

VI

PREFACE

Aristotle, acute as he is in the discovery of principles and the logical classification of types, shows little interest in history, apart from his services in connexion with the inscriptional record. The work of his successors in the Peripatetic School, and of the Alexandrian and Pergamene scholars, survives almost entirely in the form of passing remarks, scholia, and lexicographical notices in writers of much later date, in which much nonsense is mixed with much that seems to be sound. Nevertheless, the tradition which filtered into such notices was, at least in part, the work of scholars of great industry, ability, and discernment, and it is dangerous to disregard definite statements made by scholiasts, lexico­ graphers, and writers on literary and social history (such as Athenaeus), unless the supposed error can itself be accounted for and good reason found for setting the disputed statement aside. I have, so far as I was able, tried to test the strength of each particular piece of evidence, as it came under discussion ; and I have generally acted on the principle that statements which combine to suggest a coherent and intrinsically probable hypothesis, consistent with a fairly steady tradition, may be provisionally accepted. . . . A. W. P.-C.

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION W h e n the stock of the first edition ran out, the Delegates of the Clarendon Press invited me ‘to revise the book as thoroughly as was necessary to bring it up to date while keeping its basic structure and even actual words wherever possible’. I have tried to keep to these terms. The main problems, indeed, remain the same, but (i) the archaeo­ logical evidence has increased and can be more precisely assessed than was possible thirty-five years ago; (2) the new knowledge that Dionysus was a Mycenaean god gives a much longer period of pre-history than was known before; (3) the

PREFAC E TO SE C O N D E D IT IO N

vii

new Archilochus inscription must be considered in relation to his dithyramb and may throw light on the relation of the dithyramb to the Dionysus cult in Athens ; (4) the new dating of Aeschylus’ Supplices invalidates it as evidence for an early form of Greek tragedy; (5) the new fragments of Epicharmus add considerably to our knowledge of that poet.1 I have marked my additions by inserting them in square brackets. Otherwise I have altered the text as little as possible except for certain major changes, which must be explained here, and certain minor rewordings where hypo­ thetical views seemed to me to be stated more forcibly than the evidence warranted. I have made the following major changes, as distinct from additions : (1) the archaeological evidence has been grouped together in a List of Monuments, so that (a) it can be inspected for itself, and (b) its consider­ able bibliography has been removed from the text. (2) All texts have been given in translation because I doubted the value of forcing students to translate snippets of Greek, much of which is late and inelegant. I also hope that the book will thereby become more useful to the considerable number of Greekless students who want to know the background of Greek drama. I have, however, included the Greek texts of a number of the relevant passages in an appendix, and the reader is warned of this by ‘[App.]’ in the text. My criterion has been twofold : only the more inaccessible authors were considered for the appendix, and only those passages of them where there might be some doubt as to the translation. (3) I have omitted the sections on the dithyramb after the fourth century b . c . because they had no relevance to the early history of drama, and much of the material can be found in a more up-to-date form in The Dramatic Festivals of Athens. (4) I have omitted most of the detailed discussion of Sir William Ridgeway’s theory, Professor Murray’s theory, Dr. A. B. Cook’s theory, and Mr. Cornford’s theory. I thought it was more useful to point out briefly the valuable elements in these theories than to preserve the long refutations of details. Two excellent modern treatments of the origins of tragedy 1 Cf. Seria Philologica Aenipontana 7-8 (1961), 85.

viii

P R E F A C E TO SEC O N D E D IT IO N

and comedy are A. Lesky, Tragische Dichtung der Hellenen, Göttingen, 1956, and H. Herter, Vom dionysischen Tanz zum komischen Spiel, Iserlohn, 1947.1Both discuss fully the modern scholarship of the problem. I have therefore often referred briefly to them and so avoided burdening the footnotes with a full list of modern discussions. (Lesky5s treatment of both tragedy and comedy will shortly be available in the English edition of his history of Greek Literature.) I have omitted several of the illustrations which seemed to me to have little relevance and have thus been able to include illustrations of newly discovered material of great importance. I should like to acknowledge here my obligations to the following for the new illustrations and permission to repro­ duce: Dr. D. von Bothmer ; Professor O. Broneer; Professor K. Friis Johansen; Mr. A. Seeberg; Hellenic Society; Delegates of the Oxford University Press ; Messrs. Methuen; Fine Arts Museum, Boston; Metropolitan Museum, New York (Fletcher Fund) ; National Museum, Copenhagen; Nicholson Museum, Sydney; Antikensammlungen, Munich ; Staatliche Museen, Berlin ; American School of Classical Studies, Athens ; German Archaeological Institute, Athens; Otago Museum, Dunedin, N.Z.; University of Canterbury, Christchurch, N.Z.; Dr. P. Hommel. I am also most grateful to Mr. D. M. Lewis for help with the inscriptions, to Miss Margaret Cunningham for checking many references and many useful suggestions, and to Mrs. J . M. Argyle for compiling the Indexes. The Press Reader has saved me from many errors. T. B. L. W. 1 L. Breitholtz, Die Dorische Farce im Griechischen Mutterland, Göteborg, i960, came out after my manuscript had gone to press. It is on the whole an ex­ cellent book with an admirable bibliography. Gf. my review in Gnomon 32 (i960), 452.

CONTENTS L IS T O F IL L U S T R A T IO N S I. T H E D I T H Y R A M B I. T he dithyramb and Dionysus i i . T he nam e dithyrambos. T he dithyramb and Phrygia From Archilochus to Pindar IV. Pindar, Bacchylides, and others V. Dithyram b at Athens Vi. T he later dithyramb

h i

v ii

.

.

Conclusion

II. T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y I. T he earliest-known Greek tragedy and its character

page xi i * 7

9 20

31 38

58 60 60

Phrynichus, Pratinas, Choerilus

63

in . Thespis IV . Aristotle on the Origin o f Tragedy

69 89

V . Arion v i. Sicyon and hero-drama v i i . Peloponnesian and Dorian tragedy

97 101 107

ii

.

v il i. Tragoidia, Tragoi, &c. ix . ‘N othing to do with Dionysus.’ X. Gilbert Murray’s theory x i. Summary

112 124 126

129

III. T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y ii

.

T he Komos Dorian elements : Susarion

*32 162

h i

.

Early Athenian com ic poets

187

I.

E X C U R S U S : O N T H E F O R M O F T H E O L D C O M E D Y 194 § § § §

i. 2. T he parabasis 3. T he agdn 4. T he preparatory scenes

§ 5. T he iam bic scenes

194 197 200 204 207

CONTENTS

X

IV .

§ 6. T he exodos § 7. T he Prologue or Introduction

2 11 212

Analysis of plays

213

E P IC H A R M U S i. Life, &c., o f Epicharmus ii. T he spurious writings ascribed

to Epicharmus

230 230 239

in . ‘Philosophical’ fragments

247

IV. T he plays and fragments V. T he character o f Epicharmus’comedy

255 276

Vi. Phormus and Deinolochus

289

A P P E N D IX : G R E E K T E X T S

291

L IS T O F M O N U M E N T S

300

PLATES IN D E X E S

between pages 316 and 317 317

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS T E X T F IG U R E S F ig . I. Satyr

named Dithyramphos, Attic red-figure krater, Copenhagen, Thorvaldsen M useum 97. (Welcker, Ant. Denkm.) page 5

F ig . 2. Attic padded dancers, Attic cup, List o f M onuments, N o. 12. (Benndorf, Gr. und Sic. Vasenb.)

81

F ig . 3. Dionysus on ship-car, Attic skyphos, List o f M onuments,

No. 7 (noted). (Bieber, Denkm.)

83

F ig . 4. Satyrs on ship carried by komasts, Clazomenian fragment,

List o f M onuments, No. 82. (J.H .S., voi. lxxviii)

84

F ig . 5. Return o f Hephaestus, Corinthian amphoriskos, List o f

M onuments, No.· 38. (Payne, Necrocorinthia)

172

F ig . 6. Padded dancers and dolphin, Corinthian kylix, List o f

M onuments, No. 43. (Baumeister, Denkm.)

172

PLATES Between pages 316 and 317 (References are to List o f Monuments) I. (a) No. i . Old satyrs singing to the lyre at the Panathenaea. {Photo : M etropolitan M useum) {b) No. 4. Dithyram bic chorus at the Anthesteria. {Photo : National Museum, Copenhagen) II.

{a) No. 7 (noted). Column with Dionysus mask, cakes, branches ; flautist; maenad. {Photo: Nicholson M useum, Sydney) {b) No. 9. Attic padded dancers ; hairy satyr and maenad. {Photo : American School o f Classical Studies)

III. No. 10. Attic padded dancers as men and women. {Photo : German Archaeological Institute) IV . No. 15. Phallus-pole ridden by fat-man; phallus-pole ridden by hairy satyr. {Photo : Soperintendenza Antichità, Florence)V . V. {a) No. 16. Dionysus with two maenads and two komasts. (Karouzou, Amasis Painter, pi. 246) {b) No. 18. Eight padded dancers, three with female ‘masks’. {Photo : Gabinetto fotografico nazionale)

L IS T OF IL L U S T R A T IO N S V I. (a) No. 20. Y oung men dressed as maenads with flute-player. (Photo: A m erican School o f Classical Studies) (b) No. 2 1. Choruses o f men in wom en’s clothing. (Photo : Allard Pierson Stichting) V II.

No. 23. Chorus o f mounted knights with flute-player. (Bieber, Denkm.)

V III.

(a) No. 24. Chorus o f men on stilts. (Photo : Canterbury U ni­ versity) (b) N o. 25. Chorus o f men riding ostriches. (Photo : Boston, Fine Arts Museum)

IX . X.

(a) N o. 26. Chorus o f feathered men. (J.H .S., voi. ii) (b) No. 27. Chorus o f cocks. (J.H .S., voi. ii) (a) N o. 33c. Bearded squatting figure wearing hairy chiton and boots. (Photo: P. Gathercole) (b) No. 33d. Bearded phallic squatting figure with drinking horn (?) in hand; two small figures dancing on either side o f phallus. (Photo : American School of Classical Studies) (c) N o. 46. Bearded figure wearing phallus. (Photo : A. Seeberg)

X I. X II.

No. 36. Corinthian padded dancers. (Photo : British M useum) (a) No. 59. Mask o f old wom an from Ortheia sanctuary, Sparta. (Photo: British School at Athens) (b) No. 69. Mask o f Gorgon from Tiryns. (Photo : German Archaeological Institute)

X III. No. 85. Cast and chorus o f satyr-play. (Furtwängler-Reichhold) X IV . (a) N o. 90. Satyr chorus man. (Photo : Antikensammlungen) (b) No. 97. Satyr chorus m an (terra-cotta statuette). (Photo : American School o f Classical Studies) ' X V . (a) No. 100. Chorus o f Pans. (Photo: British Museum) (b) N o. 109. East Greek padded dancers. (Photo: P. Hom m el) X V I. N o. xo i. Stone-throwers, Attic vase of mid-seventh century. (Photo: Altes M useum , Berlin) No. 107. H ead between wild goats, sealing from Phaistos. (From Mycenae to Homer, fig. 12) N o. 108. W om en dancing, ring from Isopata, fifteenth cen­ tury B.c. (From Mycenae to Homer, fig. 13)

I THE DITHYR AM B T h e historical treatment of the dithyramb is rendered diffi­ cult by the defectiveness of our information in regard to its character before the fifth century b . c ., and by the doubt which exists whether many of the statements made by Plutarch and Athenaeus, as well as by scholiasts and gram­ matici generally, are true of the dithyramb of the first twothirds of that century, or only of the greatly altered dithyramb which succeeded it. It is also disputed whether the most con­ siderable of the poems which have come down to us under the name, the Dithyrambs of Bacchylides, would have been called by the name at all in his own time. We have therefore to take the evidence piece by piece and discuss its value. I.

The Dithyramb and Dionysus

§ i . The earliest mention of dithyramb is found in a fragment of Archilochus of Paros (fr. 77 D), who flourished in the first half of the seventh century b . c . : Ί know how to lead the fair song of Lord Dionysus,1 the dithyramb, when my wits are fused with wine.’ Here the dithyramb seems to be called ‘the fair song of Dionysus’. Its special connexion with Dionysus throughout its history is sufficiently attested, and the importance of Archi­ lochus lies in the fact that, whereas it might be possible (though hardly plausible) to argue that later references to the con­ nexion of the dithyramb with Dionysus were due to the wellknown performances at the Dionysiae festivals at Athens, and that at these festivals the dithyramb was really an alien accre­ tion, no such suggestion can be made in regard to the words of Archilochus. 1 432. 6188

Or ‘in honour of Lord Dionysus’ (Ridgeway), cf. Menander, Dyskolos, B

T H E D IT H Y R A M B

Two other passages are worth quoting. Pindar {Olymp. xiii. 18) asks: ‘Whence did the graces of Dionysus appear with the ox-driving dithyramb?’ As regards the exact mean­ ing of ‘ox-driving’ there is room for some difference of opinion. The scholiast on Plato, Rep. 394 c, states that the winner of the first prize for dithyramb received a bull ; and as he has just reported the opinion that the dithyramb was invented in Corinth by Arion, he may, like Pindar, be refer­ ring to the Corinthian custom. Or again, both the scholiast and Pindar may have in mind the Athenian contest, which was well known throughout the Greek world by 464 b . c ., the date of the ode, and before which a bull was offered. The suggestion of Reitzenstein1 that the word is the equivalent of boukolos, and means an attendant upon, or worshipper of, Dionysus, the bull-god, hardly seems to take into account the force of the verb, with which it is connected by derivation. The word seems much more appropriately used of the driving of the bull to the altar,12 or the driving of it off as a prize. The second passage is fr. 355 N of Aeschylus, which is quoted by Plutarch3 to illustrate the peculiar appropriateness of dithyrambs to the worship of Dionysus, as of paeans to that of Apollo : ‘the dithyramb of mixed voice should accompany the revels of Dionysus.’ Here the special association of the dithyramb with Dionysus is clearly implied. A passage in Plato’s Laws, iii, p. 700 b, may also be quoted : ‘There was also another kind of song . . . and another, the Birth of Dionysus, I think, the so-called dithyramb.’4 The words Ί think’ probably show that the phrase is a playful (perhaps sceptical) allusion to the suggested derivation of the name dithyramb from the double birth of Dionysus;5 and the passage does not, as is often supposed, give any certain ground for thinking that the only proper subject of dithyramb was the narrative of the birth,6 though this was doubtless one of 1 Epigramm und Skolion (Giessen, 1893), P· 207· 2 Gf. A. Lesky, Tragische Dichtung der Hellenen (Göttingen, 1956), p. 17. 3 de Ei apud Delphos, p. 389 b. 4 Gf. A. E. Harvey, Classical Quarterly, xlix (1955), 165. 5 See below, p. 7. 6 Similarly when Euripides, Bacch. 523 ff., in telling the story of the birth from the thigh of Zeus, makes Zeus address Dionysus as Dithyramb, he is

T H E D IT H Y R A M B A N D D IO N Y S U S

3

its common themes but it is good evidence for the connexion of the dithyramb with the god. The specially Dionysiae character of dithyramb (despite its performance, of which more will be said later, at the festivals of certain other gods) is assumed by grammarians, scholiasts, and lexicographers;2 but in view of the existence of better evidence, such as has been given above, there is no need to quote them at length. § 2. The fact, just alluded to, that the dithyramb was per­ formed not only at the festivals of Dionysus, in Athens and elsewhere, but also on certain other occasions, is scarcely a valid obstacle to the beliefin its primarily Dionysiae character. In classical times the most important non-Dionysiac fes­ tivals of which it certainly formed a regular part were those of Apollo. At Delphi, indeed, the regular performance of dithyrambs in winter is connected with the fact that three months of winter were there sacred to Dionysus.3 But at Delos also ‘circular choruses’ were performed. These may have been associated, though the evidence is not very clear,4 with the regular annual sacred missions, from Athens. A series of inscriptions,5 which runs fro m about 286 to 172 b . c ., shows that during that period there were competitions be­ tween choruses of boys (i.e. probably dithyrambic choruses) at the Dionysia and Apollonia in Delos. But the chief regular performances of dithyramb, apart doubtless alluding to the popular derivation of the word rather than to the special subject of the song. 1 See below, p. 21, on Pindar, fr. 63 Bowra, 75 Snell. 2 e.g. Pollux i. 38; Proclus, Chrest. 344-5; Cramer, Anecdota Oxoniensia, iv. 314; Zenob. v. 40; Suda, s.v. dithyrambos, &c. 3 Plut. de Ei ap. Delph., p. 388 c. 4 Thucyd., iii. 104, records the re-institution in 426/5 b . c . of the traditional practice of sending choruses from Athens and the islands to compete at Delos, but does not mention dithyrambs by name. Strabo, xv. 728, refers to the Delian dithyrambs of Simonides (see below, p. 16) but does not mention such sacred missions expressly. Callimachus, Hymn to Delos, 300 if., connects the circular choruses at Delos with the Athenian sacred missions. (He associates them with the music of the cithara, instead of the flute, by which dithyrambs were normally accompanied; but the cithara had come into occasional use for this purpose before the third century b . c ., and the Delian performances of this date may have differed in some ways from those of the classical period.) 5 Collected by Brinck, Dissertationes Philologicae Halenses, vii. 187 ff.; Inscripti­ ones Graecae, xi. 2. 105-33.

4

T H E D IT H Y R A M B

from Dionysiae festivals, were those at the Thargelia at Athens. (These were given under regulations somewhat different from those in force at the Dionysia, as will be ex­ plained later.1) To these performances there are many refer­ ences in literature and inscriptions.12 The tripods won by the victorious poets at the Thargelia were set up in the temple of the Pythian Apollo, erected by Peisistratus, to whom the development of the Thargelia as a popular festival may pos­ sibly have been due. The performance of dithyrambs at Apolline festivals may perhaps be accounted for by the close association of Dionysus with Apollo at Delphi, and the interest shown by the Delphian oracle in propagating the cult of Dionysus in Greece; once established at Delphi, the dithyramb would naturally be adopted in the worship of Apollo elsewhere. But it may partly have been a natural result of the desire to enhance the attrac­ tiveness of popular festivals by adding performances which appealed to the people even if they were originally appro­ priated to other celebrations. This may account also for the isolated mentions of dithyrambs at the Lesser Panathenaea3 and at the Prometheia and Hephaesteia,4evidently as a regular part of the festival and provided by choregoi. Plutarch (or a pseudo-Plutarch)5 records the institution by Lycurgus, late in the fourth century b .c ., of a festival in honour of Poseidon at the Peiraeus, including ‘a competition for not less than three circular choruses’. An inscription,6 dated a .d . 52/53, may possibly indicate the performance of a dithyramb to Asclepius at Athens in that year, though this interpretation is not certain.7 But the essentially Dionysiae 1 See below, p. 37. 2 e.g. Antiphon, On the Choreut, § n ; Lysias xxi, §§ 1, 2; Aristot. Ath. Pol. 56, § 3; Suda, s.v. Pythion; LG. ii2. 1138-9, 3063-72, &c. 3 Lysias, loc. cit. [Gf. also Attic red-figure vase in New York (List of Monu­ ments, No. 1).] 4 LG. ii2. 1138. [But Mr. D. M. Lewis suspects that these references only refer to gymnasiarchs and torch-races.] s Vit. X Oral., p. 842 a. 6 I.G. ii2. 3120. [Mr. Lewis regards as two inscriptions and the Augustan dedication to Asclepius has nothing to do with the dithyrambic victory, pre­ sumably Dionysiae, just before a . d . 200.] 7 The attempt of Brinck (Diss. Hal. vii. 85, 177) to refer the words of the inscription to gymnastic contests is very unconvincing.

T H E D IT H Y R A M B A N D D IO N Y S U S

5

character of the dithyramb, down to a late date, is confirmed by the strong contrasts which are drawn between it and the Apolline paean—the ‘enthusiastic’ nature of the words, rhythms, and music of the one, and the sobriety of the other.1

F ig .I.

Satyr named Dithyramphos, Attic red-figure krater, Copenhagen, Thorvaldsen Museum 97

§ 3. When we examine the uses of the word dithyrambos as a proper name, we obtain strong confirmation of the primarily Dionysiae character of the dithyramb. The name is used of Dionysus2 alone of the gods—with one exception. For Athe­ naeus3 tells us that at Lampsacus the names Thriambos and Dithyrambos were given to Priapus. But why? Because Priapus was there identified with Dionysus. The name (in the form Dithyramphos) occurs as that of a satyr, who is playing the lyre, on an Attic vase4 of about 450 B. c. ; but the satyr is leading a Dionysiae kómos, and doubtless 1 Plut. de Ei ap. Delph., loc. cit.; Proclus, loc. cit.; Suda, s.v. dithyrambos; Athen, xiv. 628 a, b, &c. 2 e.g. Eur. Bacch. 526; the Delphic Paean to Dionysus; Hephaestion, Poem. vii. p. 70 (Consbr.) ; Etym. Magn. 274. 44. Thriambos is used of Dionysus in Fr. Lyr. Adesp. 109 (Bergk). Compare also Pratinas, fr. 1; Arrian, Anab. vi. 28; Plut. Vit. Marceli. 22; Athen, xi. 465 a (quoting Phanodemus of the fourth century b . c .) [cf. K. Kerenyi, Symbolae Osloenses, xxxvi (i960), 5 if.]. 3 30 b. 4 Fig. I . See Heydemann, Satyr- u. Bakchenmmen (Halle, 1890), pp. 21, 36; C. Fränkel, Satyr- u. Bakchennamen (Bonn, 1912), pp. 69, 94; Beazley, Attic Red-figure Vase-painters, 698, No. 56; Boardman, Journal of Hellenic Studies, lxxvi (i956)> *9> Pi· 3· See below, pp. 33, 41.

6

T H E D IT H Y R A M B

takes his name from the Dionysiae song, as (on other vases) female attendants on the god are called Tragóidia or Komoidia. The fact that (according to Herodotus1) the most famous of the men of Thespiae who fell at Thermopylae was Dithyrambos, son ofHarmatides, is curious, but does not bear on our present point. § 4. Thus, on a general review of the evidence, it appears that the balance of probability is against Sir William Ridge­ way’s theory that ‘at no time was the dithyramb any more the exclusive property of Dionysus than the paean was that of Apollo’ ;2 in fact the dithyramb, though freely transferred to festivals of other gods, and especially to those of Apollo, was primarily and continuously regarded as Dionysiae. But, Ridgeway argues,3 ‘even if it were true that tragedy proper arose out of the worship of Dionysus, it would no less have originated in the worship of the dead, since Dionysus was regarded by the Greeks as a hero (i.e. a man turned into a saint) as well as a god’ ; and he appears to imply4 that if dithyramb included Dionysus among its themes it was because he was a hero. The arguments which he uses to support this view consist of (1) the fact that Dionysus had an oracle among the Bessi on Mt. Pangaeum ‘as had the old heroes Trophonius and Amphiaraus at Lebadea and Oropus respectively’. But gods also had oracles. (2) Two passages of Plutarch. The first of these ( Quaest. Graec., ch. 36) contains the invocation of the women of Elis, which, as given in the manuscripts, reads : ‘Come, Hero Dionysus.’ If the reading is accepted, Hero might be simply an honorific title, as in Homer : and in fact we know from Paus. vi. xxvi, § 1 that the people of Elis worshipped Dionysus as a god. In the other passage {De Iside et Osiride, ch. 35) Plutarch is trying to prove the identity of Osiris and Dionysus, and writes : ‘The Delphians believe that the remains of Dionysus 1 Hdt. vii. 227. 2 Ridgeway thinks that the paean was not specially associated with Apollo; with regard to this also, the facts seem to be against him: but this is not the place to argue the point. 3 Dramas and Dramatic Dances (1915), pp. 5, 6. The argument mentions tragedy, but it obviously intended to apply also to the dithyramb, out of which tragedy was supposed to have sprung. 4 Ibid., p. 47.

T H E D IT H Y R A M B A N D D IO N Y S U S

7

are buried near their oracle. And the Hosioi make a secret sacrifice in the temple of Apollo whenever the Thyiades awake Liknites.’ But this gives no ground for thinking that Dionysus, though treated in certain cults as a chthonic power or a vegetation-god who died and lived again, was ever regarded as a ‘hero’ in the sense of a man turned into a saint. Crusius1and Rohde2notice that a feast in which the Dionysiae Thyiades took part was named Herois, and that Hesychius has the two glosses : ‘Herochia : Theodaisia’ and ‘Theodaisios : Dionysos’. But these facts do not prove that Dionysus was ever thought of as a ‘hero’, though they illustrate his con­ nexion, in certain cults, with the world of the dead. The Herois was probably in some respects (as Rohde’s note sug­ gests) parallel to the Anthesteria, in which Dionysus was con­ nected with a chthonic cult; but the overt subject of the ritual, as we learn from Plutarch,3 was the Return of Semele and the ‘heroine’ was Semele. These passages give no positive evidence that Dionysus was a hero in the sense of man who became god or that the dithyramb was connected with him in his chthonic aspect. The Name D ithyram bos. The Dithyramb and Phrygia § I. The attempts to throw light upon the original character of the dithyramb by reference to the derivation of the name have so far led to no certain results. It is generally recognized that the derivation which was evidently the popular one in antiquity,4 and which made dithyrambos the song of the god who, having been born a second time, came ‘through two doors’, is philologically impossible, though it is evidence of the association of both name and song with Dionysus. The same difficulty attaches to the other derivations which inter­ pret dì- as ‘double’, e.g. those which refer to the double flute, or that given in the Etymologicum Magnum : ‘because he was brought up in a two-doored cave on Nysa.’ § 2. If we pass over various fantastic suggestions made in ii.

1 Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie, v. 1212. 2 Psyche, ii. 45. 3 Quaest. Grace., ch. 12 (p. 293 c): see M. P. Nilsson, Griechische Feste von religiöser Bedeutung (1906), pp. 286 ff. 4 It is implied in Eur. Bacch. 523 ff., and is given by many grammatici, &c.

8

T H E D IT H Y R A M B

antiquity, we find that most scholars agree in connecting dithyrambos, thriambos, and triump{h)us. (The meaning of dithy­ rambos and thriambos, whether in application to the song or the god, appears to be identical.)1Probably the syllable -amb­ ili these words should be considered along with the same syllable in ithymbos, iambos, and perhaps Kasambos (Herod, vi. 73), Lykambes (Archilochus, &c.), Sarambos (Plat. Gorg. 518b), Serambos (Paus. vi. x, § 9), Opisambo (Soph., fr. 406, Pearson). In these the syllable may well mean ‘step5or ‘move­ ment5, and the three words iambos, thriambos, dithyrambos seem to form a series ‘one (or two) step, three step, four step5. [Brandenstein, however, regards the words as Mycenaean Greek in origin, while Haas says that they are old Phrygian.12 At least the series seems to be very old, and it is worth noting that Iambe is the daughter of Keleos in the Homeric hymn to Demeter (195) and Iambos is the name of a warrior in Arctinus5 Sack of Troy (vi), which was also probably written in the eighth century b.c.] An entirely different theory of the derivation of the name has been given by Sir William Calder.3*He has published two Phrygian tomb inscriptions of the third century a .d . In one the word dithrera (in another inscription dithrepsa) is inter­ preted to mean a tomb; in the other ‘heavenly Diounsis5 (taken to be the Phrygian god corresponding to the Greek Dionysus) is coupled with Wanax (lord of the underworld) as the. competent divine authorities to safeguard a devotio. On the strength of these dithyrambos is equated with dithreranbas, which is interpreted as Lord of the Tomb. [The theory that Dionysos was originally an Anatolian diety associated with graves is certainly attractive. But the whole question is put in an entirely new perspective now that we know that Dionysos was a Mycenaean god and probably taken over by 1 For the god, see above, p. 5. For the song, cf. Cratinus, fr. 36 (Didaskaliai) : ‘When you drew forth the fair thriamboi and became hateful.’ 2 W. Brandenstein, Indogermanische Forschungen, liv (1956), 34-38; O. Haas, Rev. Hittite et Asianique, liii (1951), 3. (W)iambos ‘two-step’ is more likely than iambos ‘one-step’ in view of the retained digamma in the Arctinus quotation. Another element in Dionysiae religion, the thyrsus, has recently been identified in hieroglyphic Hittite (cf. Gioita, lxxxvi (1956), 235). 2 C.R. xxxvi (1922), i i ff.; xli (1927), 161.

THE NAM E D IT H Y R A M B O S

9

the Mycenaeans from the Minoans, who themselves are likely to have come to Crete from Asia. If Sir William Calder’s ex­ planation of dithrera is right, the word may be due to Greek influence on the Phrygian version of the old Anatolian cult. For dithyrambos itself the series discussed above gives the most likely explanation. The name and therefore the song is probably very old but for our purposes we must start with Archilochus.] § 4. The double use of the name, for a song and for the god himself, has given rise (as the double use of the name ‘Paean’)1 to the question which use has the priority. Those who derived the name from the supposed circumstances of the birth of the god evidently regarded it as primarily the name of the god, afterwards transferred to the song in his honour. (They would doubtless have held the same view in regard to the Linos-song.) If, on the other hand, the word includes a root meaning ‘step’ or ‘movement’, it must first have been the name of the song. It would, however, take us too far to discuss the view of those scholars who think that the idea of the god grew out of the emotional experience of the Bacchic revellers at the time when dithyramb was a revelsong and dance, and that they so named the power which they felt to be in and among them. There are grave difficulties in this view, and at best it can be no more than a conjecture.

hi.

From Archilochus to Pindar

§ i. We may now return to the fragment of Ar c h il o c h u s . The lines appear to imply a song led off by one of a band of singers, and they tell us no more. They do not suggest a literary composition for a chorus, but rather the singing of some improvization by the exarchon, with a traditional refrain in which the band of revellers joins, as the mourners join in the threnos in the last book of the Iliad:2 ‘and beside (the bier) they set singers as leaders [exarchoi) of the lament, and in groaning voice they made the lamentation and the women groaned thereto.’ 1 [Paean, in the early form pajawo(n), is already a god on a Mycenaean tablet (Knossos, V 52); in Homer Paieon is the doctor of the gods; later it becomes a title of Apollo.] 2 xxiv. 720. See also below, p. 90.

IO

T H E D IT H Y R A M B

Athenaeus quotes the lines of Archilochus in proof of the connexion of the dithyramb with wine and intoxication1and adds a line from the Philoctetes of Epicharmus (fr. 132) : ‘there is no dithyramb when you drink water’, which at any rate shows that the association of dithyramb with wine persisted for a century and a half or so after Archilochus. [Archilochus must not be taken too literally. It is part of his habitual swagger to say that he leads the dithyramb when his wits are fused with wine, and no conclusions can be drawn as to the nature of his dithyramb except the bare facts that he was the leader like the leaders of the lament in the Iliad and that he had a chorus to lead. The inscriptional Life2 of Archilochus does, however, add new facts which may be brought into connexion with his dithyramb. The inscription is badly mutilated, but it is clear that Archilochus tried to introduce a fertility cult of Dionysus into Paros and was opposed. Then the men became sterile, and when they consulted the Delphic oracle they were told to honour Archilochus, which presumably means that he was allowed to introduce the cult. The story ends in the inscrip­ tion with a very fragmentary poem of Archilochus which mentions Dionysus, unripe grapes, honey-sweet figs (both perhaps with a transferred sexual meaning rather than a literal meaning), and Oipholios,3 which must be the name of a fertility spirit. The story is so like the story of the introduc­ tion of the cult of Dionysos Eleuthereus into Athens, where the dithyramb was an integral part of the festival, that it is tempting to suppose that Archilochus also composed his dithyramb for the new cult.] § 2. But the dithyramb as a literary composition for the chorus was, so far as our evidence goes, the creation of arion , who lived at Corinth during the reign of Periander (about 625-585 B.G.). For we need hardly consider seriously the question mentioned by Pseudo-Plut. de Mus. x. 1134 e whether the Paeans ofXenocritus (or Xenocrates) ofLocri Epizephyrii, 1 Athen, xiv. 628 a. z Kondoleon, Arch. Eph., 1952, 58 f., A iii, 1. 16 f.; Lasserre, Archiloque, Testimonia 12; Webster, Greek Art and Literature, 700-530 B.C. (1939), ch. iii, n. 7. 3 Cf. Oiphon, the name of a satyr on an early red-figure amphora (Beazley, A.R.V. 25/7; Greek Vases in Poland (1928), p. 13, pis. 4-6).

F R O M A R C H IL O C H U S T O P IN D A R

n

a poet older than Stesichorus, may not really have been dithyrambs, because they dealt with heroic themes. The ques­ tion appears to imply a later conception of dithyramb than can be ascribed to the seventh century.1Nor does any ancient writer ascribe dithyrambs to Stesichorus, who lived (approxi­ mately) between 640 and 560 b .c ., though he wrote largely on heroic themes.12 In fact his poems seem to have been accom­ panied by the cithara, not, like the early dithyrambs, by the flute.3 To infer from the fragment of the Oresteia,4 ‘having discovered the delicate Phrygian song when spring begins’, that the poems of Stesichorus generally were performed in spring and to Phrygian music (like the dithyramb) would be to generalize far too boldly from an isolated quotation. With regard to Arion there are great difficulties which will best be discussed in connexion with Tragedy.5 But the words in our authorities which refer beyond question to dithyramb are capable of a fairly certain interpretation. Herodotus6 speaks of Arion as ‘the first of men whom we know to have composed the dithyramb and named it and produced it in Corinth’. The Suda lexicon reproduces this statement in the form : ‘first composed a stationary chorus and sang a dithy­ ramb and named what the chorus sang.’7 Herodotus’ word ‘produced’ implies a chorus and this is expanded in the lexicon to ‘composed a stationary chorus’. [The Greek phrase which I have so translated here and in note 3 on Stesichorus, means literally ‘to set up a chorus’ but I think that in late authors it means to ‘make a chorus sing a stasimori, a term 1 The writer of the de Mus. does not say who raised the question. After quoting the account given of Thaletas by Glaucus of Rhegium, who wrote On ancient poets about the end of the fifth, or beginning of the fourth, century b.c., he continues with the discussion of Xenocritus. The remarks about Xenocritus are plainly a parenthesis, derived from an unspecified source, and inserted by the writer in his summary of Glaucus’ account of Thaletas. 2 See Vürtheim, Stesichoros Fragmente u. Biographie, pp. 103-5. 3 Suda (s.v.), ‘He was called Stesichorus because he first composed stationary choruses for lyre accompaniment’, and Quintii, x. x, § 62 ‘epici carminis onera lyra sustinentem’. 4 Fr. 37 (Bergk4), 14 (Diehl). s See below, pp. 97 flf. 6 i. 23. 7 The passage quoted is preceded by the words ‘he is said also to have invented the tragic mode’ and succeeded by the words ‘and introduced satyrs speaking verses’. These will be discussed below under Tragedy, p. 98 [App.].

T H E D IT H Y R A M B

perhaps invented for drama and used by Aristotle in the Poetics for the regular songs of the chorus in the orchestra as distinct from their entrance (parodos) and their exit {exodos). In form these songs are antistrophic or triadic, and if this form was preserved in genuine or forged Arion, this may have suggested the interpretation.] ‘Named it’ or ‘named what the chorus sang’ implies that Arion made their song a regular poem, with a definite subject from which it took its name. The words need not mean that he first gave the name ‘dithyramb’ to a performance : that would be obviously false, since Archilochus did this long before, and Herodotus is likely to have known this; Archilochus was a well-known author at least to the Athenians of the fifth century. The words mean that Arion first gave his dithyrambs names, as dealing with definite subjects. Pindar’s allusion,1 already quoted, to the creation of the literary dithyramb at Corinth shows that it was still performed as part of the worship of Dionysus. The scholiast on Pindar, Olymp, xiii. 19, explains Pindar’s words as referring to Arion;12 but he, or another, writing on 1. 25 of the same ode, is not unnaturally perturbed by the fact that in other places Pindar spoke of Naxos or of Thebes as the scene of the invention of dithyramb. Pindar had doubt­ less many patrons to please, and these places may well have been early homes of the dithyramb, perhaps in its pre-literary forms. But the tradition recorded by Herodotus, even though he writes 150 years after the event, strongly supports the claim of Corinth and of Arion to have converted the dithyramb into a form of poetry. It is of some importance also that Proclus found the same tradition in Aristotle;3 and on the whole it may be accepted with very fair confidence. § 3. Although Arion himself came from Methymna in 1 Olymp, xiii. 18: see above, p. 2. 2 ‘Or it should be understood thus. The Graces of Dionysiae dithyrambs appeared in Corinth, i.e. the best of Dionysiae dithyrambs appeared first in Corinth. For there the chorus was seen dancing. Arion was the first to compose a stationary chorus, later Lasos of Hermione.’ (Of course this scholium has no independent value.) 3 Cf. Proclus, Chrest. xii : ‘Pindar says the dithyramb was discovered in Corinth. The inventor of the song Aristotle calls Arion. He first led the circular chorus.’

F R O M A R C H IL O C H U S T O P IN D A R

13

Lesbos, his choruses must have been composed of the in­ habitants of Dorian Corinth.1 At a rather later date (in the time of Polycrates, i.e. shortly after the middle of the sixth century) we are told by Herodotus2 that the people of Argos, which was also Dorian, were said to be the first of the Greeks at music. Whether lasos of Hermione in Argolis was or was not of Dorian stock is unknown. The people of Hermione, Herodotus3 informs us, were not Dorians by origin, but Dryopes ; how far they kept themselves apart from their Dorian neighbours we cannot tell. In any case, it is to Lasos that the next important step in the history of the dithyramb appears to have been due, though the notices in regard to him are very unsatisfactory. He was born, according to the Suda lexicon, in the fiftyeighth Olympiad (548-545 b.c.). His wit and wisdom do not here concern us;4 but there are two things which seem to have been definitely associated with his name—the institu­ tion of dithyrambic contests at Athens, and some elaboration of the rhythms and the range of notes employed in the music of the dithyramb. As to the former, Lasos was at Athens in the time of Hipparchus, son of Peisistratus, and detected the attempt of Onomacritus to insert forged verses among the oracles of Musaeus.5 The Suda lexicon says of him that he introduced the dithyramb to the contest.6 There is, however, a further hint of Lasos’ connexion with dithyrambic competitions in Aristophanes ( Wasps, 1409), where a reminiscence may be preserved of an actual contest between Lasos and Simonides : ‘Lasos once was a rival producer and Simonides. Then Lasos said “I do not care” .’ Lasos may therefore have helped to introduce dithyrambic contests under the tyrants, and this may have led some writers wrongly to ascribe the invention of circular choruses to him (e.g. Schol. on Aristoph. Birds 1403: ‘Antipatros and Euphronios in their commentaries name Lasos of Hermione 1 Wilamowitz, Einleitung in die griechische Tragödie (1907), p. 63, notes that the population of Methymna itself, as is shown by inscriptions, was not wholly Aeolic. 2 iii. 131 [the passage is rejected by some]. 3 viii. 43. 4 See Diog. L. 1. i. 14; Stob. Flor. 29. 70 (Gaisf.) ; Hesych., s.v. lasismata, &c. 5 Herod, vii. 6. 6 Gf., however, Garrod in Classical Review, xxxiv. 136.

ϊ

4

T H E D IT H Y R A M B

as the first to compose stationary songs for circular choruses. Older authorities, Hellanicus and Dicaearchus, name Arion of Methymna, Dicaearchus in his book On Dionysiae contests, Hellanicus in the Karneonikai?1) With regard to the musical innovations made by Lasos, the Pseudo-Plutarch12 writes as follows : ‘Lasos of Hermione changed pre-existing music by altering the rhythms to the dithyrambic movement (agógé) and adjusting it to the poly­ phony of flutes and using more notes with a greater range.’ There is no reason to think that ‘dithyrambic movement’ means the non-antistrophic structure, which came in at a later date. The reference is more probably to the tempo or pace at which the words were sung.34Perhaps Lasos increased the rapidity of the delivery, and his example was followed by later composers ; and if, in addition, he increased the range and variety of the notes employed, taking full advantage of the possibilities of the flute, he may have inaugurated that predominance of the music over the words against which, as we shall see, Pratinas shortly afterwards protested. Statements in scholia, &c., that Lasos was the teacher of Pindar, or of Simonides, may merely be due to a desire to set the various poets in some relation to one another—the mis­ taken attempt thus to humanize chronology being one of the causes of the frequent unreliability of such notices. The Suda adds, without giving any authority, that Lasos was the first to write a prose work On MusicΛ He was also famous in antiquity for having indulged his dislike for sibilants by com­ posing ‘asigmatic songs’, one of which was a hymn to Demeter of Hermione, and another was called Centaurs.56The opening lines of Pindar’s Herakles or Kerberos6 may refer to Lasos’ 1 Hellanicus seems to have written in the latter part of the fifth century; Dicaearchus lived c. 347-287 b . c ., Euphronios in the third century b . c . ; Antipatros is unknown. 2 de Mus. xxix. 1141 b, c [App.]. 3 Cf. Aristid. Quint., p. 42 : ‘movement (agógé) is speed or slowness in time of rhythms.’ 4 Wilamowitz, Pindaros, p. 112, does not accept this; but thinks that precepts of his survived into later days; and this may well be the truth. 5 Athen, x. 455 c; xiv. 624 e. Athenaeus’ authorities were Glearchus (a pupil of Aristotle) and Heracleides Ponticus (c. 340 b . c . ) . Many other references may be found in Oxyrh. Pap. xiii. 41. 6 Pindar, fr. 61 Bowra, 70b Snell. See below, p. 23.

15 dislike of sigma; and if they do, then Lasos’ asigmatic songs included dithyrambs. The Demeter is excluded by its mode (Aeolian or Hypodorian). The Centaurs may have been a dithyramb : but the only certain fact about the contents of his dithyrambs is the wholly unimportant one recorded by Aelian,1 that he called a young lynx by the name of skymnos (whelp). In view of the attribution of dithyrambic contests to the initiative of Lasos, it is somewhat puzzling to find that the Parian Marble12 definitely ascribes the first dithyrambs sung by a chorus of men to a year which may be 510/9 or 509/8 B.c., and states that the first victory was won by h y po d icu s of Chalcis. It is, however, at least possible that this refers to the first victory at the Dionysia as organized under the demo­ cracy, and as distinct from such contests as may have been arranged by the tyrants with the assistance of Lasos. There is no evidence of musical and poetic contests at Athens before the time of Peisistratus.3 No date can be assigned to ba cchiadas of Sicyon, whose victories with a chorus of men on Mt. Helicon (i.e. probably at Thespiae) are recorded by Athenaeus ;4 but the record refers to an early period. § 4. Sim onides was probably the most famous and success­ ful of all the ancient writers of dithyrambs. In an extant epigram he claims to have won fifty-six dithyrambic vic­ tories : ‘Six upon fifty bulls, Simonides, you won and tripods before dedicating this tablet. So many times you trained the lovely chorus of men and stepped upon the bright Chariot of Victory.’5 F R O M A R C H IL O C H U S T O P IN D A R

1 N.A. vii. 47. 2 Epoch 46. The Marble gives the name of the archon as Lysagoras. Scholars are divided as to whether this is a mason’s error for Isagoras, or whether Lysagoras may be taken to be the name of the archon of 509/8, who is other­ wise unknown. See Wilamowitz, Aristoteles u. Athen, i (1893), 6, and Hermes, xx. 66; Munro, C.R. xv. 357; Else, Hermes, lxxxv (1957), 25. [Cadoux, J.H.S. Ixvii (1947), 113, decides for 509/8.] 3 See E. Reisch, de Musicis Graecorum certaminibus (1885), oh. ii; [J. A. Davison, J.H.S. Ixxviii (1958), 38.] 4 xiv. 629 a. Perhaps the text is wrong, and ‘boys’ should be read for ‘men’ : see Reisch, op. cit., p. 57. 5 Fr. 145 (Bergk4), 79 (Diehl) = Anth. Pal. vi. 213.

TH E DITHYRAM B

It is not stated that all these victories were won in Athens and it is doubtful whether this can have been the case, even when all possible occasions of dithyrambic performances are taken into the reckoning. The date of the epigram may have been the same as that of Epig. 147 (77 Diehl), which was written in 477/6 b . c . to be inscribed beneath the tripod won by the victorious tribe, when the poet was eighty years old : ‘Adeimantos was archon of the Athenians when the tribe Antiochis won the well-wrought tripod. The son of Xenophilos, Aristeides, was the choregos of the well taught chorus of fifty men. For their training the glory fell to Simonides, eightyyear-old son of Leoprepes.’ It is remarkable that in the first of these two epigrams of Simonides fifty-six victories are all stated to have been won with choruses of men : and this suggests (though it does not answer) the question whether the choruses of boys may not have been a later institution than the choruses of men. It is generally agreed that Epig. 148, attributed to ‘Bacchylides or Simonides’,1 is at any rate not by the latter, but there is no doubt of its early date, c. 485 b .c .,2 and it is im­ portant for the light which it throws on the customs connected with dithyrambic performances.3 It commemorates the vic­ tory of an otherwise unknown poet, Antigenes, representing the Acamantid tribe, and names the flute-player, Ariston of Argos, and the choregos, Hipponikos, son of Strouthon ;4 the dithyramb is called ‘ivy-bearing’, which presumably means that the singers wore ivy, and the poets are crowned with ribbons and roses by the seasons. Unfortunately, no fragment of Simonides that is certainly dithyrambic survives.5 Strabo mentions a dithyramb of Simonides called Memnon in a passage6 which has given rise 1 Bergk, Poet. Lyr. iii4. 496-7 ; Diehl gives text under Antigenes : Wilamowitz, Sappho u. Simonides (1913), pp. 218 if. 2 Wilamowitz, op. cit., p. 222. Reisch (R.E. iii, col. 2384) says ‘Ende des 5 Jhdts.?’, but gives no reasons. 3 See below, p. 34. 4 I cannot agree with Wilamowitz in thinking that the victory was the first victory of the tribe; the epigram seems far more likely to mean that it was the latest of them. 5 The conjecture of W. Schmid and others (see Oxyrh. Pap. xiii. 27) that the ‘Danae’ was a dithyramb cannot be proved. [Cf. A. E. Harvey, C.Q,. xlix (1955), 168.] 6 XV. 728.

F R O M A R C H IL O C H U S T O P IN D A R

17

to some controversy: 'Memnon is said to be buried near Paltos in Syria by the river Badas, as Simonides says in the dithyramb Memnon, which belongs to the Deliaka.’ The natural meaning of this would be that Strabo found this statement about the burial of Memnon in a dithyramb of Simonides—either, simply, one of those written for perform­ ance at Delos or perhaps one of a collection, such as Wilamowitz1 supposes to have existed, of those composed for Delos. A conjecture of M. Schmidt12 tries to bring Memnon into con­ nexion with Dionysus, on the strength of a story mentioned by Servius3to the effect that Priam obtained Memnon’s aid by the gift of a golden vine to Tithonus, so that in a sense Mem­ non’s death was due to Dionysus ; but this is very far-fetched. A poem by Simonides called Europa was mentioned by Aristophanes of Byzantium.4That the Europa was a dithyramb appears to be assumed by Bergk,5 though it does not seem that any evidence exists. But whatever may be the truth about the Europa, the mention of the Memnon, if Strabo’s description of it as a dithyramb is to be trusted, gives reason to think that the dithyrambs of Simonides, like those of Arion, dealt with definite and special divine or heroic subjects, though it is likely enough that Dionysus was appropriately recognized at some point in the poem. Evidence for the growing predominance of the flute accom­ paniment over the words in choral poetry (a tendency already noted in Lasos of Hermione) is given in the long fragment of Pratinas, which has been discussed by a number of scholars :6 W hat is this noise? W hat are these dances? W hat is this mad­ ness at the resounding altar of Dionysus? Bromios is mine, mine. 1 Textgeschichte der griechischen Lyriker (1900), p. 38; he goes beyond the evi­ dence, however, in citing Paus. iv. xxxvii as proof of the existence of such a collection. In his Einl. in die gr. Trag., p. 64, he denies the value of Strabo’s statement entirely, but without giving reasons. 2 Diatribe in Dith., p. 132. 3 On Virg. Aen. i. 489. 4 B. C. E. Miller, Mélanges de litt.grecque, p. 430. 5 Poet. Lyr.iii4.399. 6 Pratinas, fr. 1 (Diehl) = Athen, xiv. 617 b [App.]. Cf., particularly, K. O. Müller, Kleine deutsche Schriften, i (1847), 519; Wilamowitz, Sappho u. Simonides, pp. 132 ff.; H. W. Garrod, C.R. xxxiv (1920), 129 ff.; [A. M. Dale, Eranos, xlviii (1950), 14; Words, Music, and Dance (i960), n f . ; E. Roos, Die Tragische Orchestik im Zerrbild der altattischen Komödie (1951), pp. 211 f.; A. Lesky, Tragische Dichtung, p. 21]. 6188

G

T H E D IT H Y R A M B

It is for me to cry, for me to make the noise, ranging the moun­ tains with Naiads, like a swan leading the many-feathered song. The song is the queen appointed by the Muse, let the flute dance afterwards. For it is the servant. It can only lead the revel and the street battles of young drunkards. Beat the man with the voice of the spotted toad, burn the slave with the drilled body, the spittle-wasting reed, the heavy chatter, the slow discordant measure. See here I fling my right hand and my foot, Thriambodithyrambos, ivy-wreathed lord. Listen to my Dorian dance.

The first difficulty is to determine the date to which the fragment is to be assigned. It seems natural to think of it as referring to the changes introduced by Lasos, and if so it is not likely to be much later than 500 b .c ., by which time, as is practically certain, Pratinas had introduced satyric drama from Phlius into Athens.1 But Garrod is inclined to assign it to a date about 468 b . c ., and to explain it as referring to the innovations of Melanippides,2 whose appearance he regards as roughly synchronous with the floruit of his senior contem­ porary, Diagoras of Melos, placed under that year by Euse­ bius. The allusion to Phrynichus which some have seen in the toad (phryneou) would be compatible with either date. The decision depends upon the interpretation of passages of Athenaeus and Pseudo-Plutarch, which are unfortunately not easy to explain. Athenaeus introduces the fragment of Pratinas with the words : ‘Pratinas of Phlius, when hired flute-players and dancers dominated the orchestra, being angry because the flute-players did not accompany the choruses in the traditional manner but the choruses accom­ panied the flute-players, displayed his anger against those responsible by this hyporcheme’ The Pseudo-Plutarch3 con­ tinues the passage on Lasos (quoted above) : In the same way Melanippides the later lyric poet did not adhere to the existing music, nor did Philoxenos or Timotheos. For he, although the seven-note lyre had lasted till the time of Terpander of Antissa, gave it a wider range of notes. Flute-playing 1 See below, pp. 65 if. 2 In the discussion which follows it is assumed that there was only one Melanippides, and that the ‘elder Melanippides’ is a fiction of the Suda lexicon. (See Rohde, Rheinisches Museum, xxxiii. 2x3-14; and below, p. 39 if.). 3 de Mus., chs. xxix, xxx (i 141 c, d).

F R O M A R C H IL O C H U S T O P IN D A R

19

also changed from a simpler to a more varied kind of music. For before until the time of Melanippides the dithyrambic poet it was the custom for the flute-players to be paid by the poets, because evidently the poetry was the more important part, and the flute-players served the producers. Later this custom too was cor­ rupted.

It is unlikely that the author would have written ‘Melanip­ pides the dithyrambic poet’ only a very few lines after ‘Melanippides the lyric poet’. There would have been no need for a new description of the poet so soon; and as the earlier sentence appears to be quite in place—Lasos began the process, Melanippides carried it further—it is possible that the words ‘until the time of Melanippides the dithyrambic poet’ should be bracketed1as one among the many interpola­ tions in this treatise. But if so, no reason remains for seeing a reference to Melanippides in the passages of Athenaeus and Pseudo-Plutarch, the common source of which, as Garrod says, was probably Aristoxenus ; these passages, and the frag­ ment of Pratinas, may quite well refer to Lasos.1 2 It is to be noticed also that the fragment attributed to Pherecrates, which the Pseudo-Plutarch quotes to illustrate his statements, plainly regards the innovations of Melanip­ pides as affecting the lyre, not the flute : and this accords well with the passage of Pseudo-Plutarch which deals with the lyre and returns to the flute with the words ‘flute-playing also’. There is, moreover, a slight improbability in the supposi­ tion that Pratinas was alive and composing as late as 468 b .c . In 467 at the tragic competition his plays were brought out by his son Aristias,3and it is at least likely that he died before this. 1 Not, however, for the reasons given by Weil and Reinach—that Melan­ ippides attacked the art of flute-playing in his Marsyas, and is therefore unlikely to have given it prominence in his practice. Poets are not always so consistent. 2 There is no independent evidence as to the payment of the flute-player, except that in Demosthenes’ day he was certainly paid by the choregos. [Cf A. W. Pickard-Cambridge, Dramatic Festivals o f Athens (1953), pp. 76, 89.] 3 Arg. Aesch. Sept. c. Theb. We know of no instance of a competitor in Tragedy or Satyric Drama bringing out the work of another during his life­ time, though this was often done in the case of Comedy.

T H E D IT H Y R A M B

We may therefore provisionally, though without claiming any kind of certainty, interpret the protest of Pratinas as directed against the excessive importance assigned to the flute by Lasos. It is certainly a protest against contemporary virtuosity. [There is no agreement as to what the fragment of Pratinas is. Athenaeus calls it a hyporcheme\ Wilamowitz regarded it as a dithyramb ; most scholars have regarded it as a chorus from a satyr-play. Unprejudiced interpretation1 certainly suggests that the chorus is sung by satyrs and that the satyric chorus is rounding on its own flute-player. But does this commit us to the view that the fragment comes from a satyric play? The style certainly suggests dithyramb, as we know it from Aristophanic parody, rather than satyr-play. It is inconceivable that Athenaeus should have called it a hyporcheme when he knew it came from a satyr-play. Wilamowitz’s suggestion is less unlikely because a dithyramb without narrative content might have been classified by the Alexandrians as a hypor­ cheme. There is also some evidence that a dithyramb could be sung by satyrs. A vase2 of about 425 b . c . shows three men dressed as old satyrs prancing along with lyres towards a flute-player; above them is an inscription ‘Singers at the Panathenaea’ and the only choral contest that we know at the Panathenaea was the contest of dithyrambs. Moreover, the practice is put back into the time of Pratinas by a blackfigure vase3 showing three similar elderly satyrs, identical in posture but not clearly portrayed as performers as on the later vase. It is therefore possible that the fragment comes from an early-fifth-century dithyramb by Pratinas.]

IV. Pindar,

Bacchylides, and others

§ i . Pin d a r (518-442 b . c .), to whom two ‘books’ of dithy­ rambs were attributed, is described by scholiasts and others as a pupil of Lasos, to whom he was committed by the fluteplayer Scopelinus ; others said that he was taught at Athens 1 Cf. A. M. Dale, loc. cit. ; Festivals, p. 262. 2 Cf. List of Monuments, No. 1, and above, p. 4, n. 3. 3 Cf. List of Monuments, No. 2 ; cf. also No. 3 discussed below.

P IN D A R , B AC C H Y L I D E S, A N D O T H E R S

21

by Agathocles or Apollodorus or both. We cannot check these statements. But we have some striking fragments of his dithyrambs. One is quoted by Dionysius of Halicarnassus1as an illustra­ tion of the severe style. The text and the exact interpretation are sometimes uncertain.2 Hither to my chorus, Olympians, and send your glorious bless­ ing, gods, who frequent the populous incensed navel of the city in holy Athens and the famous decorated agora. Receive violetbound wreaths and spring-plucked songs ; see me with my bright­ ness of songs, as Zeus sends me a second time to the ivy-giving god, whom we mortals call Bromios and Eriboas. I am come to sing the line of lofty fathers and Cadmeian women. Clear signs do not escape the prophet when the purple-robed Hours open their storehouse and fragrant spring leads on nectarean flowers. Then the lovely tresses of violets are thrown on the immortal earth and roses are bound in the hair, and the voices of songs ring out with the flutes, and the choruses visit wreathed Semele.

It was written for performance at Athens ; and that it was for performance in the Agora rather than in a Dionysiae theatre is suggested by the fact that the gods of the Agora are first addressed.3 The whole expression seems to be a request to the gods of Athens to listen to Pindar, and would be quite appropriate in a Dionysiae orchestra or in any site in Athens. It is plain that the Athenian dithyramb was a spring per­ formance ; there is no trace of the winter dithyramb, such as was performed at Delphi; and clearly Semele was one of its traditional themes. The language and ideas are simple when compared with the more highly wrought passages of Pindar’s Epinikian odes; but it is noticeable how few substantives go without an ornamental or descriptive epithet, and some have two. At first sight it is hard to follow Dionysius when he takes the poem as representative of the severe style, but Dionysius refers not to what we should call the ‘tone’ of the poem, but 1 de Comp. Vb. xxii. 75 Snell. Snell adds fr. 83 (72 Bowra) : ‘There was a time when they called the race of Boeotians pigs.’] 3 [Cf., most recently, K. Friis Johansen, Meddelelser Dansk Videnskabernes Selskab. 4, No. 2 (1959), p. 37. See below, pp. 35, 37 f.]

2 [Fr. 63 Bowra,

22

TH E DITHYRAM B

to a certain roughness or want of euphony in the juxtaposi­ tion of letters and syllables,1 very difficult for our ears to detect, though Dionysius unkindly says that it is plain to all who have any feeling for style. He speaks of the lines as ‘slow in their time-movement’ but the reference is once more to the relative length of time required for the pronunciation of different collocations of letters ; to a modern reader the effect produced by the abundance of resolved feet is one of rapidity and even of hurry. It is generally stated that the fragment is written in non-antistrophic verse ; but the fragment is only of about the same length as the first strophe of the Herakles or Kerberos,2 and may well be the first strophe of an antistrophic poem. There is, in fact, no sufficient ground for attributing non-antistrophic compositions to Pindar. There are also extant three short fragments3 of another dithyramb written by Pindar for Athens : 76. Shining and violet-crowned and sung, bulwark of Greece, famous Athens, city of the gods. 77. Where the sons of the Athenians laid down the shining foundation of freedom. 78. Listen, War-Cry, daughter of War, prelude of spears, to whom men are sacrificed in the holy sacrifice of death for their city. It was on account of the praise of Athens contained in this dithyramb that the Athenians richly rewarded the poet, and (perhaps at a later date) set up a statue to him.4 Two fragments, one of which certainly,s the other probably,6 comes from a dithyramb, refer to the story of Orion, whose origin is stated by Strabo7 to have been described in a dithyramb. The first (fr. 72) alludes to Orion’s attack upon Merope, daughter of Oenopion, under the influence of wine. 1 Dionysius works out these points in great detail, but it would be beside the present purpose to discuss them here. 2 This is noticed by Grenfell and Hunt, Oxyrh. Pap. xiii. 28. 3 Frs. 76-78 Snell, 64-66 Bowra. The ascription of frs. 77 and 78 to the same poem as fr. 76 is based by Christ on the similarity of metre and subject. Wilamowitz, Pindaros, p. 272, is doubtful about the reference of fr. 78 to Athens. 4 Paus. X. viii, § 4. As to the date of the statue, see Wilamowitz, op. cit., p. 273. [Cf. K. Schefold, Bildnisse der antiken Dichter, Redner u. Denker (Basle, 1943), p. 139.] 5 Fr. 68 Bowra. 6 Fr. 70 Bowra. 7 ix. 404.

P IN D A R , B A G G H Y L ID E S , A N D O T H E R S

23

The second (fr. 74) mentions Pleione, the Pleiad whom he assaulted. The remaining fragments of Pindar’s dithyrambs, apart from those discovered at Oxyrhynchus, need no comment.1 It is probable that Boeckh was right in ascribing to a dithyramb fr. 156:2 ‘Fierce is the dancer whom the mountain of Malea nurtured, the husband of the Naiad.’ But by far the most striking dithyrambic fragment is that found at Oxyrhynchus ; a few lines of it were previously known. It was entitled Herakles or Kerberos, and was written for Thebes.3 Before the dithyramb song was stretched out like a rope and the sigma issued discredited from the lips of men. Now new gates are open for the circular choirs. Cry aloud, knowing what manner of festival of Bromios the celestials by the very sceptre of Zeus establish in his halls. By the holy mighty mother the round drums begin, the clappers clash, and the torch blazes with the golden pines. The omnipotent thunderbolt is stirred to breathe fire, and the spear of Enyalios, and the strong aegis of Pallas utters the cries of ten thousand snakes. Swiftly will come lovely Artemis and yoke the fierce lions in Bacchic spirit to honour Bromios. And he is charmed by the dancing herds of beasts. I am the chosen herald of poetry whom the Muse has chosen for Greece with its lovely choruses—to wish prosperity to Thebes, the land of chariots, where once, we are told, Kadmos won a shrewd wife with lofty thoughts, Harmonia. She heard the voice of Zeus and bore a glorious line among men. Dionysos . . . (fr. 81) and beside him I praise you, Geryon, but what is not dear to Zeus may I pass over in silence complete.

The beginning and Pindar’s return to himself later contrast the archaic long-drawn dithyramb with Pindar’s new style. As the editors have pointed out, the fact that the present fragment is antistrophic disposes of the idea that Pindar was introducing the composition of dithyrambs in a nonantistrophic form and rejecting the ‘long-drawn’ succession of strophes and antistrophes or of triads. The reference to ‘the 1 Frs. 80, 82-86« Snell; 67, 71, 73-77 Bowra. 2 Fr. 142 Bowra. 3 [Fr. ηοό Snell, 61 Bowra. Snell adds fr. 81 (70 Bowra) and suggests that the story (attributed to Pindar by a Homeric scholiast) of Herakles meeting Meleager in Hades and promising him to marry Deianira also belongs here.]

T H E D IT H Y R A M B

24

sigma’ is doubtless (as Athenaeus and Dionysius state) to the asigmatic songs of Lasos, and (though the expression remains difficult), the least objectionable translation seems to be ‘formerly the song of dithyrambs issued long drawn out, and the san (i.e. sigma) issued as a base coin from the lips of men’, i.e. the use of the sound was so discredited that Lasos actually rejected it. Pindar may have introduced a shorter form of dithyramb than that of Lasos or he may be referring to his own contorted style and narrative in contrast to something more straightforward, but in fact we cannot be certain to what exactly ‘stretched out like a rope’ refers. The greater part of the fragment (which is but the intro­ duction to a narrative now lost) describes ‘what manner of festival of Bromios the celestials by the very sceptre of Zeus celebrate in their halls’. Unfortunately, the defectiveness of the text leaves in obscurity the connexion of this description with the new type of dithyramb ; but the suggestion which has been made, that the new type was modelled on the heavenly festival of Bromios, cannot really be sustained. The heavenly festival, in which each god showed his enthusiasm in his own characteristic way, was evidently a much more varied performance than we ever find denoted by the word ‘dithyramb’; it includes elements which belong, not to the dithyramb, but to the trieteric orgies in which the worship and the instruments belonging to the Great Mother were combined with those of Dionysus. The transition is probably simply an appeal to chorus or audience ‘Cry aloud because you know’. Only at the end with the mention of Thebes is a possible transition prepared to the story of Herakles and Kerberos. In the same papyrus are traces of two other dithyrambs. The first,1 probably composed for Argos, was clearly antistrophic, and the extant words suggest that its subject was Perseus and his exploits ; the other was perhaps written for Corinth,2 but is so fragmentary that neither its subject nor its structure can be made out. The Pindaric dithyramb was thus, so far as our evidence goes, an antistrophic composition dealing with special themes 1 Snell 70a, Bowra 60.

2 Snell ηοε, Bowra 62.

P IN D A R , BAG C H Y L I D E S , A N D O T H E R S

25

taken from divine and heroic legend, but still maintaining its particular connexion with Dionysus, who is celebrated, ap­ parently at or near the opening of the song, whatever its subject. As regards the language, the extant fragments hardly explain Horace’s lines:1 seu per audaces nova dithyrambos verba devolvit numerisque fertur lege solutis.

Horaee may be mistakenly attributing the non-antistrophic dithyramb to Pindar;2· or he may be referring to other metrical licences, such as the freedom which Pindar displays in regard to resolved feet. The fragments do not give us many bold compounds, but this may be an accident. § 2. During Pindar’s time there flourished also praxilla of Sicyon; Eusebius gives the date when she was, or became, well known as 450 b .c. The only extant line which is actually ascribed to a dithyramb of Praxilla is a hexameter verse quoted by Hephaestion3 as ‘Praxilla in dithyrambs in an ode inscribed Achilles : But they never persuaded your soul in your breast’. But Crusius4 may be right in thinking that the words ‘in an ode inscribed Achilles’ are a correction of ‘in dithyrambs’ and that the latter is inaccurate. § 3. Another contemporary of Pindar and, like him, a pupil of Agathocles at Athens was lamprocles the master in music of Damon, who was the teacher of Pericles and Socrates. The only dithyrambic fragment of Lamprocles consists of a few words, quoted by Athenaeus,5 connecting the name of the Pleiades with Peleiades (doves). § 4. We may now pass to bacchylides, who was writing perhaps from about 481 to 431 b.c. The poems which are numbered xiv-xix in the papyrus are there called dithyrambs, and it may be assumed that they were so classed by the Alexandrian scholars on whose work the manuscript must 1 Odes, IV. ii. 10 ff. 2 Probably Pseudo-Censorinus, ch. 9 {Gramm. Lat. vi. 608, Keil), took him to mean this, when he states that Pindar ‘liberos etiam numeris modos edidit*. 3 de Metris, ch. ii, p. 9 (Consbr.) ; Praxilla, fr. 1 Diehl. 4 R.E. V , coi. 1214. 5 xi. 491 c.

26

T H E D IT H Y R A M B

have depended. (The dithyrambs are in the alphabetical order of the initial letters of their titles, and as these only go down to I, they doubtless formed part of a larger collection.) But it has been disputed in what sense they were dithyrambs. Were they actually written for performance by a circular chorus? Some of them appear to be on too slight a scale for what seems to have been (at least with some composers) a grand form of composition, if we may judge by the openings of Pindar’s dithyrambs contained in the two longer fragments, and by the fact that one of these fragments, after some thirty lines, has not yet come in sight of what we know to have been the main subject of the poem. In truth, however, we know too little of the usual scale of the dithyramb to have any right to generalize about it. The longest of the dithyrambs of Bacchylides, the one called Youths or Theseus (No. xvi) is affirmed by Jebb1 and others to have been a paean. This, however, is probably a mistake. The word ‘sang a paean’ in 1. 128 is part of the narrative, and gives no ground for thinking that the poem in which the narrative was contained is a paean. The invocation to Apollo in the last three lines is a natural prayer for victory to the god of Delos, where probably the poem was sung2—a god, moreover, to whom poets by custom appealed for victory ; and dithyrambs as well as paeans were sung by choruses sent to Delos from other cities.3 (The citation of the poem as a dithyramb by Servius has obviously no independent weight, but merely repeats the class-description of the poem which had been current long before him.) But were the poems classed as dithyrambs simply because they contained mainly heroic narrative? Plato,4 perhaps nearly a century later, thought of the dithyramb as mainly 1 p. 223 of his edition of Bacchylides. [Cf. also Snell, p. 43 of the Teubner edition.] 2 It cannot be taken as certain that it was composed for performance at Delos, but it would at least have been appropriate for this purpose (see Jebb’s note on 1. 130, p. 390) ; and this seems more likely than the idea of Comparetti (Melanges Weil, p. 32) that it was written for a chorus of Ceans admitted to competition at Athens. There is no recorded parallel to the sup­ posed admission. 3 See above, p. 3. For a later period the evidence of inscriptions is abundant. 4 Rep. iii. 394 c.

P IN D A R , B A G C H Y L ID E S , A N D O T H E R S

27

narrative, though this does not mean that he would have classed any narrative lyric poem as a dithyramb. The PseudoPlutarch1 or his authorities, and others to whom he alludes, thought of dithyramb as mainly dealing with heroic themes. But what evidence have we that the Alexandrian scholars, to whom probably the ascription of the title ‘Dithyrambs’ to these six poems is due, treated as dithyrambs poems which were not written for performance as dithyrambs, simply because they contained heroic narrative?12 The evidence of notices and quotations in scholia, &c., which must have been largely based on the work of Alexandrian scholars, suggests that the different kinds of lyric poem were still kept distinct, and gives no ground for supposing that the Alexandrians did not know which were dithyrambs and which were not. That No. XV was a dithyramb in the strict sense—one of those per­ formed at Delphi when Apollo was supposed to be absent and the paean was silent,3 the contents of the poem leave no room to doubt. On the whole, the balance of probability seems to be in favour of accepting these poems as really dithyrambs, in­ tended to be sung by circular choruses, whether at Athens or elsewhere, despite the differences of scale which they present, and which may possibly be due to a difference in the customs of the several festivals.45It will be best first to examine each separately, and then to consider any common characteristics which can be discerned. The first (xiv) is entitled Sons of Antenor or the demand for Helen* Menelaus and Odysseus are sent to Troy to demand the restoration of Helen, and are hospitably received by Antenor and his wife Theano, who is priestess of Athena, and is apparently (at the beginning of the poem) opening the doors of her temple to them. The poem is defective, but in the 1 de Mus. X . 1134 e. See above, p. 10. 2 [It appears from P. Oxy. 2368 that Aristarchus classified a poem probably by Bacchylides, which Callimachus had called a paean, as a dithyramb on the grounds of its narrative content. See Lobel, ad loc.] 3 Plut. de Ei ap. Delph., ch. ix. 4 [On the general problem cf. Lesky, op. cit., p. 18; A. E. Harvey, C.Q.. xlix (*955), 174·] 5 [Cf. J. D. Beazley, Proceedings of the British Academy, xliii (1957), 241.]

THE DITH Y RA M B

latter part, which is well preserved, Antenor brings the envoys before the assembled Trojans; Menelaus speaks in praise ofjustice and gives a warning against hybris, and there the poem ends. No. XVconsists of a single triad in a predominantly double­ short metre containing an introductory apostrophe to Apollo, in whose absence from Delphi during the winter dithyrambs were performed—the present one among them, and a very brief treatment of the story of Heracles and Deianeira, breaking off before the crisis, and giving more of allusion than of direct narrative. The poet looks forward to Apollo’s return, when the paeans will begin again. No. xvi, Youths or Theseus, is the longest and most beautiful of the dithyrambs. It has been argued above that it is probably a dithyramb in reality, and not a paean, and was composed for a chorus from Ceos to sing at Delos rather than (as Comparetti supposed) at Athens. Like No. xiv, it begins abruptly, but the story is more complete and the poem better rounded off. It tells how Minos sailed with Theseus and the seven youths and maidens sent from Athens as an offering to the Minotaur, and how Theseus resented the insult offered by Minos to Eriboea, accepted his challenge that he should plunge into the deep, the abode of his father Poseidon, and returned safely. The metre is predominantly single-short.1 It is in regard to No. xvii, entitled Theseus, that the greatest difficulties arise. It consists of four metrically similar aeolochoriambic strophes, the first and third spoken by a chorus of Athenians, the second and fourth by Aegeus, the reputed father of Theseus; it is a lyric dialogue in dramatic form, and is unique in extant Greek literature. The chorus asks the king why the people have been summoned to arms, and the king in reply tells them of the reported approach of an unknown youth who has slain the monsters that infested the country— Sinis, the Erymanthian boar, Cercyon, Procoptes; and, in answer to further questions, describes his appearance. There are no introductory words before or between the speeches, the change of speakers (who are not indicated in the papy­ rus) being marked only by the pause between the stanzas. 1 [Gf. A. M. Dale, C.£.x lv (1951), 29.]

P IN D A R , BAC C H Y L I D E S, A N D O T H E R S

29

Comparetti suggests that we have here a dithyramb like those of the days before Thespis, with a chorus and exarchon. [But here the chorus sing before Aegeus, and there is no distinction between the two in metre or length of verse. This may be a reminiscence of earlier dithyramb or an echo of contemporary tragedy. But there is no evidence that the Aegeus verses were performed in any different way from the chorus verses and it is pure conjecture to assume that they were.] The occasion of the poem is unknown; but the subject is an Athenian one, and the last words are complimentary to Athens, so that the poem may have been intended for per­ formance there ; and the legendary connexion of Theseus with the Thargelia slightly supports Jebb’s conjecture that it may have been written for that festival. No. xviii, entitled Io, was written for the Athenians. It consists of a single triad (fifty lines) in which double- and single-short rhythms1 are combined. It was probably written for a Dionysiae festival, as the climax of the very brief nar­ rative or rather allusion to the story of Io is the descent of Dionysus from Io, through Cadmus and Semele, who bore Dionysus, lord of garlanded choruses and inspirer of the maenads. The last poem, No. xix, the Idas, dealing with the story of Idas and Marpessa, was written for Sparta, but is represented only by a slight fragment. Besides these poems, we know from the scholiast on Pindar, Pyth. i. i oo,2 that Bacchylides wrote a dithyramb in which the mission sent by the Greeks to bring Philoctetes from Lemnos was mentioned ; and a few words survive of another dithyramb3 referring to the consecration of Mantinea to Poseidon. The dithyrambs of Bacchylides have all in common the fact that they treat in a somewhat detached but picturesque manner a scene taken from legend, sometimes both beginning and ending in mediis rebus; in one only (No. xviii) is there any direct reference to Dionysus, though his worship at Delphi is clearly in mind in another (No. xv). The language is rarely 1 [On the metre cf. A. M. Dale, C .Q .xlv (1951), 120.] 2 Fr. 7 Snell. 3 Schol. Pinch, Olymp, xi. 83. Dithyramb XX.

THE D ITH Y RA M B

30

if ever ‘audacious’ ; there are few bold or elaborate com­ pounds, and little ecstasy or excitement, except perhaps in xvi, though the language has an extraordinary gracefulness of its own. It is noticeable also how large a proportion of the poems is occupied by speeches in the first person; and though (except in No. xvii) these are woven into a narrative, they give the poems a dramatic quality like that which Aristotle finds and praises in Homer. § 5. It is not worth while to spend time over the names of KEKEiDES and kedeides. An inscription1 referring to the middle or later part of the fifth-century records a victory of Kedeides at the Thargelia; and the scholiast on Aristoph. Clouds 985 says that Kekeides was an early writer of dithy­ rambs, mentioned by Kratinos in the Panoptai. (No doubt the person mentioned was an old-fashioned contemporary of Cratinus.) These are all the facts, and on these it is not wise to identify Kekeides and Kedeides, nor to identify Kedeides either with kydides or with kydias whom Plato2 and Plutarch3 mention as an erotic poet of the first half of the fifth century; still less to emend any or all of these names where they occur, as some scholars freely do. It is possible that ion of Chios should be referred to the earlier rather than the later school of dithyrambic poets, if (as seems probable from Aristoph. Peace 834-7) he died before 421 B .c.4 We are told5 that in one of Ion’s dithyrambs Antigone and Ismene were said to have been burned to death in the temple of Hera by Laodamas, son of Eteocles ; and in another6 he told how Thetis had summoned Aegaeon from the deep to protect Zeus. PANTAGLES may also have belonged to the earlier school. The speaker of Antiphon’s Oration On the Choreut (vi. 11) mentions that he drew Pantacles by lot as his poet at the Thargelia, when choregos, and the scholiast adds that Aristotle’s Didaskaliai showed that there was such a poet. (The speech is dated before 415 b . c . by Drerup, Keil, &c.) The name also 1 4 5 6

LG. i2. 770. 2 Charmid. 155 d. 3 de Fac. in orbe Lun., ch. xix. [On the chronology of Ion of Chios, cf. F. Jacoby, C.Q. xli (1947), 1 if.] Arg. ad Soph. Antig. Referred to by Schob Apoll. Rhod. i. 1165.

3i occurs in a fragmentary inscription (L.G. i2. 771) containing a dithyrambic record, but the date is lost. Nicostratus is also known from an inscription (LG. i2. 769), probably of a date not long before the end of the fifth century, to have won a victory with a boys’ chorus for the Oeneid tribe. But it is not known to what school he may have belonged.1 PIN D A R, BACGHYLIDES, AND O T H ER S

V.

Dithyramb at Athens

It will be convenient at this point to summarize the probable history of the dithyramb down to (or a little beyond) the middle of the fifth century b . c ., before discussing the transi­ tion from the earlier to the later type. § i. The dithyramb may be very old if the philological indications are to be trusted. We hear of it first as sung by exarchon and chorus at Paros ; Naxos and Thebes were ap­ parently among its early homes, but we do not know what form it took in either place. As a literary composition for chorus dithyramb was the creation of Arion at Corinth, and it seems (like the music of the flute which accompanied it) to have been at first specially cultivated in Dorian lands, but to have attained its full literary development in connexion with the Dionysiae festivals at Athens—first under the tyrants, when Lasos of Hermione was active, and then under the democracy, the first dithyrambic victory at a democratic festival being won by Hypodicus of Chalcis about the year 509 B.C.

It is noteworthy how many of the composers of dithyrambs for the Athenian festivals, including all the most famous, were of non-Athenian birth—by no means all Dorians, but composing in a dialect containing Dorian elements,2 though always to music of the Phrygian type, and with the flute as the normal accompanying instrument. Both the Phrygian mode, and the music of the flute, are described by Aristotle3 as orgiastic and passionate. How did this orgiastic and pas­ sionate music suit the comparatively quiet language which 1 See Brinck, Diss. Hal. vii. ιοί ; Reisch, de Mus. Gr. Cert., p. 31. 2 See below, pp. 111 ff. 3 Politics, vm. vii. 1342 a, b.

T H E D IT H Y R A M B

characterizes the dithyrambs of Bacchylides, and even those of Pindar, though in the fragments of the latter there is a certain imaginative richness? It may be suggested that as the Bacchic rite to which it seems probable that the dithyramb at first belonged became part of the celebration of an orderly civic festival, the wildness of the music may have abated. The subjects certainly ceased to be necessarily Dionysiae,1though perhaps the absence of all allusions to Dionysus in some of Bacchylides’ dithyrambs was exceptional; and the per­ formance of dithyrambs in connexion with the worship of Apollo may have tended to introduce a certain sobriety into them, though down to a late date, as Plutarch shows, the contrast between the dithyramb and the paean remained strong and significant. But these are only conjectures; and it must be admitted that our evidence, and particularly our knowledge of Greek music at this period, is not sufficient to convert them into anything better. So far as the extant remains are concerned, there is no reason (apart from the one exceptional poem of Bacchylides) to doubt Plato’s statement that the story was presented, not dramatically, but as narrative. § 2. At Athens the dithyramb was danced and sung by a chorus of fifty men or boys. The name ‘circular chorus’, which always means dithyramb, was probably derived from the dancers being arranged in a circle, instead of in rectangular formation as dramatic choruses were.12 (The circle may have been formed round the altar in the orchestra.) There is no reason to doubt (though the fact is never expressly stated) that the performances at the Great Dionysia took place in the theatre.3 1 Zenob. v. 40 explains the proverb ‘Nothing to do with Dionysus’ primarily with reference to dithyramb; the confusions in his account will be discussed later (see below, p. 124). 2 Athen, v. 181 c definitely contrasts four-square and circular choruses. Wilamowitz, Einl. in die gr. Trag., pp. 78, 79, thinks that the circular chorus was so called because it took place in the round orchestra and was a ‘round’ dance, while in drama the skene afforded a rectilinear background. This hardly seems to explain ‘four-square’ adequately; but the question whether the circle was actually round an altar requires an archaeological discussion which must be postponed till later (see Bethe, Hermes, lix. 113). 3 Navarre, Dionysos, p. 10, says that Pericles transferred them to his newly

D ITH Y RA M B AT ATH ENS

33

A dance especially associated with the dithyramb was the tyrbasia. We do not know that it was the only one; Hesychius describes it as ‘a dithyrambic tempo’, which looks as if he knew of other dithyrambic measures : Pollux1says simply, ‘the dithyrambic dance they called tyrbasia’. The meaning of the word is unknown. Solmsen2 explains the syllable as it occurs in Satyros, Tityros, See., in a way which makes both words mean ‘ithyphallic’. Others with much greater probability connect the word with tyrbazo, tyrba, and other words which seem to imply confusion, riot, or revelry. (That Hesychius uses the word ‘tempo’ (agóge) seems to imply that he is thinking of the rapidity of the movement.) Pausanias3 men­ tions a feast in Argolis called tyrbé ‘near the gorge of the Erasinos they sacrifice to Dionysus and Pan, and in honour of Dionysus they hold a feast called tyrbé’, and it has been suggested that this means that the tyrbasia was Peloponnesian and Doric in origin ; but though this is likely enough (since Pollux includes it among old Laconian dances) we do not know that the tyrbasia or the dithyramb formed any part of the feast referred to, and so the argument fails. Some scholars4 have supposed that the occurrence of Tyrbas as the name of a satyr on an Attic amphora preserved at Naples5 shows that the dithyrambic tyrbasia was danced in satyr-dress. But the name may simply mean ‘riotous’ ; there is no suggestion of dithyramb about the scene depicted ; and the use of the name is probably no more significant than that of Dithyramphos attached to a satyr on a vase already men­ tioned.6 § 3. The epigrams, written by or ascribed to Simonides, which tell us something of the performances at Athens in that built Odeum. But the relevant passage in Plut. Per., ch. 13, is most naturally interpreted as referring entirely to the Panathenaic contests. [Cf. J. A. Davi­ son, J.H.S., 78 (1958), 33 f.] 1 iv. 104 [App.]. z Indogerm. Forsch, xxx (1912), 32 ff. 3 ir. XXXV, § 6. 4 See Nilsson, Gr. Fest., p. 303. 5 See Heydemann, Satyr- u. Bakchennamen, pp. 19, 39; Frankel, Satyr- u. Bakchennamen, pp. 69, 103; Beazley, A.R.V. 835, No. 10. Two satyrs—Tyrbas and (probably) Simos—and three bacchants, two of whom are called Ourania and Thaleia, are playing round Marsyas with his flute and Olympus with his lyre. The scene is plainly fanciful and has nothing to do with dithyramb. In Xen. Cyneg. vii. 5 Tyrbas is the name of a dog. 6 See above, p. 5. 6188

D

T H E D IT H Y R A M B

poet’s day, have already been quoted.1 The dancers were crowned with ivy, but there is no suggestion either here or elsewhere that they wore masks. The dramatic character of one dithyramb ofBacchylides, and the introduction at a later date by Philoxenus of solos in character, certainly do not necessarily imply the use of masks, least of all their use in the earlier period. The belief that the original performers of Arion’s dithyrambs were masked rests on the idea that they were disguised as satyrs, and this will be discussed later.2 [For Athens itself, however, the vase discussed above with men dressed as hairy satyrs, inscribed ‘Singers at the Panathenaea’, suggests that the dithyramb was sometimes per­ formed in satyr costume and the black-figure vase may take the practice back to the very early fifth century.3 Another vase4 which has recently been put together from fragments and published by Sir John Beazley has to be considered here. It dates from about 480 b.g. On one side hairy satyrs wearing loin-cloths, to which the phallus is attached, are hammering at a tomb ; on the other side a bull is being sacrificed ; under one handle is a goat and under the other an amphora. The loin-cloths show that the painter is thinking of a performance. The story depicted presumably depends ultimately on a ritual to rouse a vegetation god or goddess from the death of winter. There are two possible explanations of the performance. If the rest of the decoration is neglected as being irrelevant, the satyrs may be the chorus of a satyr-play, and in that case the painter has probably painted hair on their naked bodies instead of confining it to their loin-cloths. If, however, the decoration was conceived as a unity, the bull, the amphora, and the goat are the three prizes awarded for the dithyramb,5 and the satyrs must be the chorus of a dithyramb. This again would be evidence for a dithyramb danced by men dressed as satyrs but as satyrs in their prime instead of old satyrs. The possibility, therefore, that at any rate from the early fifth century the dithyramb could be danced by satyrs must be borne in mind. 1 pp. 15 ff. 2 See below, p. 99 f. 3 See List of Monuments, Nos. I and 2, and above, p. 20. 4 See List of Monuments, No. 3. 5 Cf. p. 36.

D IT H Y R A M B AT A TH EN S

35

An Attic vase1in Copenhagen of about 425 b . c . has recently been published with full commentary by Professor K. Friis Johansen. On the front of the vase five bearded singers and a bearded flute-player perform in front of a kind of Maypole, the bottom of which is wreathed in ivy leaves. The fluteplayer wears an ivy wreath and the long-sleeved chiton which marks this as a religious performance. The singers wear ivy wreaths, long decorated chitons, and large decorated himatia. One of them holds a spray of ivy in his hand. The ivy points to Dionysus, and Professor Friis Johansen concludes that this is the performance of a dithyramb. The occasion and the identity of the chief singer (Phrynichus) will concern us later. If the interpretation is correct we have here a chorus of men singing a dithyramb in festal clothes and crowned with ivy. It appears therefore that satyr costume was not always worn.] § 4. The flute-player, who during the earliest period was hired by the poet, and, though important, was secondary to him,12stood in the midst of the dancers.3 It was only when the music had become predominant that the choregos became responsible for the flute-player. It appears from Aristophanes (Birds, 1403-4) that the choregoi (each representing his tribe) must have had a choice between the rival poets : Ts this how you treat a dithyrambic poet who is always fought for by the tribes?’ and the arrangement was probably the same at the Thargelia as at the Dionysia. A passage of Antiphon4 suggests that the choregoi drew lots for the order of choice ; the choregos who drew tenth place would of course have no choice :5 and in the time of Demosthenes (and probably earlier) they certainly drew lots for the order of choice among the fluteplayers.6 § 5. The contest between the dithyrambic choruses at Athens, was, as has been said, a tribal one. At the Dionysia 1 See List of Monuments, No. 4. 2 Plut. de Mus. xxx; Pratinas, fr. 1 : see above, p. 18. 3 Schol. on Aeschines, in Timarchum, § io (Bekker in Abh. Akad. Beri. 1836, p. 228), ‘in circular choruses the flute-player stood in the middle’. 4 Or. vi, § i i . 5 Gf. Xen. Mem. in. iv, § 4. 6 Dem. in Meid. §§ 13, 14. From Isaeus, v, § 36, it appears that a similar drawing of lots for choice took place in the tribal contests of pyrrhiehistai and that it was a great disadvantage to be drawn last.

36

THE DITH Y RA M B

each chorus was drawn entirely from one of the ten tribes, and as five choruses of men and five of boys competed, all ten tribes took part.1 The choregoi were nominated by the tribal officials and appointed by the archon, subject to the possibility of an appeal by means of a challenge to antidosis. (Aeschines (in Tim., § 11) states that the choregos for a boys’ chorus had to be over forty years of age ; but this rule cannot always have been observed ; the speaker of Lysias’ 21st Oration (§ 4) can hardly have been over twenty-five years old.) The victory was primarily that of the tribe;2 but the great didascalie inscription3 shows that in the official records of dithyrambic victories at the Dionysia throughout the fifth and fourth centuries the name of the choregos was also mentioned ; the name of the poet, and in the fourth century that of the fluteplayer, were recorded on tribal and private choregic monu­ ments, but not in the official records. The prize won by the victorious tribe was a tripod, which was dedicated to Diony­ sus, with an appropriate monumental setting, by the choregos. (The best-known extant specimens are the monuments of Lysicrates and Thrasyllus.) There is no doubt that the poet whose work was awarded the first prize received a bull.4 The mention in the epigram of Simonides of ‘the chariot of Victory’ and the words of Epigram 148s have suggested to some scholars that the poet was escorted home in a chariot by a festal procession, his head crowned with ribands and roses, 1 Schol. in Aesch. in Tim., § 10 (quoted Festivals, p. 75). There is a special difficulty in regard to the record in LG. ii2. 2318 i, (Wilhelm, Urkunden drama­ tischer Aufführungen in Athen (1906), p. 30), according to which the same tribe in 333/2 B .c . supplied both a boys’ and a men’s chorus. But this may have been an accidental dislocation : cf. Brinck, Diss. Hal. vii. 86; Reisch in R.E. iii, col. 2432. There is no sign of any such irregularity in the period now under consideration. [Cf. now Festivals, pp. 75 f.; D. M. Lewis, Annual of the British School at Athens, 1 (1955), 23 f. Mr. Lewis adds, as an additional fifth-century case of a choregos under forty, Alcibiades in (And.) iv. 20-21 ; Dem. xxi. 117; Plut. Ale. 16.] 2 Cf. Lysias, Or. iv, § 3; Dem. in Meid., § 5. 3 LG. ii2. 2318. 4 Simon, fr. 145 (see above, p. 15). Whether the Schol. on Plato, Rep., p. 394 c (see p. 34) refers to Athens is uncertain; it states that the second prize was an amphoreus of wine, the third a goat, which was led away smeared with winelees. 5 See above, p. 16. In this epigram the choregos, not the poet, rides in the chariot of the Graces.

D IT H Y R A M B AT A TH EN S

37

and there is nothing improbable about this, though the references to the chariot may be metaphorical. At the Thargelia also (as at the Prometheia and Hephaesteia1) the contest was tribal ; but at the Thargelia each choregos represented two tribes,2 and on the extant inscriptions the choregos, not the tribe, is mentioned as victor, though the names of the tribes which he represented are recorded (e.g. I.G. ii2. 3063). The tripods were erected in the temple of Apollo Pythius. In the fifth century the tribe which provided a choregos appears to have drawn lots for its partner among the five tribes which provided none, but at a later date it is most likely that the same two tribes always worked together, providing the choregos alternately.3 Lysias4 affords interesting evidence as to the cost of a dithyrambic chorus. The magni­ ficence expected evidently varied with the festival. The speaker states that a chorus of men at the Thargelia in 411/10 B.c. cost him 2,000 drachmae, and a similar chorus at the Great Dionysia, in the next year, 5,000 drachmae, including the cost of the tripod ; while a ‘circular chorus’ at the Lesser Panathenaea in 409/8 b .c. cost only 300 drachmae. A chorus of boys for a festival (not named) in 405/4 cost him more than fifteen minae (1,500 drachmae). Demosthenes5 states that a chorus of men cost much more than a tragic chorus (on which Lysias’ client spent 3,000 drachmae)—partly, no doubt, on account of the larger number of its members. Brinck6 offers various conjectures to account for the very small expendi­ ture on the chorus at the Lesser Panathenaea : ‘aut numerus choreutarum minor fuit, aut tota exornatio minus magnifica quam Dionysiis, aut utrumque statuendum est.’ But we have no evidence, and this is the only mention in literature of a cyclic chorus at this festival. [We have also no mention of dithyramb at the Anthesteria, but Professor Friis Johansen’s combination of the Pindar frag­ ment and the picture on the Attic vase of about 425 b .c. in 1 I.G. ii2. 1138, cf. above p. 4. 2 Aristot. Ath. Pol. Ivi, § 3. 3 See Brinck, op. cit., pp. 89, 90. The evidence consists in the conjunction of the same tribes in inscriptions recording victories in years not far apart; but it is not quite conclusive. 4 Or. xxi, § § 1 ,2 . 5 in Meid., § 156. 6 Op. cit., p. 75. Cf. above, p. 4.

38

T H E D IT H Y R A M B

Copenhagen is extremely persuasive.1The natural interpreta­ tion of the Pindar fragment is that he appeals to the Olympian gods in the Agora to watch his dithyrambic chorus (Professor Friis Johansen naturally thinks of the altar of the Twelve Gods in the Agora as a suitable place) .12The performance takes place ‘when the purple-robed Hours open their storehouse and fragrant spring leads on nectarean flowers’; it is early spring, late February, the time of the Anthesteria, rather than late March, the time of the City Dionysia. On the vase the singers sing round a kind of Maypole set on the ground. The Maypole gives a link with the Anthesteria because on another vase,3a chous of the kind used in the Anthesteria, the carrying of the Maypole is associated with a chariot, which is inter­ preted as carrying Dionysos and Basilinna for their marriage on the second day of the Anthesteria. Thus it seems extremely probable that the dithyrambic chorus on the Copenhagen vase performed at the Anthesteria.] v i. The Later Dithyramb § i . By the last quarter of the fifth century b . c . the change which had been taking place gradually in the literary and social atmosphere of Athens was practically complete, and the character of the later dithyramb is closely connected with this change.4 The younger generation were impatient of the old-fashioned discipline and literature; the lyric poetry of the older writers—Stesichorus, Pindar, and others—a knowledge of which seems to be assumed in his audience by Aristo­ phanes, was no doubt read by cultivated persons, but became gradually more and more unfamiliar and out of date; no lyric poetry of any importance was composed apart from the 1 Cf. above, p. 21, and List of Monuments, No. 4. 2 He compares Xen. Hipp. iii. 2 : ‘and at the Dionysia the choruses honour other gods and especially the Twelve with their dances’ ; and Callimachus, fr. 305 Pf. : ‘they had feasts with choruses in honour of Limnaios’ (Dionysus in the Marshes, the god of the Anthesteria, cf. Thucyd. ii. 15 with Festivals, pp. 17 ff.). 3 List of Monuments, No. 5. 4 An admirable account of the tendencies of the time is given by Wilamowitz, Textgesch. der gr. Lyr., pp. 11-15. [Cf. also H. Schönewolf, Der jungattische Dithyrambos, Giessen, 1958.]

T H E L A T E R D IT H Y R A M B

39

dithyrambs, nomes, and paeans required for performance at festivals ; from the festivals themselves the religious interest was probably fast disappearing, and it is natural that in these also the desire for novelty and freedom should find expression. Aristophanes naturally regards the change as an abandon­ ment of discipline, order, and sound educational ideas ; but there is no doubt that it was popular, and Euripides clearly sympathized with it. § 2. In a fragment from a play called Cheiron and doubtfully ascribed to Pherecrates1 (the poet of the Old Comedy, who flourished, roughly speaking, from about 438 b .c . until after 421) personified Music (or Poetry) complains to personified Justice of the injuries inflicted upon her by the new lyric poets, and mentions the special misdemeanours of each. The beginnings of the mischief are traced to m e l a n ip p id e s , a native of Melos. The Suda distinguishes two poets of the name, making the earlier the grandfather of the later; but there are great difficulties in this, and Rohde2 is probably 1 Athen, viii. 364 a, quoting another fragment, describes it as ‘the words of the author of the Cheiron whether he is Pherecrates or Nicomachus or whoever he is’. Nicomachus ‘the rhythmical’ was a contemporary of Aristoxenus (near the end of the fourth century b.c.), and Athen, is probably confusing him with another Nicomachus, almost certainly a poet of the Old Comedy, to whom Eratosthenes ascribed the Mineworkers, also attributed to Pherecrates (Harpocr., s.v. Metalleis); cf. Meineke, Com. Fr. i. 76. Meineke himself thinks that the play may have been by the comic poet Plato, on the ground (surely insuffi­ cient) of the writer’s use of strobilos of musical extravagances—a use ascribed to Plato by the grammarian Phrynichus. Wilamowitz ( Timotheus, p. 74) thinks that the poem can hardly have been written for the stage, but does not say why. A greater difficulty in the way of ascribing it to Pherecrates lies in the fact that Philoxenus, who is supposed to be criticized in the last part of it, can hardly have become sufficiently famous in the lifetime of Pherecrates to be thus treated ; and the criticism can hardly be earlier than 400 b.c. But the passage appears to be a criticism of the poets quite in the vein of the Old Comedy, both in its conservatism and its language, whoever wrote it. Unfortunately the text is in bad condition. It deals almost entirely with the music of the cithara, not that of the flute, and is only important for the present purpose as illustrating the general tendency of the time. It is quoted by (Plutarch), de Musica, eh. xxx. [App.]. [It should further be noted that (1) we do not know either the bottom date of Pherecrates or the top date of Philoxenus; Philoxenus was born in 436 and Pherecrates’ Tyrannis is dated by J . M. Edmonds (Fragments of Attic Comedy, i (1957), 259) to 411; (2) it is not certain that Philoxenus is referred to in the fragment. The ascription to Pherecrates is accepted by Düring in his admirable commentary in Eranos, xliii (1945), 176 f.] 2 Rhein. Mus. xxxiii. 213-14.

4°

T H E D IT H Y R A M B

right (though his arguments are not all equally convincing) in concluding that the compiler misunderstood his authorities, and that there was but one Melanippides, who was active from about 480 b . c . onwards, and died at the court of Perdiccas in Macedonia sometime between 4541 and 413. (There are plenty of other instances of the duplication of poets by the Suda, e.g. Nicomachus, Phrynichus, Crates, Timocles, Sappho.) His fame is attested by Xenophon,12 who makes a certain Aristodemus, conversing with Socrates, place him as a dithyrambic poet in a position corresponding to that of Homer, Polycleitus, and Zeuxis in their respective arts. The principal change in the dithyramb which was ascribed to Melanippides was the introduction of anabolai or lyric solos—at least they were probably always solos—in which no antistrophic arrangement was observed. The change was doubtless designed to secure a more realistic expression of emotion, which does not return to the same point antistrophically, as it were at fixed intervals : and Aristotle345 connects the abandonment of the antistrophic form with the mimetic character of the new dithyramb. The words in Pseudo-Plutarch de Musica* which connect the rise of the flute-player into undue prominence with Melanippides are perhaps an interpolation as they stand ; but they may have had some basis of fact; and if he did elaborate the music of the flute, as he certainly did that of the lyre, his object may again have been the vivid portrayal of emotion, since the emotional character of the flute was strongly felt. Of course there was criticism. A contemporary attack, probably, is recorded by Aristotle :s ‘So also long periods turn into speeches and become like an anabole. The result tallies with the jibe made by Demokritos of Chios against Melanip­ pides when he composed anabolai instead of antistrophai : “a man 1 Rohde says 436, when Perdiccas became sole monarch. But he may have invited Melanippides while still sharing the throne. 2 Mem. I. iv, § 3. 3 Probi, xix. 15: ‘Therefore also dithyrambs, since they have become mimetic, no longer have antistrophes; before they had.’ The context suggests that he refers to the introduction of dramatic solo-parts. 4 See above, p. 18. 5 Rhet. in. ix. 1409h 25 ff.

T H E L A T E R D IT H Y R A M B

41

preparing il l for another prepares i l l for himself, and the long anabole is worst for the composer” .5 The fragment ascribed to Pherecrates accuses Melanippides of making poetry slack or effeminate, though here the reference is, probably, not specifically to his dithyrambs, since the criticism is directed against some change made by the poet in the number of the strings of the lyre, or more probably (as Düring thinks) in the number of notes or tones.1 The scanty remains of Melanippides include fragments of a Danaides, a Marsyas, and a Persephone. Smyth speaks of these as dithyrambs, and they may have been such, but there is no certain ground for stating that they were. The fragment of the Marsyas (fr. 2 D ) 2 represents Athena as flinging away the flute in disgust at its effect on the beauty of her cheeks : ‘Athena threw the instrument away with her holy hand and said : “Begone ugly thing, distortion of my body. I don’t give myself to such baseness.” 5 About this a pretty controversy seems to have arisen, a later dithyrambic poet, Telestes, denying that the goddess did any such thing (see below). The lines from the Persephone (fr. 3 D) contain only a piece of etymology. The passage from the Danaides (fr. i D) is the longest extant :3 ‘For they did not have the lovely shape of men, they did not live like women. But they exercised in chariots with seats, often rejoicing their souls in hunting through the glades, or seeking frankincense for its holy tears and fragrant dates and kassia, smooth Syrian seeds.5 Two fragments from a poem or poems not named (4 and 5 D) are conjecturally ascribed to dithyrambs by Hartung on ac­ count of their theme. Clement of Alexandria quotes the sup­ posed testimony of Melanippides to the immortality of the soul (fr. 6 D). The only other extant fragment is about Eros (fr. 7 D). 1 The uncertainty of the text makes it impossible to place any confidence in the statement, based on Pseudo-Plut. de Mus. xv. 1136 c, that some writers ascribed to Melanippides the introduction of the Lydian harmonia in the fluteaccompaniment of the epikedeion. 2 [On this and works of art which may reflect it see J. Boardman, J.H.S. Ixxvi (1956), 18.] 3 The subject and text are very uncertain.

T H E D IT H Y R A M B

But it is quite possible that none of these quotations is from a dithyramb, and they are not sufficient to afford any idea of the poet’s style. The fragments do not justify any generali­ zation. It is only necessary to mention in passing d i a g o r a s of Melos, the famous free-thinker, who was a little senior to his fellow countryman Melanippides, and was exiled from Athens for the ‘atheism5shown in his ridicule of the Eleusinia. Sextus Empiricus (ix. 402) describes him as ca dithyrambic poet, they say, in the beginning, like any other superstitious man’, and the two fragments which survive of him (not from dithyrambs) show that as a poet he could express himself with orthodox piety; but his poetry was probably of little significance, and was known even to ancient scholars only from the mention of it by Aristoxenus. (All that is known of him is discussed by Wilamowitz, Textgesch. der gr. Lyriker, pp. 80-84). He may not have favoured the innovations made by Melanippides. Of H ie r o n y m u s nothing is known apart from a passing allusion in Aristophanes’ Clouds, 349, which the scholiast explains by reference to his immoral life. He must have been contemporary with the new school. § 3. The movement begun by Melanippides continued. The music became more and more elaborate, and (though we cannot fix any precise date) the modes appropriate to each several kind of lyric came to be abandoned ; the composers, so Plato tells us,1 were influenced by the passion for novelty which was displayed by popular audiences. Plato is writing, probably, towards the middle of the fourth century, but his words were clearly intended to apply to the new school as a whole. After this as time went on, beginning with unmusical licence, the poets, even if naturally poetic, had no knowledge about the rules and customs of the Muse, but raved wildly and were un­ necessarily possessed by pleasure ; they mixed laments with hymns and paeans with dithyrambs, and imitated flute-playing when playing the lyre. They made one great confusion of everything and unwillingly in their folly told a great lie against music, that 1 Laws, iii. 700 d.

T H E L A T E R D IT H Y R A M B

43

music has no true standard at all but the truest standard is the pleasure of the judge, whether he is better or worse. By such poems followed by such arguments they gave the mob a licence to transgress as being capable of judging. Therefore the audience became vocal instead of dumb, as knowing what was good and what was bad in music, and aristocracy in music yielded to a bad theatrocracy.

The same mixture of musical styles by the writers whom we are about to consider is censured by Dionysius of Halicar­ nassus.1 The dithyrambic poets changed the modes and included Dorian, Phrygian, and Lydian in the same poem and they varied the melodies, making them sometimes enharmonic, sometimes chromatic, and sometimes diatonic, and they fearlessly gave themselves complete rhythmical independence. These were the followers of Philoxenos, Timotheus, and Telestes. For with the ancients even the dithyramb was orderly.

The fragment ascribed to Pherecrates places Kinesias and Phrynis next to Melanippides among the corruptors of poetry and music. Of p h r y n is little is known. He came from Mitylene, and was the son of Kamon. The tale that he was a slave, and cook in the household of the tyrant Hiero, was probably an invention. (As the Suda says, if it had been true, it would surely have been mentioned by the comic poets who attacked him for enfeebling the ancient music.) The characteristic feature of his music seems to have consisted of ‘twists and twirls’— ‘twists difficult to twist’ as Aristophanes12 calls them; but most of the notices about him3 refer to his alterations in the nome and in the kithara by which it was accompanied ; there is little reason to connect him with dithyramb ; and if, as the Suda suggests, he early gave up the flute for the cithara, this is natural enough. That his innovations did not go to extremes is indicated by the delight of Timotheus at defeating him, and so securing the triumph of his own newer style.4 1 de Comp. Vb. xix. 2 Clouds, 970-1. 3 Suda lexicon, s.v.; Pseudo-Plut. de Mus., eh. vi; Pollux, iv. 66; Aristot. Met. i. 993bi6. Cf. Wilamowitz, Timotheus, pp. 65-67; R.E. xx. 923. 4 Cf. below, p. 48. [Phrynis appears on a Paestan vase of the mid-fourth

44

T H E D IT H Y R A M B

kinesias , son of Meles, was primarily a dithyrambic poet. Whether or not there were two poets of the name, as Aristotle is said1 to have stated in his Didaskaliai, is uncertain;2 but there was evidently only one of any significance, and he flourished in the last quarter of the fifth century. He attracted the onslaughts of contemporary comic poets and others as much by his personal peculiarities and his defiance of reli­ gious conventions as by his dithyrambs. He was very tall and thin, and (so it was said) wore stays to hold himself together. Lysias3 made it a great point against a defendant that he was supported by Kinesias, who was guilty of out­ rageous acts against religion, and had founded a kind of‘Thir­ teen Club’ {kakodaimonistai) which dined on ‘unlucky’ days. The language of Pherecrates does not give a very clear idea of the offences of Kinesias, but suggests that he composed everything ‘the wrong way round’4—like the reflections in a mirror : ‘Kinesias, the cursed Athenian, making unharmonious twists in his strophes, destroyed me (music) so that in his dithyrambs, as in shields, the right seems left.’ Aristophanes, in a delightful scene in the Birds,5 which is too long to quote and too good to abridge, ridicules the anabolai of Kinesias, with their multiplication of meaningless epithets (perhaps spun out to fit the accompaniment), and it is probably he who is specially referred to in the Clouds, 333 ff. : ‘the breath-twisters of circular choruses, quacks in the air, the Clouds support in lazy idleness because they musify them.’ An allusion to Kinesias in the Ecclesiazusae shows that he must have lived on into the fourth century. Plato6 speaks of

century (Trendall, The Phlyax Vases, B.I.C.S., Suppl. vili, No. 55) holding his lyre and dragged along against his will by Pyronides. He must therefore have been caricatured on the stage in a comedy; Pyronides is presumably Myronides as in Eupolis’ Demes. Phrynis is said to have won a Panathenaic victory in a year (456) when Myronides was strategos, but some emend the date to 446 (cf. J. A. Davison, lxxviii (1958), 40).] 1 Schol. on Aristoph. Birds, 1379. 2 Cf. Brinck, op. cit., p. n o . 3 ap. Athen, xii. 551 e. 4 With a pun on the other sense of right and left—clever and stupid. So Düring, loc. cit. [App.]. 5 11. 1373-1404. Cf. also Frogs, 1437; Gerytades, frs. 149, 150; Eccles. 330. [M. Tod, Greek Historical Inscriptions, No. 108 (393 b.c.).] 6 Gorg. 501 e.

T H E L A T E R D IT H Y R A M B

45

him as one who was guided by the pleasure of his audience, instead of caring for their edification. But none of his work has come down to us except the two words ‘Achilles of Phthia’ which he is said to have repeated ad nauseam. (Strattis wrote a whole comedy about him, and addressed the words to Kinesias himself.1) § 4. But the most famous and influential of the new school were Philoxenus and Timotheus. P h ilo x en u s was a native of Cythera. The Parian Marble gives the dates of his birth and death as 436/5 and 380/79 b .c. respectively. Unfortunately the records about him show that he was early confused with Philoxenus of Leucas, the author of the Deipnon, a gastronomical poem in hexameters quoted in Plato’s Phaon and elsewhere, and sometimes wrongly ascribed to the poet of Cythera; while some of the anecdotes which make the latter a gourmand may have been transferred to him from his namesake of Leucas.2 Philoxenus (the dithyrambic poet) was for some time at the court of Dionysius of Syracuse, who enjoyed his company at and after dinner; but he engaged in an intrigue with Galatea, the concubine of Dionysius, and the tyrant sent him to the quarries, where a cavern was long afterwards shown as his prison.3 Nothing daunted, the poet there composed his most famous dithyramb, the Cyclops, in which the Cyclops, in love with the Nereid Galatea, perhaps represented the short-sighted Dionysius.4 [The Scholiast to the Plutus (290 ff.) makes two important references to Philoxenus : (1) ‘he in­ troduces the Cyclops playing the kithara and challenging Galatea’, (2) ‘he came in with a wallet’. If the Cyclops wore 1 Athen, xii. 551 d ff. Gf. also Harpocr. and the Suda lexicon, s.v. Kinesias; Flut, de Glor. Ath. v. 348 b; Quaest. Conviv. vii. iii. 712 a; de aud. poet. iv. 22 a; Philodemus, On Piety, p. 52 (Gomperz) ; LG. ii2. 3028. It appears from Aristoph. Frogs, 153, that Kinesias composed a pyrrhic, but Crusius (R.E. v, col. 1217) gives no justification for saying that he included it in a dithyramb. (Athen, xiv. 63 r a, distinguishes a less martial type of pyrrhic, Dionysiae in character, from the Spartan war-dance known by the name; but he does not make clear of what date he is speaking.) 2 See Wilamowitz, Textgesch. der gr. Lyr., pp. 85 if. 3 Aelian, Var. Hist. xii. 44. 4 Diodor. X V . 6; Athen, i. 6 e; Schol. Aristoph. Plut. 290, &c. [Possibly, however, the application of the story to Dionysius was made by one of the comic poets who parodied it. Gf. Webster, Later Greek Comedy (1953), p. 20.]

T H E D IT H Y R A M B

costume and sang a solo to the lyre, this implies a great change in the ancient form of the dithyramb,1 but the scholiast may merely be deducing what Philoxenus did from the text of Aristophanes or, alternatively, ‘introduced’ and ‘came in’ may only mean in the text of the Cyclops and not in the actual performance.] The Pseudo-Plutarch12 quotes as from Pherecrates (whose criticisms of other poets, placed in the mouth of Music, immediately precede) some lines which are textually imper­ fect, but give a general sense which is plain enough. He writes : ‘Aristophanes the comic poet mentions Philoxenus and says he introduced songs into circular choruses. Music says this: “extramodal and excessive, unholy and whistles, and filled me full of twists like a cabbage full of caterpillars” ’ (i.e. the poet indulged in shrill meaningless sounds with frequent ‘runs’ or trills. The pun on twists and caterpillars is expres­ sive, but untranslatable). Unfortunately the passage has been much vexed by the critics. Westphal and Reinach are not content to take ‘songs’ as ‘solos’, and in fact it is not easy to do so; they would read ‘songs of sheep and goats’, after Aristophanes’ Plutus, 290 if. ; but it seems also possible that some word meaning ‘solos’ may have dropped out. But further, the lines spoken by Music themselves are inserted by some editors among those referring to Timotheus in the quotation which precedes (after the words ‘twisting ant-runs’) .3 Westphal conjectures that they were accidentally omitted by the scribe, and afterwards inserted in the wrong place, and a marginal note added by someone, ‘Music says this’. This is not impossible ; and has the advantage of giving the adjectives ‘extramodal and excessive, unholy’ a noun with which to agree. We cannot therefore be certain that Pherecrates men­ tioned Philoxenus or that Aristophanes ascribed solos to him. 1 Satyrs with lyres in dithyramb are represented on the vases discussed above, pp. 20, 34. The belief, however, that Timotheus and Philoxenus increased the number of the chorus (Luetcke, de Graecorum dithyrambis (1829), Ρ· 6ο) appears to rest entirely on the false reading ‘small chorus’ (for ‘few strings’) in PseudoPlut. de Mus. xii. 1135 d. 2 de Mus. XXX. 1142 a [App.]. Körte, R.E. xix. 2, 1989, accepts the traditional text. 3 So Düring, loc. cit. The lines are given below, p. 49.

T H E L A T E R D IT H Y R A M B

47

A much more favourable view of Philoxenus appears in a fragment of Antiphanes’ Tritagonist,1 a play which may have appeared at any time after Philoxenus’ death : ‘Philoxenus is much the best of all poets. First he uses new and special words everywhere. Secondly his songs are well blended in modula­ tions and chromatics. He was a god among men and knew true music. Now they write miserable ivy-twisted, fountainy, flower-fluttering things in miserable words, weaving in songs which do not belong.’ The last lines perhaps suggest that the mixture of modes, which Plato notes as characteristic of the new school, was not regularly practised by Philoxenus. We know, however, from Aristotle2 that he did try to compose a dithyramb, the Mysians, in the Dorian mood, but found the tradition too strong for him and slipped back into the Phrygian. The Cyclops was wittily parodied by Aristophanes in the Plutus’p but only a few lines of the original survive : Fr. 6 (5 D) : I ’ll give you a song to Love.

(The ascription of this to the Cyclops is not certain, but very probable.4) Fr. 8 (1 D) (the Cyclops to Galatea) : Fairfaced, golden-tressed Galatea, voice of the Graces, nursling of Love. Fr. 9 (2 D) (Odysseus speaks) : With what a monster god has shut me up. Fr. 10 (3 D) (the Cyclops to Odysseus) : You sacrificed? You shall be sacrificed in turn.

It is not safe to attempt to reconstruct the actual words of Philoxenus from Aristophanes’ parody; but we may be certain that the Cyclops was represented as a herdsman surrounded by sheep and goats. The sense of one or two lines is preserved in two passages quoted by Bergk, viz: (1) the scholiast on Theocr. xi. 1 : ‘Philoxenus makes the Cyclops console himself for his love of Galatea and tell the dolphins to inform her that the Muses are curing his love’ ; and (2) Plutarch, Symp. Quaest. 1. v, § 1 : ‘Where also Philoxenus says that the Cyclops 1 Fr. 209 K. 3 290 ff.

2 Pol. vili. vii. 1342^. 4 See Bergk, Poetae Lyrici Graeci, iii. 610-11.

T H E D IT H Y R A M B

is being cured of Ms love by sweet-voiced Muses.5 (Dionysius fancied Mmself as a poet.) Of the strange words used by Philoxenus we have a hint in a fragment1 of Antiphanes’ Traumatias; and in the scholia on Aristophanes, Clouds, 335, where the scholiast, in stating (what is chronologically impossible) that Aristophanes is parodying Philoxenus, may have in mind some actual use of Philoxenus. Philoxenus engaged the well-known flute-player Antigenidas to accompany his works.2 § 5. Tim otheus of Miletus lived, roughly speaking, from 450 to 360 B.c. The Parian Marble gives the date of his death when ninety years old as between 365 and 360 b.c. (editors are not agreed as to which year). The Suda lexicon says that he lived mnety-seven years. The date of his birth must thus have fallen between 462 and 448. The later date assigned to his death, viz. 360 b.c., would be easier, if there is any accuracy in the note in the Suda which connects him with Philip of Macedon (‘He lived in the time of Euripides the tragic poet, in which time also Philip of Macedon was king’— a strange remark as it stands, but not without its parallels in the Suda). He seems to have gone beyond all his contemporaries and predecessors in innovation, and to have made a boast of it, his first great triumph being his victory over Phrynis, whom he regarded as old-fashioned. Two extant fragments illustrate the spirit of the man: (1) Fr. 8 D: You were happy, Timotheus, when the herald said ‘The winner is Timotheus of Miletus, over the son of Kamon, the Ionian Twister’. (2) Fr. 7 D: I do not sing the old. My new is better. New is King Zeus; of old Kronos ruled. Away with the old Muse.

He was not popular in Athens. The audience on one occasion hissed his new-fangled music, but Euripides con­ soled him (‘soon the audience will be at your feet’),4 and the lyrics of Euripides himself show some of the features which 1 Fr. 207. 2 Suda, s.v. Antigenides. 3 The text is accepted as printed by Wilamowitz, Timotheus, p. 74. 4 Pint. An sit seni, &c., p. 795 d.

T H E L A T E R D IT H Y R A M B

49

are ascribed to the new school of lyric poets; Euripides is said to have written the prologue for the Persae.1 In the fragment ascribed to Pherecrates Music complains of the outrages committed by Timotheus against her : M . Timotheus, my dear, has buried me and worn me down foully. J. W hat Timotheus? M . A Milesian red-head. He bothers me more than all I ’ve named, leading me along twisting ant-runs.2 And if ever he finds me walking alone, he strips me and undoes me with twelve strings.

Much that we are told of Timotheus relates primarily to his work as a composer of nomes, and the increase which he made in the number of the strings of the lyre. The stories connected with this are fully discussed by Wilamowitz in his edition of the Persae, the extant portion of which gives a very clear idea of the nome as composed by Timotheus, and is of particular interest for students of the dithyramb, because one of the charges which critics made against him3 was that he composed nomes in the literary style of dithyrambs. By this nothing complimentary was intended; the predominance of music over the words was such that the words were composed to fit the notes and degenerated greatly, elaborate periphrases taking the place of straightforward or genuinely poetical ex­ pression. Thus in the Cyclops—it is not known whether this was a dithyramb or a nome—there were such lines as (fr. 2 D) : £He poured in one ivy cup seething with foam of the black immortal drop, and he poured in twenty measures, mixing the blood of Bacchus with the new flowing tears of Nymphs.5 It was Timotheus also who was responsible for the strange phrase ‘the cup of Ares’ (meaning a shield) which Aristotle4 gives as an instance of proportional metaphor. Similarly, Anaxandrides quotes his expression ‘in a firewrought house5 for ‘in a cooking-vessel5. (This is like Lewis Carroll’s ‘creams of fleecy flocks, pent in a wheaten cell5 for ‘mutton-pies’.) We may doubtless regard the elaborate and almost nonsensical 1 Satyrus, Vit. Eur., fr. 39. Cf. P. Maas, R.E. v i A. 1331. 2 See p. 46 for other lines which may belong here [App.]. 3 Pseudo-Plut. de Mus. iv. 1132 e. 4 Poet. xxi. I457b22. 6188

E

T H E D IT H Y R A M B 50 language of parts of the Persae, with its strange compound words, as instances of Timotheus’ dithyrambic style. Plato and Aristotle1both speak of compound words as especially charac­ teristic of dithyrambs, and many other writers emphasize this, among them Aristophanes :2 Servant. Did you see any other man wandering in the air except yourself? T rygaeus. No, except a soul or two belonging to dithyrambic poets. Servant. W hat were they up to? T rygaeus. Collecting anabolai as they flew floating in midday airy breezes.

(There was a proverb,3 ‘You make less sense even than a dithyramb’.) The same point is noticed by Demetrius :4 ‘Compound words should be used but not dithyrambic com­ pounds like “god-portentous wanderings” nor “the spear­ bearing host of the wingless” ’ and by Philostratus :5 ‘he developed a form of words which was neither dithyrambic nor feverish with poetic words’, with the scholiast ad loc. : ‘dithyrambic : made solemn by compound words and varie­ gated with extraordinary coinages. For dithyrambs are like this, taking their origin in Dionysiae rites.’ Similarly Diony­ sius of Halicarnassus,6 criticizing a phrase of Plato, says: ‘This is noise and dithyrambs, a great sound of words and little sense.’ A great part of the lyrics of Timotheus were apolelymena— free from the trammels of strophe and antistrophe, and so may have seemed to old critics to be like ‘twisting ant-runs’, but this phrase is probably better explained by Düring as ‘tunes of a chromatic character’. Among the dithyrambs of Timotheus were (i) Ajax mad, a performance of which at Athens, after the composer’s death, is attested by Lucian;7 (2) Elpenor, which won a victory 320/ 1 9 B .G ., also long after Timotheus’ death, with Pantaleon of 1 Plato, Cratylus 409 c, d; Aristot. Poet, xxii, i459a8; Rhet. in. iii. i4o6bi. 2 Peace, 827 ff. 3 Schol. on Aristoph. Birds 1393. 4 de Interpr., § 91. 3 Vit. Apoll, r. xvii. 6 de Adm. vi dic. Dem. vii; cf. xxix, and Ep. ad Pomp. ii. 7 Harmonides, § i.

5* Sicyon as flute-player, and a chorus of boys;1 (3) Nauplios, in which the attempt to represent a storm by means of the flute roused the ridicule of the flute-player Dorion, who said that he had seen a bigger storm in a boiling saucepan;2 (4) Birthpangs of Semele, in which the cries of the goddess were realistically imitated, not without ludicrous results;3 (5) Scylla, the lament of Odysseus in which was criticized by Aristotle4 as degrading to the hero : the same poem is prob­ ably alluded to in the last chapter of the Poetics : ‘bad fluteplayers . . . dragging the chorus-leader about if they play Scylla1. § 6. It is difficult, with so little first-hand evidence, to estimate the real value and importance of the new movement in music and poetry which is represented by the composers whom we have been considering. On the one hand, it was clearly a movement in the direction of freedom and adequacy of expression, a revolt against stereotyped forms which had come to be felt artificial : the word which recurs again and again is ‘twists’ which means ‘modulations’. On the other hand, it was perverted by the passion for mimesis in the sense of mere reproduction of sounds (often non-musical sounds) and other effects ; for the more perfectly and, as it were, mechanically the artist reproduces his object, the less he seems to have the right to call himself an artist at all. Art is not so simple a thing as that. Further, the want of restraint shown by the new poets was felt to be a kind of degeneracy : and there can be little doubt that Timotheus, and perhaps some of his contemporaries, did not know where to stop, and often became ludicrous, both in sound and language—the more so because the excessive predominance of the music tended to make the libretto vapid and silly. The impression made by the Persae is that the writer could not himself dis­ tinguish between expressions of real beauty (such as he some­ times uses) and expressions which were simply grotesque or ridiculous. This deficiency in taste is not rare in Alexandrian writers also. T H E L A T E R D IT H Y R A M B

1 I.G. ii2. 3055; Brinck, op. cit., p. 248. 2 Athen, viii. 338 a. 3 Ibid., p. 352 b [Dio Chrys. 78. 22 may have some relevance]. 4 Poet. XV. i454a30.

T H E D IT H Y R A M B

It is well to notice that practically all of these writers, though they obtained considerable vogue in Athens, were natives of other cities; and while tragedy continued to be almost exclusively Athenian, dithyramb, though regularly performed at the festivals of Athens, was almost entirely the work of strangers. § 7. A number of other poets of this period—mainly of the fourth century—are known by name, and one or two by some fragments. KREXOS is mentioned by the Pseudo-Plutarch1 along with Timotheus as one of the new school, and again2in a rather ob­ scure passage, which may indicate that he introduced recita­ tive, or some kind of instrumentally accompanied speaking, into dithyramb. (‘Moreover in iambics they say Archilochus first employed spoken delivery to music as well as singing. Krexos took this and transferred it to dithyrambs.’3) po ly id u s of Selymbria is stated by the Parian Marble to have won at Athens at a date which falls between 398 and 380 B .c. ; Diodorus4 ranks him with the famous dithyrambic poets of the early fourth century, and says that he was also a painter. The Pseudo-Plutarch5 makes a depreciatory refer­ ence to his flute-music, which appears to have been an in­ consistent patchwork (‘they have gone off into patchwork and the poems of Polyidus’). Whether the Iphigeneia of Poly­ idus, mentioned by Aristotle,6 was a dithyramb (as Tièche conjectures) there is no evidence to show. The only other fact known about him is that he described Atlas as a Libyan shepherd, turned to stone by Perseus. t e l e s t e s of Selinus also belongs to the beginning of the fourth century. The Parian Marble dates his (presumably first) victory in 402/1 b . c . Some fragments of his reply, in the Argo, to Melanippides’ statements about Athena’s rejection of the flute are preserved by Athenaeus, and may be quoted in default of any better specimens of the dithyramb of this period : Fr. i D: ‘That the clever goddess Athena the clever instru­ ment took I do not believe and then in fear of unsightly ugliness 1 de Mus. xii. 1135 c. 3 Gf. also Philodemus, de Mus., p. 74. 5 Op. cit. xxi. 1138 b (the text is corrupt).

2 Ibid, xxviii. 1141 a. 4 xiv. 96. 6 Poet. xvi. i455a6.

T H E L A T E R D IT H Y R A M B

53

dropped it from her hand in the mountain thicket, a glory for the nymph-born dance-stamping Marsyas. Why should a swift desire for lovely beauty ravage her to whom Klotho gave un­ wedded, childless maidenhood? But a danceless rumour from drivelling poets came to Hellas, an envious reproach against the the clever art, which, as a fellow worker, the breath of the noble goddess, raised by speed of hands in quivering winged beauty, gave to Bromios.

The same theme was taken up in the Asclepius: Fr. 2 D: Or the Phrygian king of fair-breathing holy flutes, who first met the Dorian Muse with a bright-formed Lydian strain, inter-weaving the fair-winged gust of breath with reeds.

Another fragment ascribes the importation of the Phrygian mode to Pelops : Fr. 4 D: First by the mixing bowls of the Greeks with their flutes the companions of Pelops sang the Phrygian strain of the mountain Mother. They twanged a Lydian hymn on the swift sounding strings of the p e k tis.

There are four lines on the stringed instrument called magadis from the Hymenaeus, which was also a dithyramb. Fr. 3 D: One upon another let forth a cry, which challenged the horn-voiced m agadis, as hand sped up and down with racingchariot speed among the quintuple juncture of strings.

The fragments do not give a high idea of Telestes’ style ; but his compositions long retained their popularity, and they were among the works sent for by Alexander, along with the plays of the great tragic poets and the dithyrambs of Philoxenus, when he felt, in the far East, the need of litera­ ture.1 a n a x a n d rid es

o f Cameirus, th e co m ic p o e t, also w ro te a

1 Plut. Alex. viii. [Telestes, Timotheus, Philoxenus, Polyidus were flourishing 398/7 according to Diodorus, xiv. 46, 6. Telestes, Melanippides, and Philoxenus are all mentioned in a Vienna papyrus (19996, Oellacher, Mitt, aus der Papyrus­ sammlung, i (1932), 136 f.), which seems to be a discussion composed in the late third century b . c . about late-fifth-century dithyramb; but it adds nothing relevant. LG. ii2. 3029 records the victory of a Telestes in the very early fourth century.]

T H E D IT H Y R A M B

dithyram b, if there is any tru th in a story told by C ham aeleon,1 who says th at ‘when producing a dithyram b at Athens he entered on a horse and delivered p a rt of the song’. DiCAEOGENES, th e tragic poet, also (according to Harpocration and the Suda lexicon) composed dithyram bs. LiGYMNius of Chios is m entioned by Aristotle,2 along with Chaerem on the tragic poet, am ong those3 whose works were in a style well suited for reading ; and his dithyram bs are once m entioned by Athenaeus.4 H e was also a rhetorician. TELESiAs of Thebes is described5 as a contem porary of Aristoxenus, and must therefore belong to the latter half of the fourth century. He was quoted by Aristoxenus as a sad example of one who, brought up in the old school, that of

Pindar and the ancients, fell away to the theatrical and variegated music of a later day; but he had been so well brought up that his attempt to compose in the style of Philoxenus was a failure. a rch estra tu s is m e n tio n e d in an inscription found in Plutarch,6 who (quoting Panaetius) showed that although Demetrius of Phalerum had identified the ‘Aristides’ named in it with the hero of the Persian Wars, the inscription was really proved by the form of the letters to be post-Euclidean. The words were : ‘The Antiochis won, Aristides was choregos, Archestratus produced.’ Inscriptions provide a list of names of dithyrambic poets, of whom little or nothing is known except that they were victorious at Athens in the fourth century or not long after­ wards : Aristarchus (415/4 B.c.), Philophron (384/3 b . c .), Eucles (from before 365/4 b . c . : he was several times successful at the Thargelia), Paideas (who won a victory at Salamis early in the fourth century), Lysiades of Athens (351 and 334 b . c . : he is the poet commemorated on the monument 1 In Athen, ix. 374 a. [F. Wehrli, Schule des Aristoteles, ix, No. 43 and p. 87.] I4i3bi2. 3 Grusius (Festschr. für Gomperz (1902), pp. 381 ff.) shows that this does not mean they were not designed or not suitable for performance, but that they were written in a smooth style, which did its work without requiring much assistance from actor’s delivery. 4 xiii. 603 d. 5 Pseudo-Plut. de Mus. xxxi. [F. Wehrli, Schule des Aristoteles, ii, No. 76 and p. 71.] 6 Aristid. i [cf. I.G. ii2. 3027 and Hesp. xxiii (1954), 249].

2 Rhet. iii.

THE LATER DITH Y RA M B

55

of Lysicrates), Epicurus of Sicyon (for whom Chares, the condottiere, was choregos in 334/3 b.c.), Charilaus of Locri (328/7 B.G.), Pamphilus of Hagnus (323/2 b.c.), Karkidamos (320/19 b.c.), Hellanicus of Argos (after 308 b.c.), Eraton of Arcadia (c. 277/6 b.c.), and Theodoridas of Boeotia (c. 266/5 b.c.) . The list again contains many non-Athenian names.1 § 8. It has already been noticed2 that in the choregic monuments of the fourth century the name of the flute-player is generally given, as well as those of the choregos and the poet. In the first half of the century it usually follows that of the poet; in the latter half it actually precedes it—a strong testimony to the growing importance of the music.3 The names of some celebrated flute-players are known to us. In the fifth century Pronomus of Thebes (where the art was especially cultivated) had been particularly famous ; an epigram4 recounts that ‘Thebes was preferred by Hellas in flute-playing, and Pronomos, son of Oiniades, by Thebes’. Alcibiades took lessons from Pronomus, and his music, as well as that of Sacadas of Argos, was played to the workmen who were rebuilding Messene at the bidding of Epaminondas. His son, Oeniades, is mentioned as playing at Athens for Philophron, who won a victory in 384/3 b.c.5 Among the well-known flute-players of the fourth century were Antigenidas and Dorion, who seem to have founded rival schools;6 and Telephanes of Samos, who played for Demosthenes on the occasion of the assault upon him by Meidias. He was buried at Megara,7 and is commemorated in an extant epigram.8 Others were Chrysogonus (son of the younger Stesichorus) ; Timotheus of Thebes ; Euius, who played at Alexander’s 1 [Mr. D. M. Lewis adds Diophon (375/4 b.c., LG. ii2. 3037), Meidogenes (LG. ii2. 3057), Nauplios (344/3 b.c., LG. ii2. 3069).] 2 See above, p. 36. 3 The evidence for this is conveniently collected by Reisch in R.E. iii, col. 2435 b. 4 Anth. Pal. xvi. 28; cf. Paus. ix. xii, § 5; iv. xxvii, § 7; Ar. Eccl. 102; the Naples satyr-play vase, List of Monuments, No. 85. 5 I.G. ii2. 3064. [Perhaps the Pronomos of the vase is another son, who also played at Messene in 370 b.c.] 6 Pseudo-Plut. de Mus. xxi. 1138 a, b. 7 Paus. i. xliv, § 6. 8 Anth. Pal. vii. 159.

56

THE DITH Y RA M B

wedding-feast at Susa in 324 b . c . ; 1 Ismenias and Kaphisias. Most of them were Thebans. Didymus12 tells the quaint story that at a musical competition arranged by Philip shortly before he lost his eye at Methone, Antigenidas, Chrysogonus, and Timotheus all played music representing the Cyclops. A fragment of Amphis3 illustrates the eagerness of com­ peting tribes to get a good flute-player, as well as the en­ thusiasm with which the audience welcomed novel musical effects. Some conjecture that the passage of Menander,4 which notices that the chorus was largely composed of dummies, with a few singers only, refers to dithyramb. This is doubtful; but, if it is true, it emphasizes all the more strongly the importance of the instrumentalist. It was perhaps partly in consequence of the great impor­ tance of the flute-player that old dithyrambs, which gave an opportunity for the exhibition of his skill, were now per­ formed, any interest in the words having become secondary.5 Thus Timotheus of Thebes won a victory at Athens with the Ajax mad of Timotheus of Miletus many years after the death of the latter (Lucian, Harmonides, 1). The practice of perform­ ing old music was perhaps common outside Athens. There is an interesting illustration of this at a later date in an inscrip­ tion6 of about 1 9 3 b . c . at Teos, set up there by the people of Gnossos in gratitude to the citizens of Teos for sending two envoys, Herodotus and Menecles, to visit Crete ; of whom Menecles gave several performances to the lyre of the works of Timotheus and Polyidus and the old Cretan poets, ‘as befitted a man of education’. Apart from the use of anabolai either instead of, or as an introduction to, strophes and antistrophes—an introduction (so we gather from Aristotle7) often as irrelevant to the subject of the poem as the pro-oemion of an epideictic oration was to 1 Athen, xii. 538 f. 2 Comment, on Dem. 12, 56 {Beri. Klass. Texte, i. 59). 3 Fr. 14 K. 4 Fr. 153 (Koerte). 5 The rise of the chorus-trainer, distinct from the poet, was also probably the result of this performance of the works of deceased composers : see Reisch in R.E. V . 404. 6 Schwyzer, Dialectorum Graecorum exempla epigraphicapotiora (1923), p. 190. 7 Rhet. in. xiv. i4 i5 aio.

T H E LATER D ITH YRAM B

57

the subject of the speech—little can be said of the form of the fourth-century dithyramb. Probably the conventional prac­ tice of ending with a prayer was retained.1 There may have been various experiments as regards the accompaniment; Timotheus had used the kithara on occasion instead of the flute; and with the mixture of musical modes, to which Plato objected, there was naturally less conservatism as regards instruments; but a passage of Athenaeus2 which is cited by Crusius3 to prove the use of castanets does not appear to refer to dithyramb. Probably the repetition of syllables to fit the music (parodied by Aristophanes in the F r o g s , and adopted by Euripides and also in the Delphian Hymns) was common in dithyrambs,4 though there is no proved instance of it. § 9. Before leaving the fourth century we may note the records of dithyrambic performances at Eleusis, where a cer­ tain Damasias, son of Dionysius of Thebes, provided two choruses, ‘one of boys, one of men’, for the local Dionysia at his own expense, and was publicly thanked and commemo­ rated in an extant inscription ;s at Salamis, the flute-player being Telephanes and the poet Paideas;6 and at the Peiraeus, where (as has already been noticed)7 performances ‘of not less than three circular choruses’ were ordered by a law of the orator Lycurgus to be given (and this is remarkable) at a fes­ tival of Poseidon, and prizes were established of 10, 8, and 6 minae for the victors. There are also inscriptions recording choruses of boys and men at Ceos in the fourth century, and the sending of a chorus of boys from the island to Delos.8 Cyclic choruses at the Dionysia at Iasos are recorded at about the time of Alexander.9 The cyclic contests at Delphi are mentioned in the Paean of Philodamus to Dionysus.10 At 1 Aristid. Rom. Em. i. 369 (Dind.) : Tt is best like the poets of dithyrambs and paeans to add a prayer and so finish the speech.’ 2 xiv. 636 d. 3 In R.E. v, col. 1223. 4 See Crusius, Die delphischen Hymnen {Philologus, Suppl.-Bd., liii. 93). 5 I.G. ii2. X186. 6 Ibid. 3093. 7 Above, p. 4. 8 Halbherr, Mus. Ital. di antich. class, i. ii (1885), 207-8; I.G. xii. 5. 544, 1075. 9 Corpus Inscriptionum Graecorum, 2671= Michel, Receuil d ’inscriptions grecques (1897), p. 462. 10 1. 135; see Fairbanks, Study of the Greek Paean, p. 143; J. U. Powell, Col­ lectanea Alexandrina (1925), p. 169.

T H E D IT H Y R A M B

Thebes Epaminondas was choregos to a chorus of boys accom­ panied by the flute.1

vii.

Conclusion

Thus the history of the dithyramb proves to be a somewhat puzzling and disappointing affair. No complete dithyramb, except those ofBacchylides (if they are dithyrambs), survives, and those, in their quiet gracefulness, seem to belong almost to another world from the fragments of Pindar, in which the spirit of Dionysus is at least discernible. It is the dithyramb of the Pindaric period which it would be most worth while to know; of the later dithyramb the extant fragments are per­ haps enough. It is unsatisfactory also that we have to depend for our facts, to a large extent, upon writers in whose critical and historical capacity it is not possible to have any confidence. The author of de Musica, ascribed to Plutarch, drew largely upon Glaucus of Rhegium and Aristoxenus (who could them­ selves take advantage of a continuous, though not necessarily pure, stream of tradition) ; but he is spoiled for us by the difficulty of discovering his source for many particular state­ ments. Athenaeus preserves much valuable material, but the filiation of his sources is a matter upon which those who have studied them persistently disagree. Nothing can give us a much greater degree of certainty, unless fortune restores to us the works of Chamaeleon or some similar ‘researcher’. It is even more unsatisfactory that we have practically no evidence of the spirit in which the dithyramb, as a form of religious celebration, was regarded during the classical period. There may conceivably have been a difference in this respect between the winter dithyramb at Delphi, when Apollo was away and Dionysus was perhaps thought of in his gloomier aspects, and the spring dithyramb at Athens. There is not, however, any ground (if we confine ourselves to the texts) for connecting dithyramb in Greece with any chthonic ritual, Dionysiae or other, and if dithyrambs were sung at the Anthesteria, they had no connexion with the last 1 Plut. Vit. Aristid. i.

C O N C L U S IO N

59

or gloomy day of the festival. The Pindaric fragments are brilliant and cheerful enough. The contrast between the dithyramb and the paean, drawn by Plutarch,1 dates from a time long after the fusion of Dionysus with Zagreus and the development of his mysteries in Greece, and Plutarch is per­ haps somewhat fanciful when he tries to prove the appro­ priateness of the distracted music (evidently that of the later dithyramb) with the experiences attributed to the mystic deity. There is no hint elsewhere of any association of the dithyramb with the mystic cults referred to, and indeed Plutarch himself does not assert it, but only compares the contorted music of the dithyramb with the perplexed ex­ periences of the god—a comparison of very little value, and probably far removed from the minds of the composers of the music. So far as we can see, the religious significance rather rapidly went out of dithyramb, as the words became unim­ portant or degenerate, and it became what may be called ‘concert-music’, such as the Oratorio was in the nineteenth century. In the latest stages of its history it seems to be quite secularized. But for the present we must be content to be ignorant of much which we should like to know. 1 de Ei ap. Delp., p. 389 a.

II TH E O R IG IN S OF G R E E K TRAGEDY

i.

The earliest-known Greek Tragedy and its Character

I t is convenient to begin the discussion of the origins of

Greek tragedy with a statement of known facts at the earliest point at which a clear view is possible, and to work back­ wards from that point. The Supplices of Aeschylus differs from all other extant Greek tragedies in the large proportion of the play which is assigned to the chorus, the very small part taken by the second actor, and the simplicity (even at times the crudity) of the treatment of the actor’s part. [These points are undisputed, but must now be attributed to the exigencies of the particular theme and not to the early date of the play. A fragmentary papyrus1 belonging to what was evidently an edition of Aeschylus’ plays gives a quotation of the didaskalic inscription of which the essential words are ‘Aeschylus won a victory with . . . Danaides, Amymone. Second, Sophocles’. It has long been assumed that Supplices, Aegyptii, Danaides, and Amymone formed a tetralogy, of which Amymone was the satyrplay (Amymone was one of the daughters of Danaus). There is room in the fragment to restore the names of the Supplices and Aegyptii. The tetralogy cannot have been produced before 468 B.G., the date of Sophocles’ earliest production, and 467 B.c. is excluded because in that year Aeschylus produced another tetralogy : Laius, Oedipus, Septem contra Thebas, Sphinx. The Supplices cannot therefore be earlier than the Persae, which was produced in 472 b .c ., or the Septem, which was produced in 467. All these plays differ from later tragedy in the proportion of lines assigned to the chorus and the corre­ sponding lightness of the actors’ parts. The chorus of the 1 Oxyrh. Pap. xx, No. 2256, fr. 3 (reproduced O.C.T., p. 2; Loeb, fr. 288). Cf. particularly E. G. Turner, C.R., n . s . iv (1954), 21 ; A. Lesky, Hermes, lxxxii (1954), 1 ; E. G. Yorke, C.R., n .s . iv (1954), 10.

T H E E A R L IE S T -K N O W N G R E E K T R A G E D Y

61

Supplices shares with the chorus of the Eumenides (produced in 458 B.c.) its prominence in the action, and this prominence is due in both cases to Aeschylus’ treatment of the story. The second play of the tetralogy was called the Aegyptii, but the sons of Aegyptus need not have been the chorus any more than the Heraclidae were in their name-play; Miss Cunning­ ham1 has shown that the main chorus may still be the daughters of Danaus. In the third play, the Danaides, Hypermnestra at least must have developed an independent charac­ ter and have had a considerable part. The Septem also belongs to a connected tetralogy. It differs, however, from the Supplices and the Persae in having a prologue in iambic trimeters, in which Eteocles receives news of the preparations of the seven attackers. As we shall see, Phrynichus used the prologue nine years before, and Aristotle attributed its invention to Thespis; to start a play with the entrance of the chorus as in the Supplices and the Persae may therefore have been an innovation rather than a survival. The Persae is unique in its variation of dialogue metre between trochaic tetrameters and iambic trimeters within the compass of a single scene. The four plays produced in 472 b .c . have no connexion with each other : Phineus, Persae, Glaucus Potnieus, Prometheus (satyr-play) .2 The inclusion of the Persae in such a set suggests that the Persian war was felt as a heroic event on the same scale as the Trojan war and we know that the Athenians had already admitted Phrynichus’ Capture of Miletus and Phoenissae to the competition.] Our scanty knowledge of early-fifth-century tragedy sug­ gests that Dionysiae subjects might be chosen but plainly had no preference. A contemporary subject was occasionally selected when it had a heroic scale. Chorus and actors wore 1 Rhein. Mus. xevi (1953), 223. On the reconstruction of the trilogy see most recently R. P. Winnington-Ingram in J.H.S. lxxxi (1961). 2 The Phineus certainly included the death of the Harpies and so might be regarded as a play with a happy ending. In the Glaucus the king prepared to go out in his chariot (fr. 37) and the chorus wished him a good journey (fr. 36) ; the queen had probably dreamed of his fate before it was narrated to her (Lobel on Oxyrh. Pap. 2160; fr. 443 Mette). In the satyr-play the satyrs lit their torches from Prometheus, who seems also to have invented cooking and medi­ cine (frs. 205-6; Oxyrh. Pap. 2245; Beazley, American Journal of Archaeology, xliii (1939), 619 f.). Cf. H. D. Broadhead, The Persae of Aeschylus, 1960, lv if.

T H E O R IG IN S OF G REEK T RA G ED Y

masks. The linguistic basis of the dialogue was Attic, with a sprinkling of epic and (in a smaller degree) of Doric forms and words; the lyrics were further removed from Attic by their more unrestricted use of forms and words which belong to epic or non-dramatic lyric poetry; and, in particular, the use of the long alpha in place of eta, a use common to all the Greek dialects except Ionic and Attic, was regular. (The special problem of the relation of the language of tragedy to Doric will be discussed later.) It is not known whether in the early part of the fifth century composition in trilogies or tetralogies was frequent. That it was a common practice of Aeschylus himself is very likely and is attested for the Danaid tetralogy, the Oresteia, the Theban tetralogy, and the Lycurgeia (but in the last the con­ nexion between the plays is unclear) ; but apart from Aeschy­ lus very few trilogies or tetralogies are definitely recorded— the Lycurgeia of Polyphradmon,1 the Pandionis of Philocles,2 the Oedipodeia of Meletus,3 and Telepheia of Sophocles.4 The last play of each group of four was, throughout the classical period—with only one known exception, the Alcestis of Euripides—a satyric play. This was like tragedy in its general form, being a joint performance of chorus and actors, all wearing masks ; but the chorus invariably represented satyrs—creatures half-man, half-beast, led by Silenus (who was an actor), and associated especially (and often in the plays) with Dionysus, but frequently also with other gods or with certain heroes. Their costume was indecent ; there was a good deal of vigorous dancing, and the language and gestures were often obscene. The plot represented those parts of ancient legends which were grotesque in themselves or 1 Arg. Aesch. Sept. c. Theb. 2 Schol. Ar. Birds, 281, on the authority of Aristotle’s Didaskaliai. 3 Schol. Plat., p. 893ai4, also on Aristotle’s authority [Nauck, Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta, p. 781]. Robert {Oedipus, pp. 396 ff.) makes out a strong case for his view that there was a certain connexion of subject between the Chrysippus, Oenomaus, and Phoenissae of Euripides, which were performed to­ gether about 411 B .c . It seems that composition in connected tetralogies or trilogies was mainly a speciality of Aeschylus, and that he himself did not always practise it. [In 415 b . c . the Alexander, Palamedes, and Trojan Women of Euripides gave successive phases of the Trojan war story.] 4 [Gf. Festivals, p. 82.]

THE E A R L IE ST-K N O W N GREEK TRAGEDY

63

which could be made so by burlesquing them. The satyric play was an integral part of the poet’s work for the prize in the competition at the Dionysia. Such are the facts, stated in outline, in regard to tragedy and satyric drama, early in the fifth century. We have now to trace the history of these forms of art backwards, so far as our information allows us.

ii.

Phrynichus, Pratinas, Choerilus

§ i . The information which we have in regard to ph r y n ic h u s , a slightly senior contemporary of Aeschylus—his first victory is dated 511-508 b . c .—suggests that the lyric element pre­ dominated and was of very high literary merit, and that he was quite free from any restriction to Dionysiae subjects. The main evidence on these points can be very shortly stated. Aristophanes1warmly praises his lyrics. He appears to have invented many new varieties of choral dance : Plutarch12 writes of him : ‘Phrynichus, the poet of tragedy, says about himself that “Dancing gave me as many steps as the waves formed in the sea on a cruel night of winter” .’ The variety of his subjects is indicated by the titles of his plays. The Pleuroniae was drawn from the story of Meleager and Oeneus and the Calydonian boar-hunt ; the Tantalus from the story of the house of Pelops ; the Aegyptii and Danaides from that of the Danaids ; the Antaeus and Alcestis from the Heraclean cycle ; the Actaeon from Attic legend ; the Capture of Miletus (if that was the title)3 and the Phoenissae from contemporary history. [We can add to these a play from the Trojan cycle since, according to Athenaeus, fr. 13 N ‘the light of love shines on crimson cheeks’ referred to Troilus.] The Suda states that Phrynichus was ca pupil of Thespis, who first introduced tragedy’—which can hardly be 1 Birds, 748 ff. G f. Wasps, 220; Thesm. 164. No weight should be put on the lines that Aristophanes gives to Euripides in the Frogs, 9x0 ff. 2 Symp. Quaest. vxir. ix, § 3. 3 The Suda does not mention this title, but does mention a play called Just Men or Persians or Men in Council—which possibly suggests a chorus of Persian elders. [For the text of the Suda see App.]

64

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

interpreted in a literal sense, if (as seems likely) Thespis was already exhibiting plays about 560 b .c . ; that he discovered the tetrameter, which may only mean that his were the earliest surviving tetrameters in tragedy; and that he first introduced a female character—a statement which we cannot check. The meagre fragments show that Phrynichus was a master of poetic language, with some of the pomp and richness of Aeschylus. [A little can be made out about the plays. Dark themes with dramatic incidents are immediately apparent from the titles. Unlike Aeschylus, Phrynichus brought Aegyp­ tus himself with his sons to Argos (1 N ). In the A lc e s tis 1 ap­ parently Death appeared on the stage with a sword and cut off the hair of Alcestis. Probably the story of Apollo making the fates drunk and tricking them into letting off Admetus was mentioned in this play. The surviving anapaestic frag­ ment (2 N) seems to be spoken by the chorus relating or imagining how Herakles was hard pressed by Death. There is no evidence either that it was a satyr-play or that it was not. One of the fragments (5 N) of the P le u ro n ia e is from an iambic messenger speech, the other (6 N) from an account of Meleager’s death in aeolo-choriambics by the chorus. (Miss Cunningham has pointed out to me that this may have the same relation to an earlier messenger speech as the chorus in the P e rsa e (548 £, particularly 576 f.) to the Salamis speech). The C a p tu re o f M i l e t u s 12 related the Persian capture of the town in 494 b.c., and it has been suggested that the play was produced in the archonship of Themistocles in 493/2 b.c.; Phrynichus was fined 1,000 drachmae. The P h o e n iss a e 3 may have been produced in 476 b.c., when Phrynichus won a victory with Themistocles as choregos. The argument to Aes­ chylus’ P e rsa e (produced in 472 b.c.) tells us that Aeschylus’ play was based on the P h o e n iss a e of Phrynichus, but in Phrynichus the play began with a eunuch reporting the defeat of Xerxes (in iambic trimeters), as he arranged the seats for the councillors. Two fragments survive : (1) fr. 11 N: 1 [Cf. A. M. Dale, Euripides’ Alcestis (1954), p. xii.] 2 Cf. A. Lesky, Tragische Dichtung, p. 47. On the connexion with Themistocles c f . Η. T. Wade-Gery, Essays in Greek History, p. 177; W. G. Forrest, C.Q., n . s ., X (i960), 235 if. 3 Cf. A. Lesky, loc. cit.

P H R Y N IC H U S , P R A T IN A S , C H O E R IL U S

65

‘singing songs in response to the harp5 might be a descrip­ tion in iambic trimeters of a feast interrupted by the news. (2) Oxyrh. Pap. 2, No. 221 : ‘from early afternoon to late after­ noon many men were killed5 is from a messenger speech in trochaic tetrameters. This has been connected with the evening slaughter at Mykale. In view of the unreality of time in Aeschylus’ Agamemnon it is not impossible that reports of Salamis and Mykale were included by Phrynichus in the same play. If the chorus were the Persian elders (as the argu­ ment to the Persae suggests), the Phoenician women must presumably have been a subsidiary chorus. We can therefore say that Phrynichus used the prologue, that narrative speeches were either in iambic trimeters or trochaic tetrameters, that the choral lyrics might narrate or imagine events which happened in the course of the play and that Phrynichus may have used subsidiary choruses.1] § 2. PRATINAS is the subject of a puzzling and confused notice in the Suda.2 He is described as ‘of Phlius, tragic poet. Competed with Aeschylus and Choerilus in the 70th Olympiad (i.e. 499-496 B.c.). Was the first to write satyroi ■. . . and exhibited 50 plays of which 32 were satyric. He was victori­ ous once.5 His name was evidently connected by tradition especially with satyric drama; this appears also from Dioscorides3 epigram on Sositheus,3 and from Pausanias,4 who shows that his memory was kept alive in his native town : ‘Here is also the memorial of Aristias, son of Pratinas. Aristias and Pratinas his father wrote the most successful satyroi of all except Aeschylus.5 He cannot have exhibited at Athens entirely under the system which was regular in the fifth century, and under which each poet produced three tragedies and one satyric play, if thirty-two of his fifty plays 1 The Suda has a notice of another Phrynichus, son of Melanthas, described as ‘Athenian, tragic poet. His plays are the following: Andromeda, Erigone. He also wrote Pyrrhics.’ But nothing is said of his date, and the compiler may be confusing the various poets of this name. The Phrynichus who leads a dithy­ ramb on a vase in Copenhagen painted about 425 b . c . (List of Monuments, No. 4) may be rightly identified with the comic poet, cf. above, p. 53 on Anaxandrides. 2 [App.] 3 Anth. Pal. vii. 707 (Third century b . c . ) . Pratinas is also obscurely alluded to in the same writer’s epigram on Sophocles (vii. 37). 4 π. xiii, § 6. 6188

F

66

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

were satyric, as the Suda states;1 but if, as is possible, this system only came into force just before the beginning of the century, he may at first have exhibited under conditions which allowed poets to offer tragedies and satyric plays in any proportion or satyric plays without tragedies. Unfortunately it is impossible to say at what date the system referred to came into use. It may have been when state-regulated choregia was introduced ; the laying of respon­ sibility on the shoulders of individuals would necessitate some understanding as to what each was responsible for, in order that the competition might be a fair one. Before this a poet might well take his own risks. Competitions appear, as we shall see,12 to have been instituted about 534 b .c ., and possibly there was some reorganization of the festival after the expul­ sion of the tyrants. The great inscription which gives the record of the victories at the City Dionysia seems, though the heading is imperfect,3 to have begun its record ‘in the year in which there first were kómoi to Dionysus’. Capps and Wilhelm reconstruct the lost begining of the inscription in such a way as to make the record begin with the year 502/1 b .c . or there­ abouts. Their view, dating the beginning of the system which we are discussing about 502/1 b .c ., has at least great like­ lihood, and the corrections which more exact knowledge would necessitate would probably not be great. The fact that the tradition of the early writers on Greek literature (as found in the Suda and others) preserved some dates for Thespis, Choerilus, Phrynichus, &c., certainly does not disprove the suggested initial date of this inscription, as Wilamowitz appears to think. The recorders of the tradition need not have got their information from this inscription. The words (in the notice of the Suda) Pratinas ‘first wrote satyro? cannot mean anything but that, in the opinion of the compiler of the Suda or his unknown authority, Pratinas was the first to compose satyric plays of the type known in the 1 The suggestion of Capps that Pratinas may have composed satyric plays for other poets to present with their trilogies, and that the disproportionate number of his satyric plays may thus be accounted for, is ingenious. Possibly all the thirty-two plays were not performed at Athens. 2 See below, p. 76. 3 [Cf. Festivals, p. 103.]

P H R Y N I C H U S , P R A T IN A S , C H O E R IL U S

67

fifth century. The word satyroi is used in the same sense as in the passage of Pausanias quoted above, and in many other places.1 [The statement is consistent with the archaeological evidence ; satyrs first appear in stage-costume on Attic vases in the early fifth century b .c .12] The new satyric plays must have been brought into the Dionysia alongside of the tragedies which had presumably become regular since 534 b . c . Professor Flickinger3 thinks that Pratinas’ work is to be explained as an attempt to restore the Dionysiae character of the festival. After tragedy had lost its exclusively Bacchic themes and had considerably departed from its original character, Pratinas en­ deavoured to satisfy religious conservatism by introducing a new manner of production, which came to be called satyric drama. This was a combination of the dramatic dithyramb of his native Phlius, which of course had developed somewhat since the day of Arion and Epigenes, and of contemporary tragedy. But this goes far beyond the evidence. We have no informa­ tion at all as to the object which Pratinas may have had in view; it is at least equally possible that both he and Thespis simply came to Athens to try their luck as entertainers ; there is not a particle of evidence about any dithyramb at Phlius, nor do we know anything of dithyrambs or of satyric plays by Epigenes or of the development of dithyramb between Arion and Lasos. (The actual evidence in regard to Epigenes and the statements bearing upon the supposed religious conser­ vatism of the Athenians will be considered later.4) We know little of the tragedies of Pratinas. In the Argu­ ment to the S e v e n against Thebes we read that Aristias won the second prize with the Perseus, the Tantalus, the satyr-play Palaistai of his father Pratinas [and in another version5 ‘with 1 This tradition probably appears also in Pseudo-Acron. Schol. Hör. Ars P. 2x6: ‘Cithara monochordos fuit; deinde paulatim dextra laevaque addentes . . . ponebant tragoediis satyrica dramata, in quibus salva maiestate gravitatis iocos exercebant secundum Pratinae (MS. Cratini) institutionem. Is enim Athenis, Dionisia dum essent, satyricam fabulam induxit.’ 2 See List of Monuments, Nos. 90, 91. 3 Greek Theatre, pp. 23, 24. 4 See p. 77. 5 Oxyrh. Pap. 2256, fr. 2. Possibly in this apparently posthumous production only two (instead of three) tragedies and a satyr-play were staged.

68

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

the tragedies of his father’]. A thenaeus1 records the title

Dysmainai or Caryatids as that of a play of Pratinas, and it has been conjectured that Dysmainai may be a false reading for Dymainai or Dymaniai—Dymanian maidens of Karyai, dan­ cing at the festival of Artemis there—and so may = Caryatids. Others think that Dysmainai here = mainades2 and this seems quite likely. The long fragment of Pratinas has already been discussed,3 and is more likely to come from a dithyramb than a satyr-play. § 3. C h o e r ilu s , according to Hesychius and the Suda,4 was a native of Athens who is said to have composed 160 plays, from 523-520 b .c. onwards, won thirteen victories, competed in the first years of the fifth century against Aeschylus and Pratinas, and ‘according to some made in­ novations in masks and costume’. Eusebius places hisfloruit in 482 b .c ., and the ‘Life of Sophocles’ (a doubtful authority) makes him compete against Sophocles in 468. Only one of his plays, the Alope, is known by name. The two fragments quoted by grammarians as instances of metaphor suggest the same type of language as was sometimes used by Phrynichus and Aeschylus. It has been usual to explain by reference to this Choerilus the line quoted by Plotius5 as a specimen of the metrum Choerileum, ‘When Choerilus was king among satyrs’, and to suppose that it means that he was famous for his satyric plays. But Reisch6 has suggested a different explanation of the line. The expression King of Satyrs, where it occurs in a fragment of Hermippus,7 has no reference to drama; and Cratinus8 scoffs at a certain Choerilus who was a servant and helper of 1 ix. 392 f. 2 Gf. Hesych. Dysmainai. The Bacchants who dance in Sparta. 3 See above, pp. 17 ff. It is uncertain whether any work of Pratinas survived into the fourth century b . c . Pseudo-Plut. de Mus. xxxi says that Aristoxenus recorded that Telesias of Thebes had learned the works of Pindar and Diony­ sius of Thebes and Lampros and Pratinas : but there is a reading Cratinus, which may be right. The context shows that Aristoxenus was thinking of music, and the songs (and presumably the tunes) of Cratinus were famous (see Aristoph. Knights, 529-30). The corruption would be the converse of that noticed in Pseudo-Acron. (above, p. 67, n. 1). 4 [App.] 5 de Metris (Keil, Grammatici Lat. vi. 508). 6 Festschr. für Gomperz, p. 461. 7 Fr. 46 (K). 8 Fr. 335 (Κ). See below, p. 192.

T H E S P IS

69

Ecphantides, the author of a comedy called Satyrs. It may be this Choerilus to whom the line quoted by Plotius refers.

hi.

Thespis

§ i . The evidence in regard to Thespis is both more full and more interesting, though the points upon which anything like certainty is possible are few. It will be convenient first of all to collect the more important passages : 1. Marmor Parium (under a year about 534

b . c .) : From when Thespis the poet first acted, who produced a play in the city and the prize was a goat, years 270 (?), when . . . naios the earlier was archon at Athens. M ote: the Suda (No. 14) dates Thespis in the 6 ist Olympiad (i.e. 536/5-533/2 b . c .). The last year (533/2) can be excluded as the archon is known [cf. T. J. Cadoux, J . H . S . Ixviii (1948), 109]. 2. Dioscorides, A n th . P a l. vii. 411 : This is the discovery of Thespis. Sportings in the rustic wood and revels of still less account Aeschylus made sublime. 3. Ibid. 410: This is Thespis, who first moulded tragic song, inventing new joys for his villagers, when Bacchus led the wine-smeared ( ?) chorus, for which a goat was the prize ( ?) and a basket of Attic figs was a prize too. The young change all this. Length of time will discover many new things. But mine is mine. M ote: Gf. Pint, de cupid. dio. viii. 527 d: The ancestral feast of the Dionysia used to be conducted in a popular and cheerful manner. An amphora of wine and a vine-branch; then some­ one pulled a goat along; another followed with a basket of figs; at the end the phallus. 4. Horace, A r s P . 275-7: The unknown poetry of the tragic Muse Thespis is said to have discovered and to have carried poems on wagons, which they sang and acted, their faces smeared with wine-lees. 5. Clem. Alex. Stro m , i. 79: The iambic was invented by Archilochos of Paros, the limping iambic by Hipponax of Ephesos, and tragedy by Thespis of Athens and comedy by Sousarion of Icaria. 6. Eratosthenes, E rigone (Fr. ap. Hygin. de A s tr . ii. 4) : The Icarians there first danced round the goat.

70

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

7. Athen, ii. 40 a, b : From intoxication came the invention of both tragedy and comedy in Ikarios of Attica at the time of the vintage. 8. Euanthius, de C om . 1 : Although those who trace history back­ wards find in Thespis the first inventor of tragedy, etc. 9. Donatus, de C om . v : Thespis first brought this kind of writing to the notice of all ; later Aeschylus, following the example of his predecessor, enriched it; about which Horace, etc. 10. Plut. Solon, ch. xxix: When Thespis and his fellows started tragedy and many were attracted by the novelty but regular contests had not yet been established, Solon, being naturally addicted to listening and learning, and in his old age still more used to cheer himself by leisure and entertainment and even by drinking and music, saw Thespis himself acting, as was the custom among the ancients. After the show he spoke to him and asked if he was not ashamed to tell so many lies before so many people. When Thespis said there was nothing wrong in saying and doing such things as entertainment, Solon hit the ground with his stick and said: ‘If we are so pleased with this sort of entertainment we shall soon find it in public affairs also.’ M ote : cf. Diog. L. i. 59 (Life of Solon) : He prevented Thespis from producing tragedy on the ground that telling lies was unwholesome. 11. Diog. L. iii. 56: As of old in tragedy formerly the chorus by itself performed the whole drama and later Thespis invented a single actor to give the chorus a rest and Aeschylus a second and Sophocles a third, thereby completing tragedy, so also in philosophy . . . . 12. Themistius, O rat. xxvi 316 d: Did solemn Tragedy with all its trappings and chorus and actors come before the audience at a single moment? Do we not believe Aristotle that first the chorus came in and sang to the gods, then Thespis in­ vented prologue and speech, then Aeschylus the third actor and okribantes (‘platforms’ or ‘boots’?), while we owe the rest to Sophocles and Euripides? [App.] M o te : [cf. F estiva ls, p. 230, n. 3.] 13. Athen, i. 22 a: They say also that the ancient poets, Thespis, Pratinas, Phrynichus, were called dancers not only because their plays were dependent on the dancing of the chorus but because quite apart from their own poetry they were willing to teach those who wanted to dance.

T H E S P IS

71

14. The Suda lexicon : Thespis: O f the city Ikarios in Attica, the sixteenth tragic poet after the first tragic poet, Epigenes of Sikyon, but according to some, second after Epigenes. Others say he was the first tragic poet. In his first tragedies he anointed his face with white lead, then he shaded his face with purslane in his performance, and after that introduced the use of masks, making them in linen alone. He produced in the 61st Olympiad (536/5-533/2 b . c .). Mention is made of the following plays : G am es o f P e lia s or P horbas, P riests, Y o u th s, P entheus. [App.] 15. Diog. L. V . 92 (Life of Heraclides Ponticus) : Aristoxenus the musician says that he (i.e. Heraclides) also wrote tragedies and wrote Thespis’ name on them. [F. Wehrli, Schule des A ristoteles, ii, No. 114, and p. 83.] 16. Aristoph. W a sp s, 1478-9: He never stopped all night dancing the old pieces with which Thespis fought the competitions. Schol. Thespis. The Githarode, not the tragic poet. 17. Pseudo-Plut. M in o s , p. 321 a: Tragedy is old here. It did not start, as they think, with Thespis nor with Phrynichus, but if you want to realize the truth, you will find that it is a very old discovery of this city. 18. Pollux iv. 123: The eleos was a table long ago, on which before Thespis a single man mounted and answered the choreuts. 19. E ty m o l. M a g n . (s.v. thym ele) : The thym ele which still exists in the theatre is named from the table, because the sacrifices were cut up on it, i.e. the victims being sacrificed. It was the table on which they stood and sang in the fields, when tragedy had not yet been organized. 20. Isidor. O rig g . xviii. 47: Called thym elici, because once they stood in the orchestra and sang on a platform which was called thym ele.

2 1. Athen, xiv. 630 c : All satyric poetry also was composed origin­ ally of choruses, as also tragedy then. Therefore also they had no actors. M ote: Probably taken from Aristocles’ O n Choruses, which is quoted earlier in the chapter. 22. Euanthius de C om . ii: Old comedy, like tragedy itself once, was, as we have said, a simple song, which the chorus sang with a flute-player as it walked, stood, or revolved round the smoking altars. But first one character was taken out of the singers and answering to the song of the other enriched and

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

diversified the musical performance. Then a second, then a third, and finally, as the number grew through the hands of various authors, masks, cloaks, buskins, shoes, and the other trappings and emblems of the stage were discovered. 23. John the Deacon, C om m entary on H erm ogenes, ed. H. Rabe, R h e in . M u s . Ixiii (1908), 150: The first performance of tragedy was introduced by Arion of Methymna, as Solon said in his E leg ies. Charon of Lampsakos says that drama was first pro­ duced at Athens by Thespis. [App.] N o t e : Charon is Wilamowitz’ reading for the unknown Drakon (cf. F. Jacoby, F ragm ente G r. H is t., iii, (1923), No. 216 F 15 and iii a, p. 23).

§ 2. Unhappily there is scarcely a point in these passages which has not been, or might not be, the subject of con­ troversy, and it is very difficult to trace back some of the statements made in them to any reputable source, so that the true line between credulity and undue scepticism is often hard to draw. [It should be noted, however, that Nos. 16 and 23 (if Wilamowitz’ reading is accepted) are from a source in the fifth century b . c . , N os. 12, 15, and 17 from the fourth century b . c . , N os. i , 2, 3, and 6 from the third century b . c . , No. 21 from the second century b . c . ] It has been doubted, in the first place, whether ‘Thespis’ is not an assumed name, appropriate to a poet, but actually derived from passages of the Odyssey in which the adjective thespis ‘inspired’ is combined with song or singer. But for the present we may be content to use the traditional name. The connexion of Thespis with Icarius or Icaria in Attica1 is mentioned by Athenaeus (7) and the Suda (14), and is generally taken to be proved by the line of Eratosthenes (6) quoted above. But whether Eratosthenes ought to be cited in this context at all depends upon the interpretation of the words ‘danced round the goat’. Hyginus,12 to whom we owe the line, gives not a hint of tragedy, and thinks of it as refer­ ring to askoliasmos. Icarius, according to his story, received the 1 It does not appear to have been suggested as yet that the connexion is really derived from Odyssey i. 328. 2 Astron. 11. iv. Cf. Theophrastus ap. Porphyr, de abst. ii. 10: ‘They first subdued the goat in Ikarios of Attica because it stripped the vine.’

T H E S P IS

73

vine from father Liber, with instructions as to its cultivation, and then, cum sevisset vitem et diligentissime administrando floridam falce fecisset, dicitur hircus in vineam se coniecisse et quae ibi tenerrima folia videret decerpsisse : quo facto Icarium irato animo tulisse eumque interfecisse et ex pelle eius utrem fecisse ac vento plenum praeligasse et in medium proiecisse suosque sodales circa eum saltare coegisse; itaque Eratosthenes a i t . . . .

Now Hiller1is puzzled, naturally enough, at Eratosthenes’ saying ‘round the goat’, circa c a p r u m , instead of su p e r utrem; and so he thinks that Hyginus or his authority (a commenta­ tor on Aratus) has misinterpreted Eratosthenes, and that the latter was really speaking of the dance round a goat sacrificed (or to be sacrificed) on the altar of Dionysus—a dance from which tragedy is assumed to have sprung—and that it was a dance round the whole goat, not round its inflated skin only. But after all, whoever quoted Eratosthenes in the first instance must have had the poet’s work before him, and must have known what he was talking about; Virgil,12 speaking of a s k o lia s m o s in Attica as a form of revenge upon the goat, gives no hint of tragedy ; there is no difficulty in supposing that the peasants, while using the skin for a s k o lia s m o s , may also have danced round this and other portions of the unfortunate animal; and the phrase ‘round the goat’, if not absolutely exact, would represent the facts well enough for poetry.3 It is therefore very unsafe to read into Eratosthenes the tradition which brings Thespis from Icaria, or to regard his 1 Eratosth. carm. reliqq. (1872), pp. 107 ff. 2 Georg, ii. 380 ff. 3 It may be suspected (if the suggestion is not too frivolous) that those who play at askoliasmos are more often circa than supra utrem. Nearly all the Greek explanations of askolia, &c., in scholiasts and lexicographers agree as to this. One scholium (on Aristoph. Pint. 1129) says: ‘They filled a skin with wine and leapt on it with one foot and theleaper had the wine as a prize.’ (The notices are conveniently collected by Headlam and Knox, Herodas (1922), p. 390.) The performance may, as some anthropologists think, have been a charm against violent winds. Another says that the askos was filled with air for the game, but with wine when given as a prize to the competitor who managed to keep his footing on it; and this may be the solution of the discrepancies; or the game may not always have been played in the same way. See Herzog, Philologus, lxxix (1924), 401-4, 410-11; [K. Latte, Hermes, lxxxv (1957), 385].

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

words as referring to the origin of tragedy at all.1 But if so, the earliest extant authority for the tradition is Athenaeus ; and we do not know what his source was. Crusius12 thinks that it was Seleucus (who lived in the first half of the first cen­ tury A .D.) ; but Seleucus is only quoted in a later section of the chapter for a quite different point. It may have been Chamaeleon’s treatise On Thespis, and if so we should get back to the end of the fourth century b .c.; but Athenaeus does not say that it was so. § 3. The remark of Athenaeus (7) which connects the origin of tragedy with Icaria derives both comedy and tragedy from intoxication; and seems to imply the theory, which is found elsewhere, of a common origin of both, tragedy being regarded as virtually an offshoot from comedy, and the original performance as connected with the grapeharvest. Dioscorides (3) also (if the reading is correct) suggests that the scene ofThespis’ performance was the vintage-festival, and Horace’s peruncti faecibus ora (4) possibly involves the same idea. Other passages imply a similar tradition. It ap­ pears in a longer form in Plutarch, de Proverbiis Alexandri­ norum, § 30. The text is corrupt, but its general drift is clear : Nothing to do with Dionysus. They say that comedy and tra­ gedy came into life from laughter. For at the time of the vintage people came to the presses and drinking the raw wine made jokes, later the joking verses were written down, and because they were first sung in the villages (kdmai) were called comedy. In the be­ ginning they frequently visited the villages of Attica with gypsum smeared on their faces and made jokes___ Later they introduced tragic events and changed to something more austere.

Mote : The translation is based on Crusius’ text. The same theory lies behind a passage in the Etymologicum Magnum2 on tragedy : ‘or from tryx (new wine) trygoidia. The name was shared with comedy, for the two kinds of poetry were not yet divided. For this combined art there was a single prize, the new wine. Later this name was taken over by 1 Maas, Analect. Eratosth., p. 114, actually speaks of a tragic chorus with Icarius as choregos. 2 Comment, in Plut. de prov. Alex., § 30. 3 764. 10 ff.

T H E S P IS

75

tragedy.’ The theory is found in practically the same words in the commentary of Ioannes Diaconus on Hermogenes.1 The ‘basket of figs’ which is mentioned as part of the prize by Dioscorides (3) and Plutarch (in the passage from the de cupid. div.)12 also probably implies an autumn or late-summer festival; they are not likely to have been dried figs. If Crusius’ textual suggestions on Plutarch’s explanation of the proverb are accepted—and something like them appears necessary—Plutarch’s story has points of contact with an account of the origin of comedy in some nocturnal excursions of rustics into the city, which is found in the scholia on Dionysius Thrax, Tzetzes, and in an anonymous writer on comedy found in certain manuscripts of Aristophanes ;3 and Kaibel4 thinks that the common source of all these is a lost book of the Chrestomathia of Proclus ; but the treatise ascribed to Plutarch is earlier than Proclus, and, whether the work be that of Plutarch or not, we do not know from what source it drew. [The theory that Thespis’ own performance was rustic and sportive compared to Aeschylus is already found in Dioscorides (2) in the third century b .c.5] It must not be forgotten that Aristotle himself spoke of tragedy as being originally ludicrous or ‘satyric’ in its language : and so far the tradition may be true (we shall recur to the point later). In view of the distinction which Aristotle makes between the origins of comedy and those of tragedy, it would not be right to ascribe to him the belief that both arose out of a trygoidia such as the writers who have been quoted suggest : but it is at least possible that this theory itself arose out of interpreta­ tions of the Poetics, since (at least in some of these writers) the same common source is alleged for all three forms of drama, tragic, comic, and satyric. Such an interpretation might be further encouraged by the mention of Thespis’ ‘wagons’ (4), when connected with the ‘jokes from wagons’ which were 1 Rhein. Mus. Ixiii. 150. 2 Above, No. 3, note. 3 Kaibel, Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum, i (Berlin, 1899), 12: see below, p. 184. 4 Die Prolegomena peri komodias (1818), pp. 12 ff. 5 Dioscorides brings us into the neighbourhood of Ghamaeleon’s On Thespis See particularly Lesky, op. cit., p. 19.

76

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

part of some kinds of komos, though the resemblance is only superficial. The fact that Thespis at one period was said to have hung flowers over his face, like certain phallophoroi described by Semus of Delos,1 might also be adduced in sup­ port of the theory; but such a disguise is common in mum­ mers5performances everywhere, and could not really be used as evidence of original identity. (To the wagons we shall return.) The only conclusion which seems legitimate from the lite­ rary evidence is that, on the one hand, there may once have been an undifferentiated performance involving both serious and grotesque elements out of which both tragedy and comedy could be evolved—such a performance as in fact still takes place (or did take place until recently) in parts of the modern Greek world :2but that, on the other hand, there is no sufficient proof of it, since the tradition may well be due to inferences from Aristotle, and the word trygoidia (applied in classical times to comedy) is very likely simply a parody-word3 based on the name tragoidia, which was certainly not derived from it, and was undoubtedly early. If, as is quite possible, tragedy was originally an autumn performance (though the con­ nexion of this date with the derivation from trygoidia is sus­ picious), it may well have been converted into a spring celebration at the time of the organization of the Great Dionysia by Peisistratus ; though there is no independent evidence of any such change, and it may be thought that tragedy is not likely to have arisen from anything like the type of komos with which the beginnings of comedy were probably connected.4 § 4. As regards the date of Thespis, there is no reason for doubting that the compiler of the record on the Parian Marble (1), which is generally trustworthy, had some ground for placing his victory—doubtless his first victory in a public 1 See below, pp. 137, 142. 2 See below, p. 12 x, and references there given. 3 See below, p. 123. 4 Some scholars conjecture that the Peripatetic School (basing their theoryon their inferences from Aristotle) may have been responsible for the ascription of tragedy and comedy to an identical origin, and that the points of resemblance noted in the statements of the Suda, &c., may have been invented by them. But there is no sufficient evidence of this.

T H E S P IS

77

competition at Athens—about 534 b .c ., at the time when Peisistratus was organizing or reorganizing the Great Dionysia, and for saying that he won a goat as his prize. The tradition, recorded by Plutarch (10), of his controversy with Solon may be true, if (as Plutarch says) the event took place late in Solon’s life—e.g. in 560 b . c .— and before the institution of contests. A certain suspicion attaches to any anecdote which brings famous persons into relation with Solon, in view of the existence of stories chronologically impossible, connecting Solon with Croesus and with Amasis.1 But in the present instance there is no such impossibility, and the story is quite in keeping with what we know of Solon’s independence of judgement. [We do not know what Solon (23) said about Arion’s ‘tragedy’, but there is no reason to doubt that a reference to an ‘inventor’ is likely to have been complimentary. If Plutarch is right, Solon must have objected in Thespis to the new dramatic element, which Aristotle phrased as the introduc­ tion of ‘prologue and speech’ (12).12 This was something new and quite different from the sung or intoned utterance of the exarchon (of which Xerxes’ dirge in the Persae is perhaps a good example), and may have seemed startlingly realistic.] The various theories which the Suda (14) records as to the place of Thespis in the series of early tragic poets—sixteenth after Epigenes, next after Epigenes, or first of all—show the uncertainty of the traditions. We shall return to Epigenes, who, if he was performing at Sicyon early in the sixth century, may have been long enough before Thespis to allow of fifteen known poets between them. Those who knew of no such poets, but had heard of Epigenes, placed the two first and second on the list; those who held to the strong tradition that Thespis invented tragedy placed him first, and probably either ignored Epigenes or said that what he wrote was some­ thing else. The difference of date (if Plutarch’s story is true) between Thespis’ first appearance at Athens and his first 1 Thus Nilsson, Mette Jahrb. xxvii (1911), 611 {—Op, Sei. i. 65), thinks that the story is an invention. 2 G. F. Else, Hermes, lxxv (1957), 37 f. points out that the mention of Thespis leads up to the story of Peisistratus’ political acting and this is Solon’s point.

78

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

victory in a contest would also give rise to divergent views. These views are not history, and all that we can feel fairly confident about is the victory in or near the year 534 b .c . § 5. What can be gathered from our authorities as to the kind of tragedy that Thespis wrote? There is substantial agreement between Diogenes Laertius (11), Themistius (12), and others that Thespis introduced speeches by an actor into a performance which had hitherto been given by a chorus alone, and Themistius makes Aristotle responsible for this view. There is no passage to this effect in the extant works of Aristotle ; in the Poetics he ascribes the second actor to Aeschylus (though in some lost work he may also have men­ tioned the adoption by Aeschylus of the third) ; the first actor he evidently regards as being the exarchon of the dithyrambic chorus, now separated from the rest, but he does not mention Thespis as the author of the change. This, however, is no conclusive proof that he did not think of the first actor as the invention of Thespis, and Hiller1 is perhaps too ready to discredit Themistius’ ascription of this view to Aristotle. The suggestion that Themistius is merely paraphrasing the Poetics loosely, and supplying the name of Thespis on his own authority, is disproved by the mention of okribantes, of which the Poetics says nothing. He may possibly be referring to some passage in the lost On Poets. What authority Diogenes Laertius used is unknown but he clearly belongs to the same tradition.1 It is, of course, impossible to exclude absolutely the possi­ bility that the tradition which Diogenes (11) and Themistius (12) record may be based on a ‘combination’ by ancient writers who had before them the writings of Aristotle and some stories about Thespis. But the tradition—that Thespis introduced an actor who impersonated a legendary or his­ torical character, and gave him a prologue and set speeches to deliver—is in itself probable enough. The importance of the change is obvious ; and if it was really Thespis who created the actor, the description of him as the first tragic poet or the inventor of tragedy is sufficiently explained and justified. 1 Rhein. Mus. xxxix. 321-38.

[Gf. Festivals, pp. 131 f.]

T H E S P IS

79

If we can assume that Aristotle1is referring to the work of Thespis when he says ‘when speech came, Nature itself found the appropriate metre’, we must infer that the speeches which Thespis introduced were probably in the iambic trimeter, not in the trochaic tetrameter metre; both metres are found in the fragments of Phrynichus, as we have seen. According to Plutarch (io), Thespis took the actor’s part himself. If Bywater2 and others3 are right in stating that the word hypokrites does not mean ‘one who answers the chorus’, but rather ‘the spokesman’ who interprets the poet’s text to the public, and that the term must have acquired this sense at the time when, by a division of labour, the poet left the acting to others, instead of being himself the performer of his pieces (as he originally was, according to Aristotle) ,4 it would be interesting to know whether Thespis, as actor, gave him­ self, or received, any technical name; but of this there is no record.5 § 6. The Suda (14) states that, when acting, Thespis at first disguised his face with white lead, but afterwards hung purslane over his face, and finally introduced masks of linen. But what the words ‘in linen alone’ mean is uncertain; they may mean ‘of linen only, not of cork or wood’, or ‘of linen without paint or colouring’, or ‘oflinen without any stiffening’. [Horace (4) (using a Hellenistic source) and the third century b.c. epigrammatist Dioscorides (3) (if trygikon is rightly conjectured) speak of Thespis’ performers as ‘smeared with wine-lees’ : Dioscorides apparently thinks of Dionysos 1 Poet. iv. i449a22. 2 Aristotle’s Poetics, p. 136. 3 Heimsoeth, de voce hypokrites, and Sommerbrodt, Scaenica (1876), pp. 259, 289; but see Curtius’s reply, Rhein. Mus. xxlii. 255 ff. It seems fairly clear that while both verb and noun were used in Homer and at least down to Plato’s time (e.g. Timaeus, p. 72 b) of the interpretation of dreams and omens, it is very difficult to get away from the meaning ‘answer’ even in Homer, and im­ possible afterwards. By the fourth century the meanings ‘act’, ‘actor’ (without any consciousness of either derivation) are regularly current; and there is nothing which can enable us to decide from which of the early senses— ‘interpret’ or ‘answer’—the application of the word to the actor’s part is derived. [See Lesky, op. cit., pp. 43-44; G. F. Else, Wiener Studien, badi (1959), 75 ff] 4 Rhet. in. i. i403b23· 5 [On the possible use of tragoidos see G. F. Else, Transactions of the American Philological Association, lxxxvi (1945), 1 ff.]

8o

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

leading a wine-smeared chorus. In the passage of pseudoPlutarch quoted above1the early chorus had gypsum smeared on their faces. We have already noticed2 the parallel for hanging flowers over the face in the phallophoroi described by Semos of Delos. It may be therefore that the Suda (or his source) has put as a chronological succession what were in fact disguises used in different contemporary performances. Monuments of the second and third quarter of the sixth century b . c . give us some idea of what disguises were known in Athens in Thespis’ time: 1. Bearded mask of Dionysus. (List of Monuments, Nos. 6, 7). Mounted on a pillar on the first day of the Anthesteria and worn on the second day. IfDioscorides (3) may be trusted, Thespis may have given Dionysus a similar mask. 2. Mask of satyr, men dressed as hairy satyrs (List of Monu­ ments, Nos. 8, 15). These do not necessarily conflict with the tradition that Pratinas introduced the satyr-play. They may be dancers rather than a singing chorus, and the hairy satyrs may be connected with dithyramb rather than drama (cf. above, p. 34). 3. Padded dancers. (List of Monuments, Nos. 9-16, 18.) They often have red faces which may be the truth behind the texts which speak of ‘smearing with wine-lees’. The frontal face occasionally drawn suggests that the leader at least was masked (Fig. 2). They are in some sense (to be discussed later)3 equated with satyrs as attendants of Dionysus. 4. Men dressed as nymphs (List of Monuments, Nos. 10, 18). They seem to wear white tights to support their padding and their faces are white : they may therefore have been smeared with gypsum or white lead. They dance with padded dancers. 5. Men dressed as maenads (List of Monuments, No. 20). No padding ; knee length chitons with skins over them. If Thespis wrote a Pentheus, this could have been the chorus.4 1 Gf. above, p. 74. 2 Cf. above, p. 34. 3 Cf. below, p. 113 if. 4 The earliest occurrence of the name Pentheus is on an Attic vase of 520-

T H E S P IS

8ι

6. Men with pointed caps and beards, wearing long chitons with a central stripe (List of Monuments, No. 21). The likeness of these to the ithyphalloi described by Semos of Delos will occupy us later.

F ig .

2. Attic padded dancers, Attic cup. List of Monuments, No. 12 (Benndorf Gr. und Sic. Vasenb.)

7. Men with pointed caps and beards, wearing breastplates of tanned or untanned skin, on stilts (List of Monuments, No. 24). The relevance of these to Pollux’ hypogypones will occupy us later. 510 B .c . (Roscher, s.v. Pentheus; Beazley, A.R.V. 19/5), and this may be a reflection of Thespis. On changes in maenad costume in the third quarter of the sixth century see M. W. Edwards, J.H.S. Ixxx (i960), 182 if. 6188

G

82

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

8. Men dressed as knights, riding men dressed as horses (List of Monuments, No. 23). Many of these will have to be discussed later. Their rele­ vance here is that all represent performances in Athens during the lifetime of Thespis, and their disguises explain to some extent what later writers tell us about him. For how many of these performances he wrote we cannot know, and our estimate will depend on how completely we regard the roots of tragedy and comedy as distinct. At least Nos. 3 and 4 are relevant to what we are told about his disguises ; Nos. 1 and 3 to the account of Dioscorides (3) ; No. 3 perhaps also to the title Youths (but not to Priests) ; No. 5 to the tradition that he wrote a Pentheus. It should also be remembered that Dionysos of Eleutherae, in honour of whom and before whose temple Thespis performed at the City Dionysia, was repre­ sented on the pediment of that temple as the god of satyrs and nymphs.1 The performances illustrated by No. 4 are dances of men dressed as fat men and men dressed as nymphs, and dancing with nymphs is the traditional occupation remem­ bered by satyrs in the classical satyr-play.2] If there is any truth in Horace’s words that Thespis took his plays about on wagons (4), it may be that Thespis, like travelling players at fairs down to the present day, took his plays about on wagons to local Dionysiae festivals, and like them stood on the end of the wagon to act (with his chorus dancing round it) and used the covered part of it to dress up in. But that is pure speculation, and it is more likely that Horace is thinking confusedly of the wagons in processions of a riotous or comic type, with their ‘jokes from wagons’.3 § 7. The Suda (14) gives us the titles of Thespis’ plays : Games of Pelias or Phorbas, Priests, Youths, Pentheus. O f these the first is not, the last is, a Dionysiae subject. The others may or may not have been. We do not know whence the Suda got the titles, and all statements about the plays of Thespis are 1 List of Monuments, No. x7. 2 e.g. Aesch. Isthmiastai, 32-33, 71-75; Eur. Cyclops, 63 if. 3 Thespis’ wagons have nothing to do with the ‘ship-car’ vases (Fig. 3), which are better connected with the Anthesteria [cf. Festivals, pp. 11 f. A similar performance in Klazomenai is attested by a vase in Oxford (Fig. 4) (List of Monuments, No. 82)].

l’io. 3. Dionysus on ship-car, Attic skyphos, List of Monuments, No. 7 (noted)

84

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

rendered doubtful by the allegation made by Aristoxenus (15) against Heracleides Ponticus, that he forged plays in the name of Thespis. Nor can we tell how long the real plays

Fig. 4. Satyrs on ship carried by komasts, Clazomenian fragment, List of Monuments, No. 82

remained known in Athens itself. Horace1 seems to think of them as still open to Roman students in the third century b . c . : Serus enim Graecis admovit acumina chartis, et post Punica bella quietus quaerere coepit quid Sophocles et Thespis et Aeschylus utile ferrent.

But there is no confirmation of the idea that Roman poets imitated Thespis, and Horace is not always accurate. The name ofThespis would scan more easily than that of Euripides, from whom the Romans borrowed largely. The lines quoted above from Aristophanes’ Wasps2 (16) have often been taken as a proof of a knowledge of choruses of Thespis in 422 b . c ., but our suspicions are aroused by the scholiast and by the Suda, who (on whatever authority) say that it is not the tragic poet who is meant, but a citharode of the same name. 1 Epp. π. i. 161-3. 2 If the Phrynichus of 1. 1490 is the tragic poet, this would so far support the belief that the tragic Thespis is alluded to in 1. 1479; but most editors think it is a different Phrynichus, and the point cannot be conclusively settled. [Cf. E. Roos, Die tragische Orchestik, pp. 107 ff.]

T H E S P IS

85

Sophocles is said by the Suda to have written a prose treatise on the chorus, ‘contesting in prose about the chorus with Thespis and Choerilus’. But the Suda’s statements are frequently anachronistic, and this may simply be one of the countless confusions contained in the lexicon. That Sopho­ cles should have competed against Thespis and Choerilus in a regular dramatic contest is impossible. Mr. R. J. Walker1 makes the ingenious suggestion that ‘Sophocles’ work was a dialogue in which Thespis, Choerilus, and himself were the disputants’ ; and if this were the case we should be almost obliged to infer that Sophocles had personal knowledge of the plays of Thespis ; but this cannot be regarded as more than a possibility. It may be added that the existence of a tradition, alluded to in the Pseudo-Platonic Minos2 (probably written shortly after the time of Aristotle), that Phrynichus was the origina­ tor of tragedy, is possibly evidence that no genuine plays of Thespis were extant late in the fourth century.3 It is, indeed, just possible to suppose that works of Thespis were extant, but that they were not counted as true tragedies, owing to their grotesqueness ; and Bentley thought that they were merry and satirical, mainly on the strength of Plutarch’s statement4 that it was Phrynichus and Aeschylus who made the plot tragic—‘when Phrynichus and Aeschylus developed tragedy to include mythological plots and disasters, it was said: “What has this to do with Dionysus?” ’ But it may be doubted whether Plutarch was entirely correct. The language of Thespis may have been in some ways rude and grotesque; but the story of Pentheus (assuming that Thespis treated it) must always have been tragic. (Probably he did treat it. Even if Heracleides did forge plays in the name of Thespis, he is likely to have followed tradition as regards their titles.) Four extant fragments are ascribed to Thespis by the writers who quote them, but none of them can be regarded as genuine. Nauck (following Bentley) is certainly right in assigning a late date (probably the second century a . d . ) to 1 Sophocles' Ichneutae, pp. 305 ff. 2 p. 321 3 This was pointed out by Bentley {Phalaris, p. 215). 4 Symp. Quaest. 1. i. 5.

a

(No. 17 above).

86

T H E O R I G I N S OF G R E E K T R A G E D Y

the fourth; the third echoes a Platonic belief; the other two are single lines, of which one is probably corrupt. § 8. Among the passages quoted above are some which seem to take us back beyond Thespis. The speaker in the M in o s (17), who is evidently aware that he is uttering a paradox, need not be seriously considered. Athenaeus (21— perhaps quoting Aristocles, who wrote in the second century B.c.) states that the earliest satyric poetry was choral, a s a lso the earliest tragedy—which seems to show that he regarded them as originally distinct. The most interesting statement is that of Pollux (18), who speaks of a table called eleos , on which in the days before Thespis a single performer used to mount and answer the chorus. A somewhat similar statement, but without the men­ tion of the word eleos, is found in the E ty m o lo g ic u m M a g n u m (19) p the writer of this note is probably using Pollux himself or the same source as Pollux, but by using the word ‘sang’ shows either that he thought of the table as used by the chorus (which is not likely, if he had ordinary common sense), or that he thought that the single performer addressed the chorus in lyrics, as in the later kóm os. Isidore (20) probably follows the same tradition. Now if, as is quite probable, Thespis added a single actor to a pre-existent lyric performance, and so created tragic drama, it is very likely that there was a time before Thespis when one of the singers, presumably the leader or exarchon, separated himself from the rest and engaged in lyric ‘question and answer’ with his companions. Aristotle might well think of the next step loosely as the transformation of this respond­ ing exarchon into an actor impersonating a definite character, and say (assuming as he does that tragedy originated from dithyramb) that tragedy arose from the exarchon of the dithy­ ramb ; and though the E ty m o lo g ic u m M a g n u m and Isidore have no independent value, Pollux and Aristotle hang together fairly well so far. But the use of the word eleos by Pollux, as the name of the table referred to, has aroused some suspicion. The word, in 1 On the word thymele, used in this passage, see Gow, J.H.S. xxxii (1912), 213 ff.

T H E S P IS

87

the form eleon, meant properly, as Pollux says elsewhere,1 a cook’s chopping-block—‘epixénon, which New Comedy calls epikopanon ; in ancient writers the same thing was called eleonJ In the II. ix. 215, it is evidently a carving table : as also in Od. xiv. 432; and in Aristophanes’ Knights, 152, eleon is the chopping-block of the sausage-seller. On these facts two questions arise: (1) What reason have we to think that Pollux knew the names of the ‘stageproperties’ of the days before Thespis? (2) What evidence is there to confirm the idea, which seems to be in the minds of Pqllux and of the writer of the note in the Etymologicum Magnum that one of the choreutae jumped on the table upon which sacrificial victims were cut up, and indulged in lyric dialogue with the chorus? As to the first question we can only agree with Hiller12 that it is very unlikely that Pollux had any such knowledge. Hiller may be right in supposing that Pollux may have got the word from some comedy in which the early stage was contemp­ tuously described by the word eleos, in contrast with the magnificence of later days, and in which the words ‘before Thespis’ were loosely used for ‘early’, and that he took this as a record of fact. But in default of further evidence, we can only note this conjecture and pass on. As to the second question, there is nothing inherently im­ probable in the idea suggested, and it may well be true. Nothing is more likely than that Thespis should have taken in hand a pre-existing extempore speaker, talking to the chorus as he chose to do at the moment, and have made him deliver regularly composed speeches in character. But the only attempt to find confirmatory evidence appears to be that of Dr. A. B. Cook,3 who refers to a number of vase-paintings, of which one series proves the frequent existence of a table standing beside sacrificial altars, the other shows that in certain kinds of musical performance or contest the com­ petitor or performer stood on a somewhat similar low table or platform. (Both series go back into the sixth century b . c .) 1 vi. 90. So also, less clearly, in x. 101. 2 Rhein. Mus. xxxix. 321-38. 3 C.R. ix (1895), 370 ff. [Cf. also Lesky, op. cit., p. 40.]

88

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

Unfortunately neither can be shown to have any connexion with such dramatic or semi-dramatic choral performances as those with which we are now concerned, though some of the first, and perhaps of both, series represent the ritual of Dionysus.1 There is no trace of a chorus. (It is not necessary to follow Dr. Cook’s very interesting paper into minor points.) We are left, therefore, only with the general probability and the very uncertain evidence. § 9. To what then does the tradition about Thespis amount? We can only say that he was regarded, in the general belief of writers later than Aristotle, as the inventor of tragedy; that this was further explained (possibly in accordance with a statement of Aristotle himself) to mean that he introduced an actor, distinct from the chorus, to deliver a previously com­ posed prologue and speeches ; that his first performance may have been at Icaria, and in the autumn ; that the date of his first victory at Athens was about 534 b . c . and that it was probably won at the city Dionysia in the spring; that he may have been performing there, before the organization of dra­ matic competitions, as early as 560 b . c . ; that he is credited with certain experiments in facial disguise ; that the state­ ments about the form and style of his work are probably based on Aristotle’s account of the development of tragedy; [that soon after Aristotle Hellenistic theory suggested a common origin for tragedy, comedy, and satyr-play, attributing to Thespis an essential first step towards tragedy, which was subsequently developed by Phrynichus and Aeschylus. Out­ side this tradition the archaeological evidence shows us some of the actual performances which were taking place in Thespis’ day and makes both a Dionysus play with a chorus of fat men and a Pentheus play with a chorus of maenads entirely credible. The two early testimonies (23) at first sight conflict. Solon called Arion the inventor of tragedy and Charon of Lampsakos said that drama was first produced at Athens by Thespis. For Charon and later writers Thespis’ invention of prologue and speeches introduced the whole development which led on to Euripides. In the eyes of Solon 1 [For dancers on tables, cf. J. D. Beazley, J.H.S. lix (1939), 31 ; for other performers on tables, cf. T. B. L. Webster, Arch. Eph. 1953—4, P· 195*1

T H E S P IS

89

this was reprehensible as public lying. We shall have to ask in what sense Solon would make a complimentary reference to Arion as the inventor of tragedy.] But so much that is reported or conjectured about Thespis and early tragedy is either definitely based on Aristotle, or may be supposed with great probability to be an interpreta­ tion of his statements, that our next task must be a careful discussion of these statements. IV .

Aristotle on the Origin o f Tragedy

§ i . The following are the passages of the Poetics which have to be considered : Gh. iii. (p. i448a29 if.) : Therefore also the Dorians make a claim to tragedy and comedy (the Megarians claim comedy . . . and some of those in the Peloponnese claim tragedy) using the names as evidence. For they call the villages k ó m a i whereas the Athenians call them demes . . . and they call doing dràn and the Athenians call it p ra ttein . Ch. vi. (p. I449a9 if.) : Growing from an improvisational ori­ gin—both tragedy and comedy, one from the leaders (exarchontes) of the dithyramb and the other from the leaders of the phallic songs, which are still performed in many cities—it gradually in­ creased as the poets developed each successive stage. And after many changes tragedy ceased when it had its own nature. And Aeschylus first brought the number of actors from one to two and decreased the part of the chorus and made the dialogue protagonist. Sophocles introduced three actors and scene-painting. Also size. Because it changed from satyric its small plots and laughable dic­ tion were solemnized late, and the metre changed from tetra­ meter to iambic. For first they used the tetrameter because the poetry was satyric and full of dancing. But when speech came in, Nature found the appropriate metre. For the iambic is the most speakable of metres. Also the number of scenes. Let us take as read the details of this history. For it would take a long time to go through each point. Ch. v. (p. I449a37 if.) : The changes of tragedy and the people responsible are known. But comedy was not regarded seriously at the beginning and the facts are not known. For the archon became responsible for the comic chorus late; before they were volunteers. It had already some form by the time its poets are

go

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

remembered by name. Who was responsible for masks or pro­ logues or numbers of actors and the rest is unknown. There is no need to quote here the passage (ch. ix, p. i448b25 if.) in which the derivation of the serious subjects of tragedy from Homer is described, and the passage quoted from ch. iii will be considered later. Our present difficulties are concerned with the other two passages. § 2. Aristotle gives no hint of his sources ; but we may be sure that (in compiling his Didaskaliai) he had access to official records as far back as they went, and we have seen that they may have begun in the last years of the sixth century.1He knows all about the changes made by Aeschylus and Sophocles ; and presumably he believed that he knew, in regard to tragedy, who it was that introduced masks and prologues, as well as number of actors, though in ch. iv he says nothing of masks or of prologues, except in so far as they are covered by the phrase ‘when speech came in’. But we do not know whence he derived this knowledge, and the last words of ch. iv seem to show that he was not professing to give here a full or critical account, but only recording the details so far as his purpose required. So much, however, is clear. Before Aeschylus instituted a second actor, there must have been a first; and it cannot be doubted that Aristotle thought of this actor as the exarchon of the dithyramb, now made independent of the chorus. Now what does the word exarchon mean? It does not mean the same thing as coryphaeus or chorus-leader. It does mean the leader of the whole performance. But this leader, though closely con­ nected with his chorus and joining in one song with them, was not necessarily of the same nature or even of the same sex. The passages which best illustrate the meaning of the word are the descriptions of laments in the Iliad12 Now the exarchon must have been transformed into an actor, when he delivered a speech (not a song), in which the 1 Above, p. 66. [Lesky, op. cit., p. i6.] 2 Iliad, xxiv. 720 (cf. above p. 9) ; II. xviii. 49, 316. Cf. also II. xviii. 603, tumblers leading dancers; Archilochus, fr. 77 D, leading dithyramb; Xeno­ phon, Cyrop. in. iii. 58, Cyrus leading paean; Anab. v. iv. 14, leading a marching chorus.

A R IS T O T L E O N T H E O R IG IN O F T R A G E D Y

91

chorus did not join in—the change attributed to Thespis. (Aristotle does not mention Thespis here, though Themistius quotes him as doing so elsewhere; the omission is certainly strange, if Thespis was the first to start ihe series of improve­ ments carried further by Aeschylus and Sophocles.) But the exarchon who thus became an actor was, according to Aristotle, the exarchon of the dithyramb ; and though the cyclic dithyramb, as we know it in the fifth century, had a coryphaeus but no exarchon, the dithyramb in its earlier form certainly had an exarchon, such as was Archilochus. From what kind or stage of dithyramb did Aristotle think that tragedy was derived? And with this is bound up the further question, what did he think of the relation of dithyramb and tragedy to satyric drama? It is at this point that the task of discovering his meaning becomes almost hopeless. For ‘because it changed from satyric* may mean either ‘through its ceasing to be satyric drama’ or ‘through its passing out of a shape in which it was grotesque’ ; and ‘satyric* in the next sentence can similarly be taken either literally or meta­ phorically.1 Accordingly we cannot tell whether Aristotle means that tragedy developed out of a dithyramb danced by persons made up as satyrs, or only that it developed out of a dithyramb which had an exarchon, and that in its early stages its language was grotesque. Most scholars have no doubt that the former was his meaning, and Bywater,2though cautious, evidently inclines to that opinion; and since the metaphorical use of satyrikos cannot be shown to be as early as the fourth century b .c ., the balance of probability is in favour of the literal interpretation. But this being granted, what is the historical value of Aristotle’s statement? His words may be treated in various ways. (1) They may be accepted without question as historically true. This is, on the whole, the inclination of Bywater, who is convinced that Aristotle knew more about the early history 1 The metaphorical use of the word (of which Gomperz, Reisch, and others believe Aristotle’s phrases to be examples) is illustrated by Lucian, Bacchus, § 5: ‘they expected that what we said would be satyric and ridiculous and actually comic’ [but even here the metaphor is alive as the succeeding ‘comic’, i.e. ‘like comedy’ shows]. 2 Poetics, p. 38.

92

T H E O R IG IN S OF G R EEK TRA G E D Y

of tragedy than he chose, for his special purpose, to tell his readers. ‘It is clear from Aristotle’s confession of ignorance as to comedy in 1 4 4 9 * 3 7 that he knows more of the history of tragedy than he actually tells us, and that he is not aware of there being any serious lacuna in it.’ Is this really so certain? In the passage referred to he is not speaking of the earliest development or the origin of the two forms of art, but of certain definite points—regarding masks, prologues, increased number of actors, &c. These points, he says, he knows in the case of tragedy; but he does not indicate that he knows more about even these than he tells us in ch. iv (except as regards masks, which he does not mention in that chapter) ; and we do not know what evidence can have been available as to the transition stages between the purely lyric performance and tragedy proper ; he may well have been theorizing about this. Wilamowitz,1however, goes further than Bywater, and regards it as unjustifiable even to attempt to go behind Aristotle. Tragedy developed out of a dithyramb danced by satyrs : Aristotle says so, and that is enough. (This satyr-dithyramb, he thinks, was the creation of Arion, and was introduced into Athens under Peisistratus.) T he ‘small plots’ are supposed to be illustrated by the Supplices, Persae, and Prometheus of Aeschylus, and traces of the ‘laughable diction’ are found in the last scene of the Supplices. (The last point it is quite im­ possible to concede ; the scene cannot be called comic or ‘satyric’ in any sense ; and further, the Supplices and Prometheus at least are parts of trilogies, and their plots cannot be treated in isolation.) Whatever Aristotle means, he is referring to a stage long before Aeschylus. But in fact the difficulties in the way of the literal acceptance of Aristotle are serious. There is absolutely no support for it in any early evidence (the statements in regard to Arion which bear on this point are late and will be considered below) ; the character of the earliest extant remains of tragedy is against it; it involves the rejection of the statement that it was Pratinas who ‘first wrote satyr plays’, with the evidence confirmatory of it; and, above all, it is extraordinarily difficult to suppose that the noble seriousness of tragedy can have 1 Einl. in die gr. Trag., pp. 49 ff.; Neue Jahrb. xxix (1912), 467 if.

A R I S T O T L E O N T H E O R I G I N OF T R A G E D Y

93

grown so rapidly, or even at all, out of the ribald satyric drama; nor is there any parallel to such a development. (2) It has been suggested that when Aristotle speaks of dithyramb, he does not refer to the cyclic dithyramb in the strict sense. (a) He may be using the word, it is said, in the sense in which it was loosely used later, covering any lyric poems dealing with ‘heroic subjects’,1 and may have in mind the development of tragedy out of such performances as were current at Sicyon in the sixth century b . c . in honour of Adrastus and of Dionysus.2 Now it is quite probable, as we shall see, that the lyric portions of tragedy were greatly influenced by Peloponnesian choral lyric of a type which died out after the development of tragedy itself, and it is just possible that Aristotle may have thought of this as a kind of dithyramb ; but it is not very likely. For it is improbable that the forms of poetry were less distinct in Aristotle’s mind than they were in those of (e.g.) the Alexandrian scholars; dithyramb was still a living thing in his own day and long afterwards; and there is no ground for dating back to his time the inaccurate use of the word mentioned in the Pseudo-Plutarchean de Musica* The only account of the performances at Sicyon calls them ‘tragic choruses’, not dithyrambs. As regards Arion’s lyric composi­ tions more will be said later. (b) Some scholars are inclined to attribute to him, and to regard as likely in itself, a belief in a primitive kind of dithy­ ramb from which both tragedy and the dithyramb of Pindar and Simonides originated. To satisfy the text of Aristotle such a dithyramb must have been satyric, or, at least, grotesque— which is discordant with the character both of tragedy and of 1 Pseudo-Plut. de Mus., ch. x. See above, p. 27. 2 See below, pp. 101 ff. 3 Wilamowitz, ap. Tycho von Wilamowitz-Möllendorf, Dramatische Technik von Sophocles (1917), p. 314, affirms that dithyramb meant for Ar., as for the dithyrambic poets and the ‘eidographoi’, simply choral poems with narrative contexts, and quotes Plato, Rep. iii. 394 c. But what Plato says is that narrative is specially found in dithyrambs, not that any narrative lyric is a dithyramb. Dieterich {Archiv f . Religionswissenschaft, xi. 164) states dogmatically that in Aristotle’s time dithyrambos included all choral lyric. It certainly did not include the nomos (when this was choral) or the paean.

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

the Pindaric dithyramb; we have certainly no reason to think that Archilochus (whose works must have been known to Aristotle) and his companions masqueraded in satyr-dress ; and as for the intrinsic probability of this theory, the facts that the cyclic dithyramb was, until a comparatively late period, an entirely undramatic song, delivered by performers who retained their own personality, and that the organiza­ tion of the chorus was different from that of tragedy, make a common origin very unlikely.1 In any case, therefore, it seems certain that by dithyramb Aristotle means the cyclic dithyramb. How it became possible for him to connect this with tragedy we shall see immediately. (3) We may suppose that Aristotle is theorizing. He found existing in his own day, side by side with tragedy, the satyric drama, in many ways like the tragic in form, but more primitive and uncivilized in tone ; and also a dithyramb which by his own day had become semi-dramatic or mimetic, and included solos as well as choral song; and he must have heard of the dithyramb of Archilochus, with its exarchon. What could be more natural than to suppose that tragedy developed out of dithyramb by the transformation of an exarchon or soloist into a full-fledged actor? And since the more crude and primitive may naturally be supposed to precede the more artistic, satyric drama might be regarded as an early stage of tragedy which succeeded in surviving even after tragedy had developed. If so, the plots of early tragedy must have been short, like those of the satyric drama, and the language grotesque.12 In the same way he may have conjectured, from the existence of phallic elements in the Old Comedy, and the survival of phallic dances at processions in his own day, that comedy must have originated from primitive phallic performances. Now this is a perfectly possible interpretation of Aristotle, 1 See above, p. 32. 2 There can, of course, be no doubt that Aristotle did think that the language was originally grotesque. Ridgeway’s argument to the contrary ( Origin of Greek Drama, pp. 5, 57), on the ground that Aristotle speaks of tragedy as the suc­ cessor of epic, will not bear examination. It is quite plain from Aristotle’s language that it is in respect of its themes that he regards tragedy as the succes­ sor of epic; he says nothing, in the passage in question, about epic diction. (On the grotesqueness, see above, p. 85.)

A R IS T O T L E O N T H E O R IG IN O F T R A G E D Y

95

and it accounts for all that he says.1But unhappily it robs his statements of all historical value. We shall see later that, even as regards comedy, it is very doubtful whether he is strictly correct; as regards tragedy the difficulties of his view will shortly become plain. We have, in short, to admit with regret that it is impossible to accept his authority without question, and that he was probably using that liberty of theorizing which those modern scholars who ask us to accept him as infallible have certainly not abandoned. It follows that we are no longer obliged to derive tragedy from satyric drama, but can at least hold it to be probable that, twenty or thirty years after Thespis had won his notable victory with a tragedy at Athens, Pratinas brought into Athens a more primitive kind of play, with a satyr-chorus, from Phlius, and assimilated it to tragedy in certain respects ; and that about the end of the sixth century the two kinds of performances were given their place, along with dithyramb, in a reorganized festival. § 3. With regard to other points in Aristotle’s account, little need be said. The large use made of the trochaic tetra­ meter in early tragedy is illustrated by the Persae of Aeschylus, in which it is the principal metre of the dialogue, as distinct from the long set speeches. It is not clear at what point Aristotle thought the language of tragedy ceased to be gro­ tesque. He cannot have thought of the language of Aeschy­ lus as grotesque, nor, probably, of that of Phrynichus ; and we do not know what he may have thought about Thespis. If, as is likely, he regarded the change of style as connected with the introduction of the iambic metre, he must have thought of these changes as taking place before the fifth century. [§ 4. This argument has been left as it stands in the first 1 This is also in substance the view of Nilsson, Neue Jahrb. xxvii. 609 ff. [A new interpretation is given by G. F. Else, Aristotle’s Poetics: the Argument, (1957)3 (1) pp. 155 f. : ‘one from the leaders of the dithyramb’ is an Aristotelian note only explaining the improvisational original of tragedy; (2) pp. 165 f. : the passage ‘Sophocles . . . solemnized late’ is a later interpolation which destroys Aristotle’s argument; (3) pp. 179 f. : in the passage about metre Aristotle is contrasting pre-Thespian choral performance (‘satyr-play-like, that is, pretty much just dancing’) with Thespis, who began the development which gave dialogue the primacy.]

g6

THE O R IG IN S OF GREEK TRA GED Y

edition. In considering its validity the following points should be remembered : (1) Aristotle may have had better sources than we imagine. Even now we know from literary sources that Archilochus composed dithyramb, that Solon referred to Arion’s ‘tragedy’, and that the singers of early fifth-century dithyramb were ivy-crowned. (2) The late statements with regard to Arion (which will be considered below) are consistent with the reference in Solon and with the archaeological evidence. (3) To accept Aristotle’s assertion that tragedy ‘changed from satyric* does not involve rejection of the statement that Pratinas ‘first wrote satyr-plays’. The latter statement means that satyr-plays of the fifth-century type with the chorus in the normal fifth-century satyr costume were first recorded for Pratinas. It cannot exclude earlier choruses sung and/or danced by men representing satyrs (or the fat men, who were in some sense their equivalents), for which there is abundant archaeological evidence.1 Such performances could certainly be called satyrika. (4) That the dithyramb was sometimes sung by men dressed as satyrs we have definite evidence.2IfArchilochus’dithyramb was connected with the introduction of a phallic Dionysus cult, his dithyramb also may well have been performed by men dressed as satyrs. (5) Aristotle is in fact making two completely distinct points : (1) Tragedy was an offshoot from the dithyramb ; (2) (six lines later) it changed from satyric and was solemnized late; and there is no justification for equating them. Dioscorides3 seems to have known that in a play of Thespis Dionysus led a chorus of satyrs or fat men; this must also have been known to Aristotle. The essential contrast in Aristotle’s second point is not between dithyramb and tragedy (that was his first point) but between tragedy in which ‘satyrs’ danced (and Aristotle thought of tetrameters as a comic dancing metre)4 and Aeschylean tragedy in which the dialogue was ‘protagonist’. 1 Gf. above, p. 80 f. 2 Cf. above, p. 34 3 Cf. above, p. 82. 4 Cf. Aristot. Rhet. i4o8b36 and Poet. i46oai. I owe these references to G. F.

A R IS T O T L E O N T H E O R I G I N O F T R A G E D Y

97

It is perfectly true that Aristotle was a theorist, as we are, but he was very much nearer the origin of tragedy than we are and much more intelligent. We know that he had sources which we no longer possess; but, particularly with the help of the archaeological evidence which is open to us but was closed to him, we can sometimes see the hard facts which sparked off his theory.] V.

Arion

Aristotle’s account of the early development of tragedy is commonly supposed to be confirmed, first, by the tradition in regard to Arion, who is regarded as the creator of just that kind of satyric dithyramb which is required; secondly, by the name tragoidia itself, which is supposed to indicate a song of goat-like satyrs; and thirdly, by some of the interpreta­ tions offered of the proverb, ‘Nothing to do with Dionysus’. Accordingly it is necessary first to examine carefully the traditions with regard to Arion and that Peloponnesian ‘tragedy’ which is supposed to bridge the gulf between Arion and Thespis or Phrynichus. It will be useful in the first place to collect the more impor­ tant passages which deal with Arion.1 Herod, i. 23: Periander was a tyrant of Corinth. The Corin­ thians say (and the Lesbians agree) that the greatest wonder in his life was the voyage of Arion of Methymna to Tainaron on a dolphin. He was a kitharode second to none at that time and the first of men whom we know to have composed the dithyramb and named it and produced it in Corinth, The Suda lexicon: Arion, of Methymna, lyric poet, son of Kykleus, born in the 28th Olympiad [i.e. 668-665 b . c .] . Some call him a pupil of Alkman. Wrote songs. Preludes for epics, two books. He is said also to have invented the tragic mode and first com­ posed a stationary chorus and sung a dithyramb and named what the chorus sang and introduced satyrs speaking verses. [App·] Else, op. eit., p. 181, as I owe to him the appreciation that Aristotle’s point about ‘satyric’ is distinct from his point about the dithyramb. I have not fol­ lowed him in his excisions (see above, p. 95, n. 1) because in any case the development of tragedy from a satyrikon can be dated back to the third century (cf. Else, p. 176) and I am concerned here with the history of tragedy rather than with Aristotle’s thought. 1 See also above, pp. 10 ff.

g8

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

Proclus, Chrest. xii: Pindar says the dithyramb was discovered in Corinth. The inventor of the song Aristotle calls Arion. He first led the circular chorus. John the Deacon, C om m entary on H erm ogenes, ed. H. Rabe, R h e in . M u s . Ixiii (1908), p. 150: The first performance of tragedy was introduced by Arion of Methymna, as Solon said in his E legies. Charon of Lampsacus says that drama was first produced at Athens by Thespis. [App.]

Note. Charon is Wilamowitz’ reading for the unknown Drakon (see above, p. 72). The place of Arion in the history of the dithyramb has been discussed in the preceding chapter.1 Despite the story of the dolphin, and the probably fictitious name which is ascribed to his father, there is no sufficient reason for doubting the poet’s existence. The really difficult problem raised by the notices is whether the words of the Suda from ‘he is said’ to ‘speaking verses’, all refer to one type of performance, as is generally assumed, or to three. The words which definitely refer to the dithyramb are plainly a paraphrase of Herodotus ; the statements with regard to the tragic mode and the satyrs must come from some other source. If the whole sentence refers to one type of performance, these statements may be a badly expressed inference by the Suda (or the authority on whom he drew) from Aristotle’s Poetics, ch. iv:2 tragedy, according to Aristotle, arose from the dithyramb and was satyric ; if, therefore, Arion (also according to Aristotle) invented the dithyramb, he must have invented tragedy and introduced satyrs. It is not necessarily untrue. But it does not seem natural to interpret the three state­ ments as a single sentence. The sentence quoted from Proclus shows that what was traditionally ascribed to Arion was the invention of the circular chorus, which is nowhere associated with a satyr chorus in any record [although it seems some­ times to have been performed by satyrs] ; and if the tragic mode3 and the employment of satyrs are one and the same 1 PP- i i ff· 2 This has also been suggested by Nilsson, Neue Jahrb. xxvii (1911), 610. [Cf., however, Lesky, op. cit., p. 30.] 3 For reasons against taking ‘tragic’ as ‘goat-like’, i.e. satyric, as has some­ times been suggested, see below, p. 102.

A R IO N

99

thing, why are they separated by remarks about the dithy­ ramb? Besides this, the words ‘tragic mode’ have a quite definite technical meaning in Greek writers about literature and music, viz. the tragic style or mode in music (e.g. Aristid. Quintii., p. 29). There is no warrant for interpreting the words as referring to the supposed tragic dress, the goat- or satyr-costume. It seems much more likely that the Suda found traditions ascribing three different things to Arion. He in­ vented the musical mode which was afterwards adopted by tragedy—possibly in connexion with some such kind of‘tragic choruses’ as we shall presently find at Sicyon; he reduced the dithyramb to order, and made his dithyrambs poems with definite subjects and names ; and he modified the satyr-dances, which he probably found already in existence, by making the satyrs speak verses.1 [What the writer meant by the last phrase we cannot say. A speaking chorus is impossible. If the words are imprecise (as they must be), they may conceal a tradition that Arion transferred the song from the exarchon to the chorus, who had previously had only a refrain.] The passage in John the Deacon (a writer of unknown date) to some small extent confirms the belief that some step towards tragedy (as distinct from dithyramb) was taken by Arion. He says that Solon had stated in his elegies that the first performance of tragedy was produced by Arion, though Charon of Lampsacus had said that the first tragic drama was produced at Athens by Thespis. The authority of John the Deacon of course carries no weight in itself; and he retails some of the foolish theories about the origin of comedy which are found in several other writers, as well as the tradition that comedy and tragedy arose out of a common ancestor called trygodia.12 But he shows a considerable acquaintance with classical poetry (some of it now lost), and there is no reason to doubt that he is quoting an actual poem of Solon, known to him (or to his source). The words ‘performance of tragedy’ are of course his own, and the word tragoidia will not go into elegiacs. But tragoidoi 1 This interpretation o f the passage was suggested by Reisch, Festschr. fü r

Gomperz, p. 471, in 1902. 2 See above, p. 75.

ΙΟΟ

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

and its parts will; or again, Flickinger1 may possibly be right in his conjecture that the word which Solon used was drama— originally a non-Attic word, probably derived from Pelopon­ nesian sources—and that the words ‘of tragedy’ are an ex­ planation by John or his source ; [but it is difficult to see how the explanation could have been given unless Solon at least added the adjective ‘tragic’]. If John is right, we have a tradition dating back almost, if not quite, to Arion’s own life­ time. At least we can infer that tradition knew of two experi­ ments, an earlier by Arion at Corinth, a later by Thespis in Attica, both of which were regarded by different persons as steps towards tragedy. [§ 2. We may accept with some confidence that Arion made the dithyramb choral and gave it heroic subjects, that either his singers were called tragoidoi or the song was called tragikon drama, that he introduced satyrs, and perhaps that his music in some way foreshadowed the music of tragedy. Probably the different strands in the Suda’s sentence reached the writer through different intermediaries, but this does not prevent their reflecting ultimately a single kind of perfor­ mance, a dithyramb danced and sung by men representing ‘satyrs’. As for Thespis, so also for Arion, contemporary vases tell us something of the choruses in Corinth in his day. Apart from choruses of women the only choruses represented are the choruses of padded dancers. They will be discussed more fully later,12 because in costume they have been thought to fore­ shadow Attic comedy. Three points are relevant here: (i) they are certainly connected with Dionysus3 and sang the Return of Hephaestus,4 (2) where the painter has added names, they are named after fertility spirits,5 (3) among them (and also independently) occur men in hairy chitons,6 i.e. men dressed as hairy satyrs. A chorus of men dressed as fertility spirits might very well sing the dithyramb if the 1 Greek Theater, p. 8; cf. also his paper in Classical Philology, viii. 266. I cannot, however, think that (as he suggests) Solon being incensed with Thespis was glad to ascribe the origination of tragedy (if this is what he means ‘by the place of honour’) to another. The idea o f asking which o f several claimants originated tragedy is surely post-Solonian. 2 Cf. below, p. 171. 3 See List o f Monuments, Nos. 34, 35. 4 Ibid., Nos. 38, 39, 47. 5 Ibid., Nos. 40, 41, 48. 6 Ibid., Nos. 32, 33, 36, 38, 42-45.

A R IO N

ΙΟ Ι

dithyramb was connected with the fertility cult of Dionysus. To judge from the number of these vases these choruses must have been extremely popular, and it is therefore likely that Arion wrote for them. At least they are evidence for choruses in Corinth during Arion’s lifetime of men impersonating fertility spirits and satyrs, while singing legendary subjects.]

vi.

Sicyon and Hero-drama

§ I . If it is conceded that (as has been urged in the preceding sections) the ‘satyrs speaking verses’ are not to be regarded as the forerunners of tragic ‘actors’, it will also be generally granted that any tragoidia composed by Arion is likely to have been purely lyric; and this is confirmed by the fact that Herodotus,1 when he speaks of tragikoi choroi performed at Sicyon, not very long after the time of Arion, gives no hint of their having been anything but choruses : for it is surely natural to connect Arion’s tragic mode and performance of tragedy with these ‘tragic choruses’ of a neighbouring town. But the passage of Herodotus has been the centre of so much controversy that it must be discussed at length. It occurs in a narrative about Cleisthenes, who was tyrant of Sicyon during most of the first third of the sixth century. Being at war with Argos (which claimed supremacy over Sicyon), Cleisthenes resolved to expel the worship of the Argive hero Adrastus, who had a Heroon in the market-place at Sicyon. As the oracle refused to sanction this, he contrived a device (as Herodotus quaintly says) to make Adrastus withdraw of his own accord. He sent to Thebes, and brought in thence the hero Melanippus, who had been in life Adrastus’ greatest enemy. ‘When he had declared the precinct to belong to him, he took away the sacrifices and feasts of Adrastus and gave them to Melanippus. The Sicyonians were accustomed to pay great honour to Adrastus and in relation to his sufferings celebrated him with tragic choruses, not honouring Dionysus but Adrastus. Cleisthenes gave the choruses to Dionysus and the rest of the sacrifices to Melanippus.’2

1 V.

67.

2 Cf. Themistius,

Or. 27, p. 406: ‘the Sicyonians discovered tragedy but the Athenians poets perfected it.’

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

We shall probably be right in thinking that in introducing the worship of Dionysus into popular festivals, Gleisthenes was pursuing a policy like that of Peisistratus,1who afterwards did this in Athens, and of Periander, who had doubtless en­ couraged Arion at Corinth : and if it is true that Arion intro­ duced ‘tragic’ choruses in Corinth, it is probable, as has already been suggested, that those of Sicyon would be more or less similar. But there is no agreement among scholars as to the mean­ ing of ‘tragic’ here. Those who think that Arion instituted a dithyramb danced by satyrs in goat-dress—the ‘tragic mode’, according to this interpretation—and that tragedy is the per­ formance of the ‘goat-men’ or satyrs, take ‘tragic’ here also to mean ‘satyric’, ‘in goat-dress’. Against this view it may be urged that it is almost inconceivable that these tragic choruses, having reference to the sufferings of the hero, should have been performed by ithyphallic demons with the limbs of goats, but it seems also very improbable that Herodotus, the friend of Sophocles, living in the great period of Greek tragedy, should have used the word in any sense but ‘tragic’, or should have meant by ‘tragic choruses’ anything but ‘choruses like those of tragedy’ ; he is not likely to have reverted to the etymological sense ‘goat-like’ or ‘relating to the goat’. Tragikos means ‘tragic’ in Aristophanes, e.g. in the Peace, 136, and in fr. 149 (from the Gerytades). (The use is parallel to that of kómikos, which almost invariably means ‘connected with comedy’, not ‘connected with the komos\) In fact it is not until very late that we find the word used with reference to the goat; e.g. Plutarch, Pyrrhus, ch. xi. In Plato’s Cratylus, 408 c, where Plato is speaking of Pan, the use of the word is a deliberate pun. There is, indeed, no ground for supposing that these choruses were called tragikoi early in the sixth century at Sicyon itself, or that Herodotus knew this to be the case.2 1 The theory of W . Schmid (Zur Gesch. des gr. Dithyrambos, 1900) that Cleisthenes was trying to reconcile the aristocratic families (who worshipped their heroic ancestors by means of ‘tragic choruses’ at their tombs) with the people, whom he supposes to have been worshippers o f Dionysus in the country districts, appears to rest on no evidence. 2 Flickinger (Class. Phil. viii. p. 274; Greek Theater, p. 15) suggests that the

S I C Y O N A N D H E R O -D R A M A

103

What Herodotus’ expression probably means is that he found evidence of choruses at Sicyon, relating to the sufferings of Adrastus, 150 years or so before his own time, and observing that they were more or less like the choral odes of tragedy in his own day, naturally called them ‘tragic choruses’. [It may, however, be urged on the other side that we have absolutely no evidence for this account of Herodotus’ pro­ cedure. He is only interested in the choruses as one part of Cleisthenes’ anti-Argive programme, which he is suggesting as the origin of the Athenian Cleisthenes’ policy. He derives his knowledge of Cleisthenes from a source,1 and his source may have preserved ‘tragic choruses’ in their original early sixth-century sense. If it did (and the high probability that either tragoidos or tragikon drama was used of Arion by Solon makes this as plausible as the other view), at that date before the existence of Athenian tragedy tragikos is likely to have meant ‘connected with goat’ ; in what way ‘connected with goat’ should be understood will be discussed below. If we suppose that the choruses in Sicyon represented fat men or satyrs like the neighbouring Corinthian choruses of Arion’s ‘tragedy’ according to our supposition, is it really inconceiv­ able that men dressed as fat men or satyrs should perform choruses ‘relevant to the sufferings of Adrastos’? It becomes easier to understand if it can be shown that at many times and in different parts of the Greek world a connexion existed between fat men, satyrs, and Dionysus on the one hand and the dead on the other. The evidence for this is (1) the presence of a fat man in relief on a sixth-century tomb in Cyprus,2 (2) the later presence of satyrs on tomb reliefs,3 (3) the in­ clusion of an All Souls day in the Attic Anthesteria, which was the festival of Dionysus, (4) the sixth-century identifica­ tion of Dionysus and Hades by Herakleitos, fr. 15, (5) various representations of Dionysus in Attic art of the fifth and fourth century which seem to connect him with the name originated at Sicyon, when the newly introduced worship of Dionysus brought the goat-prize with it. This is ingenious, but we know nothing of such a prize at Sicyon. 1 Cf. Jacoby, R.E. Suppl. ii, p. 439. a See List o f Monuments, No. 76. 3 Cf. Snijder, Rev. Arch. 1924, pp. 1 if; Dieterich, Arch. f . Religionswiss. xi (1908), 163 ff.

104

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

dead.1 In view of this evidence the possibility that the suffer­ ings of Adrastus were sung by a chorus of fat men and satyrs cannot be excluded.] Unfortunately, Herodotus tells us nothing of the subject of these choruses after their transference to Dionysus ; but they quite probably continued to be ‘nothing to do with Dionysus5.2 Epigenes of Sicyon, who is mentioned in one or two very late notices3 as the first tragic poet (Thespis being only the six­ teenth) may have been a composer of such tragic choruses under the regime of Cleisthenes. The evidence, for what it is worth, suggests that the festival for which he composed was a festival of Dionysus, but that he treated non-Dionysiac sub­ jects. § 2. The words of Herodotus afford, at first sight, a strong argument in favour of the theory of Ridgeway4 that tragedy originated in performances at the tombs of deceased heroes, and was afterwards transferred to Dionysus ; for here we have a definite transference of ‘tragic choruses5 from a hero to Dionysus. But we have no other; and it is going far beyond the evidence to infer from this that the villages of Attica had each its own local hero, and that upon these local festivals the worship of Dionysus was superimposed, and absorbed their tragic performances. Moreover, the transference at Sicyon was the arbitrary act of a tyrant, done with a special political motive, not a natural religious development, such as the supposed gradual absorption ofhero-cults by Dionysiae would imply; and to infer from this single arbitrary act at Sicyon that such an absorption took place generally in Greece, or took place in Attica, would be most hazardous.5 It is not to 1 Cf. K . Kerenyi, Symbolae Osloenses,xxxiii (1957), 130; H . Metzger, Bulletin de Correspondance HelUnique, Ixviii (1944), 29 f.; K. Friis Johansen, Attic Grave Reliefs (Copenhagen, 1951), pp. h i f. 2 See below, pp. 1 2 4 ff. 3 The Suda, s.v. Thespis (see above, p. 71), and s.v. ‘Nothing to do with Dionysus’ (see below, p. 125). 4 Orig. of Gk. Dr., pp. 26, &c. 5 Some scholars, and esp. Robert {Oedipus, pp. 141-2), think that the trans­ ference may have been made easier by the fact (as they regard it) that Adrastus was a personage o f much the same character as Dionysus— a suffering and dying god. This is hardly proved, and the fact that (according to Paus. n. xxiii, § 1) the sanctuaries of Adrastus and Dionysus were adjacent to one another at Argos cannot really be held to confirm the idea; the juxtaposition need have had no such reason. Ridgeway’s idea {Dramas, &c., p. 6) that Dionysus was himself regarded as a hero has already been referred to (above, pp. 6 f.).

S I C Y O N A N D H E R O -D R A M A

105

the point to prove, as Ridgeway does at some length, that there were solemn lamentations, as well as various kinds of contests, &c., at hero-tombs all over Greece, and that the dead were carefully propitiated ; or even to prove (and this can very rarely be done, if at all) that there were dramatic or mimetic performances at the tombs. We require some proof that the Dionysiae festivals at Athens (and elsewhere) got their dramatic performances from this source, and the proof offered is not sufficient. There is, in fact, no evidence that at Sicyon itself there was any dramatic representation of the sufferings of Adrastus. Nor, as far as our information goes, were the other ritual laments which are recorded dramatic, such as the laments for Achilles in Elis,1 at Groton2 and at Rhoeteum,3 for Medea’s children at Corinth,4 for Leucothea at Thebes,5 and for Hippolytus at Troezen.6 Such laments Herodotus would probably have called ‘tragic’ in view of their tone and their resemblance to the tragic choruses of the Attic drama ; but evidence that they involved dramatic elements is entirely wanting.7 Ridgeway’s argument for a belief in mimetic performances at the tombs of heroes partly rests on a record in Pausanias.8 A certain Leimon, so the story went, had been killed by Artemis in punishment for the murder of Skephros, and at the tomb the priestess of Artemis pursued someone, as Ar­ temis had pursued Leimon. But there is no suggestion in the Greek of Pausanias that the priestess impersonated Artemis, or that there was any drama at all. The ritual pursuit and bloodshed (real or feigned) is a common form of agrarian magic, and it is ‘putting the cart before the horse’ to treat it as the acting of a story. The ritual was doubtless there long before the story, and the latter is simply (like countless other 1 Paus. vi. xxiiii, § 3. 2 Lycoph. Alex. 859. 3 Philostr. Her. 20, 22. 4 Ibid. 20-21 ; Paus. π. iii, § 7; Schol. Eur. Med. 264, 1382, See. 5 Plut. Apophth. Lac., p. 228 e. 6 Eur. Hipp. 1425-7. 7 Some of these paragraphs (and others in this volume) are quoted with little alteration from my review o f Ridgeway’s book in C.R. xxvi (1912), 52 if. Some o f the same points will be found in Nilsson’s paper in Neue Jahrb. xxvii (1911) = Op. Sei. i. 94 i f , and in Dr. Fam ell’s review in Hermathena, xvii. W ith the latter I am almost wholly in agreement. 8 Paus. vili, liiij, §§ 2 if.

io 6

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

stories) an aetiological myth,1 invented to account for the ritual. Further, such pursuits are not peculiar to hero-worship, and traces of them are found in the worship of Dionysus him­ self;1 2 nor is it without significance that the festival at Tegea at which the pursuit of Leimon took place was not really a hero-festival, but a feast of Apollo Agyieus. § 3. The most impressive evidence in favour of the origin of tragedy in hero-worship consists in the occurrence in many plays of scenes in which a tomb-ritual is enacted, or a solemn lamentation performed ; and to these must be added a few scenes in which the ghosts of the dead appear. These latter scenes are so few that in any case not much stress can be laid upon them—we have the shade ofDarius in Aeschylus’ Persae ; the ghost of Clytemnestra hounding on the Furies in the Eumenides ; the ghost of Polydorus in Euripides’ Hecuba ; and the ghost of Achilles in the lost Polyxena of Sophocles.3 The imagination of the poet was certainly equal to the invention of such scenes, without the assistance of any grave-ritual ; we have no independent evidence of dramatic grave-ritual in Greece in which the spirit of the deceased appeared as a character ; and in the Eumenides and (so far as can be seen) in the Polyxena the appearance of the shade does not take place in response to, or in connexion with, any grave-ritual. Apart from these appearances of ghosts there are certainly plays in which a heroic tomb or a grave-ritual are prominent, either in the body of the play itself, as in the Persae, the Choephoroe, and the Oedipus Coloneus, or else in the prologue or epilogue, which, nominally prophesying the origin and in­ stitution of such ritual, may sometimes, it is said, imply the actual performance of ritual in which the story of the play was dramatically presented. Such ritual, it is argued, is indicated in the Helena, in which the tomb of Proteus plays a prominent part ; in the Hecuba, in which Polyxena is sacri­ ficed at the tomb of Achilles, and in the Rhesus : while the lamentations for the deaths of heroes in many plays are 1 Fam ell, op. cit., p. 8, takes the same view and gives other instances; cf. also Nilsson, op. cit., p. 614 = Op. Sei. i. 69 ff., and Gr. Feste, pp. 166 ff. 2 See Farnell, Cults of Greek States (1896-1909), v. 231, n. b. 3 See Peacson’s edition of Sophocles' Fragments, ii. 163.

S IC Y O N A N D H E R O -D R A M A

107

supposed to carry with them the same implication, that heroworship at the tomb was the origin of tragedy. Such plays are the Septem contra Thebas and the Choephoroe of Aeschylus, and many plays of Euripides—the Supplices, Andromache, Troades, and Phoenissae ; together with some which have a threnos of less regular form—the Alcestis (in which the farewell of the chorus to the heroine is so treated), the Hippolytus, and the Iphigeneia in Tauris (in which funeral rites are prepared for Orestes). What is valuable in the theory is simply the recognition that such scenes of mourning naturally took their form from the kind of mourning which was in vogue in contemporary Greek life or in the heroic age as recorded in Homer.1 [Modern scholars2 have rightly emphasized the influence of the form of the lament on classical Greek tragedy and it is certainly possible that these forms were already used by the ‘tragic choruses’ in Sicyon. If they were dressed as satyrs or fat men, then they are the one instance known to us of laments per­ formed by men in costume. This, and the probability that their performances were known to the Athenians in the time of Thespis, gives them their importance. Other stories (e.g. Pentheus) contained material for lamentation and contem­ porary laments could be borrowed, but here perhaps was a performance of laments in costume which made borrowing easier.]

vii.

Peloponnesian and Dorian Tragedy

The problems in regard to the existence of some kind of primitive ‘tragedy’ in the Peloponnese cannot be separated from those raised by the claim of the Dorians (as recorded by Aristotle) to have originated tragedy; and it may be that the discussion will throw some light on the question how it was that tragedy in the hands of Phrynichus and Aeschylus was so fine a lyrical composition. § i. It will be well to set aside at once the theory ofWelcker3 and Boeckh4that there once existed an extensive non-Athenian 1 See above, pp. 9, 91. 2 [Gf. Lesky, op. cit., p. 35.] 3 Kleine Schriften, i. 175-9, 2 4 5 -7 1 and his edition of the trilogy, App., p. 245. 4 Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener,1 ii (1817), 361 ff.; C.I.G. i. 766; ii. 509; cf. Lobeck, Aglaoph., pp. 974 ff.

io8

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

lyrical tragedy, of which Pindar and Simonides were distin­ guished representatives, as well as the philosophers Xeno­ phanes and Empedocles. The arguments used to prove this were plainly unsound, and were disproved for the most part by G. Hermann.1 Apart from some misinterpreted inscrip­ tions, the case rested almost entirely on the Suda’s notice of Pindar, ascribing ‘tragic dramas’ to him, and on the scholia to Aristophanes’ Wasps, 1410,2 in regard to Simonides. The former is quite unreliable ; its arithmetic will not come right when the Isthmian and Nemean Odes (which the notice over­ looks) are taken into account; it is not improbably a confla­ tion from two or more sources, and the ‘tragic dramas’ men­ tioned among Pindar’s works may perhaps (as Hermann suggested) be the dithyrambs, though ‘drama’ is never used of dithyramb in classical Greek ; or the words may be a late interpolation, like others in the same notice, although no plausible ground can be seen for the interpolation.3 The uses of the word tragikos in Byzantine writers are hopelessly loose.4 The ascription of tragedy to Simonides by the scholiast may be literally true ; he may have tried his hand at tragedy as at many other things, though such authority is not good enough to prove it. The tragedies ascribed to Empedocles were doubt­ less those of the philosopher’s nephew, and may quite well have been tragedies in the ordinary classical sense, though we know nothing of his work except from the Suda.5 So the case in regard to lyric tragedy comes back to the ‘tragic manner’ or ‘tragic drama’ of Arion, and the ‘tragic choruses’ of Sicyon, together with the claim of the Dorians and whatever evidence can be held to support it. 1 Opuscula (1827-39), vii, 211 if. 2 Repeated by (or from) the Suda, s.v. Simonides. 3 Hiller {Hermes, xxi. 357 if.) gives strong reasons for this view, and against the attempt to refer the Suda’s list o f Pindar’s works to good Alexandrian authority. H e points out that in Demosth. de F.L., § 247, ‘tragic drama’ means ‘tragedy’, and that it is very unlikely that an Alexandrian scholar would have used the words in a diiferent sense from that current in the fourth century. For later usage, cf. Aelian, Var. Hist. xiii. 18: ‘Dionysius the tyrant of Sicily liked and praised tragedy and himself wrote tragic dramas.’ [Lesky, op. cit., p. 18, reserves judgement on the ‘tragic dramas’ of Pindar in view o f the ‘tragic m ode’ o f Arion and the ‘tragic choruses’ of Sicyon.] 4 See Immisch, Rhein. Mus. xliv. 553 if. 5 s.v. Empedocles. For doubts about these tragedies see Diog. L. viii. 58.

P E L O P O N N E S IA N A N D D O R IA N T R A G E D Y

109

§ 2. The claim of the Dorians is recorded by Aristotle in the following words:1 Therefore also the Dorians make a claim to tragedy and comedy (the Megarians claim comedy . . . and some of those in the Pelo­ ponnese claim tragedy), using the names as evidence. For they call the villages kómai whereas the Athenians call them demes . . . and they call doing dràn and the Athenians call it prattein.

Aristotle does not say what Dorian writers made the claim —he may have found it recorded, as Wilamowitz suggests, in the Chronica of his senior contemporary Dieuchidas of Megara —and he expresses neither agreement nor disagreement with it. Some of the arguments quoted are plainly bad; but the claim may carry some weight if any part of the statement made in support of it is true, and if there is confirmatory evidence. The late Mr. Herbert Richards2 collected and discussed the uses of drama and dràn. The conclusions to which the evidence given in his article points are : (1) that dràn is not originally an Attic word, though it is used freely in Attic poetry and in those prose writers who admit poetical words and phrases, especially Antiphon, Thucydides, and Plato.3 It is also used rarely by Demosthenes —of that later ; but not at all by most of the Attic orators. It is also (almost certainly) not an Ionic word, and the state­ ment that it is Doric may well be true, though it is not actually proved. (2) that dràn is primarily in Attic a word with a religious colour, and is used especially of serious and solemn religious performances. It is rarely used of comedy in classical Attic4— or indeed at all until quite late; it is regularly applied to 1 Poet. iii. X448a29 ff. 2 C.R. xiv (1900), 388 ff. 3 Plato uses Sicilian words, and may have been more influenced by Sicilian Doric than we usually recognize. In Rep. v. 451 c, where Richards thinks the reference is to tragedy, Plato is surely alluding to the ‘male’ and ‘female mimes’ o f his favourite author Sophron, and the application o f the word drama may have seemed natural because these were Dorian compositions. 4 [Ecphantides, fr. 3 K : Ί am ashamed to make my drama M egarian’ and the titles Dramata or Centaur, Dramata or Niobe (?) o f Aristophanes. It is argued that Ecphantides only called his comedy drama because he was comparing it with M egarian. It is, however, extremely doubtful whether he used the word ‘drama’ at all.]

ITO

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

tragedy and satyric drama, both of which were less secular than comedy; and the mysteries were the drómena at Eleusis.1 Most of the uses of dran in good Attic prose (apart from writers known to have been addicted to poetical expressions) can be explained by the religious sense : it is applied (e.g.) to ritual and to murder by Demosthenes (or a pseudo-Demosthenes) in several places.2 (To commit murder and to perform a religious service were alike perilous operations, to Greek religious ideas, and partly for the same reasons.) The ‘Letter of Philip’3 uses the word of an impious act. [More recently Professor B. Snell4 has argued very interest­ ingly that dran is an Attic word and means to ‘resolve to do something’. He places the emphasis on the element of ‘will’ in the kind of ‘doing’ which the Greeks denoted by drdn and finds in this the essential element in tragedy. Professor G. F. Else5 has recently noted Aristotle’s own positive interest in the word and argues that he accepted the Dorian claim. If we suppose that tragikon drama was the phrase which Solon used of Arion’s performance we still do not know whether drama was Solon’s word or Arion’s, but in any case the reference points to the Peloponnese.] § 3. The claim may be said to be supported by the tradi­ tion respecting Arion, who was indeed a Lesbian ofMethymna (a town mainly, but not exclusively, of Aeolian population), but whose choruses must have been those of Dorian Corinth. We do not in fact know anything of Lesbian dithyrambic poetry at this date, nor have we any reason even for saying that Arion’s work consisted in the introduction of Lesbian music into Corinth. The claim is also supported by the record of‘tragic choruses’ at Sicyon in Herodotus. For even if the cult of Dionysus was 1 Paus. vili. X V , § 1. At the same time drama does not, like drómena, imply anything mystic. (The expression drómena is evidently a reverent or reticent name for a mystic rite; cf. Plut. de Is. et Osir., pp. 352 c, 378 a, b; Paus. 11. xxxvii, §§ 5, 6.) Pausanias regularly uses drdn of religious rites, but not drama. Clem. Alex. Protrept. ii. 12 speaks o f Demeter and Kore having become ‘a mystic drama’, but this is very late, and the addition o f ‘mystic’ shows that ‘drama’ alone did not carry this connotation. 2 in Aristocr., § 40; in Theocnn., § 28. 3 § 4. Mr. Richards is not responsible for all these instances. 4 Philologus Supplì., 1928, pp. i f f . 5 Op. cit., p. 107.

P E L O P O N N E S IA N A N D D O R IA N T R A G E D Y

III

only introduced by Cleisthenes, the ‘tragic choruses’ were already there, and were celebrated in commemoration of the Dorian hero Adrastus, whom Cleisthenes drove out in order to rid the town of Argive influence. § 4. It is usual to adduce the dialectical peculiarities of the choruses of Attic tragedy as evidence for the Dorian claim, and the argument is not without weight; but the matter is not so simple as it is usually thought to be. It seems reasonable to suppose that if a number of dis­ tinctively Doric words and forms are found in Attic tragedy, then the forms containing long alpha for eta are also probably attributable as a whole to the influence of Doric poems and speech upon the writers. The main substance of their language is Attic, with an infusion of Epic and Ionic forms, and of other dialectical forms used in lyric poetry—an infusion to be accounted for as an instance of that persistence of literary conventions in Greece which all scholars recognize : but there is a considerable number of words and forms which are dis­ tinctly Doric, some of them used in the lyric portions, some in the iambic, some in both. (The use of them in the iambic portions is best explained as a natural infiltration or infection from the lyrics ; it cannot always be accounted for by metrical convenience; but poets who were writing lyric as part of the same work would naturally, even in iambics, find themselves using some of those elements of a heightened style which were regular in lyric). The use of such forms in the lyrics of tragedy is by no means consistent ; they were doubtless employed when the poet felt the need of some greater distinction from ordinary speech ; but this is natural enough. Accordingly it seems to be, at least, reasonably probable that some of the features of the language of Attic tragedy are explicable by Dorian influence,1 and, on the whole, when we put the various indications to­ gether—drama, Arion, Sicyon, language—the Dorian claim to have in some sense originated tragedy becomes an extremely likely hypothesis. 1 [The problem has been recently fully discussed by G. Björck, Das Alpha impurum, Uppsala, 1950. His conclusion (221 f.) is that the rarer impure alphas in dialogue merely occur in borrowed words, but in the choruses they are like a transparent Doric veil imported and laid over an Attic body.]

1 12

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

It is, moreover, a hypothesis which will explain the early excellence of the lyric portions of tragedy. We nowhere find a hint that Thespis was a lyric poet of any merit; but, if the hypothesis is true, it was in the compositions of Peloponnesian lyric poets—Arion, Lasos, and perhaps poets of Sicyon, now forgotten—that the early Attic tragedians, and above all Phrynichus and Aeschylus, found models of choral lyric poetry, with the music appropriate to serious themes, and were thus enabled themselves to produce work of an even higher degree of perfection. [The hypothesis that the style and language of early tragedy was influenced by Peloponnesian choral lyric is highly likely. Yet the essential act which transmuted choral lyric into tragedy, the invention of prologue and speeches, is attributed to Thespis alone, and it is this transformation which led to all the future development. If they had no prologue and speeches, in what sense were the Peloponnesian performances ‘tragic’? If we accept the evidence that Solon used the word in some form when referring to Arion, there must be some common elements beyond music, style, and language which linked the dithyramb, Arion’s ‘tragedies’ on heroic subjects, and the Sicyonian ‘tragic choruses’ relating to the sufferings of Adrastus with Thespis’ tragedy. To put the question the other way round, if the exarchon of the choruses was developed by Thespis into an actor, in what sense were the pre-Thespian choruses called ‘tragic’ ? Can we find a clue which would account for the continuity of the name in the satyrs or fat men whom we have seen reason to suppose could perform all these choruses?]

vili.

Tragoidia, Tragoi, &c.

The origin and meaning of the words tragoidoi and tragoidia is, like the questions already discussed, the subject of a long­ standing controversy. Tragoidoi (the singular is found very rarely, and only comparatively late) is presumably the earlier word of the two, tragoidia being derived from it. [It is not even clear whether tragoidoi refers to the chorus1or the poet-actors. 1 The case for the chorus is given by H . Richards, Aristophanes and Others, pp. 334 ff.; cf. also Reisch, Festschr.fiir Gomperz, p. 466.

T R A G O ID IA , T R A G O I, E T C .

” 3

A new case for the latter interpretation is made by Professor G. F. Else.1 He argues that certain passages in Aristophanes (Peace 806, Birds 787, Wasps 1537) are better explained as ‘chorus belonging to tragoido? than ‘choruses consisting of tragoidoì and that the official use of tragoidoi as a designation for the tragic performance or competition arises from its use for poet and choregos in the fifth century and before the fifth century for poet-actor alone. He argues that tragoidos was coined for Thespis on the analogy of rhapsode because the recitation of rhapsodes was a new kind of spoken poetry. If this interpretation is accepted, tragedy is ‘song for a goat5 and Thespis is the first tragoidos. There are difficulties, how­ ever; the Aristophanes passages are not entirely clear, and it has been suggested that the goat-prize theory is itself a Hellenistic invention.2 The greatest difficulty from our point of view is that, even if the theory is right, we still have to explain the use of either tragoidos or tragikos by Solon in describing Arion.] The first element in tragoidia, tragoidos, tragikos means goat. We have still to consider the three main views as to its mean­ ing that have been put forward : (1) That it refers to a chorus of goat-like satyrs. (2) That it refers to a chorus, not representing satyrs, but clad in goat-skins as an ancient dress retained for religious or antiquarian reasons. (3) That it refers to a chorus dancing either for the goat as a prize or around the goat as a sacrifice. These must be separately discussed. § I . The first explanation was bound up with the belief that tragedy was historically an offshoot of satyric drama, made more dignified by the abandonment of the satyrcostume and language; and that the satyrs were in the form of creatures half-man and half-goat. [But, as we have seen, the satyrikon which may have existed before tragedy was not performed by men dressed in the con­ ventional costume of the Attic satyr-play as introduced by Pratinas. The primary question is whether the early choruses in Attica and the Peloponnese have any connexion with goats ; 1 Hermes, lxxxv (1957), 20 ff. 6188

2 Gf. Lesky, op. cit., p. 22. I

114

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

whether the later choruses of the classical Attic satyr-play have any connexion with goats is not directly relevant. We have seen that the early choruses in Corinth and Athens contained men representing fat men and hairy satyrs. The first question is whether the hairy satyrs have any connexion with goats. The answer is that the goat is the only relevant shaggy animal; Greek artists always represented horses with smooth hair but often represented the rough hair of goats. Therefore the natural explanation of the hairy chiton worn by men dressed as satyrs on Corinthian vases,1 of the hairy chiton worn by men representing old satyrs on Attic vases,2 and of the hairy skin of the giant satyr on the phallus-pole on the Athenian cup3 of about 550 b . c . is that they represent goat-skins. It is perfectly true that they are not goatmen like the dancing goatmen of Arcadia4 or the Samian goatmen ;5 in Corinth and Athens they have human heads with ears which may be horse rather than goat, and in Athens they have horse­ tails and very occasionally horses’ legs. But it is quite wrong to call them semi-equine; they are human, a small part equine, and a larger part goat. It is therefore perfectly possible that men dressed as hairy satyrs in Corinth and Athens should be called ‘goats’ and their songs ‘goat-songs’. There are two further problems. The earliest Attic satyrs in art are hairy but very soon (and so soon that it is doubtful if we should call them later) a type of satyr is introduced which is smooth not hairy; he is human, a small part equine, and no part goat (unless his ears are goat rather than horse.)6 And we are told that it is these satyrs who became the satyrs of the classical satyr-play. In fact the position is not quite so simple. Papposilenus,7 who is the father of the satyrs, wears tights to which pieces of white wool are sewn; he is hairy all over and indubitably a goat. If the vase in Paris8 discussed above is omitted because it may represent performers in a dithyramb rather than performers in a satyr-play, there are twelve Attic vases dating between 490 b . c . and 400 b . c . with 1 2 4 6 7

See List of Monuments, Nos. 32, 33, 36, 38, 42-45. Ibid., Nos. 1-3. 3 Ibid., No. 15. Ibid., N o. 72. 5 Ibid., No. 73. Ibid., Nos. 6, 8; contrast 9. Ibid., No. 85. 8 Ibid., No. 3.

T R A G O ID I A, T R A G O I, E T C .

115

representations of one or more members of the chorus of a satyr-play (who are called Satyrs in the texts), one Attic terracotta of the early fourth century, one South Italian vase of the early fourth century, and one mosaic which probably goes back to a fourth-century original. The well-known Pronomos vase1 shows ten members of the chorus, of whom nine have shaggy loin-cloths and one a smooth loin-cloth decorated with an enormous rosette. O f the rest four Attic vases2 and the one Italian vase3 have satyr-choreuts with smooth loin-cloths; seven Attic vases,4 the Attic terracotta,5 and the mosaic6 have either shaggy loin-cloths, or loin-cloths with attached flocks of wool (like the tights of Papposilenus) or loin-cloths with spots representing hair. Hairy loin-cloths heavily outnumber smooth loin-cloths and the earliest vase which certainly represents a satyr-choreut has a hairy loin­ cloth. Thus the satyr choreuts of the classical satyr-play, which we believe to have been introduced by Pratinas, were the children of Papposilenus, who is largely goat, and in the majority of cases showed their goat inheritance in their hairy loin-cloths. The more important problem is to decide whether the fat men who formed the early choruses in Corinth and Attica could also be called goats and their songs goat-songs. If they were satyrs presumably they could be called ‘goats’ and they have been identified with satyrs.7 We have already noted8 that in Athens the fat men are equated with satyrs (smooth and hairy) as attendants of Dionysus and there they dance both by themselves and with men dressed as nymphs, and that in Corinth they are also connected with Dionysus and sing of the return of Hephaestus, that they are named after fertility spirits, and occasionally have a hairy satyr with them. The Corinthian fat men often dance with naked women; on a krater in Dresden9the names are inscribed—the name Poris of one of the naked women occurs as the name of a nymph dancing with a satyr on a Chalkidian krater.10 This equation, 1 Ibid., No. 85. 2 Ibid., Nos. 86-88, gr. 3 Ibid., Nos. 89. 4 Ibid., Nos. 90, 92-97. 5 Ibid., No. 98. 6 Ibid., No. 99. 7 Solmsen, Indog. Forsch, xxx (1912), 1 ff.; E. Buschor, Satyrtänze, passim; F. Brommer, Satyroi (1937), p. 22. 8 Gf. above, pp. 80 f., 100. 9 List o f Monuments, No. 48. 10 Ibid., No. 71.

ιι6

THE O R IG IN S O F GREEK TRAGEDY

added to their general behaviour and their attendance on Dionysus, has been held to identify the fat men with satyrs. It should be added that one of the Corinthian fat men is called Kòmios1 and an Attic satyr is called Kontos'12 also that a number of Attic satyrs have names appropriate to fertility spirits.3 Fat men and satyrs are certainly very close. It is wiser not to identify them because nothing in the costume of fat men is bestial. But if satyr dances were called ‘goat-dances’, it is hard to suppose that the fat men’s dances could not be called goat-dances too. Thus a reasonable case can be made for finding a reference to the choruses and dances of fat men and satyrs in the goatelement of fragolàia, tragoidos, and tragikosd] The evidence in regard to Silens and Satyrs has been dis­ cussed many times in recent years ; it has been stated with great completeness by Kiihnert,4 and the more important points have been discussed by Reisch,5 Frickenhaus,6 A. B. Cook,7 and others ;8 reference to the earlier discussions by Furtwängler, Loeschke, Wernicke, A. Körte, and others is also indispensable. [The creatures are called Silens on the earliest inscribed representations that we possess.9 The name in the form Silanos has been recognized on a Mycenaean tablet10 and is found later in various parts of Greece as a proper name. There are various legends connected with Silenus as is well known. Already in the Homeric hymn to Aphrodite11Silens make love to Nymphs. Pindar12is quoted by Pausanias on the Silen of Malea in Laconia : ‘fierce is the dancer whom Malea reared, the bed-fellow ofNais’. Probably Pollux’ account of Laconian dances on Malea should be remembered here : ‘There were 1 List o f M onuments, No. 40. 2 C. Frankel, Satyr- und Bakchennamm, p. 70, quotes ten examples. 3 e.g. Eraton, Oiphon, Peon, Posthon, Styon, Terpes, Terpon, Hybris, Phlebippos. 4 Art. ‘Satyros’ in Roscher’s Lexicon. 5 Festschr. für Gomperz (1902).

6 Jahrb. Arch. Inst, xxxii. 7 Zeus, i. 695 if. 8 [Gf. particularly in recent years, F. Brommer, Satyroi; E. Buschor, Satyr­ tänze.] 9 See List of M onuments, N o. 6. 10 Tablet from Knossos, K N V 466. 12 Pindar, fr. 142 Bowra, 156 Snell.

11 Homeric Hymn, V, 1. 262.

TRA G O ID I A} T R A G 01, ETC .

117

Silens and with them satyrs dancing in terror.’ (The Laco­ nians also had padded dancers, hairy satyrs, and satyr-masks) J Whether Pollux can be used as evidence that the early fat men were called satyrs (as distinct from hairy Silens) in Laconia is unclear. But Hesiod2 already knows satyrs : the great-grandchildren of Phoroneus were ‘the mountain Nymphs, goddesses, and the race of useless and impossiblybehaved Satyrs, and the Curetes, gods, lovers of sport, dancers’. In Attic the name satyr is first found inscribed against a smooth satyr on a vase of the late sixth century.3 In the fifth century and later the two names were inter­ changeable. Marsyas the satyr is called a Silenus by Herodo­ tus,4 and Socrates is compared sometimes to a Silenus and sometimes to a satyr.5 In the classical Attic satyr-plays, as we have seen, the chorus are called satyrs and, on our evidence, more often than not have shaggy loin-cloths; and their father is called Papposilenus and is shaggy all over. But a satyr in a satyr-play may also wear a goat-skin when he is doing agricultural labour (E. CycL, 11. 78-82) or be compared to an ordinary goat for wantonness (S. Ichn., 1. 358). It is not clear whether in the fragment (207) commonly assigned to Aeschylus’ Prometheus Pyrkaeus the satyr is addressed as a goat literally or metaphorically. A vase often quoted in connexion with those problems is the kalyx krater by the Niobid painter in the British Museum.6 This has among other things a chorus of men with a fluteplayer ; they wear shaggy loin-cloths to which phallus and goat-tail are attached, they have horns and goat-ears, and the painter has even given them goat-hooves. They are clearly distinguished from the normal satyrs who appear else­ where on the vase, and may be Pans.7 They show no sign of the padding which would be expected if they were a chorus of comedy, and one of them dances the sikinnis, the satyrdance. Probably they are to be regarded as an alternative 1 2 3 3 6 7

Pollux, iv. X04 [App.]. See List of Monuments, Nos. 49-57. Hesiod, fr. 198 (Rzach). List of Monuments, No. 19. 4 Hdt. vii.26. Xen. Symp. iv. xix; v. vii; Plato, Symp. 215 b, 216 d, 221 d, e. List of Monuments, No. 100. Plural Pans: Aeschylus, fr. 36; Aristoph. Eccl. 1069; Plato, Laws, 815 c.

TH E O R I G I N S OF GR E EK T R A G E D Y

for the normal satyr-chorus, perhaps introduced under the influence of Pan’s appearance at Marathon a generation be­ fore, Attic successors to the goat-headed men of Arcadia and Samos.1 The ancestry of satyrs and fat men can now be traced back beyond Thespis and Arion. Figures like the fat men and satyrs appear on an Attic vase of the early seventh century2 and a moulded vase3in the shape of a satyr has been found in Samos and dated to the very beginning of the seventh century. Earlier than that a late Mycenaean seal from Cyprus4 has a squatting man like a padded dancer, on the well-known harvester vase5 a stooping man in the posture of a padded dancer interrupts the chorus of harvesters, a satyr-like figure of the sixteenth century was found in Larissa,6and a squatting man, again like the dancers, occurs on an Early Minoan seal.7 Now that the name of Dionysus has been discovered on a tablet from Pylos8 of the late thirteenth century it is natural to see him (or his Minoan equivalent) in the young god who appears with goats in Minoan-Mycenaean art9 and to find evidence for masked dances in honour of Dionysus in the male frontal head between two goats which appears on a sealing from Phaistos.10Thus we need not ask whether satyrs and their kin were originally independent of Dionysus since they or their ancestors seem to have been associated with him for at least 600 years before the date of Arion.11] § 2. But it will be convenient next to discuss the theory that tmgoidoi means singers dressed like goats, not as being goat-like satyrs, but for various other reasons. Reisch,12 while preferring the interpretation of tragoidoi which will be maintained later in this chapter, suggests that if tragoidoi must be interpreted as ‘song of goats’ the goats may be thought of as a collection of persons performing for ritual purposes as goats, in the same way as other groups performed 1 4 7 9 10 11 12

List of Monuments, Nos. 72-73. 2 Ibid., No. 101. 3 Ibid., No.102. Ibid., No. 103. 5 Ibid., No. 104. 6 Ibid., No. 105. Ibid., No. 106. Add now No. 109. 8 Tablet from Pylos, PY Xa 102. References are given Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, v ( ϊ 958), p. 44. List of Monuments, No. 107. On the Indo-Germanic kinship of satyrs cf. Kühner in Roscher, iv. 513 if. Op. cit., p. 468.

TR A G O IDIA,

TRAGOI,

ETC.

119

as h orses, bulls, bees, bears, &C.1 But there is no proof of the existence of such a Kultgenossenschaft of goats. Nilsson’s conjecture that the worshippers of Dionysus, having slain the god in goat form in their mystic rites, dressed up in goat-skins and lamented him, and that tragedy arose fro m these lamentations (together with certain other elements), suffers from the same defect as some other theories—that there is no record of any mystic rites of Dionysus in which this happened. In some orgiastic rites various animals, in­ cluding the goat, were dismembered, but there is no trace of lamentation in connexion with these ; and the goat-skin was only one of various animal skins which might be worn by the participants in such orgies. Ridgeway12 thinks that tragedy was performed by persons who wore goat-skins because they were an ancient costume which was retained in celebrating ancient heroes such as Adrastus (Herodotus’ expression being interpreted as ‘goatchoruses’). He tells us that ‘in Peloponnesus, as well as else­ where in Greece, and in Thrace and Crete, goat-skins were the ordinary dress of the Aborigines’, and that for this reason the chorus which celebrated the ancient heroes, such as Adrastus, wore the primeval dress of goat-skin and was there­ fore fitly termed a ‘goat-chorus’. The natural answer to this has been admirably expressed by Dr. Farnell.3 ‘At what time in Greece, since 1400 b .c ., were goat-skins the universal garb? They were not worn by the well-to-do of the age of King Minos or Agamemnon or of any of the periods of archaic art. Nor do we find actors of other races, when they wish to act the great men of old, deliberately arraying themselves in the poorest and vilest garb that may indeed have been worn by the humblest subject of King Atreus, as it is still worn by the poor Arcadian or poor Sicilian.’ (Prof. Ridgeway him­ self says that the goat-skin was ‘simply regarded as the mean­ est form of apparel that could be worn by a slave’.) ‘Primitive actors’, Dr. Farnell adds, ‘acting heroic parts endeavour to dress in some conventionally heroic costumes.’ 1 This is the view of Nilsson, Neue Jahrb. xxvii. 687-8 ( = Op. Sei. i. 132 if.), and of Reisch himself in R.E. iii, col. 2385, s.v. Chor. 2 Orig, of Gk. Trag., pp. 87, 91-92. 3 Hermath. xvii. 15.

TH E O R IG IN S OF G R E EK T R A G E D Y

Dr. Farnell’s own theory requires far more serious con­ sideration.1 He naturally looks for some early stages of tragedy (which was part of the worship of Dionysus of Eleutherae, after that god was introduced into Attica) to Eleutherae itself, and there he finds evidence of a ritual duel between Xanthos and Melanthos, ‘fair man and black man5, which (following Usener) he interprets with great probability as ‘a special form of the old-world ritual fight between winter and summer or spring5. In the story of this fight Dionysus Melanaigis, the god of the black goat-skin—i.e., according to the most probable interpretation, the god of the nether world—aids Melanthos to kill Xanthos. (With this he com­ pares the Macedonian spring-purification investigated by Usener2 and celebrated in honour of a hero called Xanthos.3) This play [he continues], spreading through the villages of Greece, would easily acquire variety of motives; for many villages had their local legends of someone who perished in the service of Dionysus, and who had come to be regarded as the ancestral priest-leader of the clan; he would take the part of Xanthos or Melanthos as required : and thus early tragedy could easily appear as in some sense a commemorative dirge of the heroic dead, and acquire that dirge-like character which is deeply im­ printed on its earlier forms. Certainly the village of Ikaria, the reputed home of Thespis, possessed an excellent motive for primi­ tive tragedy in the sad death of Ikarios and Erigone; and actors who had reached the point of dramatizing such stories as these would soon feel equal to any heroic subject of the sorrowful kind. At that point the necessities of the stage would compel them to drop the goatskin. Yet they might continue to be called tragoi or tragoidoi, just as the girls at Brauron were called ‘bears’ long after they had discarded the bear-skin.

There can really be no doubt that Dr. Farnell has correctly 1 J.H .S. xxix (1909), p. xlvii; Cults, v. 234 ff.; Hermath. xvii. 21 ff. 2 Arch, f Religionswiss. (1904), pp. 303 if. 3 The other legend about Dionysus Melanaigis—that in which he maddens the daughters of Eleuther—has no immediate bearing on the present subject (Suda, s.v. Melanaigis). The story of the fight of Xanthos and Melanthos is found in Schol. Aristoph. Ach. 146, and Schol. Plat. Symp., p. 208 d. Dr. A. B. Keith {J. Asiatic Soc., 19x2, and Sanskrit Drama (1924), p. 37) describes a very similar duel from India—a ritual slaying by black-man, or winter, of red-man, or summer.

T R A G O ID IA , TR A G O I, E T C .

121

interpreted the Melanaigis story in itself; and his reply to Ridgeway’s criticisms is so far entirely convincing.1 But the proof that tragedy originated from this particular mumming at Eleutherae is not so satisfying. The principal difficulties appear to be these : (1) The identification of the Dionysus Eleuthereus of the Attic theatre with the Dionysus Melanaigis of the mumming at Eleutherae is not made out. A god might be worshipped in the same place under various names and with different rituals on different occasions. No doubt the Dionysus of the theatre was brought to Athens from Eleutherae ; but there is no evidence that it was in the form of Melanaigis, and with that particular ritual. (2) The one thing which appears to be tolerably certain about the earliest Attic tragedy is that it was mainly a choral performance. There could be no contest or agon without actors ; and the first actor was introduced by Thespis, the second by Aeschylus. But the mumming at Eleutherae in­ volves three actors and no chorus, and is all agon. Even if there were bystanders included in the mumming (spectators in, and not merely of, the drama) there is no hint that they wore goat-skins—or indeed that Xanthos and Melanthos themselves did so. It thus appears to be very difficult to accept the derivation of tragedy from the worship of Dionysus Melanaigis at Eleutherae. But there can be little doubt that it was some rustic performance—only a performance mainly choral— which Thespis brought to Athens, and which was there rapidly developed by the addition of actors and the infusion of high literary quality into the lyric portions, probably under the influence of Peloponnesian choral lyric and of the con­ temporary cyclic dithyramb. § 3. The interpretation of tragoidia as the song of men in goat-skins has been thought to derive some support from the modem performances at Viza in Thrace, described by Professor R. M. Dawkins.12 Some parts of the drama enacted 1 Hermath., loc. cit. Cf. also Nilsson, Neue Jahrb. xxvii. 674 ff., 686 ff., and Wilamowitz, Neue Jahrb. xxix. 472-3. 2 J.H .S. xxvi (1906), 191 ff.

THE O R IG IN S O F GREEK TRAGEDY

are very like several ancient Greek ceremonies ; there is a ritual slaying and a resurrection, with some of the familiar features of agrarian magic ; and it has been suggested that we have here a dramatic ritual, connected possibly long ago with the worship of Dionysus in Thrace itself, his early home, and surviving almost unchanged into modern times ; and that it is ritual of just the kind which (apart from the comparative unimportance of the ‘chorus’) might be supposed to have given rise to Greek Tragedy. Similar performances are recorded from Scyros, from Thessaly, from Sochos in Mace­ donia, from Kosti on the Black Sea and from other places, by various observers.1 But as regards the point which here con­ cerns us, the fact that the performers at Viza wore goat-skins, it must be pointed out12 that earlier observers saw the per­ formance conducted by men who wore skins of the fox, the wolf, and the fawn. Any of these animals would afford an easy means of ‘dressing up’, but the goat would generally be the easiest to catch. (In the same way the satyrs of the Athenian stage,3 though keeping their horses’ tails and ears, might wear the skins of various animals.) One feature of these modern rites, the procession, going round and collecting gifts, has perhaps more affinity with the primitive komoi with which the origin of comedy may be connected4 than anything tragic. Whether or not these modern plays are really a survival of primitive Dionysiae worship is a difficult question. Now that a good many of them are known, it is less easy than it was to refer them all to one primitive type; parts of them are parodies of Christian ceremonial; and there is a certain improbability in the supposition of an unbroken continuity extending over more than two thousand years.5But there can 1 Lawson, Ann. B.S.A. vi. 135 ff.; Dawkins, ibid. xi. 72 ff; M. Hamilton, Greek Saints (1910), p. 205; Von Hahn, Albanesische Studien, i (1854), 156; cf. also Nilsson, Neue Jahrb. xxvii. 677 ff. ( = op. Sei. i. 116 ff.) ; Ridgeway, Orig. o f Gk. Trag., pp. 20 ff.; Headlam and Knox, Herodas, p. lv; [K. Kakouri, Praktika, 1952, p. 216 ff.; UHelMnisme contemporain, x (1956), 188 ff.] 2 This is also noticed by Ridgeway, Dramas, &c., p. 20. 3 See above, p. 117. 4 See below, p. 155 f. 5 Perhaps too much stress may be laid on this. Nilsson (loc. cit.) makes out a strong case for believing that the festival of the Rosalia, as celebrated in spring in parts of the Balkan peninsula down to the present day, is a real survival of an ancient Dionysiae festival. In this case also the resemblance to a primitive

TRA G O ID IA, T R A G O I, ETC.

123

be little doubt that the plays spring from a basis of rustic ideas of very much the same kind as those which must have promoted agrarian ritual, more or less dramatic and probably leading up to the drama, in primitive times ; and they have therefore some interest as illustrations for classical scholars, though they do not justify the suggested interpretation of the word tragoidoi. § 4. If tragoidoi does not mean singers dressed as goats or in goat-skins, what does it mean? It may be pointed out first1 that, if it did bear this meaning, it would be an exception among the compounds in which the first part of the com­ pound generally refers to the accompaniment or the occasion or subject of the song. This is the case with auloidos, kitharoidos, komoidos, meloidos. If trygoidos is not a parody-word (and there­ fore not to be too minutely scrutinized), it may mean the ‘singer at the vintage5, just as well as the ‘singer stained with wine-lees5; monoidos really refers to the circumstances of the song, not to the personality of the singer ; rhapsoidos does not mean that the singer was ‘a thing of shreds and patches’ ; and tragoidos may well mean (as has often been held) the ‘singer at the goat-sacrifice5or (a very ancient view) the ‘singer for the goat-prize5. The first of these two interpretations is to some extent supported by the line of Eratosthenes, ‘The Icarians there first danced round the goat5, for, whether the immediate reference is to a ‘tragic5performance, or (as is more probable) to askoliasmos only, the story at least records a dance around a slain goat. The second is supported by the tradition that Thespis won a goat as a prize. The two may even be reconciled, if the goat was first won and then sacrificed. A more precise conclusion is impossible. There is no record showing that a goat-sacrifice formed part of the Great Dionysia, though it may well have been a feature of the rustic festivities of Attic villages. [Our earliest mention of the goat-prize is in the Marmor Parium and Dioscorides, i.e. in the third cen­ tury B.G., and it has been maintained that it is a Hellenistic komos, of which an agon formed a part, is more striking than any resemblance to tragedy. 1 Reisch, op. cit., p. 467, presents the argument briefly and clearly, and (though I had arrived independently at the same conclusions) I have only added a few small points.

124

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

invention.1 The only piece of evidence to the contrary is that on one of the Corinthian vases2 with padded dancers a goat is drawn tied to the mixing bowl and he may well be await­ ing sacrifice ; this is the only hint that the Corinthian padded dancers may have been ‘singers for a goat5rather than ‘goatsingers’. The derivation of tragoidos, See., from ‘singers dressed in goat-skins’ can be safely disregarded. Between the other two derivations it is difficult to decide ; the dances of fat men and satyrs may have been called ‘goat-like’ because the dancers were goat-like or because they danced for a goat. The actual derivation is much less important than the establishment of these dances as a stage before tragedy, in the sense of elements which Thespis used in his new art.]

ix. ‘Nothing to do with Dionysus’ We have, however, to dispose of certain notices in regard to the proverb ‘Nothing to do with Dionysus’, which are sup­ posed to support the derivation of tragedy from satyric drama. Plut. Symp. Quaesi, i. i, § 5 : When Phrynichus a n d Aeschylus developed tragedy to include mythological plots and disasters, it was said, W h at has this to do with Dionysus?’

It has already been pointed out3 that if Plutarch intends to imply that the plays of Thespis were not tragic in subject, he can hardly be right, at least if the story of Pentheus was one of his subjects. This passage at any rate gives no ground for thinking that Thespis wrote satyr-plays of the kind known later in the classical period. Zenob. v. 40: Nothing to do with Dionysus. When, the chor­ uses being accustomed from the beginning to sing the dithyramb to Dionysus, later the poets abandoned this custom and began to write Ajaxes and Centaurs. Therefore the spectators said in joke, ‘Nothing to do with Dionysus.’ For this reason they decided later to introduce satyr-plays as a prelude, in order that they might not seem to be forgetting the god. [App.]

This notice seems to be a confused mixture of several 1 Texts: p. 69, nos. 1, 3. Cf. above, p. 113. 2 List of Monuments, No. 37.

3 See above, p. 85.

‘N O T H IN G T O D O W IT H D IO N Y S U S ’

125

different reminiscences or traditions: (i) the Aristotelian

doctrine that tragedy was derived from dithyramb ; (2) the tradition, doubtless sound, that dithyramb and tragedy were first occupied with Dionysiae subjects, and afterwards widened their range;1 (3) the theory, probably based on Aristot. Poet. iv, that the early Dionysiae tragedy was performed by a satyrchorus ; (4) the change made in the Dionysiae festival in the fourth century, when each poet, instead of producing three tragedies and a satyric play, produced tragedies only, and one satyric play only was performed at the beginning of the proceedings (whence ‘introduce as a prelude’). Plainly this notice is too frail a support for any theory; it certainly does not support the theory under discussion. The Suda lexicon, s.v. : Nothing to do with Dionysus. When Epigenes the Sicyonian made a tragedy in honour of Dionysus, they made this comment; hence the proverb. A better explanation. Originally when writing in honour of Dionysus they competed with pieces which were called satyric. Later they changed to the writing of tragedy and gradually turned to plots and stories in which they had no thought for Dionysus. Hence this comment. Chamaeleon writes similarly in his book on Thespis. [App.]

The first explanation offered appears to mean that Epigenes wrote tragedy in honour of Dionysus—probably under the auspices of Cleisthenes—but not with reference to Dionysiae legend ; and this may be true ; but it does not bear upon our present point.2 The second explanation seems to be based upon Aristotle’s Poetics; Aristotle had said that the beginnings of tragedy were ‘satyric’, whatever he may have meant by the word; and he had laid stress upon the introduction of actors, which made plots possible. It was evidently assumed by the writers of this 1 Centaurs may perhaps refer to the Centaurs of Lasus, if, as we have seen to be probable, he wrote a dithyramb of the name. The reading Ajaxes has been suspected of being a corruption of Giants : but Timotheus wrote a dithyramb entitled Ajax mad, and other composers may have written about the same hero before him, or the reference may be to tragedies. 2 Flickinger {Greek Theater, p. 13) thinks that Epigenes may have written plays in honour of Dionysus without introducing the satyrs whom his audience would expect to find with Dionysus; this is, of course, only a conjecture, and perhaps not a very probable account of the origin of the proverb, but it is at least as good as those of the old grammatici. (See above, p. 104.)

126

T H E O R I G I N S OF G R E E K T R A G E D Y

notice that ‘satyric’ could only refer to the satyric drama, which was, of course, Dionysiae. The Suda lexicon (whose notice is taken almost verbatim from Photius) cannot carry more weight than Aristotle, his probable ultimate source ; nor have we any reason to suppose that Chamaeleon, the pupil of Aristotle, was better informed than his master. In fact, what is plain from these notices is that nobody knew exactly what the real origin of the proverb was. That it arose out of the introduction of non-Dionysiac themes into performances in honour of Dionysus was agreed ; but whether this was the work of Epigenes, Thespis, Phrynichus, or Aeschylus was plainly disputed ; we have to do, not with history, but with guesswork.1 X.

Gilbert M urrays Theory

§ i . In an Appendix to ch. viii of Miss J. E. Harrison’s Themis, Gilbert Murray attempts to explain certain recurrent forms or dements of Greek tragedy by the hypothesis that these are survivals of the forms of a spring ritual or dromenon in honour of Dionysus, a ritual identified by him with the dithyramb from which, according to Aristotle, tragedy sprang. The fact that in nearly all extant Greek tragedies these forms, or some of them, appear as part of the presentation of the fortunes, not of Dionysus, but of some hero or heroine, is explained by the hypothesis which plays so large a part in Themis, that both Dionysus and the principal heroes of Greek legend were alike forms of what Miss Harrison and Murray term the eniautos daimon, who represents the cyclic death and rebirth, not merely of the year, but of the tribe, by the return to life of the heroes or dead ancestors. Such heroes, like Dionysus, we are asked to believe, had their dromena, essentially the same in type, and closely akin to, or identical with, such initiationceremonies as (on Miss Harrison’s showing) were those of Kouretes. (The reader of Themis will find that Miss Harrison is not perfectly clear in her theory of the relation of these various rites to each other and to the dithyramb ; and it is also 1 A different set of guesses is recorded by Plut. de firov. Alex., § 30. (See above, p. 74.)

G IL B E R T M U R R A Y ’S T H E O R Y

127

not quite clear how far Murray follows her in detail, but so far as has been stated above, his language appears to imply his agreement with her.) The forms into which tragedy falls are to be explained, according to the theory, as modifications of the forms of the original ritual of Dionysus or the eniautos daimon—the dithyramb or spring ritual; and tragedy had for its business originally, and continued to have, the repre­ sentation of the aition, the supposed historical cause, of the ritual, whether Dionysiae or heroic. What then was this ritual? It will be best to quote Murray’s own words : If we examine the kind of myth which seems to underlie the various Eniautos celebrations, we shall find: 1. An Agon or Contest, the Year against its enemy, Light against Darkness, Summer against Winter. 2. A Pathos of the Year-Daimon, generally a ritual or sacrificial death, in which Adonis or Attis is slain by the tabu animal, the Pharmakos stoned, Osiris, Dionysus, Pentheus, Orpheus, Hippolytus torn to pieces (sparagmos). 3. A Messenger. For this Pathos seems seldom or never to be actually performed under the eyes of the audience. . . . It is announced by a Messenger . . . and the dead body is often brought in on a bier. This leads to 4. Threnos or Lamentation. Specially characteristic, however, is a clash of contrary emotions, the death of the old being also the triumph of the new: see p. 318 f., on Plutarch’s account of the Oschophoria. 5 and 6. An Anagnorisis—discovery or recognition—of the slain and mutilated Daimon, followed by his Resurrection or Apotheosis, or, in some sense, his Epiphany in glory. This I shall call by the general name Theophany. It naturally goes with a Peripeteia or extreme change of feeling from grief to joy. Observe the sequence in which these should normally occur : Agon, Pathos, Messenger, Threnos, Theophany, or, we might say, Anagnorisis and Theophany.

He illustrates the theory by applying it to three plays of Euripides, the Bacchae, Hippolytus, and Andromache. Now he himself points out that, in one very important point, the theory does not apply even to them ; nor, in fact, does it apply to any other play. There is not a single extant play in which

128

THE O R IG IN S OF GREEK T RAGEDY

the epiphany is the epiphany of the god or hero who has been slain. ‘In the Bacchae it is Pentheus who is torn, but Dionysus who appears as god.5 Does this really matter less, as he suggests (p. 345), because Pentheus is only another form of Dionysus himself? If there was any consciousness of this on the part of poet or audience the play is reduced to a more bewildering series of riddles as regards the personality of the characters than Verrall or Norwood ever conceived. [This was followed in the first edition by a long demonstra­ tion of the difficulties of applying the theory literally to all existent Greek tragedies. In 1943 Gilbert Murray answered:1 Ί was wrong, as Mr. Pickard-Cambridge pointed out, in attributing too exclusive and original an importance to this type of play, but its existence is clear.5 With our extended knowledge of the history of the Dionysus cult the theory can be restated in a form which is both tenable and valuable. Put briefly it is this: ritual of the eniautos daimon type in the Mycenaean age very early (and certainly before Homer) gave rise to myths which were dramatized very early and so estab­ lished a rhythm which was so satisfying that stories from other mythological cycles were approximated to it. The evidence can be briefly stated : (1) the likeness of the ecstatic dances of Dionysus5maenads to the ecstatic dances which appear on Minoan and Mycenaean works of art is obvious. The Mycenaean rings2 with dances can be arranged by the variation of the foliage on the trees in the background as a cycle proceeding from winter through spring to summer and harvest time. The cycle starts with mourning for the dead and a hope that the young god (who may perhaps be called Dionysus) will appear, and possibly ends with the departure of goddess or god and goddess in a boat. The cycle is certainly a Year God cycle, parallel to many Eastern and Egyptian stories—Adonis, Osiris, and the rest.3 (2) The ritual is designed to overcome the forces of nature which resist the new growth of vegetation, but in story this resistance is translated into the resistance of human kings 1 C.Chxxxvii (1943), 46 f. 2 e.g. List of Monuments, No. 108. 3 Cf. A. W. Persson, Religion of Greece in Prehistoric Times (1942), pp. 32 f.

G IL B E R T M U R R A Y ’S T H E O R Y

129

to the worship of Dionysus and his maenads, such as the Pentheus story in Thebes, the Lycurgus story in Thrace, the Proitos story and the Perseus story in Argos, the Erigone story in Attica, and other stories located in Orchomenos and Eleutherai. Homer1 already knows the Lycurgus story in some detail and speaks of Dionysus as the raging god, i.e. the god of the maenads. (3) Women performed as maenads at various places in Greece from the seventh century at least; but whatever they sang they were present-day maenads performing the ritual for its old purpose. The change to drama comes when men dressed up as maenads and sang the Resistance story. Our first evidence for this is an Attic vase2of the mid-sixth century which it is tempting to connect with the tradition that Thespis wrote a Pentheus.] X i.

Summary

[The result of the long investigation can be briefly summarized. The worship of Dionysus goes back to Mycenaean times and before that to Minoan times. The ecstatic dances of the maenads and the dances of satyrs and fat men can be traced back to these sources. Much of the mythology, including some versions of the Resistance story, was already formed before Homer. The Dionysus cults of the seventh and sixth century are revivals, not new creations. These revivals are partly known at various stages. Archi­ lochus’ dithyramb in the mid-seventh century may have been connected with the introduction of a fertility cult of Dionysus just as the dithyramb was at the City Dionysia. It may have been danced by satyrs or fat men and certainly had an exarchon. Arion’s dithyramb in the late seventh century in­ creased the range of subject-matter and developed the part of the chorus as distinct from the exarchon. It was probably sung by fat men and hairy satyrs, and their likeness to goats gave it the name ‘tragic’ ; these performances were known to the Athenian Solon. In the early sixth century Cleisthenes of Sicyon took the ‘tragic choruses’ which sang in honour of 1 n. vi. 130 ff. Cf. xxii. 460.

2 List of Monuments, No. 20.

130

T H E O R IG IN S O F G R E E K T R A G E D Y

Adrastus and transferred them to Dionysus, and the scanty references to Sicyonian tragedy as preceding Attic tragedy may be referred to this. The performers were probably fat men and satyrs, who can be shown, like Dionysus, to be con­ nected with the dead in various ways. A possible connexion with Athens is given through Cleisthenes’ son-in-law Megacles. The importance of laments in Attic tragedy may owe some­ thing to this early costumed Sicyonian choral performance, if in fact they sang sympathetically of the sufferings of Adrastus and lamented his fate. Attic vases of the first half of the sixth century show some­ thing of the material that Thespis had to use. On the pediment of the temple before which Thespis played Dionysus was accompanied by satyrs and nymphs (and Attic vases show men dressed as fat men dancing with men dressed as nymphs, dances recalled in classical satyr-plays), and the traditions that Thespis introduced Dionysus with a chorus of fat men or satyrs and wrote a Pentheus (with a chorus of men dressed as maenads) are entirely credible. The importance of the Pentheus story (and the other versions of the Resistance story) as setting the rhythm for tragic stories was probably very great. The revolutionary step which Thespis took and which is credited to him alone was the introduction of a spoken prologue before the first chorus and speeches between the choruses ; in this lay the germ of the whole subsequent de­ velopment of the actors’ part. Here decisive influences have reasonably been seen in Solon’s serious iambics and those considerable parts of epic recitation which were in oratio recta. The satyr-play in its classical form was not introduced until the very end of the sixth century or the beginning of the fifth. The tradition with regard to Pratinas agrees with the archaeological evidence, which shows singing satyrs with snub-noses and animal ears and loin-cloths (hairy or smooth) supporting phallus and horse-tails for the first time early in the fifth century. Our evidence for the early history of tragedy is so slight that any account is unsatisfactory. If the Persae must now be accepted as the earliest surviving play of Aeschylus, more than sixty years separates it from the beginning of the competition.

SU M M A R Y

131

The Persae already has all the solemnity and grandeur of Aes­ chylean tragedy. It is difficult to see a thread leading back from here to a performance of fat men and satyrs. Apart from what can be inferred from the dark themes dramatized by Phrynichus, the two hints of earlier seriousness are the Sicyonian choruses ‘in relation to the sufferings’ of Adrastus and the possibility that Thespis wrote a Pentheus. These may have been the germs of serious tragedy as we know it in Aeschylus and his successors.]

Ill T H E BEGINNINGS OF G R E E K COMEDY I. T he Kontos § i. I n discussing the origins o f Greek, and particularly of Attic, comedy, it will be convenient to take as a startingpoint the statements made by Aristotle in the Poetics, chs. iii, iv, and v. Ch. iii : Therefore also the Dorians make a claim to tragedy and comedy (the Megarians claim comedy, both those here, on the ground that it happened during their democracy, and those from Sicily; for the poet Epicharmus was from there, being much earlier than Chionides and Magnes. And some of those in the Peloponnese claim tragedy) using the names as evidence. For they call the villages kómai, whereas the Athenians call them demes, on the ground that kómoidoi do not get their names from kSmazein but wandered round the villages, being banished from the city.

What is of value in this passage is the evidence which it gives of a tradition in Aristotle’s day that c o m e d y originated among Dorian peoples, and that something which could be identified by name with comedy was found in Megara in Greece proper (between about 581 b . c . when the tyrant Theagenes was expelled, and 486, the date of Chionides’ appearance in Athens), and also in Megara Hyblaea, where Epicharmus was composing, according to our text, at a con­ sid e ra b ly earlier date than Chionides and Magnes. The value of these traditions will be discussed later, along with other evidence. The linguistic argument adduced is worthless : there can be no doubt that komoidia is connected with kömos (kómazein), not with kómé, and that in any case körne was a good Attic word, at least in the fifth century b.c., though it referred to a quarter of the city, not to a country town or village.1 1 See Bywater, ad loc. Bywater omits to notice Aristoph. Lysistr. 5—an

THE KÖM OS

*33

Oh. iv connects the subjects of comedy with the lighter poems of the Epic age, such as the Margites, in which the poet dealt not with personalities but with general topics of a humorous kind, the process being parallel to that by which tragedy developed out of encomiastic poetry, with grand Epic as an intermediate stage in which the interest had ceased to be personal. This is too vague to be very valuable; Aristotle is obviously theorizing and propounding a logical scheme of classification as if it were an historical order of development; and there is in fact some doubt whether the Margites was earlier than the comedy of Megara and Sicily. If there is anything in the ascription of it (by the Suda and Proclus) to Pigres of Halicarnassus, the uncle of the Artemisia who fought for Xerxes, it may well not have been so,1 but Aristotle ascribed it to Homer. Aristotle further writes : Growing from an improvisational origin—both tragedy and comedy, one from the leaders (exarchontes) of the dithyramb and the other from the leaders of the phallic songs, which are still performed in many cities—it gradually increased. We cannot accept without further inquiry Aristotle’s derivation of comedy from phallic revelry, such as survived in his own day in a number of cities;2 he may well have seen in such revelry features common to it and to the Old Comedy, and may not unnaturally have treated the latter as an off­ shoot of the cruder type of performance. As in the case of tragedy, it is the actor’s part, not that of the chorus, which he earlier instance of the Attic use than any which he gives. For the dates of Chionides and Magnes, see below, pp. 189 if. 1 The ascription is perhaps a conjecture based on the facts that (1) Pigres interpolated the Iliad with pentameters, (2) the Margites contained iambics irregularly mixed up with the hexameters (cf. Hephaest., p. 60, 2 Consbr.). Perhaps it was assumed that not more than one poet was likely to have tried this kind of experiment. In the pseudo-Platonic Alcibiad. ii. 147 c, the Margites is ascribed to ‘Homer’. [A fragment which may belong to the Margites has been published as Oxyrh. Pap. 2309, on which see J. A. Davison, C.R. lxxii (1958), 13; H. Langerbeck, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, lxiii (1958), 33.] 2 Cf. Athen, x. 445 a, b (speaking of Antheas of Lindos, a poet of late but unknown date) : ‘He also wrote comedies and many other poems of this kind in which he acted as leader of his fellow phallophoroi.' [Cf. Herter, Von diony­ sischen Tanz zum komischen Spiel (1947), p. 37.]

134

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

regards as developing. We must, therefore, inquire carefully what is to be known of such phallic revelry, and test Aristotle’s theory accordingly. But first it will be convenient to quote his statement in ch. v. Ch. v : The changes of tragedy and the people responsible are known. But comedy was not regarded seriously at the beginning and the facts are not known. For the archon became responsible for the comic chorus late; before they were volunteers. It had already some form by the time its poets are remembered by name. Who was responsible for masks or prologues or numbers of actors and the rest is unknown. Making plots (Epicharmus and Phormis) came in the beginning from Sicily. Of Athenian poets Grates first broke loose from the ‘iambic manner’ and began to make speeches and plots of universal type.

The date at which the archon can be supposed to have granted a chorus to a comic poet was doubtless the date at which Chionides appeared, 486 b . c . The text of the last sentence is uncertain, but it evidently ascribed the first com­ position of plots to Epicharmus and Phormis in Sicily (for even if the names are a gloss, the reference must still be to these poets), and to Crates in Athens. The last sentence but one has been taken to imply the existence, in Aristotle’s belief, of comic performances earlier than the comedy of which he had detailed knowledge, in which there were not masks nor prologues nor several actors ; an investigation of the records of phallic and similar performances suggests that he may have had some facts to suggest such a belief. To this investigation we may now proceed. § 2. The locus classicus in regard to such performances is Athen, xiv. 6 2 1 d, e, 622 a-d [App.] : The Spartans had an old-fashioned kind of comic entertain­ ment, as Sosibios says, not at all serious, because here too Sparta pursued simplicity. A man would imitate in simple language men stealing fruit or a foreign doctor saying the sort of thing that Alexis [Athenian comic poet of the fourth century b . c .] de­ scribes in the M and ra g o rizo m en e .1 . . . Those who gave this kind of 1 [The point of the quotation is that the doctor is admired in Athens if he speaks Doric dialect. Sicilian medicine was admired in Plato’s Academy. A fifth-century comic fragment of Ameipsias gives a doctor speaking Ionic (18 K).]

THE

KÖMOS

I 35

entertainment were called by the Laconians deikelistai, as if one were to say property-men and imitators.

(The quotation will be continued shortly.) Sosibius appears to have lived about 300 b . c ., a generation or so after Aristotle.1 Plutarch treated these performances as virtually the same thing as the mimes of later days in the anecdote which he tells in the life of Agesilaus (reigned 399360 b . c .) , ch. xxi: Once Callippides, the tragic actor, who had a great reputation in Greece and was admired by all, met him (Agesilaus) and greeted him; then he rushed back to his companions and dis­ played himself, thinking that Agesilaus would make some friendly remark ; finally he said, ‘Do you not recognise me, King?’ Agesilaus looked at him hard and said, ‘Are not you Callippides the deikelistesV This is the name given by the Lacedaemonians to mime-actors.

(The point of the insult lay in the fact that the actors of tragedy and comedy regarded the actors of mimes with con­ tempt; at a later date the Artists of Dionysus never admitted them to their Society.) The expression ‘property-men and imitators’ is partly ex­ plained by the lexicographers’ synonyms for deikela, which sometimes meant the ‘masks’, sometimes the ‘imitation’, i.e. the performance. (Hesychius gives both ‘masks’ and also ‘likenesses’, as equivalents of deikela : other lexicographers give ‘likenesses’, ‘imitations’. The word occurs first in Herod, ii. 171 in the sense of ‘representations’ : the mysteries of Sais are said to have included deikela, exhibitions, of the sufferings of Osiris. The scholiast on Apoll. Rhod. i. 746 explains deikelistai as ‘jesters who imitate someone else in their jesting’.) It may be assumed that the deikelistai performed in a costume which included masks, but at what date is not clear. It happens that Plutarch2 records a custom of Spartan boys—apparently a part of their strange education—which suggests that the scenes represented by the deikelistai were based on real life : and they commit theft, some invading gardens and others slipping 1 [The text is reproduced by F. Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist., iii, No. 595 F 7, and p. 648.] 2 Vit. Lycurg. xvii.

136

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

in to the mens’ messes, very skilfully and carefully. Anyone who is caught is beaten many times with a scourge for slack and un­ skilful thieving. They steal also any food they can, learning skilfully to make their attempts on those who are asleep or slack in their guard. Anyone caught is punished with blows and hunger.

Pollux1 also mentions a Laconian dance ‘in which they imitated men caught in stealing stale meat’. [Pollux here speaks of Laconian dances on Malea. It is tempting to equate them with the performances of the padded dancers, who appear in Laconian art of the late seventh and early sixth centuries.2As in Corinth, we find both men dressed up as fat men and men dressed up as satyrs (to which reference has already been made) ;3 in Corinth the stealing of wine was perhaps sung by the dancers.4 Athenaeus’ deikelistai, like Pol­ lux’ dancers, cannot be dated; they are merely called early, but it is curious that he illustrates them by fourth-century Attic comedy (Alexis). Plutarch’s story of Agesilaus refers also to the fourth century. It is perfectly possible that a per­ formance which started as primarily dancing became (under the influence of Attic comedy?) primarily acting.] Now these records are ofimportance because they introduce us to figures with which Greek comedy was familiar. The fruit-stealer was known to Epicharmus.5 We may find a trace of the same figure in Aristophanes’ Knights, 1. 418; though the cunning stealer of food is so common a resource of low comedy in all ages, that it would not be right to lay stress on this figure in an argument as to origins or influence. It is of more significance that the quack-doctor is found not only in the passage of Alexis quoted by Athenaeus, but in Crates, a poet of the Old Comedy, and that in Crates he speaks Doric.6 The doctor occurred also in the Endymion of Alcaeus,7 and 1 Pollux iv. 104 [App.] 2 List of Monuments, Nos. 49-53, 55-57. 3 Gf. above, p. 117. 4 List of Monuments, No. 41. 5 Epich., fr. 239 (Kaibel). 6 ‘I will put a cupping glass on you and if you like I will bleed you’ (fr. 41). The doctor was still a character in mimes in the time of Choricius in the sixth century a . d . (see Rev. de Phil, i ( 18 8 7 ) , 2 1 8 ) , as he is still in Christmas mummings. In primitive times the doctor was, probably very often, an itinerant practi­ tioner, and so came often to be represented as a foreigner. The doctors of south Italy and Sicily were famous and Doric was their natural dialect. 7 Fr. 10.

THE K Ó M O S

137

tried to cure the hero’s somnolence. In a fragment of Theo­ pompus1 (a poet of the later Old Comedy), an apothecary is called Megarian, though whether he is so called because the occupation was commonly followed by Dorians, or because Theopompus is alluding to Megarian comedy, we do not know. Athenaeus continues :2 For the general class of deikelistai there are many local names. The Sicyonians call them phallophoroi, others autokabdaloi, others phlyakes, like the Italians; the majority call them sophistai. The Thebans, who have many special terms, call them ethelontai. . . . Semos of Delos (second century b . c .) in his work on paeans says : ‘The autokabdaloi, as they were called, were wreathed with ivy and completed speeches which they improvised ( ?) ; later they were called iamboi both themselves and their poems. The so-called ithyphalloi have the mask of drunkards and are wreathed, having flowery sleeves. They have chitons with a white stripe down the middle and are swathed in Tarentine cloth, which covers them down to the ankles. They enter silently through the gate and when they are in the middle of the orchestra, they turn to the audience, saying: “Make way, make way, make room for the god. For the god wishes to walk through your midst, erect and potent.” 5The phallophoroi have no mask; they put on a forehead-band of herpyllos and paideros and over it a thick wreath of pansies and ivy. They wear kaunakai, and enter some from the parodos, some from the middle doors, walking in rhythm and saying : ‘To you, Bacchus, we raise this bright song, pouring forth a simple rhythm with varied tune, a song new, virginal, with no use of former songs, but pure is the hymn we chant.’ Then they ran up and quizzed whoever they chose and did their business in the orchestra. But the phallus-bearer walked straight on, covered with soot. With regard to the names autokabdaloi and sophistai not much can be said. In Hesychius autokabdala is paraphrased by ‘simple improvised poems’. The meaning as applied to poems is clearly ‘improvised’.3 Improvised ‘speeches’ can hardly have been choral. The autokabdaloi, ivy-crowned, do not 1 Fr. 2.

2 xiv. 621 f., 622 [App.]. [Cf. also F. Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist., in. No. 396, F 24.] 3 Cf. Aristot. Rhet. ni. vii. 1408*12, and xiv. I4i5b39; Lycophron 745. Aristot. Poet, iv regards both serious and comic poetry as originating ulti­ mately from ‘improvisations’.

138

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

appear to have been masked. The name sophistai certainly can apply to a body of musicians or poets as well as to individuals,1 and in Cratinus, Archilochoi, fr. 2, it is used of poets, though whether of the chorus of the play or not is uncertain ; in fr. 1 of Iophon it is used of the satyr-musicians accompanying Silenus, and it could probably be used of clever performers of any kind, many or single. It is not clear what Semus meant by saying that the autokabdaloi and their poems were afterwards called iamboi in the absence of any indication of date or place. There is no other instance of the word iamboi being applied to persons, though Athenaeus2 speaks of iambistai at Syracuse, as a local ‘musical’ institution. [Athenaeus ascribes the ethelontai to Thebes. It is possible that this normal word for volunteers has supplanted the technical Boeotian word in the text of Athenaeus3 and it is not necessary to suppose that Aristotle had Boeotian volun­ teers in mind when in Poet. ch. v he says that the performers of comedy were volunteers until the official institution of the festival. Two groups of Boeotian vases are relevant here. In the early sixth century4 we find dancers like those on Corinthian vases but occasionally so individually treated that the pictures must be inspired more by local performances than by imported Corinthian pottery. The second group5 are the Kabeiran vases which were found in the sanctuary of the Kabeiroi at Thebes. They belong to the second half of the fifth century b . c . and run over into the fourth. The men are fat and phallic, the women decently dressed but ugly and snub-nosed. The stories are mythological. It seems therefore probable that in Boeotia, too, early dances were transformed (perhaps under Attic influence) into comedy. Athenaeus gives phlyakes as the Italian version of deikelistai. Hesychius derives the word from phlyassein meaning ‘chatter’, but Radermacher’s6 derivation from phled ‘to teem with 1 In Pind. Isthm. v. 28 it is used of the singer, in Eur. Rhesus 924 of Thamyris. 2 181 c. 3 Cf. Körte, R.E. xi, col. 1221. 4 List of Monuments, Nos. 61-66. 5 Cf. Webster, Greek Theatre Production (1956), pp. 138 f. ; B.I.C.S., Supple­ mentary Paper, No. 9, p. 4. 6 Sb. Vienna, cci ( 1924), p. 7. Cf. Usener, Götternamen (1948), 242.

THE KÖMOS

*39

abundance5 is much more suggestive ; phleos and phleus are both titles of Dionysus and might well be applied to him as the god of the fat men. There is a little evidence for the fat men in Magna Graecia in the sixth century,1 and they may have been later the performers of Epicharmus’ comedy. Between Epicharmus’ successors and the padded phallic actors of the south Italian vases12 there is another gap; the vases cover the first three-quarters of the fourth century b . c . and were called phlyax vases when they were believed to be contemporary with Rhinthon, who lived in the time of the first Ptolemy (king of Egypt, 304-283 b . c .). Of the recorded writers of phlyakes,3 Rhinthon was a Tarentine and wrote parodies of Euripides in broad Doric. The other two known writers of phlyakes, Sotades of Maroneia and Sopater of Paphos, also lived in the third century and have no known connexion with Italy. Phlyakes seems therefore to have been a name given to writings in the Middle Comedy manner which continued in various places after Middle Comedy had been transformed into New Comedy. The only reasons for suggesting that Rhinthon (and his immediate Italian asso­ ciates) wrote for the padded men, now that the vases are known to be earlier, are Athenaeus’ equation of phlyakes with deikelistai and Radermacher’s derivation of the word. It is possible and even probable that the fat men in the West had the same kind of history as the fat men in Sparta and Boeotia, and that Rhinthon and his associates provided a kind of epilogue to that history; but in assessing their contribution to Attic comedy it must be remembered that from at least the late fifth century the West was wide open to the influence of Attic comedy. Before continuing to discuss the ithyphalloi and phallophoroi it will be convenient to note the other choruses of fat men even though we shall have to discuss some of them more fully later. For these Athenaeus gives us no names, but they existed 1 List of Monuments, Nos. 67-68. 2 Cf. G.T.P., pp. 98 f., 107 f., h i ff.; A. D. Trendall, ‘The Phlyax Vases’, B.I.C.S., Supplementary Paper, No. 8. 3 See Webster, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, xxxvi (1954), 571. The texts are in Kaibel, C.G.F.

140

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

in the seventh or early sixth century in Athens,1Corinth,2 and various cities in the islands and Asia Minor.3 The eastern choruses seem to have made no further development towards drama and are therefore only interesting as showing how widespread these early dances were. In Athens a straight line of development leads, as we shall see, to the chorus and actors of Old Comedy; in Corinth the performances persisted into the fourth century b .c .,4 and there we can say with some certainty that the phallic leader of the dancers5 became the actor of comedy and that comedy in Corinth was strongly influenced by Attic comedy. The early evidence for fat men in Athens and Corinth has already been discussed under tragedy. The problem to be considered later is whether these impersonators of fertility spirits could in due course have been differentiated into tragedy and comedy. This chapter started from a consideration of Aristotle’s derivation of comedy from ‘those who led phallic (songs)’. He never defines this more closely, and we cannot say whether what was sung by a chorus of fat men with a phallic leader could be regarded by him as a phallic song. Obviously the ithyphalloi and phallophoroi, who have phallus in their names, have a prior claim to consideration.] The ithyphalloi wore the masks of drunken men, and gar­ lands on their heads ; they wore also a tunic with a white stripe, and flowered (or gaily coloured) sleeves, and a tarantinon6—a fine transparent robe (mostly worn by women)— falling to the feet. Their own costume was not phallic, but they escorted a phallus (perhaps set on a pole) into the theatre, marching in silently, and then facing the audience and singing their song demanding ‘room for the god’ whom they escorted. Unfortunately, Semus tells us nothing of the ceremony nor even the name of the town in which the per­ formance took place : for it was obviously a formal ceremony, not a mere revel, though not dramatic ; and this appears to 1 List of Monuments, Nos. 9-16, 18. 2 Ibid., Nos. 34-43, 47-48. 3 Ibid., Nos. 75 Crete; 76 Cyprus ; 77-78 Rhodes; 79 Chios; 80-81 Naucratis; 83 Clazomenae; 84 Miletus (?) ; 70-71 Chalkis. Add now No. 109 Miletus. 4 Cf. Webster, G.T.P., pp. 135 f. 5 List of Monuments, No. 46. 6 [Cf. Herter, op. cit., n. 86 for various interpretations of the tarantinon.]

THE K Ö M O S

141

differentiate it from the behaviour of, for example, the festive young Athenians mentioned in Demosthenes’ speech Against Conon, who called themselves autolekythoi1or ithyphalloi, initiated themselves to Ithyphallos, and attacked and insulted respect­ able citizens in their revels. [But they may have been a parody of an official performance. The ithyphalloi are referred to by Hyperides2 and there they dance in the orchestra. They also sang the hymn in honour of Demetrius Poliorcetes when he returned in the guise of Dionysus.3 Two earlier vases4 may represent them : one is the black-figure cup of the mid-sixth century with a chorus of men with pointed caps and beards, wearing long chitons with a central stripe. The other is a redfigure fragment of about 480 b .c . with a man wearing a long chiton with ivy-leaf pattern and boots. He also wears an ivy wreath and holds a phallus-stick. A phallus springs from his forehead and another from his nose. There is no reason to doubt the existence of Attic ithyphalloi, but they tell us very little about comedy.] Is it otherwise with the phallophoroii These wore garlands of pansies and ivy on their heads,5 and hung flowers in front of their faces, but were not masked ; they were clad in thick wool-lined garments,6 and marched into the orchestra, some by the parodos, some by the central doors, keeping time and singing some iambic lines in which they profess to be offering to Bacchus an entirely new song—no doubt supposed to be improvised on the spot. They then ran up to any of the audience whom they chose to select and made fun of them. The phallophoros proper had his face disguised with soot. (Probably he carried, but did not wear, the phallus.) How far then does this account help us with regard to the origin of comedy? 1 Dem. in Conon., § 14. The meaning of autolekythoi (see Sandys’ commentary) is probably ‘men who carried their own lekythoV, instead of taking slaves with them, and so ‘gentlemen-tramps’ : cf. also Robert, Die Masken der neueren attischen Komödie, p. 24, n. 1, who quotes passages showing that the word con­ noted poverty. 2 Hyperides, fr. 50. 3 Athen. 253 c. 4 List of Monuments, Nos. 21, 22. 5 Gf. Plato, Symp. 212 e, where Alcibiades wears the same garland. 6 For kaunakai see Aristoph. Wasps 1137, &c., and Starkie’s note ad loc. They seem to have been made of thick cloth, lined with sheep-skin, and to have been worn by slaves and orientals.

142

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

In the first place it is not stated (as in the case of the ithyphalloi) of what performance Semus is speaking. Athenaeus states that phallophorai was the Sicyonian name for the general class of deikelistai. Whether Athenaeus’ authority for connect­ ing the phallophoroi with Sicyon was Semus or Sosibius or neither does not appear from the text: the quotation from Semus begins subsequently. The iambic lines of the song are not in the dialect of Sicyon, but in the conventional lyric dialect used by Attic poets.1 Bethe2 calls the phallophoroi ‘Delians’, and it is of course possible that Semus was de­ scribing what happened in his own home; but there is not much to be said for this view, as he was apparently writing a general treatise,3 and need not have been thinking of Delos in particular. Possibly the ceremony of the phallophoroi was of a common type, differing little from town to town. [But the paideros which Semus’phallophoroi wear on their forehead bands may point to Sicyon, as, according to Pausanias, it only grew there.4] In the second place, there are no dramatic elements in the ceremony apart from the costumes and the disguise. The performers impersonate no one, and remain themselves throughout. It is true that not too much stress must be laid upon this. For the part of the Old Comedy which the phallophoroi are usually supposed to explain is the parabasis (in the parabasis, which will be discussed more fully later, the leader of the chorus is sometimes the mouthpiece of the poet and claims a new kind of comedy, just as the phallophoroi claim that they sing a new song), and the parabasis may originally have been non-dramatic. On this point it is well to be as precise as possible. The statement sometimes made that at the beginning of the parabasis the chorus threw off their dramatic costume is false,5and while the ‘anapaests’ delivered 1 See above, p. 111.

2 Prolegomena zur Geschichte des griechischen

Theaters im Altertum (1896), p. 54. 3 The quotation is from the On Paeans of Semus, not from the Deliaka. 4 Pans. π. 10, 5; of. Herter, op. cit., n. 83. 5 [Where the chorus merely take off a piece of clothing or put down a piece of equipment, the object is simply freedom of movement {Peace 729, Lysistr. 637, 662, 686, in the parabasis; Wasps 408, Thesm. 655, outside the parabasis). Where no object for the verb ‘strip’ is expressed but the verb is followed by a dative {Ach. 627, Lysistr. 614), it is best taken metaphorically,

THE KÖMOS

143

by the leader are usually (not always)1irrelevant to the plot, the dramatic character is retained, as a rule, in the epirrhema and antepirrhema, though plenty of topical allusion and personal satire are combined with it. But the parabasis does make a break in the dramatic structure; and the fact that we can trace the steps by which Aristophanes attempted to work it better into the whole, suggests that if we were able to trace its development backwards, we should find that it was originally a non-dramatic performance, the executants of which only acquired a dramatic character when brought into union with actors of a really dramatic type and of different origin. But this does not really help us much, since the other points of contrast between the phallophoroi and the parabasis are very marked.2 In the third place, the form of the phallophoric ceremony is of an entirely different type from anything that we find in the parabasis. In the latter, after the delivery of the ‘anapaests’, there is a perfectly formal epirrhematic structure, the ode and epirrhema being followed by an antode and antepirrhema which exactly balance them. In the former, there is nothing to suggest any such symmetry ; and when we come to consider the phallic komos presented in the Acharnians (in many ways like that described by Athenaeus), we shall see that the phallic hymn there sung is unlike anything in the parabasis. Lastly, there is nothing in the parabasis, or indeed in comedy at all, to correspond to the black man who seems to be the exarchon of the phallophoroi, and who reminds us of the sweep or the black man (under whatever name) who is a figure in English mummings at Christmas and May Day, and in the rustic play of many other peoples.3 If it be suggested and again does not imply throwing off dramatic personality. (Nor does the unique Middle Comedy fragment, Alexis fr. 237).] 1 e.g. in the Birds. 2 [Cf., on the other hand, most recently T. Geizer, Antike und Abendland, viii (1959), 22 f.; Der epìrrhematische Agon bei Aristophanes, ^eternata 23, ( 1960), p. 210.] 3 It is sometimes thought that the Maypole itself began its career as a phallic emblem. Dr. Famell {Cults, v. 211) compares the black man of the phallophoroi with thepsoloeis or ‘sooty ones’ in a ceremony at Orchomenus (Plut. Quaest. Gr., ch. 38), and the blackened figure in the modern rural dramatic performance atViza (J.H.S. 1906, p. 191 ). I do not feel sure that the psoloeis are really parallel ;

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

that the black man and the. phallopkoroi correspond to the actor and chorus of comedy, it must be pointed out that though the black man carried a phallic emblem, there is nothing to show that he wore the phallus, whereas the Athenian comic actor did so.1 In fact the actor, as we shall see, has probably quite different affinities, and his whole costume was quite different from that of the phallophoroi. Accordingly we have no real points of contact between the phallophoroi of Semus and the Old Comedy, except that in both a chant or invocation was or might be followed by mockery of the bystanders; and the points of contrast are so marked, that though we may still connect comedy with some kind of primitive homos, this particular kind helps us little. It will be best to consider next a type of phallic ceremony not unlike that described by Semus, but certainly belonging to Athens itself. § 3. This ceremony is that which Aristophanes connects with the Rural Dionysia, and it cannot be ruled out of con­ sideration on the ground that the festival with which comedy was originally connected at Athens was the Lenaea.2 This may be true : but it is at least possible that the festival called they seem to belong to a more serious sphere, like the Melanthos of Eleutherae (see above, p. 120). It is very doubtful whether the phallic homos, at least in historical times, was usually more than a revel with little religious signifi­ cance. 1 This has been disputed by Thiele, Neue Jahrb. ix. 421, and others; but Aristoph. Clouds 537 ff. is unintelligible unless the practice were at least common, and it is not likely to have been common unless it were quite primitive and at one time essential. The schol. on Clouds 542 is probably right in saying Tt must be realized that all that he says can be said against himself. He intro­ duced phalli in the Lysistrata, Seed Passages in which the wearing of the visible phallus seems certain are Acharn. 158, 592; Wasps 1343; Lysistr. 991, 1077, &c. [Thiele’s position has been restated by W. Beare, C.Q. iv (1954), 64 ff.; vii (1957), 184; ix (1959), 126, and answered by me in C .Q .v (1955), 94 ff. and vii (1957), 185. Clouds 537 ff. does not give a choice between phallus and no phallus but between dangling phallus and looped phallus. All actors taking male parts wore the phallus but, of course, it might be concealed by long clothing.] 2 [The list of victors, however, gives the first comic poets at the City Dionysia about 487/6 B.c. and the first comic poets at the Lenaea about 440 B.c. (cf. Festivals, pp. 38, 72, 114). The argument must be, therefore (1) that the victor lists only refer to the contests in the theatre, (2) that comedy at the Lenaea was performed earlier in the Agora (see p. 145, n. 1), (3) that comedy at the Lenaea in the Agora went back earlier than Comedy at the City Dionysia.]

THE KÖMOS

145

at Athens by the name ‘Lenaea’ was the ‘Rural Dionysia’ of primitive Athens itself, and corresponded to the Dionysia ‘in the country’ of the rural demes. We believe that the Lenaea originally took place in or near the site of the later agora:1 but this was almost certainly north-west of the Acropolis, and outside the most primitive city, which lay mainly to the south and south-west of the Acropolis; so that the festival in fact took place ‘in the country’, although, when that district came to be included in the city, the rural character of the festival disappeared, and it was later transferred to the theatre on the south side of the Acropolis.12 Although, therefore, there is no direct evidence connecting a phallic procession, like that depicted by Aristophanes, with the Lenaea, but only some kind of procession in wagons, from which the riders jeered at the bystanders,3 it is at least likely to have included a phallic komos also, as the Rural Dionysia did. In the Acharnians (11. 241 if.) Aristophanes shows us Dicaeopolis celebrating the Rural Dionysia, with what is obviously a skeleton procession of the phallophoric type. Dicaeopolis’ daughter walks in front as kanephoros, with a basket probably containing the cakes and instruments for the 1 [In Festivals, pp. 36 f., the two points of connexion between the Lenaea (and Lenaion) and the Agora are given : (a) the scholiasts to Dem. de Cor. 129 associate the Lenaion with the shrine of the Heros Kalamites and the kleision, which one scholiast places in the Agora (the kleision is a very weak link here), (b) ‘Dionysiae contests’ were held in the orchestra in the Agora and later trans­ ferred to the theatre. There is no reason to suppose that the performances at the City Dionysia were ever held far from the precinct of Dionysus Eleuthereus; therefore the performances in the Agora are likely to have been those at the Lenaea (cf. my article in Rylands Bulletin, xlii (i960), 496).] 2 That the Lenaea was the same festival as the Rural Dionysia of other districts is also suggested by the fact that no Attic townships can be shown to have had both festivals; and, indeed, there would have been no object, from a religious or ritual point of view, in having two winter festivals of the same kind. See Farnell, Cults, v. 213. [In Festivals, loc. cit., Deubner’s view is quoted that the statement that the Lenaea was held ‘in the country’ may be a mistaken conflation of the facts that the Acharnians was acted at the Lenaea and contained Dicaeopolis’ Rural Dionysia. The statement is, however, found in Steph. Byz. s.v. Lenaios as well as in the Scholiasts to the Acharnians. The inclusion of the Agora in the city can hardly have been later than the seventh century (cf. I. T. Hill, The Ancient City o f Athens ( 1953), p. 5) but the Lenaea was in any case a very old festival as it was managed by the archon basileus.] 3 [The texts (Scholiast to Ar. Kts. 546-8, Suda lexicon, and Photius) are given in Festivals, p. 24, Nos. 8 and 10.] 6188

L

146

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

sacrifice; Xanthias (and another slave) follows carrying the phallus; Dicaeopolis acts chorus1 and sings the hymn to Phales, companion of Bacchus; his wife (representing the crowd) looks down from the roof The hymn contains one, if not two, satirical personalities, corresponding to the mockery of the bystanders described by Semus. What differ­ entiates this ritual from that recorded by Semus is that its central feature was evidently a sacrifice. It might also appear, at first sight, as if it were a purely domestic function. Dicaeo­ polis says (11. 247 ff.) : ‘And it is right, Lord Dionysus, if this my procession and my sacrifice with my household are pleas­ ing to you, that my rural Dionysia should bring me fortune.’ But, as the context shows, this is only because he has got his treaty all to himself, and therefore performs, all by him­ self (or with a few slaves), what should really be a social or choral ceremony; so that the parallelism with the ritual de­ scribed by Semus holds good. In neither is there anything dramatic ; the agents represent no one but themselves. [It should, however, be noted that in Semus’ description of the phallophoroi three important elements have no parallel in Aristophanes : (1) the phallophoroi (though not dramatic) are dressed up; (2) they run up and quiz the spectators ; (3) the phallophoros is covered with soot. Herter (op. cit., pp. 24 ff.) appears to equate Dicaeopolis’ rite with the ithyphalloi, but again the ithyphalloi were masked and specially dressed, whereas Dicaeopolis remains Dicaeopolis.] At the same time, the procession in the Acharnians does not really bear much more resemblance to anything in the form of comedy than does the ceremony described by Semus. We have a chant and in it (though not, as in the parabasis, after it also) there are satirical allusions of a personal kind; but the chant itself is of a very different type from anything in the parabasis. It has the look of those popular chants in which stanza might follow stanza to any length, so long as the singer’s stock of personalities lasted : the only parallel to it in 1 Körte (in R.E. xi, col. 12x9) seems to regard Dicaeopolis as the exarchon, without a chorus. There is no objection to this, unless it is that the title exarchon belongs more strictly to the phallophoros proper (here Xanthias) : Dicaeopolis is rather the coryphaeus. But Körte emphasizes the essential point, the entirely non-dramatic character of the homos as depicted.

THE KÒMOS

147

Aristophanes is found in the Iacchus song in the Frogs sup­ posed to be sung in procession to Eleusis ; but there are other instances in Greek literature,1 and it is in any case a very different thing from the strictly symmetrical double-form of the parabasis. The ridicule of the bystanders, or the satirical allusions, whether in Semus’ performance or in the Rural Dionysia of Dicaeopolis, offer a very slender thread of con­ nexion with comedy; for such ridicule occurred on many different occasions in Athenian life—on the return of the mystics from Eleusis, at the Anthesteria, at the Stenia, &c. ; and, quite apart from the ritual employment of abusive language,2 it may be suspected that any occasion on which Athenians came together to watch a merry procession was unlikely to pass without a good deal of banter between the performers and the bystanders.3 It seems, therefore, at least possible that Aristotle, if he was deriving comedy from ithyphalloi or phallophoroi, was once more theorizing, not recording an ascertained historical development. Knowing that the Old Comedy involved phallic actors, he came to his conclusion without realizing that in all probability the phallic actor of comedy was derived (as we shall see) from a quite different type of performance. But if the phallic kdmos as portrayed for us by Aristophanes and Semus cannot be shown to have had much to do with the beginnings of comedy, we are bound to ask whether any other form of kdmos is of more use for our purpose : for that comedy arose out of a kdmos in some sense the name itself does not permit us to doubt. § 4. Before proceeding directly with this problem it will be well to inquire rather more closely into its conditions. For it is not the parabasis alone for which we have to account. Assuming (for reasons which will appear later) that the iambic scenes, a series of which for the most part succeed the 1 See Cornford, op. cit., p. 40, for some interesting parallels. Such chants often have a refrain, in which the revellers join, while the leader extemporizes words leading up to it. In Dicaeopolis’ chant, there is no trace of such a refrain, but the chant is of a kind which might go on indefinitely, if it had not been broken off by the irruption of the chorus. 2 I cannot subscribe to the view that the origin of such ridicule or abuse was always in ritual. 3 See Nilsson, Gr. Fest., p. 282.

148

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

parabasis, are not to be explained by reference to the kómos, and neglecting for the moment the prologue and all that precedes the entrance of the chorus, we find closely connected together in an Aristophanic play (i) a scene in which the chorus enters, not infrequently in some haste and excitement, and which we may conveniently term theparodos;1 (2) a scene of conflict, calming down to a formal debate or agon, which ends with the victory of one party in the dispute ; (3) the parabasis. These scenes are all for the most part in long metres (anapaestic, iambic, or trochaic tetrameters, or occasionally Eupolideans or long verses nearly allied), and they present in greater or less perfection the symmetrical structure which is known as epirrhematic,12 and though Aristophanes (who represents the last stage in the development of the Old Comedy) varies this structure in many ways, and is never closely tied to strict symmetry except in the parabasis, it is plain that he is basing his variations on a more or less definite conventional form, and that in the parabasis he was much more strictly bound by it. The kind of kómos to which this points is one in which the chorus enters singing and excited ; a dispute arises—and is fought out, at first violently, and then by a debate in set form ; judgement is given, and the revellers, having so far been concerned with themselves only, now address themselves to the audience, in the conventional form of the parabasis, consisting essentially of an address, not con­ cerned with the subject of the dispute, followed by an epir­ rhematic system (ode, epirrhema, antode, antepirrhema), the two speeches included in this being topical or satirical. Now it seems virtually certain that parodos, agon, and parabasis form one whole, and it is probably a mistake to inquire whether the agón or the parabasis is the earliest or most essential element, though much trouble has been ex­ pended on this problem;3 and there is obviously a presump1 The name has no ancient authority in connexion with comedy, and dif­ ferent modern writers use it to cover varying portions of the first half of a play. See Excursus for details. 2 See later. 3 Cf. Mazon, Essai sur la Composition des Comédies d’Aristophane (1904), p. 174; Zielinski, Die Gliederung der altattischen Komödie (1885), P· *86; Kaibel in R.E. ii, col. 987; Poppelreuter, op. cit., pp. 32 ff.; Körte in R.E. xi, col. 1247; Herter,

THE KÖMOS

149

tion in favour of the normal order, as found in the Old Comedy, having been the original one. If the parabasis was once the opening of the performance, as some scholars sup­ pose, it is difficult to account for the existence of a more or less regular manner of entry in the scenes preceding the debate : but there seems to be no difficulty in imagining an excited homos-like entry, followed by (or bringing with it) a dispute, or in the disputants then calming down to the debating-temper, and when the debate is over talking at large to the crowd.1 (In the parabasis of the play they usually solicit the favour of the audience for the poet; in the homos, especially if they were expecting gifts, they would ask it for themselves.) There is, however, a certain difficulty about the debate or dispute. For in the plays of Aristophanes the dispute is only exceptionally (in fact, only in the Lysistrata) a dispute between two semi-choruses ; and that this was not the original form is almost proved by the dislocation of the normal structure which is thereby entailed.2 The dispute is either between one personage and the chorus, or between two characters, one of whom is closely connected with the chorus and is virtually their representative. Probably then the dispute may, in the op. cit., pp. 33 f. The view taken above is (so far) the same as that of Zielinski; the arguments to the contrary appear to be very inconclusive. The fact that the form of the agon is more liable to vary than that of the parabasis suggests that the epirrhematic form is more essential to the latter and probably there­ fore originally belonged to it and was transferred to the agon. [Cf., however, Geizer, Der epirrhematische Agon bei Aristophanes, p. 209.] 1 The word parabasis does not seem to be a real obstacle to this view. It (or the verb, which is used in Acharn. 629, &c.) need not denote the first entrance on to the scene; it may equally mark the point where the revellers, having so far been entirely engaged with one another, turn to address the bystanders or audience. I find it difficult to accept the view of Radermacher (Ar. Frösche, p. 34) that it denotes a ‘march past’. 2 The normal form of parabasis is entirely destroyed. I cannot (with Cornford, op. cit., pp. 125, &c.) treat the parabasis of the Lysistrata, in which two semi-choruses are opposed, as the original form of parabasis, or the parabasis as originally an agon. The Lysistrata is quite unique among the plays of Aristo­ phanes in this respect; there is nowhere else any trace of opposition within the parabasis, and the only other instance of a sharp distinction between two semi-choruses is in the Odysses of Cratinus as (not quite convincingly) recon­ structed by Kaibel, Hermes, xxx. 71 ff. (esp. 79 ff.). The division of opinion in the Acharnians is quite momentary. [Cf., however, below, pp. 160 f. on Cratinus’ Archilochi.'}

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

original kómos, have been between one of the revellers and the rest, and any set debate may have been between this one and a champion or representative of the rest. If this is so, it is not easy to accept the solution offered by Navarre,1 who thinks that the kómos which gave rise to comedy was a phallic kómos, such as Semus describes ; that the dispute began when the revellers began to chaff the bystanders ; that the latter produced their champion, and so the brawl arose, and, as they calmed down, the debate. This does not really correspond to the facts of the Old Comedy, in which the addresses to the bystanders do not occur until the parabasis is reached : in the agon there is no consciousness of the audience ; the kómos is there self-contained. Nor is it satisfactory to account for the fact that the comic chorus consisted of twenty-four members (instead of twelve as in early tragedy) by supposing that it was really a double chorus, half represent­ ing the phallic revellers, half the bystanders : for, again, there is nothing in the Old Comedy to support this idea; the chorus generally speaks (through its leader) as a whole, and the fact that on some of the occasions when the members of a proces­ sion chaffed the bystanders (e.g. on the road to Eleusis) the latter seem to have joined in and retaliated, does not really prove anything as regards comedy. May not the explanation of the large number of the chorus lie in the nature of a kómos? Twelve would make a very thin kómos. Now it must be admitted without reserve that we have no direct evidence for the existence of the exact kómos which we want to explain the epirrhematic parts of comedy : but in truth the existence of a form so persistent in type as that of the Parodos-Agon-Parabasis structure can almost itself be taken as evidence for the existence of a kómos of a similar type before the Old Comedy (which combines this with scenes of a quite different origin) was produced : and along with this komos-sequence, we must postulate the existence of a conven­ tional epirrhematic form—surely a very simple and natural form—associated with it.2 This assumption, though of course 1 Rev. É t. Am. xiii (1911), 245 if. to discuss whether Sieckmann is right in supposing that the parabasis borrowed the epirrhematic form from the agon, or Körte in

2 It seems unprofitable

TH E KÖMOS

151

it is conjectural, seems more satisfactory than the attempt to extract comedy from the performance of the phallophoroi, which meets the required conditions so badly : and we may therefore provisionally suppose that comedy arose, not out of the specifically phallic element in the Lenaea (which may have b e e n like Dicaeopolis’ procession at the Rural Dionysia), but more probably out of a kómos associated with the festival, taking a form something like that which we have postulated.1 § 5. There is, however, one type of kómos known to us which partly meets our conditions, and accounts for some elements in early Attic comedy which we have so far left out of account; and this may be thought of either as a variety of the kómos whose existence we have postulated above, or as another type which was also pressed into the service of comedy, and blended with the one which we have imagined. This type, which existed in Athens, as well as in other parts of the Greek world,2 was one in which the revellers masqueraded as supposing that the agon borrowed it from the parabasis. If either borrowed, it was probably the agon, as suggested above (p. 148), since the strict form is only consistently preserved in the parabasis (see later, pp. 197 ff.). But it may have been a conventional form used with different degrees of strictness for the whole performance. (I am not convinced by Zielinski’s attempt to show (Glied., pp. 235 ff.) that the epirrhematic form is derived from music in which flute and voice performed alternately.) In any case, on the assumption that comedy derives something from such a ßömoi-sequence as we have postulated, it is confirmatory of the close association with that sequence of the long tetra­ meter metres which the epirrhematic form employs, to find that in the plays of Aristophanes the chorus (or its coryphaeus) takes no part in the scenes in iambic trimeters in any play before the Peace, and when the coryphaeus does so in the Peace, it is still in long metres that he speaks. In and after the Birds he sometimes speaks in iambic trimeters. 1 It may seem inconsistent that after rejecting the ritual-sequence by which Professor Murray would explain tragedy, I should put forward a hypothetical komos-seqaence as the explanation of comedy. But there are two differences: (x) I do not think that Professor Murray’s ritual-sequence does explain tragedy; (2) I think there is enough evidence—it will be given below—to show that something like the Aomoj-sequence may really have existed, while I can see no such evidence for the ritual of the Eniautos-Daimon. 2 For very early animal dances in Greece see A. B. Cook, J.H.S. xiv. 81 ff.; Bosanquet, ibid. xxi. 388; P. Cawadias, Fouilles de Lycosure (Athens, 1893), p. 11, pi. XV (showing a procession of various animals headed by flute-player on robe of the goddess of Lycosura) ; cf. also the girls who sacrificed to Artemis at Brauron as arktoi (bears) (Schol. Ar. Lysistr. 645; Harp. s.v. arkteusai; Suda s.v. arktoi) ; and cf. Mannhardt, Mythologische Forschungen (1884), pp. 143 ff., and Poppelreuter, loc. cit., for illustration of this kind of dance from Germany

i

52

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

animals, or rode on animals, or carried about an animal as, so to speak, their representative. Indeed, the practice of dressing up in the guise of animals is worldwide; in some countries it may go back to a totemistic origin; in others (or in the same) it may be connected with magic rites for securing the fertility of the ground or of the human species ; and very often, probably oftener than anthropologists always allow, it may have been done just for fun, either because any religious reason for the custom had long been forgotten, or (perhaps more often) because the child in mankind dies hard. The evidence for the existence of the animal masquerade in Athens has been well marshalled by Poppelreuter in his small but valuable dissertation de Comoediae Atticae primordiis, in which he uses in part material already published by Mr. Cecil Smith.1This evidence must be briefly recalled. In the British Museum there is a black-figure oenochoe,2 represent­ ing a flute-player with two dancers disguised as birds ; it is a t least probable that the painting represents a primitive birdchorus, the two dancers standing for the whole chorus, in accordance with the conventions of vase-painting. The date of the vase is placed roughly between 500 and 480 b.c., and there is thus a possibility of its being anterior to the earliest state-recognized performance of comedy in 486 b.c.3 Again, an amphora of the same time, now in Berlin,4 though less striking, has also, along with a flute-player, two figures which seem to be wearing crests and wattles like cocks,5 though there is a strong likeness to pigs about their faces ; they wear long cloaks, but these might be thrown off in dancing and reveal a complete bird-costume or some grotesque half­ animal appearance. [Various other vases may be mentioned here. A skyphos in the Boston Museum6 has men riding on dolphins on one side and other countries. There are plenty of instances of such dances in which the dancers ridiculed the bystanders and prominent men as part of the perfor­ mance. 1 J.H.S. ii, pi. xiv, pp. 309 ff. 2 List of Monuments, No. 26. 3 See below, p. 189. 4 List of Monuments, No. 27. 5 Cf. Dieterich, Pulcinella (1897, esp. pp. 237 if.), for the history of the cockcostume. It would take us too far to discuss his theory that Mr. Punch is the remote descendant of the cock-masks of early Greece and Italy. 6 List of Monuments, No. 25.

THE KÖMOS

153

and men riding on ostriches on the other. The date is in the neighbourhood of 500 b .c. The helmeted riders have enor­ mous cloaks, which can be seen again on the warriors on vases in Brooklyn and Würzburg of much the same date and are worn by civilians on a much earlier vase of about 560 in New York;1 they seem to be special cloaks and not ordinary wear. It is tempting to connect the line in Aristophanes’ Danaides (fr. 253) ‘the chorus used to dance, having pinned on rugs and blanket-bags’, but there may be no link. How the dolphins and the ostriches were actually produced we cannot say; the painter has painted the real animals and not what the audience saw. In the ostrich picture a little Pan, also in a big cloak, appears between the chorus and their flute-player; he meets them and perhaps addresses them. He is the one hint that these performances may not have been purely choral. A black-figure vase2 of about 530 in Christchurch has another such chorus, though here the flute-player is left out. Five men with short red chitons, pointed hats, beards, and breastplates, one of leather, the rest of animal skins, are on stilts like the Laconian Gypones.z It is possible that they are Giants or Titans, and it is worth remembering that the chorus of Cratinus’ Ploutoi was formed of Titans. A curious passage in Lucian, de Salt. 79, speaks of Bacchic dances in Ionia and Pontus in which the performers, who are men of the highest birth and rank and take great pride in the rite, impersonate Titans, Corybants, Satyrs,' and Boukoloi ; Boukoloi are prob­ ably not herdsmen but Bacchic votaries (in Athens the marriage of Dionysus and Basilinna was performed in the Boukolion). The fact that the nobles performed these dances may make them very old; it is interesting that all the names except Corybants are titles of comedies by Cratinus.] Another Attic amphora in Berlin,4 which was bought in Rome, and according to Panofka probably came from Caere, presents a flute-player in a long robe, and facing him, three bearded men, wearing loosely the masks of horses (their own faces appearing below) and horses’ tails and stooping down 1 Ibid., Nos. 28-30. 3 See below, p. 166 f.

2 Ibid., No. 24. 4 List of Monuments, No. 23 .

154

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

with their hands on their knees. On the back of each is a helmeted rider, wearing a breastplate ; the riders’ hands are raised as though to strike their steeds. Here we cannot fail to recognize a comic chorus of knights on horseback, and it was probably just such a performance that Aristophanes adapted to his use in the K n ig h ts . For as Poppelreuter (partly following Zielinski)1 points out, the chorus in that play certainly had steeds of some sort, and the lines (595-610) which they address to their horses in the parabasis gain immensely in point if the ‘horses’ were really men on whose backs they were riding. The vase is in the early black-figure style and more than a century earlier than the K n ig h ts , and affords good evidence of the familiarity of Athens with the kind of mas­ querade which appears in the play ; and when we remember how many choruses of fifth-century comedy were disguised as animals, we can have little hesitation in finding in the animal masquerade one of the roots of the Old Comedy. (Magnes appears to have written B ir d s , F ro g s, and G a ll-flie s :12· Aristo­ phanes himself wrote the W a s p s , B ir d s , F ro g s, and S to r k s : there were the B e a s ts of Crates, the G o a ts of Eupolis, the A n ts of Plato, the A n ts and N ig h tin g a le s of Cantharus, and the F ish e s of Archippus.) Our information does not enable us to connect such animal choruses with any particular festival. Probably they could attach themselves to any occasion of popular enjoyment; and it is perhaps not a very extravagant supposition that they may have come to form part of the Lenaea; and, though of course this is only conjecture, it has not the difficulties of the attempt to extract comedy from the phallic processions. We cannot, indeed, show that any special song or any form of contest was connected with these animal dances ; for this we have to rely partly on the analogy of the animal dances of other peoples,3 which certainly included satirical attacks on the bystanders ; partly on the strong probability that such merry-making would be accompanied by song; and partly on what we know of other varieties of the animal-k o m o s in Greek lands. O f these, the most helpful is one 1 Die Gliederung der altatt. Komödie, p. 163. Zielinski shows that the descrip­ tion of the arrival of the chorus proves that steeds of some kind were employed. 2 See later, p. 191. 3 See above, p. 151, n. 2.

THE K ÖMOS

I55

to which attention has been called by Radermacher,1 and which is described in the scholia to Theocritus.12 The description is that of a kómos of boukoliastai at Syracuse, at a festival of Artemis Lyaia. (In the worship of Artemis at Syracuse various ceremonies seem to have been held, which at Athens were associated rather with Dionysus.) The revellers carried round a great loaf, on which all kinds of animal shapes were fashioned, and other objects; they them­ selves wore stags’ horns and carried throwing-staffs ; there was some kind of contest of song between members of the kömos, and the unsuccessful party went round the villages jesting, collecting gifts of food, and invoking good luck on those who gave to them. The words of the scholiast are as follows : The true story is this. In Syracuse there was once a revolution and many citizens were corrupted and, when finally the mob returned to concord, Artemis seemed to be the cause of the reconciliation. The rustics brought gifts and sang songs to the goddess in their joy. After that they gave a place as a matter of custom to the songs of the rustics. They say they sang, having strung on to them bread with figures of animals, a wallet full of all kinds of seeds, and wine in a goat-skin; they poured libations to those who met them; they wore a wreath and stags’ horns in front, and held a throwing-staff (lagóbolon) in their hands. The victor took the bread of the van­ quished, and he remained in the city, the vanquished went into the villages collecting sustenance for themselves. They sang sportive and ludicrous songs and ended : ‘Receive good fortune, receive health, which we bring from the goddess, which she calls down.’

The account given by the scholiast contains many rather obscure features, which this is not the place to discuss :3 but 1 Beitr. zur Volkskunde aus dem Gebiet der Antike, pp. 114 if., and Aristoph. Frösche, pp. 4-14; cf. Reitzenstein, Epigramm und Skolion, pp. 194 ff.; [Herter, op. cit., p. 33.] 2 Ed. Wendel, p. 2 [App.]. 3 The whole affair (despite the aetiological story attached to it) reminds us of the companies of children collecting gifts and wishing good luck on May morning, and the similar rounds made by early (and modern) Greek children carrying a swallow (and singing the swallow-song) or a crow (Phoenix of Colo­ phon, fr. 2: Powell, Coll. Alex., p. 233). Radermacher (Ar. Frösche, loc. cit.) notices these, and also a procession, which perhaps took place at Naxos, of young men carrying a fish. (Is it fanciful to remember also the organ-grinder’s

156

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

what is clear is that we have here a komos of revellers wearing an animal head-dress, including an agon among the revellers themselves, and ending with something not unlike the exodos of some Aristophanic comedies. We cannot show that the Athenian animal-masqueraders held such an agon, though it is likely enough that as they departed from the scene they wished their friends good luck; but a fragment of Aristo­ phanes3 Danaides1 (also noticed by Radermacher) speaks of a time when the chorus in rugs and blankets danced with all kinds of things good to eat packed under the arms: ‘The chorus used to dance, having pinned on rugs and blanketbags, carrying beef and sausages and radishes under their arms.’ We have here a definite point of contact between the Sicilian and Athenian komoi, and the resemblance may well have extended to other features. At least the evidence leaves us free to maintain provisionally our conjecture that some form of Athenian komos may, like the Syracusan, have included a kind of agon,2 which early comic poets might develop. This would be more satisfactory than to suppose3 that the agon of the Attic Old Comedy (in which the chorus always assisted, if only as judges) was borrowed from the agon as developed by Epicharmus, with whom the agon does not seem to have been an element in a larger structure.4 Such an account of monkey?) In the Anecd. Estense, iii (Wendel, op. cit., p. 7), the story is repeated verbatim, but the horns and throwing-staffs are conjectured to be imitative of Pan as the shepherd’s deity. (But did Pan wear stag’s horns?) In the account of the proceedings given by Diomedes {Gramm. Lat. i. 486, Keil) the contest took place in the theatre, but this was probably a later development. The procession (like similar komoi in other countries) was doubtless believed really to bring good luck: see Nilsson, Gr. Fest. pp. 200 if.: and for medieval and modern komoi in Greek lands involving both an agon and a procession collecting gifts, see Nilsson, Neue Jahrb. xxvii. 677-82, and above pp. 121 f. (the per­ formance at Viza). On modern parallels to the stage-disguise see Nilsson, Arch. Rei. xix. 78; Schneider, ibid. xx. 89 ff., and other refs, there given. 1 Fr. 253 K. 2 The fondness of the Greeks for an agon needs no proof. Navarre {Rev. Ét. Anc. loc. cit.) regards Aristophanes’ Frogs, 1. 395, as showing that the Gephyrismos on the return from Eleusis involved a contest (evidently of wit), the victor in which was crowned with a tainia. (Such a tainia is found in Art in the hands ofNike.) This is possible; but it may be that the passage is really a prayer of the chorus for the victory of the play which they were acting. 3 With Sieckmann and others. 4 See below, pp. 200.

THE KÖMOS

*57

the earliest stages in the development of comedy would also have the advantage that, though k ö m o id ia is derived from kö m o s and not from körne , it would recognize some measure of truth in the persistent tradition (mentioned by Aristotle and recurring down to late Byzantine times) which associated the rudiments of comedy with the village, and in the expressions used by some early g r a m m a tic i, who also knew of a tradi­ tion of comedy as once a begging-procession. This tradition was known to Varro,1 and is also found in Tzetzes, who, though his authority for this statement cannot be traced, sometimes preserves scraps of historical information of some value. It is perhaps not carrying conjecture too far to suggest that such masqueraders as we have been considering may not have confined themselves to animal disguises, but may have represented, for example, foreigners, just as modern children (and not children only) dress up as Negroes or Red Indians.12 The choruses of Magnes included a chorus of Lydians ; Aristophanes wrote a B a b y lo n ia n s , Pherecrates a P ersian s', and these may have had their forerunners in some masquerade. From foreigners it would not be a very great step to the representation of groups with well-marked characteristics— h a rp -p la y e rs , A c h a rn ia n s, P ro s p a ltia n s , and so on. The end of the kö m o s from which comedy sprang was, no doubt, the departure of the revellers, marching or dancing as the case might be, possibly with a song of victory raised by the party who had won the contest and perhaps shared by all. The exodos of the comedies of Aristophanes varies in type, and will be discussed later ;3 it is never epirrhematic, and was probably not derived from a primitive fórnoi-sequence; but a song of victory occurs in it several times, though it must be admitted that it is likely that the victory of which the song speaks is (as a rule) the anticipated victory of the comedy 1 Diomedes, de Poemat. ix. 2 (Kaibel, C.G.F. i, p. 57) ; Tzetzes, Prooem. de Comoed. (Kaibel, op. cit., p. 27). Varro’s authority was doubtless some Greek writer earlier than himself. 2 Whatever may have been the case with phallika, the object of which was probably at first magical or religious, it may be suspected that the psychological explanation of the kòmos was much more often the love of fun. 3 pp. 211 f.

158

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

over its rivals; and there are generally vivid anticipations of a feast. These are features which familiarity with such a komos as we have been discussing would render natural. The result, then, of the foregoing discussions is the hypo­ thesis that the epirrhematic portions of the Old Comedy are an adaptation of a native Athenian komos (possibly of more than one variety of kómos) in the course of which some kind of contest developed, and in which it had become customary to conclude with addresses, no doubt in part satirical or jesting, to those standing by; and that in these addresses and the chants which preceded them, as well as in the agon and the lively entrance scene, the epirrhematic structure, employed with varying degrees of strictness, had become conventional. Such a hypothesis would account for this distinct and co­ herent section of comedy, and there is, at any rate, some evidence for it in the facts and the passages which have been adduced. It should be added that Aristophanes once or twice intro­ duces a different kind of agon from that which arises as it were naturally out of the komos, viz. the agon between such abstract conceptions as the Just and Unjust Argument, and between Poverty and Wealth. Such contests of abstractions may also have been employed by Epicharmus,1 and there are instances in Alexandrian times, when the contest was virtually a self-contained little work.12 (It may also have been such in Epicharmus.) Aristophanes may thus have availed himself of what was possibly a popular form of entertainment, whether among Dorian or other peoples.3 If we knew for certain in what guise such abstract conceptions appeared on the stage, we might be able to judge whether they could be supposed to have any connexion with the komos, or whether (as seems most likely) they belonged to the same type as the Dorian mime: but the scholia which profess to give us this information about the Just and Unjust Argument possibly 1 See below, pp. 271 f. 2 e.g. the episode in Callimachus’ Iambi on the dispute of the Olive and the Laurel; and see below, p. 272. 3 Perhaps an agon of this kind occurred in the Persae of Pherecrates, but the context of the fragments is not certain.

TH E KÖMOS

159

(though not necessarily) contradict one another, and neither tells us quite enough to be useful.1 The kómos almost certainly can have had no prologue, and probably no actor who was more than temporarily distinct from the general body of the revellers ; but this temporary distinctness of one (or two) of them for the purposes of the agon would render the introduction of a regular actor easy when the kómos took more definite shape as comedy. It is plain that in all this we are but theorizing, as Aristotle was ; but it may be that our theory is as near the truth as his; it does not claim to be more than an attempt at a more satis­ factory hypothesis. [This argument has been left as it stood in the first edition. It must be noted first how insufficient the link between the performance in Syracuse and either Attic animal choruses or Attic comedy is : (a) the introduction of the scholiast and the language of the hymn does not suggest a date before the fifth century; (b) these ‘stags’ have a special relation to Artemis, the goddess of stags, like that of ‘goats’ ( = satyrs) to Dio­ nysus; they are not an animal chorus in the sense required ; (c) there is no parallel between their bread, wallet, and wine­ skin, which they, as far as we know, carried openly, and the food referred to in the Aristophanes fragment (fr. 253 K), of which the natural interpretation is that their voluminous wrappings concealed the meat, sausages, and radishes ; (d) there is no sign of ‘quizzing’ the spectator ; (e) the contest is a contest of solo songs to see which of the participants can sing best, not a clash of views as in the agon of comedy. Secondly, while there is no doubt that the animal choruses, &c., were taken over into comedy, there is no hint of what they sang. The one possibility of an agon in our pictures of animal choruses is given by the little Pan who advances from the flute-player towards the chorus of men on ostriches (List of Monuments, No. 25). He provides the extraneous element which could produce an agon. Thirdly, the animal choruses and the other rather special 1 Schol. Ven. on Aristoph. Clouds 889 says that the two logoi were brought on in cages like fighting-cocks. The Schol. on 1. 1033 says that ‘they were brought on in human shape’.

i6o

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

choruses do not account for the ordinary male and female choruses of comedy and we have to ask here whether a secularization of the Attic choruses of fat men representing fertility spirits and fat women representing nymphs may not provide an answer. A double chorus of fat men and nymphs for which we have archaeological evidence1certainly provides an opportunity for an agon as in the L y s is tr a ta . It is probable that the fat men in Athens had an exarchon like their phallicor satyr-leader in Corinth, and this again would provide the possibility of an agon . Could Aristotle’s p h a llik a be a loose term which included all these performances? Fourthly, the question of what we know about other poets’ use of the Parodos-Agon-Parabasis sequence has to be con­ sidered. The evidence has been conveniently collected by Miss M. Whittaker,12 and only the instances relevant to the immediate discussion are quoted here. Cratinus’ A rch ilo ch o i ( ? 4 4 9 B.G .) apparently had a chorus of poets who supported Homer and Hesiod (fr. 2) and a chorus of supporters of Archilochus, so that the assumption of an agon between the two choruses (frs. 6 and 7) in this, our earliest remains of a comic agon , is very likely. Pieters3also suggests a double chorus for the T h ra c ia n W o m e n (442 b.c.), Thracian women and Boeotian men (fr. 5 D, 310 K, 73a Edmonds). In the O d y sse s (? 439-7 b.c.) the chorus are the sailors of Odysseus (frs. 1:38-9, 144) and the agon must have developed between Odysseus and the Cyclops, i.e. between the exarchon of the chorus and an outsider. Kaibel, followed by Pieters and Edmonds, assumes a second chorus, of Cyclopes, to ask the Cyclops who has blinded him (459 K = 148 Edmonds) ; this is certainly a possibility. Two fragments may be parabatic in the sense of talking out of character about the poet : 145 K, ‘brought on as a new toy’, which is referred to the ship of Odysseus and on metrical grounds placed near 144 K (the entry of Odysseus’ sailors) and 146 K, which seems to be a trochaic tetrameter referring to the poet’s originality. (It is 1 List of Monuments, Nos. 10, 18. 2 C.Q..XXÌX (1935), 181 if. The agon is examined by Geizer, Der epirrhematische Agon bei Aristophanes, p. 179 ff. 3 Kratinos, pp. 35, 167.

THE K Ö M O S

ι6ι

doubtful whether any reliance is to be placed on Platonius’ dating to the end of the Old Comedy period or to his ap­ parent implication that the play had neither choral songs nor parabasis.1) In the Ploutoi (? 436 b .c .)2 the chorus of Titans apparently discuss the possibility of the play being victorious and then announce their own identity and later prepare to take part in the ensuing debate (? the agon). In the agon of the Boukoloi (fr. 17) the chorus describe some threatening antagonist. In the Dionysalexandros (according to the hypo­ thesis)3 the chorus of satyrs apparently mock and jeer at Dionysus (and this is presumably the agori) and talk to the spectators about poets (this may be parabasis in the strict sense of the chorus throwing off its character and talking about the poet; but it seems to have occurred before the presumed agon). Fragments of parabasis survive from the Malthakoi (fr. 98), Trophonios (fr. 222), Pylaia (fr. 169), and Didaskaliai (fr. 36) : the last two are parabatic in the special sense of referring to the poet’s own experiences. O f the other poets who preceded Aristophanes or overlapped with him the traces of parabasis are of both kinds, in character—Teleclides, frs. 2, 4, Pherecrates, fr. 29 (perhaps also 122 ?), Eupolis, frs. 14, 120 (and the papyrus fragment, 11. 1-32),4 161-2, 290-2; out of character and referring to the poet himself’ Pherecrates, frs. 79, 96, Lysippus, fr. 4, Eupolis, fr. 78 (perhaps 37). On this evidence and the evidence of Aristophanes the following statements may be cautiously made: ( i ) The epirrhematic structure in its strictest form probably is very old: sung ode, recited epirrhema in a long metre ; antode, recited antepirrhema in a long metre. The minimum essentials for performance are either (i) chorus and exarchon, or (ii) chorus and antagonist, or (iii) two choruses each with its exarchon. (2) In looking for origins too much weight must not be 1 ap. Kaibel, C.G.F., pp. 5, 12; 4, 7. Pieters, op. cit., pp. 35, 135 ff. 2 Page, Greek Literary Papyri (1942), No. 38; Edmonds, Nos. 162 A , 163; Pubblicazioni della Società Italiana, xi, No. 1212; Mazon, MélangesBidez, ii (1934), 103. 3 Oxyrh. Pap. 663; Edmonds, p. 32. 4 Page, op. cit.. No. 40; Edmonds, f r s . n o a , b . 6188

M

162

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

placed on the fact th a t in the five earliest plays of Aristo­ phanes the chorus abandon their dramatic character in the parabasis and speak of the poet. The O d y sse s of Cratinus may have had no parabasis (in the sense of reference out of character to the poet), and in the P lo u to i and perhaps the D io n y sa le x a n d ro s this matter seems to have been inserted else­ where in the play. The sequence p a r o d o s , a gón , ‘epirrhematic structure’ may very well be old, but the introduction to the ‘epirrhematic structure’ need not originally and essentially have been parabasis in the special sense. (3) In the earliest plays that we know of (and in most of the plays of Aristophanes) the a gon is between the leader or champion of the chorus and an antagonist (who at least in Cratinus’ A rc h ilo c h o i and the L v s is tr a ta leads a rival chorus). The a gon in which neither participant has a direct connexion wtih the chorus {F ro g s) may be a late development. (4) The leader of the rival chorus is not the only kind of antagonist for which an origin outside official comedy or before official comedy may be suggested. The chorus may revolt against its own leader or champion; the satyrs mocking and jeering at Dionysus in Cratinus’ D io n y sa le x a n d ro s have an ancestor in Aeschylus’ satyr-play I s th m ia s ta i and perhaps a more remote one in the Laconian satyrs who danced in fear ‘under’ the Silens on Malea. Thirdly, the ostrich-riders of the Attic black-figure vase1 are met by a little Pan who may fairly be termed an antagonist. Much earlier in Mycenaean times a figure like a padded dancer interrupts the agricultural chorus on the steatite vase from Hagia T ria d a 2 and I think we may therefore suppose that the interrupter-antagonist is very old, whatever form his interruptions took in predramatic dances.]

ii. Dorian

elements: Susarion

§ i . There is a considerable part of the Old Comedy which the komoSy whether phallic or other, is powerless to explain; and we have therefore to return to the consideration of the 1 List of Monuments, No. 25. 2 Ibid., No. 104; cf. the satyr on No. 38.

D O R IA N E L E M E N T S : S U S A R IO N

163

view which derives at least some elements in it from Dorian sources. We have already seen that the Spartan deikelistai, whose likeness in the fourth century to the later mime-actors is clear from Plutarch and Hesychius, gave performances which had some points in common with Attic comedy, presenting such scenes as the advent of the itinerant physician with his nostrums, the detection of the orchard-robber or the thief who stole the meat after the feast—all of them characters in the real life of the times. The mimes of later times were not specially connected with the worship of Dionysus, and there was no trace in them of satire of personalities at the expense of the audience ; they were short and had little or nothing in the way of a plot of connected scenes ; and possibly these characteristics belonged also to the later performances of the deikelistai, though there is no evidence beyond what has already been given. These performances (at whatever stage they ceased to be dances and became acting) in any case must have been really dramatic, and in character throughout; and if Attic comedy grew from the combination of these and other more or less similar representations with the non-dramatic komos, we should have an explanation of the source from which the dramatic element in comedy came. § 2. Another link appears to connect Attic comedy with Sparta, though the precise history of the connexion is no longer to be traced. In the course of their excavations at Sparta in 1906, the members of the British School at Athens discovered a large number of clay masks,1 most of which appear to belong, roughly speaking, to the period between 600 and 550 b . c . They were doubtless votive copies of the actual masks worn by the performers of some ritual dance in honour of Ortheia, in whose sanctuary they were found and to whom they must 1 The members of the School kindly showed me these when I was at Sparta in 1909, and I afterwards had the advantage of discussing the whole subject with the late Capt. Guy Dickins. A short account of the masks by Prof. Dawkins and Mr. Bosanquet is to be found in the B.S.A. xii. 324 if., 338 if. The relevant literary references are practically all collected by Nilsson, Gr. Fest., pp. 182 ff.; and in Neue Jahrb., xxvii. 273, he recognizes the importance of the Spartan masks. See List of Monuments, Nos. 54, 58-60.

164

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

have been dedicated ; and since the dedication ofvotive copies is generally a later thing than the offering of the real object, it seems fairly safe to assume that these dances existed at least in the latter part of the seventh century b . c . Among these masks are many which represent an old woman with a much wrinkled face and a very few teeth. Now just such an old woman was a regular personage in Attic comedy through­ out its duration, and extant comic masks, as well as the description given by Pollux of the masks of the New Comedy, illustrate the character, though it had naturally become differentiated into slightly differing types in the course of time. Such masks are figured by Robert,1 and the important passage in Pollux (iv. 150, 151) is as follows : The masks of women, dry or wolf-like old woman, fat old woman, old woman house-keeper or house-slave or angry. The wolf-like old woman is longish. Many small wrinkles. White, yellowish, a roving eye. The fat old woman has fat wrinkles in a fat face and a fillet round her hair. The little old housekeeper is snub-nosed and has two teeth on each side in her upper and lower jaw. We find exactly the type—wrinkled and with a few teeth— described in Aristophanes’ Plutus, 11. 1050 ff., which puts the type back into Old Comedy, or at least the earliest days of Middle Comedy. Aristophanes also testifies to the occurrence of a drunken old woman, dancing the kordax, in the comedies of his con­ temporaries,2 and the kordax, as we shall see, was one of the regular dances in honour of Artemis in the Peloponnese.3 In Greek comedy, and in the Roman comedy which in this respect followed the Greek, the drunken old woman occurs as a nurse, or a midwife, or a lena.4 As to the type of dance in honour of Artemis in which such a character may have figured, we get some light from the notices (textually corrupt though they are) in Hesychius 1 Die Masken der neueren att. Korn., p. 47. [Gf. Festivals, figs. 145-7.] Cf. Navarre, Rev. Ét. Ane. xvi (19x4) 1 if. 2 Clouds 553-6. Eupolis had treated Hyperbolus’ mother in this way in the Maricas (Schol. on Ar., ad loc.). 3 In the Sphinx of Epicharmus a dance of Artemis Chitonea was performed (see below, p. 268). 4 See Dionys., fr. 5; Alexis, fr. 167; Menand. Pn., ff. 5; Plaut. Curcul. 96 ff., Asin. 799; Ter. Andr. 228, &c.

D O R IA N E L E M E N T S : S U S A R IO N

165

about the bryllichistai1 at Sparta, whose dances were per­ formed by men dressed as women and, almost certainly, also by women dressed as men and wearing phalli. (The inter­ change of costumes is a device, familiar to anthropologists, for deceiving evil powers who might otherwise interfere with the sexual magic which is the purpose of such dances.2) The principal passages in Hesychius are these : Brydalicha. Female mask is put on because ridiculous and ugly . . . and female clothing is put on. Therefore also they call . . . brydaliches in Laconia. Bryllachistai. Men who put on the masks of ugly women and sing hymns. [App.] Similar (and certainly indecent) dances to Artemis, who was in early days in the Peloponnese a goddess of fertility of a primitive type, were the kallabides or kallabidia of Spar­ tan women and girls, and the dances of the kyrittoi, whom Hesychius3 describes as ‘those who have wooden masks in Italy and make the festival in honour of Korythalia, laughter makers’. Such dances were known in Magna Graecia, where dances in honour of Artemis were evidently familiar, and these were doubtless derived in part from the Peloponnesian mother-cities of the colonists : cf. Pollux iv. 103 : ‘The Siceliots particularly danced the Ionic dance in honour of Artemis. The messenger dance mimed the gestures of messengers’ : and Athen, xiv. 629ε: ‘Among the Syracusans there is also a special dance of Artemis Chitonea and a flute-playing. There was also an Ionic drunken dance, and the messenger’s dance was a drunken dance which they made precise.’ A further account of Laconian dances may be found in Pollux iv. 104-5 [App.] : There were also some Laconian dances on Malea. There were 1 Bryllichistai seems the most probable form of the name, and bryllicha of that of the dance. The corruptions are easily explained. 2 Cf. the comode, and (at Sparta) the dressing of the bride in male attire. Cf. also Philostr. Imag. 1. ii (pp. 298, 10 flf.), where the exchange of costumes is spoken of as characteristic of certain kSmoi. 3 [App.] Nilsson notes that the word kyrittoi suggests phallic dances. For women’s dances to Artemis in male costume, cf. Hesych. s.v. ‘lombai. Those women who begin sacrifices to Artemis, called after their sportive equipment. For phalli are so called.’ [App.] There were dances of women to Artemis Korythalia at the Tithenidia at Sparta (see Nilsson, Gr. Fest., pp. 182 if.).

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

Silens and Satyrs with (or beneath?) them dancing in fear. And ithymboi in honour of Dionysus and Caryatids in honour of Artemis. And baryllicha, discovered by baryllichos, and dances by women for Apollo and Artemis. The hypogypones, imitated old men with (or under?) sticks. The gypones mounted on wooden legs to dance, and were swathed in diaphanous tarentine material. And they called the dithyrambic dance tyrbasia. And they called mimetic (or mimelic?) the dance in which they mimed thosewho were caught stealing stale meat. There was also the scissors, a form of choral (or local : Bethe, MSS). dance in which it was necessary to switch the legs while jumping. The interest of this passage is that it not only introduces the thief of stale food and the bryllicha (under a probably corrupt name), but also a dance of old men leaning (?) on sticks. The old man—not infrequently with a stick—is a regular character in the New Comedy and in Plautus and Terence ; he is to be seen on the vases on which the performances of the Italian phlyakes are depicted ; and if this character (as distinct from the old rustic who is the hero of so many comedies of Aristo­ phanes) does not come out so clearly in the Old Comedy, it may be because Aristophanes deliberately gave him up, along with other stock tricks of his contemporaries : cf. Clouds 540 if. : ‘He does not joke at the bald nor does he drag a kordax nor does the old man who speaks the lines strike the bystander with his stick to nullify his bad jokes.’ The occurrence of such figures—the wrinkled and gaptoothed old woman and the old man with his stick—in Spartan dances does not, of course, prove that they got into Attic comedy directly from that source; but it does add weight to the other evidence for the view that some of the stock figures ofAttic comedy became familiar to the Athenians from intercourse with Dorian peoples. Any people can easily devise ‘comic’ old men and old women, and the uglinesses and infirmities of old age are an unfailing source of popular merriment ; but their occurrence in Attic comedy just in their Spartan forms at least helps the theory that Dorian influence was responsible for some features of comedy, and in particular for the introduction of certain figures familiar either through performances like the later mimes, or through well-known cult dances.

D O R IA N E L E M E N T S : S U S A R IO N

167

[None of the evidence quoted in this section is compelling. (1) The Ortheia masks and the bryllicha. The actual styliza­ tion of the Ortheia masks points Eastward, as Mr. Barnett has shown,1 and a procession of Lydians is mentioned in con­ nexion with Ortheia by Plutarch.2 The Ortheia masks prob­ ably were the moulds of the masks worn by dancers who represented a chorus of ugly women (fertility spirits?) about an uglier Gorgon-masked goddess. Similar masks but dif­ ferently stylized have been found at Tiryns,3 and it has recently been suggested that the Gorgons on an early Attic amphora of the seventh century are performing a ballet.4 Thus a nearer origin may be found for the ugly women of Attic comedy. (2) Hypogypones and gypones. It is scarcely neces­ sary to explain the presence of an old man with a stick in comedy by reference to a remote Spartan dance. The rela­ tion of the hypogypones to the gypones is unclear, and it is possible that Pollux’ ‘under’ should be taken literally in both places where it occurs : the satyrs cowered under the (larger) Silens and the hypogypones danced under the sticks ( = stilts) of the gypones. Stilt-dancers, as we have seen,5 are attested for Athens itself in the sixth century, and there is no reason to seek for a Laconian origin.] § 3. This theory derives further confirmation from the regular occurrence in Attic comedy of the kordax. That it was a common feature is plain from the passage of Aristophanes just quoted, and the scholiasts and lexicographers describe it as a ‘comic dance’. We cannot point to a definite instance of its introduction into a play by Aristophanes himself, and if he deliberately abjured it, as he claims to have done, this is not surprising. (A scholiast does indeed state that it occurred in the Wasps, and he must be referring to Philocleon’s dance, 11. 1487 if. : but this is probably a mistake, as Philocleon is evidently travestying some tragic dance.6) But there can be no doubt of its employment by Eupolis and perhaps by Phrynichus. It was a dance associated with drunkenness and 1 J.H.S. bcviii (1948), 6, n. 35. 2 Life of Aristides, 17. Cf. D. L. Page, Aleman (1951), p. 72. 3 List of Monuments, No. 69, cf. also No. 74 from Crete. 4 List óf Monuments, No. 31. 5 Ibid., No. 24. 6 [Cf. Roos, Trag. Orchestik, pp. 145 if.]

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

was of a lascivious kind (Schol. on Ar. Clouds 540 calls it ‘a comic dance w ith obscene movements of the rump5:1 cf. Mnesimachus, fr. 4: ‘the drinking goes on. The kordax is danced. The boys’ minds turn to licence5; and Theophr. Char. vi. 3, treats it as a sign of folly ‘to dance the kordax sober5). Its exact nature is (perhaps fortunately) undiscoverable, as the attempts to identify with it the dances on a number of vase-paintings rest on no sufficient evidence : there was more than one kind of vulgar dance.2 It is clear from Aristoph. Clouds 553 ff. that the dance was associated with a drunken old woman : ‘Eupolis first dragged Marikas along, having ruined my Knights, adding to him for the sake of the kordax a drunk old woman, whom Phrynichus created long ago, the one the monster ate5;3 and a passage ofPausanias (vi. xxii, § 1) shows its connexion with Artemis ; it was danced in honour of Artemis Kordaka in Elis (‘There are traces of the temple of Artemis called Kordaka, because the followers of Pelops brought their victory gifts to this goddess and danced the kordax, which is the native dance of those who live on Sipylus5). He derives the dance from Asia Minor, and it is true that there were similar dances in honour of the Ephesian Artemis, the Asiatic mother-goddess ;4 but the derivation was perhaps a false inference ; the Peloponnesian dances were probably very primitive and were connected with the coarsely-con­ ceived goddess of fertility who afterwards became identified with Artemis ; and Ottfried Müller (followed by Schnabel) may be right in the conjecture that the later worshippers of Artemis, the goddess of chastity, tried to account for, and excuse the connexion of, such dances with her, by ascribing 1 Gf. Hesych. ‘kordakismoi : laughable and sportive performances of mime actors’. 2 The last and most thorough attempt—that of H . Schnabel (Kordax, 1910)— is rightly set aside by Körte (Deutsche Littztg., 1910, pp. 2787-9; Bursian, Jahresber. clii. 236) and others, though his work contains much useful material. Other attempts are enumerated by Wamecke, s.v. kordax, in R.E. xi, col. 1384. [Cf. also Roos, loc. cit.] I doubt if it can be inferred from the passage of Pausanias that the kordax was danced at Elis by men. 3 Phrynichus doubtless travestied the story of Andromeda. 4 Autocrates, fr. 1 : ‘as the sweet maidens, daughters of the Lydians, dance, lightly leaping, tossing their hair, clapping their hands to Ephesian Artemis most beautifully, moving one hip up and one hip down, like a dabchick hopping.’

D O R IA N E L E M E N T S : S U S A R IO N

i6g

them to a foreign source. However that may be, the associa­ tion of the dance with a drunken old woman and with the worship of Artemis in the Peloponnese can be added to the indications already mentioned ofDorian influence on comedy.1 We may add to these indications the fact that another primitive Peloponnesian dance, the mothon, was occasionally introduced into Attic comedy. This dance was perhaps that of the mothones—the liberated helots of Laconia—as Ottfried Müller conjectures :2 Photius describes it as ‘a vulgar dance like the kordax\ It is danced for a moment by the SausageSeller in the Knights 697 : and the Scholiast’s description of it seems to identify it with the dance of the Spartan Lampito in the Lysistrata 82 : T strip and leap, foot to rump’, and with a Spartan dance mentioned by Pollux iv. 102 in which ‘it was necessary to leap and touch the rump with the feet’. § 4. A further argument (again not conclusive, but still increasing the probability, otherwise established, that Dorian influence must be taken into account in judging of the origins of Attic comedy) is drawn from a comparison of the costume of the Attic comic actor with that worn by a number of figures which appear on Peloponnesian vases. [The costume of the performers in Attic comedy is known from Attic vases dating from rather before 430 b . c . to rather after 390 b . c ., from Attic terracottas dating from roughly 375 b . c . to 330 b . c ., and from four marble reliefs dated respectively 380+, 339, and 350325 b . c . The actor wears tights which support padding and phallus (when he is acting a male part) and over them some­ times nothing, often a short leather tunic, and sometimes other garments. The chorus (when representing males) wear tights which support padding but no phallus3. The likeness of this costume to the padded dancers of Corinthian vases of the 1 There is no doubt that at a much later date the dance was associated with Dionysus (Lucian, de Saltatione, § 22; Bacchus § 1, &c.). But there is no evidence of any early connexion of it with him. The attempt of Hincks (Rév. Archéol. xvii (1911), 1-5) to find such evidence depends on the identification with the kordax of a dance in the presence of an apparently Dionysiae personage in a panther-skin, depicted on an aryballos in the British Museum (List of Monu­ ments, No. 36) ; but this identification is quite unproved. 2 Dorier (1824), ii. 338. 3 Gf. my G.T.P., pp. 55 if.; Hesperia, xxix (i960), 263 f.; B.I.C.S., Suppl., No. 9, Nos. AS 3-4 (AS i -2 show masks only).

170

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

late seventh and early sixth centuries, on the one hand, and to the south Italian phlyax vases of the fourth century on the other has been appreciated since Alfred Körte’s fundamental article of 1893.1 The phlyax vases need not be considered here since they are contemporary with Middle Comedy, and their costume is therefore a parallel local variant, which may have derived ultimately from sixth-century Sicilianpadded dancers, as has been suggested above. A minor objection to Körte’s argument can be easily disposed of: the Attic costume was tights which covered legs and arms ; the padded dancers have bare arms and legs. This change can, however, be seen in Corinth itself as well as Attica ;2 it took place some time between 530 and 430 b .c. The major objection to Körte’s argument is the extravagance of deriving Attic comic actors and chorus from Corinthian padded dancers rather than from Attic padded dancers. Since the publication of Payne’s fundamental work in 19313 the distinction between Attic padded dancers and Corinthian padded dancers has been clear; however much Attic painters owed to Corinthian painters in the early sixth century (and the idea of painting padded dancers may have come from Corinth), the dancers they painted were Attic and not Corinthian ; the proof lies in the fact that the women who dance with the padded men on Attic vases are normally clothed (i.e. men dressed as women)4 and not naked as on Corinthian vases. After the initial impulse the men are very soon represented as naked on Attic vases, and as naked fat or at least distorted dancers they appear through the sixth century like (and sometimes with) satyrs as companions of Dionysus :5 the Attic painter thinks of them as fertility spirits rather than as men representing fertility spirits. One further point may be relevant : tragedy bears the mark of Dorian influence in the language of its lyrics ; comedy only uses Dorian when it introduces a Dorian on the stage. But while the theory that Attic comic costume derived from Corinthian padded dancers has nothing to commend it, it 1 Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, viii (1893), 77 ff- The most recent and complete treatment of the phlyax vases is by A. D. Trendall, B.I.C.S., Suppi., No. 8. 2 Cf. above, p.140. 3 Necrocorinthia (1931), p. 194. 4 List of Monuments, Nos. 10, 12, 13, 14, 18. 5 Ibid., Nos. 11, 14, 16.

D O R IA N E L E M E N T S : S U S A R IO N

171

would be absurd to deny that the Greek world was closely interconnected in the early sixth century and every kind of cross influence was possible and likely. The Corinthian padded dancers provide a possible clue to the later differentiation in Attica into tragedy and comedy. They alone have names inscribed, and the names show that they and all their kin elsewhere are men representing fertility spirits, who are closely connected with satyrs. We have dis­ cussed already the threads that lead forward to the classical dithyramb, tragedy, and the classical satyr-play. We are con­ cerned here with the threads which lead forward from padded dancers generally to comedy. One is the costume, and so far a Corinthian vase1 alone provides a phallic leader who could develop into the phallic actors of comedy. A second thread may be seen in the persistent recurrence of Satyroi as a title of comedy from Ecphantides to Phrynichus (and Cratinus’ Dionysalexandros also had a chorus of satyrs) ; these comic satyrs may have looked more like the fat men than the lean satyrs of the satyr-play. Two of the Corinthian vases have long been given a deserved prominence in these discussions. On one2 a pair of padded dancers (one masked) flute and dance while two fertility spirits are caught stealing wine by a third and imprisoned in a wine cellar, where they are given cakes by a maid. It is natural to take the story of wine-stealing as the subject of the song and dance of the padded dancers, a subject closely akin to the fruit-stealing of the Spartan deikelistai and the meat-stealing of early Laconian dances and a subject which looks forward to comedy and is actually attested for Epicharmus. The other vase3 has a picture of the Return of Hephaestus. It is difficult to interpret because the painter seems to have been in two minds as to whether he was painting characters or performers. Of the characters there is no doubt about Hephaestus with his crippled feet; the longrobed figure wearing a skin is perhaps Dionysus. The satyr with stones in his raised hands must have been an antagonist in the story but is dressed in the hairy chiton of a performer. The man who welcomes the procession wears the chiton of 1 Ibid., No. 46; cf. below on No. 38. 2 Ibid., No. 41. 3 Ibid., No. 38.

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

a dancer and a phallus, so that he may be the leader of the dancers. On two other Corinthian vases1 the attendants of Dionysus in the Return of Hephaistos are normal padded dancers and we need have no doubt that the story was sung by padded dancers in Corinth.

F ig. 5. Return of Hephaestus, Corinthian amphoriskos, List of Monuments,

No. 38

Fig. 6. Padded dancers and dolphin, Corinthian kylix, List of Monuments, No. 43

On the Attic vases of the early sixth century the subject is also extremely popular and Dionysus may be accompanied by hairy satyrs and smooth satyrs, smooth satyrs alone, or by 1 List of Monuments, Nos. 39, 47.

D O R IA N E L E M E N T S : S U S A R IO N

173

smooth satyrs mixed with padded dancers. Two of these vases give a hint of performance : one1has a satyr with frontal face and this may imply that satyrs danced while the song was sung. The other2 has a group of padded dancers performing next to the satyrs and maenads who escort Dionysus ; this may imply performance by the padded dancers. Later, the story was the subject of a satyr-play by Achaeus (and possibly of the Isthmiastai of Aeschylus),3 of a comedy of Epicharmus, and possibly of a later Athenian comedy.4 Here then is a clear case of a mythological story performed by padded dancers which later differentiated itself into satyrplay and comedy. It seems to me at least possible that the story had the same sort of archetypal significance for comedy as the Pentheus story and its kin had for tragedy. In origin perhaps a myth growing out of a ritual to release the earth in spring from the bonds of winter, it is in human terms a story of an angry man who resists all attempts to make him change his mind but is finally overcome by an intrigue so that the story can end in merriment and marriage.5 Such a story is the basis of many comedies down to and including the Dyskolos of Menander. Many kinds of pre-dramatic choruses were absorbed into Attic comedy—fat men, satyrs, birds, fish, knights, giants on stilts, ugly women, men in big cloaks—and archaeology can show an Attic ancestry for all of them. A Peloponnesian origin can therefore be excluded, but Peloponnesian (and other) influence is likely in the small interconnected Greek world. We can sense behind comedy an entertainment in epirrhematic form, which consisted essentially of ode followed by recitative, then antode followed by corresponding recita­ tive, a form which could be given a recitative prologue and built up into a Parodos-Agon-Parabasis sequence. The recita­ tive passages imply a reciter who may be either exarchon or antagonist; and two choruses each with their own exarchon could also be used. Which and how many of the pre-dramatic 1 Ibid., No. 8. 2 Ibid., No. 11. 3 Gf. H. Lloyd-Jones in Aeschylus, Loeb Library, ii. 548 f. 4 Gf. C.£). xlii (1948), 23. On Epicharmus see below, p. 264. 5 Gf. B.I.C.S. V (1958), 43 f.; Webster, Greek Art and Literature, 700-530 b . c . , p. 62.

174

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

choruses that we know from vases used this form we have no method of telling. The conversion ofpre-dramatic epirrhematic performances into comedy was achieved by the addition of scenes in iambic trimeters, just as the essential step into tragedy was Thespis’ addition of prologue and speeches. As half a century separates Thespis’ first performance from the first performance of comedy at the City Dionysia, which took place in 486 (only two years before Aeschylus’ first victory), it is doubtful whether we need look to anywhere but Attic tragedy for the source of the innovation. But the further case for the Dorian origin of the iambic scenes, which was made in the first edition, must be stated.] § 5. We have suggested that some of the standing types of Attic comedy may have their forerunners in the mime-like performances of Dorian peoples, or in dances in character, associated with Dorian ritual—the old woman, the old man with his stick, the quack-doctor, the detected food-stealer. It is possible that some further suggestions may be derived from a consideration of other types which constantly recur in Attic comedy.1 A considerable part of many plays of Aristophanes consists of scenes in which a person of absurd or extravagant preten­ sions is derided or made a fool of by a person who plays the buffoon—scenes (to use the convenient Greek terms) between an alazon and a bomolochos.2· The alazon may be a sophist or philosopher—Hippo in the Panoptai of Cratinus, Socrates in the Clouds of Aristophanes, and the Konnos of Ameipsias ; or a politician (Cleon), a quack-doctor or apothecary, a star-gazer 1 I have made much use of the writings of Süss, De personarum antiquae comoediae Atticae usu atque origine (Bonn, 1905), and ‘Zur Komposition der altattis­ chen Komödie’, Rhein. Mus. lxiii (1908), 12-38, though I am unable to agree with him on some points of detail. 2 Gf. the Tractatus Coislinianus (which no doubt in this takes up points made by Aristotle), § 6: ‘the characters of comedy are bomolochoi, eirones, and alazones' : cf. Ar. Rhet. m. xviii. i4 i9 b8 ff., Eth. Nie. 11. vii. 1io8a2 i, &c., iv. vii. 1i27a2i. O f the eirones the extant remains give us plenty of illustrations, especially in the person of the parasite: they are full of the alazon and the bomolochos. [The direct contrast between the alazon and the bomolochos has no Aristotelian sanction : he contrasts bomolochos and eiron, alazon and eiron, bomolochos and eutrapelos, but never alazon and bomolochos·, and he does not use alazon of comedy or laughter­ making.]

D O R IA N E L E M E N T S : S U S A R IO N

175

(Meton), a prophet, an ecstatic poet (Cinesias, &c.), a boast­ ful soldier (Lamachus), an elegant aesthete (Agathon)—any one who feels himself to be out of the common and takes himself too seriously. Euripides and even Aeschylus in the Frogs have something of the alazon in them.1 The alazon was brought up to date or worked into the character of some living person, with very different degrees of skill or brilliancy by different poets and in different plays : but the regularity of his occurrence in such scenes, and the persistence of the type in certain forms even in the New Comedy, suggest very strongly that the alazon was a stock-character in the older forms of buffoonery to which Attic comedy owed much, and that the quack-doctor of the deikelistai was only one variety of a type constant in essentials—i.e. in the quality of alazon, though taking more than one shape.123It is some confirmation of this view that the type is found in Epicharmus, in the fragments of whom we shall find the quack wise-man promi­ nent and the prophet mentioned ; and that in another form, that of the swaggering soldier, we find him in the representa­ tions of the phlyakes.3 It is natural to explain these coincidences between Dorian and Attic comedy by a common source. The bomolochos in Aristophanes generally takes one of two forms—the old rustic and the jesting slave. His business is much the same wherever he appears. He makes nonsense of what another speaker says, or gives an indecent or vulgar turn to it—sometimes taking words literally where they are not so meant, or otherwise playing upon them; sometimes interrupting with silly or indecent remarks or anecdotes, par­ ticularly in the agoni sometimes making asides (or quite undramatically) addressing the audience. He also has a par­ ticular function in the prologue—that of stating the subject of the play, requesting the goodwill of the audience, and 1 Aeschylus embodies not only the characteristics of the great poet, but some of those associated with the terrific soldier, in so far as he is half identified with his warriors in their extravagant panoply. 2 Süss appropriately quotes the catalogue in Aristoph. Clouds 331 if. 3 e.g. on Trendall, Phlyax Vases, No. 45 [where there is no evidence that he is an alazon, and in any case the vase belongs to the fourth century b.c.]. The character is recognizable in Archilochus, fr. 60 D, and is found in one form or another throughout the history of Greek comedy.

176

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

attracting their favour by some preliminary jesting; and he is usually the principal character in those scenes of buffoonery which normally succeed the parabasis, and in which one claimant for recognition after another, however much of an alazon he is, is derided and driven away. In almost all the earlier plays of Aristophanes the bomolochos of the second half of the play is the old rustic or a character very like him— Dicaeopolis, Strepsiades, Trygaeus, Philocleon, Peithetaerus. In the Acharnians and Clouds the old rustic also prologizes ; but in the prologue the part is more commonly taken by a slave (sometimes two slaves)1 introduced for the purpose (as in the Knights, Wasps, Frogs, and Plutus), or by a companion of one of the principal characters—Euelpides, Kalonike, Mnesilochus—the role of the companion being perhaps a later modification of that of the slaves. As a rule (though Mnesilo­ chus is an exception) neither slave nor companion is promi­ nent in the second part of the play. In the preparations for the wedding or the feast with which many of the plays end, the bomolochos gets free play for his greed and his obscenity. It is possible to trace the manner in which Aristophanes progresses in his handling of these types, in abating their grossness, and in working them into a plot which forms a unity. The bomolochos of the rustic kind, as has already been indicated, seems to belong primarily to the iambic scenes in which he makes a fool of a series of alazones or characters not far removed from alazones. It is in these iambic scenes that Dicaeopolis, Strepsiades, Trygaeus, Peithetaerus, Blepyrus play a characteristic part; and when this type of bomolochos is prominent in the first half of the play, as Dicaeopolis is in the Acharnians, it is often in contact with some form of alazon (Pseudartabas, Lamachus, Euripides) that he shines, though he may also be a protagonist in the agon (as Peithetaerus is), and so form a bond of union between the essentially dissimilar epirrhematic and iambic scenes.2 The other type, the slave or 1 As regards the two slaves, see below, p. iSo. 2 Another bond of unity was the prologue, though it is possible that the primitive mimes sometimes had prologues or preliminary speeches to the audience. (Choricius, i. 2, makes it clear that the mimes of his own day had, and the mime seems to have remained more or less the same, at least in some of its types, from first to last.)

D O R IA N E L E M E N T S : S U S A R IO N

177

companion, appears, as has been said, most characteristically in the prologue, but also as the vulgar interrupter of argu­ ments, the irreverent bystander in the agon. Now it seems to be at least a possible explanation of these characters, that they carry on a primitive type of buffoonery, very like the mimes of later days, taken over by the Athenians from Dorian peoples. The fact that the bomolochos sometimes addresses the audience as the spokesman of the poet, suggests that he comes from a performance which had no chorus ; for it was the chorus which had this function in epirrhematic comedy. The old rustic was probably a character in the Agrostinos of Epicharmus; and as at least some forms of alazoneia—the quack-doctor, the swaggering Heracles—can be traced back to Dorian mimes, the explanation is not with­ out confirmation. Another stock character, the parasite, appears in Epicharmus, before we have any sign of him in Attic comedy; and he may also have been a well-known Dorian type. (One of the three masks for the parasites of the New Comedy, as described by Pollux, was still called Sicilian.1) The jesting and disrespectful slave would be bound to get into the comedy of any Greek community; but he too may have begun to play his characteristic part in the mime-like performances of the Peloponnese.2 It would be absurd to pretend that these suggestions are anything but conjectures; but they are conjectures which appear to be in accordance with the few known facts. [It must be noted that the argument that the bomolochosj alazon contrast is evidence for the Dorian origin of the iambic scenes of Attic comedy is extremely tenuous. Epicharmus himself is contemporary with early Attic comedy (see below) and we have no evidence for iambic scenes before him. The only earlier literary evidence quoted for the alazon is not Dorian but Archilochus, fr. 60 D, to which might be added Homer’s Thersites as a bomolochos. From vases we can claim 1 See Robert, Die Masken, pp. 68, 109. 2 Some interesting comparisons of the ‘alazon versus bolomochos’ scenes of Greek comedy with modem performances of low comedy are to be found in Reich, Mimus, i. 689, &c.; Poppelreuter, loc. cit.; Comford, op. cit., pp. 142 if. The history of the bomolochos type is traced with much ingenuity, though sometimes in a highly speculative way, in Dieterich’s Pulcinella. 6188

N

178

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

the figures which we have called interrupter-antagonist as ancestors of the bomolochos, especially as they interrupt a more serious action : they are the Pan advancing on the ostrich riders on the late-sixth-century Attic cup, the stone-throwing satyr in the Return of Hephaestus on the early-sixth-century Corinthian amphoriskos, the stone-throwing proto-satyr on the seventh-century Attic krater, and the stooping man who ‘exchanges impolite remarks with the men whose solemnity he disturbs’ (Forsdyke) on the fifteenth-century steatite vase from Hagia Triada.1 This suggests that the origin of the bomolochos should be sought in pre-classical agricultural ritual.] § 6. Thus it seems possible that while the epirrhematic scenes in the Old Comedy are mainly of Attic origin, the iambic derive most from Dorian sources. It is, however, im­ possible to trace the steps by which the two elements came to be combined—how a variety of Dorian character-types, realistic scenes from ordinary life, mythological travesty,12 a peculiar costume, were united with the Attic kómos, whether the kòmastai were disguised as animals or not. Nor do we know by what route the Dorian elements travelled to At­ tica. But there is reason to suspect that Megara may have been a half-way house for comedy, as it was for the traveller by land. The claim of the Megarians to have originated comedy, recorded by Aristotle in the passage of the Poetics which has already been quoted, is not likely to be entirely devoid of historical foundation. Comedy arose, they said, in the time of their democracy. This democracy lasted from the expulsion of Theagenes, perhaps about 581 b . c . down to 4 2 4 b . g ., when the oligarchical party re-established itself with the aid ofBrasidas ; but the only period which concerns us is that which precedes the appearance of Chionides at Athens in 486 b .c. Plutarch3 1 See List of Monuments, Nos. 25, 38, 101, 104. 2 Moessner (Die Mythologie in der dorischen u. altattischen Komödie [1907], pp. 49 ff.) argues that the first Attic comedy based on mythological travesty was the Odysses of Cratinus, but this is far from certain. 3 Quaest. Gr., ch. 18: ‘The Megarians expelled Theagenes the tyrant and had an orderly constitution for a short time, but then the demagogues gave them the unmixed wine of freedom, to quote Plato.’ (Plato is probably not the authority for Plutarch’s statement, but only the source of the metaphor.)

D O R IA N E L E M E N T S : S U S A R IO N

179

records that after the expulsion of the tyrant the Megarians for a short time showed a spirit of moderation, but soon in­ dulged in extremes of liberty under the leadership of dema­ gogues. Such an atmosphere would be favourable enough to comedy.1 Wilamowitz12 conjectures that Aristotle derived his knowledge of the Megarian claim from his contemporary Dieuchidas of Megara ; this is possible, but it is permissible to be sceptical of the suggestion, which Wilamowitz next propounds, of a kind of warfare of claims between Athenians and Dorians with regard to the origination of literary forms— the Megarians claiming comedy, and pretending that Susarion was a Megarian, and the Sicyonians tragedy (as the work of Epigenes and Neophron), while the Athenians replied with a tradition of Icarian comedy and of Thespis performing before Solon. We shall return to Susarion ; but it is improb­ able that he would have been claimed as a Megarian unless Megara were regarded as a very early home of some kind of comedy. (It is perhaps not irrelevant to notice that Megara had a cult of Artemis Orthosia,3who is not likely to have been very different from the Artemis Orthia of Sparta, and may have been worshipped by similar cult-dances.) Most of the very slight information which we have about Megarian comedy is drawn from a passage from the prologue of Aristophanes’ Wasps, a passage of Aristotle’s Ethics, and the scholia on both. These must be quoted in full: Aristoph. Wasps 54 if. : Gome then let me tell the story to the spectators but first let me make these few points clear : do not expect anything too grand from us nor laughter stolen from Megara. We do not give you either a pair of slaves throwing nuts to the spectators out of a basket or Herakles being cheated of his dinner. Scholiast: Either because some of the poets from Megara were uninspired and made bad jokes or because the Megarians in general liked vulgar humour. Eupolis in the Prospaltioi : ‘the joke is wanton and extremely Megarian’. [App.] 1 The national temperament of the Megarians seems to have included a biting wit, if the saying ascribed to Pittacus is justified—‘Run away from all Megarians : they are fierce* : the ascription itself is very doubtful. 2 Gott. Gel. Anz., 1906, p. 619. 3 LG. vii. 113.

i8o

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

Aristot. E th . N ie . iv. 2. H23a2o: For he spends much on un­ important things and makes a display at the wrong times, as for instance entertaining club members on the scale of a wedding breakfast and, when producing a comedy, introducing purple in the parodos like those at Megara. Aspasius ad loc. : It was usual in comedy to make the hangings of skin, not of purple cloth. Myrtilus in T ita n o p a n s ‘Do you hear that? Herakles, the joke is wanton and extremely Megarian. For, as you see, the children laugh.’ For the Megarians are ridiculed in comedy, since they also claim it as their own invention, if in fact Susarion, the originator of comedy, was a Megarian. They are therefore criticized as vulgar and frigid and as using purple cloth in the parodos. Aristophanes also jeers at them saying some­ where ‘nor laughter stolen from Megara’. Ecphantides also, the earliest poet of Old Comedy, says O f Megarian comedy I will not sing a song. I am ashamed to make my poem Megarian.’ It is shown by all that the Megarians were the inventors of comedy.

[App·] The text of the Aristotelian commentator, Aspasius, is uncertain in two places : (1) the quotation from Myrtilus (a contemporary of Aristophanes) has fallen out. The actual quotation given is a longer version of the Eupolis quoted above on the Wasps. Meineke suggested that the lost quotation is preserved by Hesychius : ‘skin-nailed gates’, which he explains as ‘gates with skins for hangings’. (2) The only words which are certain in the Ecphantides quotation are ‘Megarian comedy’; it is probable that the quotation also included something about singing or a song. These passages, while they show that the scholiasts had no more definitely historical knowledge of Megarian comedy than ourselves, also show that in the fifth and fourth centuries there was a type of comedy not only known as ‘Megarian’, but associated with Megara, and that this was vulgar and probably indecent. Aristophanes illustrates the ‘laughter stolen from Megara’ by (1) a pair of slaves throwing nuts out of a basket to the audience, and (2) Heracles cheated of his dinner. The latter obviously suggests mythological burlesque, such as was employed by Epicharmus. But the persistence of this particular theme in Attic comedy is proved by the pride which Aristophanes takes in having discarded it [Peace 741-2) :

D O R IA N E L E M E N T S : S U S A R IO N

181

‘He was the first to scorn and expel the kneading and hungry Herakleses.’ The former reminds us of the pair of slaves who open the Knights, the Wasps, and the Peace, though they do not act exactly in the manner described ; and of the refer­ ence in Plutus 797 if. to the scattering of figs and sweetmeats among the audience (a passage very like that quoted above from the Wasps) : ‘It does not become the poet to throw figs and sweetmeats to the spectators and then compel them to laugh.’ In the Peace (962 if), Xanthias does, at Trygaeus’ bidding, throw some of the grains of sacrificial barley to the spectators.1 Possibly the practice was in vogue in Megarian comedy as known to Aristophanes. Further, in the Acharnians 738, the Megarian speaks of the disguising of his daughters as pigs as ‘a Megarian trick’, and this may indicate, though it does not necessarily do so, that disguise-tricks were a speciality of Megarian comedy:2 and a fragment (fr. 2) of Theopompus speaks of the apothecary— probably own brother to the quack-doctor—as a Megarian : ‘When I came in I found that the house had been converted into a Megarian apothecary’s chest.’ These references are consistent (to say no more) with the conjecture that some elements in Dorian farce found their way into Athens through Megara. Besides this, certain masks were associated with Megara. One of these was the maison, though the accounts given of this are peculiarly confusing. According to Athenaeus,3Chrysippus 1 I cannot accept Mr. Comford’s conjecture (pp. 101-2) that the object of this was to make the spectators partakers in a communal meal. It seems to have been simply a rather vulgar captatio favoris. 2 Reich, Mimus, i (1923), 478-9, notices the occurrence of such animaldisguises in mimes, perhaps as early as Sophron : and it is possible that Megarian comedy was more like mime than like choral comedy. 3 xiv. 659 a: ‘The ancients used to call the citizen cook Maison and the cook from abroad Tettix. Chrysippus the philosopher thinks the Maison got his name from the verb “to chew”, as being unintelligent and devoted to his stomach, not knowing that Maison was a Megarian comic actor, who also in­ vented the mask called Maison after him, as Aristophanes of Byzantium says in his work “On Masks”, saying that he invented both the mask of the slave and the mask of the cook. Naturally also the appropriate jokes are called Maisonic. . . . Polemon in his “Reply to Timaeus” says Maison came from Megara in Sicily and not from Nisaean Megara.’ The proverbial expression

i

82

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

derived the name from the verb, and took it to connote gluttony, while Aristophanes of Byzantium said it was the invention of a Megarian actor named Maison. On the whole the passages of Athenaeus and Zenobius seem to point to a definite person of the name, rather than to a character-type, corresponding to the Manducus of the Atellane farce, with whom Dieterich1 and others identify Maison; but the crea­ tion of eponymous inventors was so common a thing that the matter must remain doubtful, and it can only be regarded as possible, not as proved, that the cook was an early Megarian character. The same is the case with the slave, whose mask—■ or at least that which in the New Comedy was associated with the leading slave—Aristophanes of Byzantium also described as the invention of Maison. [The only indication in our sources of Maison’s date is Athenaeus’ phrase ‘the ancients’. He may mean the authors of Old Comedy, but the context only shows that he means comedy earlier than the Macedonian conquest of Greece. In either case nothing points back beyond the time of Aristo­ phanes. The earliest of the terracotta statuettes identified by Robert2 on the basis of Pollux’ description of the mask as red­ headed and bald cannot be dated before the third century B.c., but the mask may be pushed back into the very early fourth century b.c. with the help of an Apulian vase3 in the British Museum. Which of the various slave masks was invented by Maison is impossible to say and unprofitable to speculate.] Some late and uncertain notes4 are preserved about a poet, ‘For his good work the Achaeans imprisoned Agamemnon* (used ‘against the ungrateful’) is quoted by Zenob. ii. 11 with the words ‘they say it was made by Meson ( = Maison) the Megarian and there does not seem much to support Crusius’ conjecture (PhiloL Suppl. vi. 275) that it was quoted from a comedy (perhaps of Epicharmus) in which it was spoken by Maison = Manducus. 1 Pulcinella, p. 87; cf. p. 39. The existence of types like Maccus, Bucco, Manducus, &c., outside Italy, is too readily assumed by Dieterich. 2 Illustrated Festivals, p. 196, figs. 81, 124, 129. Robert, Masken, figs. 24, 21, 27. The terracotta mask from Halai (Festivals, fig. 91) has a context date 3 3 5 / 2 8 0 B.C.

3 British Museum F 151. M. Bieber, History of the Greek and Roman Theater (1961), fig. 491; Webster, G.T.P., pi. 15b; Trendall, Phlyax Vases, No. 35. 4 Etym. Magn., p. 761. 47: ‘Tolynium. Multicompound metre called Cratineum. Also called Tolynium from the Megarian Tolynos. He was earlier than

D O R IA N E L E M E N T S : S U S A R IO N

183

Tolynus of Megara, who was earlier th an Cratinus, and invented the metre usually attributed to the latter. His exis­ tence must remain very doubtful; but the tradition at least attests a belief in Megarian comedy in the writer (whoever he was) from whom it was derived. But in fact the tradition of Megarian comedy rests almost entirely upon the passages of Aristophanes and Aristotle. The evidence from other writers which goes to prove the existence of such a tradition can add but little weight. Perhaps the most significant indication, among these fragments of evi­ dence, is that which (as has been already indicated) makes Susarion a Megarian ; this would perhaps hardly have done if there had been no such thing as an early Megarian comedy. Our next task therefore is to examine the records in regard to him. § 7. The first extant mention of Susarion is in the Parian Marble1 (the date of which is about 260 b.c.), under a year which may fall anywhere between 581 and 560 b . c . : O n this date in Athens the chorus of comedians was invented; the Icarians established it on the invention of Susarion, and the prize was a basket of figs and a measure of wine.3The restora­ tion of the inscription is uncertain in places, but it evidently connected Susarion with Icaria and with the first comic chorus at Athens. Clement of Alexandria also speaks of Susarion of Icaria as the inventor of comedy:2 ‘The iambic was invented by Archilochus of Paros, the limping iambic by Hipponax of Ephesus, and tragedy by Thespis the Athenian, comedy by Susarion the Icarian.3 For all other notices of Susarion we have only the authority of late and mostly anonymous scholiastic writers, of whose authorities we know nothing certain.3 The story upon which Cratinus.’ Meineke suggested that the metre was really Telleneum, called after a fourth century poet Tellen {Hist. Crit. i. 38). But this is speculation. 1 Ed. Jacoby, p. 13. 2 Strom, i. 16, 79, p. 366 P. Kaibel {C.G.F., p. 77) compares with this the Schol. in Dion. Thrac. (Cramer, Anecd. Ox. iv. 316), which, however, gives the iambic to Susarion. 3 Kaibel, die Prolegomena ‘On Comedy’, argues with some force that a con­ siderable number of the statements in these writers were derived from the Chrestomathia of Proclus (fifth cent, a . d . ) , but Proclus’ authorities are quite un­ known.

184

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

several of these writers are more or less agreed is as follows:1 Once upon a time certain rustics of Attica had been injured by some wealthy Athenians who lived in the city; they came therefore into the city at nightfall, went into the streets where their oppressors lived, and loudly proclaimed their grievances outside the doors, though without mentioning names. In the morning the neighbours, who had heard the clamour, inves­ tigated the matter, and the rulers of the city, thinking that the exposure of the oppressors, which resulted from the in­ quiry was a salutary thing,2 compelled the rustics to repeat their story and their invective in the theatre (or in the market­ place) . For fear of being recognized by their oppressors, the rustics smeared their faces with wine-lees before complying. Still more convinced of the salutariness of the performance, the Athenians next encouraged poets to take up the task of denunciation, and Susarion was the first of the poets who did so, but all his works were lost except the few lines to be dis­ cussed presently. It is possible that this absurd story may preserve a grain of genuine tradition—the origin of comedy in some kind of homos* and perhaps this homos may have been organ­ ized into a display at about the date indicated in the Parian Marble; but the evidence is too poor to prove any­ thing. One or two other writers simply mention Susarion as the inventor of comedy without further particulars ; but Tzetzes4 1 Kaibel, C.G.F., pp. 12 if. The Prolegomena which he quotes include six or seven versions of the story. 2 John the Deacon, Comm, in Hermog. {Rhein. Mus. lxiii. 149), gives a different motive: ‘After their uncivilised life a change for the better occurred and men turned from eating acorns to agriculture arid dedicated a tithe of their harvest to the gods, giving them particular days for festivals and feasts. And on these wise men, checking irrational relaxation and wishing the festivals to partake of rational entertainment, invented comedy. It is said that comedy was started by Susarion, who composed it in metre. The Dionysia occurred at the normal time, but at this moment his wife died. The spectators looked for him because he was clever at such shows, and he came forward and gave the reason and in his defence said this’ (11. 1-4 of the fragment follow) ‘and when he had said this the audience applauded.5 3 Though one of these writers (Kaibel, p. 14) derives komoidia from koma, because it was invented at the hour of sleep. 4 c. A .D . 1180: see Kaibel, p, 27, An earlier note gives the slightly different version of John the Deacon,

D O R IA N ELEM ENTS: SU SA R IO N

185

(who is at times even more fatuous than the anonymous scholiasts) speaks of him as a Megarian,1son of Philinus, who in revenge for the desertion of his wife, entered the theatre at the Dionysia and delivered himself of the lines ascribed to him:2 ‘Hear, O people. Susarion says this (son of Philinus from Megara, Tripodiscus). Women are an evil. But, O Demesmen, it is not possible to have a house without the evil. To marry and not to marry are both bad.’ These lines are quoted by some writers with, by others without,3 the second of the five, which makes Susarion a Megarian: but the lines are certainly not genuine. They are in Attic, not Doric : the word demesmen suggests an Attic writer : and probably even in the forgery the second line is an interpolation designed to reconcile the tradition of the Megarian origin of comedy with that of its invention by Susarion. The sentiment and style suggest the Middle or New Comedy. It is, in fact, very doubtful whether such a person as Susarion existed at all; Körte4 thinks that he was an invention, but that the inven­ tor made him a Megarian, and gave him a name unlike any Attic name. Other scholars think of him as a Megarian who migrated to Icaria—an obvious resource of the reconciler. Of his supposed work we have no account except the statement of an anonymous writer (or possibly, as Kaibel thinks, of Tzetzes) that Susarion and his contemporaries introduced their characters in a disorderly manner, and that it was Cratinus who first reduced comedy to order ; and further that they aimed only at amusement, and not at the moral improvement of the audience.5 (This may be intended as a contradiction of the story of the rustics.) In any case it is very unlikely that these earliest supposed or actual forerunners of the Old Comedy composed literary works; they must belong 1 The Megarian tradition was known to the Schol. on Ar. Eth. Nie. iv. vi, quoted above (p. 180), but he evidently doubts it. 2 It is doubtless because of these lines that Schol. Dion. Thrac., p. 748 B, and John the Deacon call him the author of metrical comedy. 3 It is omitted by Stob. Flor. 69. 2, and Diomedes, p. 488. 26; it is included by Schol. Dion. Thrac., p. 748 B (Kaibel, p. 14), Tzetzes, and John the Deacon. 4 R.E. xi., col. 1222. 5 Gf. Diomedes, p. 488. 23 K (Kaibel, p. 58) : ‘poetae primi comici fuerunt Susarion, Mullus et Magnes. H i veteri disciplinae iocularia quaedam minus scite ac venuste pronuntiabant.’

186

T H E B E G IN N IN G S OF G R E E K C O M E D Y

to the age of improvisations, and but for the spurious lines no one would have ascribed metrical comedy to them. Whether they used wine-lees as a disguise is as uncertain as everything else; it would be a natural thing for komasts to do : but we here touch once more the theory of trygoidia as the origin of tragoidia and komoidia, and of both as performed at vintage festivals, at which (according to some of the scholiasts) a bottle of new wine (tryx in its other sense) was given as a prize.1 The truth about this is irrecoverable ; there may have been an autumn festival including both tragic and comic elements, but, as has been said, trygoidia was probably in origin simply a comic parody of tragoidia, giving to comedy a name which was both ludicrous and also suggestive of wine and the wine-god in whose honour the performance took place.2 The records of Susarion, therefore, leave us with nothing of historical value, except the tradition of an early Megarian comedy (without which there would have been no point in assigning him to Megara) and of some formless Attic comedy early in the sixth century.3 [If we look back at the evidence for Megarian comedy, we find considerable signs of interplay between Attic and Megarian comedy in the fifth century : the earliest reference is in Ecphantides, who won his first victory in or shortly before 454 b . c . Nothing here suggests that Megarian comedy was earlier than Attic. The story of the Attic rustics and their wrongs has nothing to do with Megara and nothing to do with the iambic scenes which are supposed to derive from Dorian sources ; if anything, it suggests an origin for the 1 The Marm. Par. also mentions a basket of figs, and this too points to autumn. Some traditions made this part of the prize for tragedy also (see above, p. 75). It might well be a prize for any performance, serious or comic, of rustic origin and in simple times. 2 See Nilsson, Studia de Dionysiis Atticis (1900), pp. 88-90; and for explana­ tions of trygoidia, Schol. on Aristoph. Ach. 398, 499; Clouds 296; Ann. de Com. in Kaibel, p. 7, &c. 3 The date assigned to Susarion by the Parian Marble would make him, roughly speaking, a contemporary of Thespis, if the latter was really at Athens before the death of Solon. It is not impossible that two such persons should have come to Athens about the same time, with their performances, but it cannot be regarded as historically certain. On the suggestion of a common origin of tragedy and comedy see above, p. 76, See.

D O R IA N E L E M E N T S:. S U S A R IO N

187

comedy of personal abuse. Whether the author of the Parian Marble had any justification for his entry on Susarion, we cannot say (we have discussed above the copious evidence for pre-dramatic choruses, which later became the choruses of comedy; and Susarion may have written for some of them), but Susarion for him is not a Megarian. The only evidence for Susarion being a Megarian rather than an Athenian from Icaria is the line ‘Son of Philinus, from Megara, Tripodiscus’, a later interpolation into forged verses. The only evidence for dating this interpolation lies in an ingenious suggestion of Professor G. F. Else.1He points out that the relevant sentence in the commentator on Aristotle’s Ethics2is extremely like the phraseology in the Poetics. The Poetics only mentions ‘the Megarians’; the commentator on the Ethics adds, ‘if in fact Susarion, the originator of comedy, was a Megarian’. It is possible that he found this fuller version in Aristotle’s dialogue On Poets. If so, Susarion was made a Megarian as early as the fourth century to justify the Megarian claim, but we have no evidence that the fourth-century claimants had any know­ ledge of any Megarian comedy or pre-comedy which was earlier than Attic comedy.]

hi.

Early Athenian Comic Poets

§ i. The names which are associated by Diomedes, a gram­ marian of the fourth century a . d . , with that of Susarion are those of Myllus and Magnes. According to the Suda (s.v. Epicharmus)3 the life of Epicharmus at Syracuse coincided with the activity of Euetes, Euxenides, and Myllus at Athens, seven years before the Persian Wars ; i.e. they were practically contemporary with Chionides. With regard to Euetes, the difficulty lies in the fact that the only Euetes of whom we know anything (even by conjecture) is a tragic poet, whose name occurs in the inscriptional list of tragic poets victorious at the City Dionysia between the names of Aeschylus and Polyphradmon,4 as having won a single 1 Aristotle’s Poetics, p. 112. 2 Gf. above, p. 180. 3 Cf. below, p. 231 [App.]. 4 LG. ii2. 2325; [see Festivals, p. 1x4;] Wilhelm, Urkunden, p. 100, and Capps, Introd. o f Comedy into the City Dionysia (1903). The restoration of the name seems certain, though the first two letters are missing.

188

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

victory, and it is strange that the Suda should mention a tragic poet here, or that if he wished to mention one, he should not have mentioned Aeschylus. If, on the other hand, there was a comic poet of the name of Euetes, why should he have been mentioned in preference to Chionides, whom Aristotle and the Suda recognize as a landmark? These ques­ tions admit of no certain answer. Euxenides is mentioned nowhere except in these two pas­ sages. Wilamowitz once conjectured1 that the names given by the Suda were derived from some authority who wishes to prove that Athens had comic poets as early as the Dorians of Sicily, and invented names beginning with Eu- to prove his case. In his later references to the subject2 he does not repeat this suggestion, but substitutes a rather different one,3 still, however, based on the assumption of a warfare of fictions between Athenian and Dorian champions. Such speculations must be received with great caution. Several writers speak of a comic poet named Myllus, and when we are asked to regard Myllus as a character-type (like Maison),4 it is right to notice, as Wilamowitz does,5 that Zenobius6 clearly distinguishes the comic poet from the proverbia] myllos who is supposed to constitute the charactertype. His words are : ‘Myllus hearing everything. This proverb is used of those who pretend to be deaf and hear everything. Cratinus mentions it in the CleobuUnae. There is also a comic poet Myllus.’ Arcadius (53) also mentions Myllus among the disyllabic proper names ending in -llos and adds ‘comic poet’ : both Hesychius and Photius speak of a Myllos (the name is sometimes corrupted) as ‘a poet ridiculed for stupidity’ : and the reference of Eustathius7 to an actor of the name, if not free from suspicion, at least confirms the use of the word as a proper name. Wilhelm8 knows it as a proper name in inscrip­ tions from Thasos and Hermione. Accordingly, poor though 1 Hermes, ix. 341. 2 Gott. Gel. Anz. (1906), p. 621. 3 See above, p. 179. 4 Wilamowitz, Hermes, ix. 338; Capps, op. cit., p. 5; Körte in R.E. xi, col. 1227. 5 Gott. Gel. Anz., loc. cit. 6 v. 14. 7 On Od. X X . 106: ‘Myllus, the name of an ancient actor, who, they say, used masks coated with red ochre.’ 8 Op. cit., p. 247.

E A R L Y A T H E N I A N C O M IC P O E T S

189

the evidence is, we have to admit the possibility of a poet of the name.1 § 2. It is a relief to turn from these unprofitable names to two poets of whom at least some facts are certain—Chionides and Magnes. Aristotle mentions them,12 evidently because they were the first Attic comic poets properly so called, in connexion with the Megarian claim to priority. His informa­ tion doubtless came from official records ;3 and these records would begin as soon as comedy was granted a chorus by the archon at a Dionysiae festival. Of the date of this first grant we have two indications; the Suda’s account of Chionides, and the great didascalie inscription, both contain the record of contests at the City Dionysia. The former is as follows : ‘Chionides. Athenian, poet of Old Comedy, who they say was also the protagonist of Old Comedy and produced eight years before the Persian wars. His plays are the following : Hero, Beggars, Persians or Assyrians* The statement that he was the ‘protagonist’ of the Old Comedy can hardly mean any­ thing else than that he was victorious at the first contest,4 and so was the first or leading representative of the art; and the Suda’s dates seem generally to be connected with some im­ portant event in a writer’s career, such as this victory would be. ‘Eight years before the Persian Wars’ may mean either 488/7 B.c., or, if the reckoning is inclusive, 487/6 b .c.5 Either of these dates is possible, but Capps finds it easier to recon­ struct the inscription mentioned on the assumption that the latter date is the correct one, and this may be provisionally accepted. The statement that Epicharmus was composing much earlier than Chionides and Magnes will be discussed 1 Those who take the word simply as an adjective (used as the name of a type), accented on the last syllable, differ as to its meaning. Wilamowitz (Hermes, loc. cit.) and Dieterich {Pulcinella, p. 38) took it sensu obscaeno, K aibel {C.G.F., i. 78) as *— kyllos, alio oculis alio mente conversis*. 2 Poet, iii, cf. above, p. 132. It can hardly be doubted that he refers to them also in ch. v: ‘Comedy had already developed some of its forms by the time o f the earliest poets whose names are remembered.’ 3 See Capps, Introd. of Comedy into City Dion., p. 9. (I follow Capps’ admirable discussion closely in this section.) 4 The meanings o f protagonistes are fully discussed by K. Rees, The Rule of Three Actors in the Classical Greek Drama ( x908), pp. 31 ff. [Cf. Festivals, pp. 133 ff.] 5 T he year o f the Persian Wars is assumed to be 480/79 B.c.

190

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

below.1 The date is also consistent with the most probable view of the inscription which gives the list of comic poets victorious at the City Dionysia in the order of their first victories.2 Probably the texts of Chionides3plays were not preserved in Aristotle’s day; he can only tell us that the comedy of these first recorded poets had already a certain form, and it is not likely that any texts of comedies earlier than those of Crati­ nus long survived their production. We do not know what authority the Suda had for the names which he gives to sup­ posed plays of Chionides ; Athenaeus shows that the Beggars was known to be spurious in the third century a . d . 3 The frag­ ments of the poems are of no importance, even if genuine. [The fragments are all in iambic trimeters.] 1 See below, p. 231 ff. ii2. 2 3 2 5 [Festivals, p. 1 1 4 ] . It is practically certain that the eighth line contained the name of Magnes; for though only the last letter of the name and the number o f victories is preserved, the missing letters must have been five in number, and the number of victories, eleven, is that ascribed to Magnes by the Anonymous writer preserved in Cod. Estensis and the Aldine Aristo­ phanes. The Suda’s ascription o f two victories only to Magnes is probably a simple mistake. Aristoph. Knights 5 2 1 , says that he set up ‘many victorious trophies over rival choruses’, and the attempt to justify the Suda (whose num­ bers are very often not such as to inspire confidence) by supposing that he refers to Lenaean victories only fails, because the numbers in such literary notices o f victories are always those o f Dionysian and Lenaean victories to­ gether or of Dionysian alone, and the Suda elsewhere always gives the total for both festivals (see Capps, Ann. J . Ph. xx. 3 9 8 ) ; and it is now generally agreed that Lenaean contests in comedy were not state-managed and recorded before (c.) 4 4 2 B . c . Allowing two lines for the heading of the inscription there will have been five names before that o f Magnes, and o f these Chionides must have been the first. (The four intervening poets must have been so obscure that Aristotle passed them over. [Mr. Lewis suggests Euetes, Euxenides, and Myllos, cf. above. Alkimenes (only mentioned by the Suda) is usually inserted two lines after M agnes].) N ow if Magnes’ victory in 4 7 3 / 2 b . c . ( 2 3 1 8 , Festivals, p. 1 0 6 ) were his first we should have six victorious poets over a space of fifteen years ( 4 8 7 / 6 B .C .- 4 7 3 /2 b . c . ) — a quite possible number; but in fact some o f M agnes’ victories may have fallen before 4 7 3 / 2 b .c . Four lines below the nam e of M agne]s in 2 3 2 5 , comes a name which is almost certainly restored as Euphron]ios, with one victory. Euphronius won a Dionysiae victory in 4 5 9 / 8 ( 2 3 1 8 ) , fourteen years after M agnes’ victory in 4 7 3 / 2 ; and as the four poets inter­ vening between Magnes and Euphronius in the list o f victors won only one victory each, most o f the victories of these fourteen years must have been won by Magnes and his predecessors, including, presumably, Chionides. The whole record works out easily if Magnes’ victory in 4 7 3 / 2 fell somewhat before the middle of his career, and if Chionides won a large number o f victories. 3 Athen, iv. 137 e; xiv. 638 d.

2 LG.

E A R L Y A T H E N IA N C O M I C P O E T S

I9 I

Magnes won a victory in 473/2 b .c.,1 and eleven victories in all. The statement of the Suda that he was ‘from the town Icaria, Attic, or an Athenian, comic poet5, probably betrays an attempt to connect him with Susarion and Thespis. Aristophanes {Knights 518 if.) tells us that he fell out of favour in his old age : Discerning long ago that your tastes were seasonal and that you abandoned the earlier poets when they grew old, knowing what Magnes suffered when his hair turned grey, who set up many victorious trophies over rival choruses, and though he uttered every note and plucked the strings and flapped his wings and played the Lydian and the fig-fly and dipped in frog-dye he did not satisfy you, but in the end in his old age, not in his youth, he was cast off because in his advanced years he failed in joking.

The titles of his plays, according to the Scholiast’s note, were Barbitistai (therefore ‘plucking the strings’), Birds, Lydians, Fig-flies, Frogs. The significance of these titles, and particularly of the animal-choruses, has already been referred to.2 Plays called Dionysus and Poastria (‘the Haymaker’) were also ascribed to him,3 but the critics of the early centuries A .D . were aware that the extant plays bearing his name were either spurious or had been revised and greatly altered.4 Probably not a line really written by Magnes survives ; the fragments, even if genuine, are quite trivial. [Four of them are in iambic trimeters and one is a trochaic tetrameter.] § 3. The last of the poets who appeared before the great period of Attic comedy opened with Cratinus is Ecphantides. In the list of comic poets victorious at the City Dionysia5 his 1 I.G. ii2. 2318 (Wilhelm, Urkunden, pp. 16 if.). Capps’ calculations (op. cit., pp. 14-22) fix the date with certainty, and he disposes easily o f the reasons which used to be given for a later date. The choregos for Aeschylus in the same year was Pericles, and earlier scholars assumed that he would have been too young to undertake the choregia in 472 b . c.: but a very young man m ight be called upon if he were rich enough, and the choregia did not depend upon, or lead to, political eminence. In Lysias xxi. 1 we find a choregos of eighteen years o f age. 2 Above, p. 152. 3 Athen, ix. 367 f.; xiv. 646 e; Schol. Platon. Bekk. 336 (on Theaet. 209 b). 4 Athen., 11. cc.; Hesych. ‘Playing the Lydian : dancing; because o f the Lydians, which are preserved but have been revised.’ Phot. ‘Playing the Lydian : the Lydians of the comic poet Magnes were revised.’ 5 I.G. ii2. 2325 (Wilhelm, Urkunden, pp. 106 if.; Festivals, p. 114). See Geissler, Chronologie der altattischen Komödie (1925), p. i t .

192

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

name appears to be correctly restored, with four victories, before that of Cratinus, and after that of Euphronius (of whom nothing more is known). His first victory must have been won in or shortly before 454 b . c . A scholiast1 describes him as ‘earliest poet of Old Comedy’, and Körte takes this to imply that he was the oldest comic poet of whom any play was preserved; this, however, appears hardly certain. The contempt of Ecphantides for Megarian comedy has already been mentioned, and he may have attempted to produce something more refined. The only titles of plays of Ecphan­ tides are Peirai and Satyrs, a trochaic tetrameter of which, referring to boiled pigs’ trotters, is quoted by Athenaeus.2 In addition we have only a salutation to Bacchus, and the super­ lative ‘most slanderous’. The scholiast on Aristophanes’ Wasps, 1187, states that, like Cratinus, Telecleides, and Aristophanes, he attacked a certain Androcles.3 Aristotle refers4 to a tablet dedicated by Thrasippus, who had been choregos to Ecphan­ tides, and from the context the date of the dedication appears to have been a considerable time after the Persian Wars. Ecphantides is said to have been nicknamed Kapnias,5though different reasons for the name are given. Hesychius preserves a story that he was helped in the composition of his plays by his slave Choerilus.6 [§ 4. The very little that we know of the earliest Athenian comic poets testifies to the variety of their plays. If we dis­ regard the titles of Chionides as being possibly inventions, we are nevertheless on firm ground with the titles of Magnes 1 See above, p. 180; cf. Körte in R.E. xi, col. 1228. 96 b, c. [O n the Peirai see Festivals, pp. 52 f. and the literature there quoted.] 3 ‘Ecphantides calls him a purse-cutter.’ 4 Pol. vili. vi. i3 4 ia3Ö, on flute-playing in Athens after the Persian Wars. s Hesych., s.v. Kapnias, says o f Ecphantides that ‘he was called kapnias be­ cause he wrote nothing sparkling’, adding ‘wine also is called kapnias when it has been in the smoke’. Schol. Ven. on Aristophanes Wasps 151 says: ‘Som esay wine when it grows weak is called kapnias, but in “ On Cratinus” it is defined as reserved and old, wherefore they call Ecphantides Kapnias.’ Cf. also Pherecr., fr. 130 K ; Anaxandrides, fr. 41, 1. 70. T he meaning was disputed by the gram­

2 Athen, iii.

matici. 6 See above, p. 68. Hesychius, s.v. ekkechoirilSmenS: ‘not belonging to Choe­ rilus. For Choerilus was the servant of the comic poet Ecphantides, and helped him in composing his comedies.’ s.v. Choirilecphantides : ‘So Cratinus calls Ec­ phantides because o f Choirilus’ (see Edmonds, i. 13, on text).

E A R L Y A T H E N IA N C O M IC P O E T S

193

and Ecphantides. These poets had the kinds of chorus for which we have found evidence in earlier masked dances : animals, foreigners, perhaps ugly women (if ‘Haymaker’ should be ‘Haymakers’), and satyrs. But this very variety is an embarrassment to any attempt to find the sequence of an original vegetation ritual preserved in the plays of Aristo­ phanes. This attempt was made by F. M. Gomford in The Origin of Attic Comedy (1914). He argued that the ‘canonical plot-formula’ (which for him was agon, sacrifice, feast, mar­ riage komos) ‘preserves the stereotyped action of a ritual or folk drama, older than literary Comedy and of a pattern well known to us from other sources’. In the ritual the good principle is born and grows. ‘The Agon is the conflict between the good and evil principles, Summer and Winter, Life and Death. The good spirit is slain, dismembered, cooked and eaten in the communal feast, and yet brought back to life. Finally comes the sacred Marriage of the risen God restored to life and youth to be the husband of the Mother Goddess.’ In the first edition of this book Sir Arthur Pickard-Cambridge pointed out the extreme difficulty of finding the traces of this ritual in Aristophanes : the only play in which there really is a quasi-daemonic marriage is the Birds, the only rejuvenation is in the Knights, Dicaeopolis in the Acharnians is the only hero who is in danger of death. The theory clearly does not work when applied in detail to the plays of Aristophanes. Now that we can trace elements of drama back to the Mycenaean age we should not expect the ritual to be later than the Mycenaean age. Even if, as is likely, the human male choruses of Aristophanes are the lineal descendants of Mycenaean masked dancers through the seventh-sixth-century padded dancers and even if, as is possible, they are the strongest strain in the comic tradition, strong enough to preserve something in spite of the incursions of choruses of animals, foreigners, and ugly women, in spite of the influence of Ionian iambic and Attic tragedy, what they preserve will not be the ritual but the ritual refracted into myths, just as the ritual proposed by Gilbert Murray for the origin of tragedy had been refracted into the Pentheus myth, the Lycurgus myth, and others before the time of our

194

TH E B E G IN N IN G S OF G RE E K C O M E D Y

Homer. It is only when so restated that the theory becomes valuable, and even then the supposed ritual is open to the criticism that it contains much too much; agon followed by marriage is possible, but birth, death, omophagy, and re­ juvenation seem to belong to something else. Dionysus is a god of vegetation and all his festivals were therefore vegetation festivals. In this sense comedy certainly was vegetation ritual and it is valuable to remember this fact. It is also true that the ugly women and the animal choruses were probably taken over into the festival of Dionysus Eleuthereus from other vegetation festivals, whether they belonged to Dionysus originally or to some other vegetation god. It is certainly possible that the Resistance stories (Pentheus, Lycurgus, &c.) represent the translation of ritual into myth and that these myths remained so potent that they set the rhythm for tragedies which drew on quite different myths for their material. I have suggested above that the Return of Hephaistos, which we can say with some confidence was sung by the padded dancers in the late seventh and early sixth centuries, had a very early origin in a ritual to release the winterbound earth goddess and that its essential sequence of battle, intrigue, and marriage had a potent influence on the shape of comedy. If it can be restated in these terms Cornford’s theory is suggestive and valuable.]

EXCURSUS ON TH E F O R M OF TH E OLD COM EDY AS S E E N I N A R I S T O P H A N E S

§ 1 I t was argued above that the extant comedies of Aristo­

phanes show clear traces of an original ^omr-sequence, which may for convenience sake be summed up as Parodos-AgonParabasis, or Parodos-Proagon-Agon-Parabasis, all of these elements showing, with different degrees of completeness and symmetry, the same type of metrical structure. Part of the business of this Appendix will be to illustrate and am p lify

O N TH E FO R M OF TH E OLD C O M ED Y

!95

this statement. But in the extant plays this sequence is com­ bined with scenes of another type, in iambic trimeters, sepa­ rated by choral odes, and (at least in many plays) of an ‘epeisodic’ character, only slightly connected with the plot which has come to some kind of conclusion with the decision of the agón, but usually at least illustrating the results of that decision ; very often these form simply a series of farcical scenes, in which one ridiculous character after another tries to impose upon the victor, and is driven off with scorn or violence. The plays of Aristophanes show a gradually increas­ ing success in welding these two main elements in the play, the epirrhematic and the iambic, into a whole. In all the plays there is an introductory scene or prologue which serves as a bond of unity; and there is often an iambic scene between the agon and the parabasis, inserted evidently to prepare for the scenes which are to follow the parabasis. Aristophanes also, especially in the later plays, while adhering more or less to the general outline which has been indicated—Prologue, Parodos, Proagón, Agon, Transition scene (if any), Parabasis, Iambic scenes, Exodos—introduces many variations, as the accompanying analysis of his plays will show, and in particu­ lar he sometimes introduces among or near the end of the iambic scenes a second parabasis or a second agò% of a shorter form than the parabasis or agon proper. It cannot be too plainly stated that the poet is not bound by these conventional forms ; he evidently stands at the end of the development of the Old Comedy, and, especially in the latter part of his career, he experiments freely; but it is obvious that he is conscious of them to the end. No discussion of the form of the plays of Aristophanes can begin without an acknowledgement of the debt which all students of the subject owe to Zielinski,1 whose thorough and ingenious discussion is necessarily the basis of all other work ; the discussion was carried further by Mazon,2 and contribu­ tions to it have been made from time to time by others. But both Zielinski and Mazon appear to postulate too rigid a structure for comedy, and to leave too little freedom to the 1 Die Gliederung der altattischen Komödie (1885).

2 Essai sur la composition des comédies dyAristophane (1904).

196

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

poet; and Zielinski in particular is led to frame a number of very unconvincing theories, partly in regard to the revision of particular plays, partly in regard to metre and delivery, to account for our text being at certain points divergent from the assumed structure. These theories we shall have to re­ ject, but the poet’s consciousness of something like a normal sequence of scenes of certain definite types appears neverthe­ less to be certain. The number of elements in the simplest complete epirrhematic scene is four—ode (a), antode («'), epirrhema (b), antepirrhema (b'), and the order of these may be aba'b', bab'a', abb'a', aa!bb\ and perhaps bb'aa!. Such a fourfold scene has, since the appearance of Zielinski’s work, been called an epirrhematic syzygy. This structure may be enlarged (i) by the prefixing of two (or sometimes more) lines to the epir­ rhema or antepirrhema, usually containing a command or encouragement to each party to state his case; these are the katakeleusmos and antikatakeleusmos, (2) by appending to the epirrhema and antepirrhema, which are always in tetra­ meters (anapaestic, iambic, or trochaic), a number of dimeters of the same type, sometimes (when delivered by one speaker) termed pnigos (probably because of the pace at which they were delivered in one breath) or makron, and often intro­ ducing language of a more violent or vulgar character than the tetrameters, as a kind of climax. It is convenient to use the term antipnigos, for the dimeters of the antepirrhema.1The whole may be preceded by an invocation or prelude, and rounded off by a sphragis or conclusion, emphasizing the issue. Except in the parabasis, the epirrhemata and pnige may be shared between several speakers, of whom one may be the leader of the chorus, and the ode and antode may be entirely given to the chorus, or may be shared by the actors or inter­ rupted by ‘mesodic’ tetrameters or other lines not strictly lyric. But in the parabasis there are no such divisions. The ode and antode always correspond exactly, as strophe 1 For the terminology and the authority for it in antiquity see Körte in R.E. xi, col. 1242. The words antikatakeleusmos and antipnigos have no ancient authority, but are conveniently coined.

O N TH E F O R M OF TH E OLD CO M EDY

197

and antistrophe. In the parabasis the epirrhema and antepirrhema also correspond exactly, and the number of lines in each is always a multiple of four (usually sixteen) ; but in other epirrhematic scenes there may or may not be such exact correspondence, and we shall have to discuss various cases separately. It will be best to begin our consideration of the normal elements in comedy with the parabasis, which adheres far more strictly to type than the other varieties of epirrhematic scene. In the parabasis, in its complete form, the epirrhe­ matic syzygy, in which the epirrhema and antepirrhema are always in trochaic tetrameters, is preceded by (1) the kommation, a brief farewell to the persons who are quitting the scene, or a ‘word of command5to the chorus to begin the parabasis, (2) the ‘anapaests’ regularly so called, though sometimes the Eupolidean or other metres are employed1—an address, normally in anapaestic tetrameters, by the leader of the chorus to the audience, usually in the poet’s name and interest, and concluding with (3) a pnigos. (2) and (3) are sometimes called the ‘parabasis’ in the narrower sense of the word. It is doubtful whether (1) should be distinguished from (2) when it is composed in the same long metre. § 2. The Parabasis The parabasis is found in its complete form in the Acharnians, Knights, Wasps, and Birds, and (except for the absence of the pnigos) in the Clouds. In the Lysistrata the chorus is divided into two semi-choruses (of men and women respectively) throughout, and the part of the parabasis before the syzygy is altered (see analysis). In the Frogs the epirrhematic syzygy is complete, but has nothing before it. In the Peace there are 1 Körte, in R.E. xi, col. 1243, finds evidence of about twenty parabases of lost plays in metres other than the anapaestic, and thinks that as practically all of these are based on the popular choriambic dimeter metre, they may be older (in Attic comedy) than, and may have been ousted by, the anapaestic tetrameter used by Epicharmus. But the strong predominance of the anapaestic metre makes this very doubtful, and the ascription to the parabasis proper of some of the passages to which he refers is very uncertain. The majority of the passages are in Eupolideans, but a parabasis of Eupolis’ Astrateutoi in the metrum Cratineum is certain, and frs. 30, 31 in a choriambic-iambic metre are probably from the parabasis proper of Aristophanes’ Amphiaraus.

ig8

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

the kommation, anapaests, pnigos, ode and antode, but no epirrhemata. In the Thesmophoriazusae we find the kommation, anapaests, pnigos and epirrhema only. The only plays without a parabasis are the two fourth-century plays, the Ecclesiazusae and Plutus. In the Knights, Peace, and Birds there is a second parabasis in the form of a simple epirrhematic syzygy, the only varia­ tion being the termination of the epirrhema and antepirrhema in the Peace by a short pnigos. In the Clouds a single epirrhema of sixteen lines addressed to the judges takes the place of a second parabasis. In the Wasps (1265-91) is a second para­ basis of irregular shape. In the extant parabases the epirrhema and antepirrhema always contain sixteen or twenty lines each, and are of the same length ; except that in the Lysistrata there are two epir­ rhemata and two antepirrhemata, each of ten lines. There is no direct evidence as to the way in which these portions were delivered ; but it may be taken as almost certain that the epir­ rhema and antepirrhema were delivered in recitative. The exact symmetry of the structure (as compared with that of some other epirrhematic scenes) is probably due to the necessity of conformity with the orderly evolutions of the dancers. The parabasis inevitably makes a break in the action of the play, and the facts suggest that at first the action—or at least an action—was virtually complete before the parabasis began. In the Acharnians, Dicaeopolis has already got his Peace, and the subsequent scenes only show its farcical consequences ; in the Wasps, Philocleon has submitted, and the scenes after the parabasis do not really touch the main issue of the play; in the Peace, the corresponding scenes only show the conse­ quences of the newly recovered Peace ; and those in the Birds display Peithetaerus in the City of the Birds which he has won before the beginning of the parabasis, though the final settlement with the gods is left over to the end of the play. There can, of course, be no doubt that Aristophanes at­ tempted, and with greater success as time went on, to make his plays a unity and to include the parabasis itself within the whole ; and in the Knights, Clouds, Lysistrata, Thesmophoriazusae, and Frogs (the latter perhaps the most artistic play and the

ON THE FORM OF THE OLD COM EDY

199

compietesi unity of all, as well as the most free in its handling of traditional forms) the plot extends over the whole play and the issue is not decided until the end. But unless the parabasis had originally involved a breaking off from an action already decided, it is perhaps unlikely that any poet would have invented or accepted such a break in the middle of his play. The parabasis makes a break, not only in the action, but in the dramatic function of the chorus.1 In the first five extant plays the ‘anapaests’ are an address of the poet to the audience in his own defence,123and have nothing to do with the play, though the chorus resumes its stage character in part in the epirrhema and antepirrhema. Again the poet strives for greater unity, and in the Birds the anapaests also are in character, expounding the ‘new theology’ associated with the government of the Birds ; in the Lysistrata and Thesmophoriazusae the dramatic character of the chorus is maintained throughout, and there is nowhere any marked divergence from the subject of the play; in the Frogs the mystae retain their character in the epirrhema and antepirrhema, though the ode and antode consist of satire directed against Cleophon and Cleigenes. In the first four of the six plays which have a second parabasis, the subject of it is independent of the plot; in the Peace the rustics sing of the country and country-life at different seasons ; in the Birds the chorus remain in character except for an address to the judges in the antepirrhema. A possible conclusion from these facts is that the parabasis was originally a semi-dramatic, or even a non-dramatic, sequel to the dramatic action of the agon by the komastai? 1 The recovery from this break is sometimes very imperfect. Many of the odes which separate the epeisodic scenes, after the parabasis, might be sung by any chorus, and no one would suspect (from their contents) that they were sung by Knights or Wasps or Birds. (See later.) 2 That this had been their use before Aristophanes seems to be implied by his statement in the Achamians (628) that that play was the first in which he himself had used them for the purpose. 3 See above, pp. 149 ff. Cornford’s idea that an agon between two semi­ choruses (as in the Lysistrata) was itself the original form of parabasis is ren­ dered improbable by the fact that, except in the Lysistrata, a play in many ways unique, there is scarcely any trace of opposition between the semi-choruses in the parabasis (see above, p. 149). [But the evidence for Cratinus must also be considered (above, p. 160).]

200

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

§ 3. The Agon It is convenient to confine the use of the name agon to the formal or set debate between two parties which is so common in Aristophanes, and to treat the preliminary conflicts which lead up to it under other heads.1 The facts may be briefly stated as follows. We find an agon in regular form, including an epirrhematic syzygy, and pre­ senting only slight variations in other respects, in the first part (i.e. before the parabasis) in the Knights, Wasps, Birds, and Lysistrata, and in the second part in the Knights (on a larger scale than the first agon), the Clouds (where there are two such contests after the first parabasis), and the Frogs (though in this play there is some irregularity as regards the odes). In the Peace there is not, strictly speaking, an agon as regards either matter or form, perhaps because it would have been danger­ ous to discuss seriously the policies of war and peace; but in form there is a fragment of an agon (601-56) including katakeleusmos and epirrhema, and the epirrhema is certainly contentious in matter. (Hermes gives a paradoxical account of the causes of the war.) In an earlier scene (346-430) there is more of the agdn as regards the matter, where Trygaeus persuades Hermes not to tell Zeus of the plan for raising Peace, and as regards form, this scene gives us a strophe and anti­ strophe, each succeeded by what, but for its being in the iambic trimeter metre, would be respectively an epirrhema and antepirrhema of almost equal length, and the whole con­ cluded by a sphragis in trochaic tetrameters. It is clear that if it was a general rule that the first half of the play should con­ tain something like an agon, the Peace is not a very violent exception, and there seems to be no need for Zielinski’s strange theory as to the nature of the play.12 In the Clouds it is remarkable that both contests are post­ poned to the second half of the play; the natural place of the agon in the first half is taken by Socrates’ instruction of 1 [A very detailed and careful discussion of this agdn will be found in T. Geizer, Der epirrhematische Agon bei Aristophanes, ^eternata 23, i960.] 2 Op. cit., pp. 63-78.

O N THE F O R M OF THE OLD COM EDY

201

Strepsiades in the new religion. But it is practically certain that the Clouds as we have it is neither the play in its original form nor yet a completed revision, and Zielinski may be right1 in thinking that in the first edition this scene may have been more like a formal agon. The discussion between Socrates and the incredulous Strepsiades would certainly lend itself to this ; and one or both of the existing agones may belong to the unfinished second edition of the play. There are two plays in which the matter in the first part of the play is exactly of the kind to make a good agón, but in which the form is abnormal—the Acharnians and the Thesmophoriazusae. In both these the place of the epirrhemata is taken by set speeches in iambic trimeters, and the reason is obvious, —that the speeches are parodies of the orations delivered in the law-courts {Acharnians) or the assembly ( Thesmophoriazusae), and the iambic trimeter was the metre conventionally appro­ priated to such set speeches on the stage ; in the Acharnians also there is obvious burlesque of the ‘forensic contests’ of tragedy. So in the Acharnians there is first a kind of proagon (358-92) with symmetrical semi-lyric odes and a katakeleusmos (364-5), but with the first epirrhema replaced by Dicaeopolis’ first defence in iambic trimeters (366-84) while for the second, which we expect after 1. 392, is substituted the farcical scene between Dicaeopolis and Euripides. Then follows what in matter is a real agon, with short semi-lyric odes,2 Dicaeopolis’ defence for epirrhema, and for antepirrhema the presentation of the other side pour rire in the person of Lamachus. This is of course only an imperfect substitute for the proper epirrhematic structure, but it is near enough to it to be regarded as a de­ liberate variation of it. In the Thesmophoriazusae, in addition to the substitution of a debate in iambic trimeters, there is the further irregularity that the kind of ‘battle-scene’,3 which usually leads up to the agon, in this play follows the quasiagón or debate, and in fact the whole structure of the first half 1 Op. Cit., pp. 34-60. The details of his reconstruction of the original play are not at all convincing. 2 These odes do not perfectly correspond in our texts. In 11. 490-5 there are two pairs of dochmiac lines separated by two iambic trimeters, in 11. 566-71 there are six lines of dochmiacs; but the difference is not very noticeable. 3 The term is borrowed from Mazon.

202

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

of this play is very formless, though as a plot the play hangs together well, and there is no reason to suspect any loss or displacement, granted that the poet was not rigidly tied down by conventions. The postponement of the agon in the Frogs to the second half was plainly necessitated by the nature of the plot, which covers the whole play. When exceptions are allowed for, it may fairly be said that in Aristophanes’ plays there is a marked preference for an agon, regular or modified, before the parabasis, and there can be little doubt that this was its normal place, though the poet did not hesitate to modify both the position and the epirrhematic structure of the contest, if his plot demanded it. The structure may be preserved, even if the matter (as in the Birds) is less that of an actual contest than an exposition to the incredulous of a paradoxical thesis, and if in consequence the leading part in the epirrhema and antepirrhema cannot be assigned to different parties. It has already been noticed that the symmetry between epirrhema and antepirrhema, which is observed without exception in the parabasis, is not so strict in the agon. The two are not always in the same metre, though the metre is always some species of tetrameter.1 In the first agon in the Knights the symmetry is perfect, except that six mesodic trochaic tetrameters (391-6) in the antode correspond to eight such lines (314-21) in the ode; it is at least possible that two lines may have been lost, though the irregularity is not so surprising as a want of correspondence between the lyric portions of the ode would be. In the second agon in the same play (756-941) 61 lines of epirrhema are answered by 68 of antepirrhema. In the Birds there is exact correspondence ; the epirrhema and antepirrhema have each 61 lines. In the 1 The species seems to be chosen, at least sometimes, with a view to the character of the contestant. The better side tends to be given anapaestic tetra­ meters (the Just Argument, Aeschylus), and this metre generally goes with an elevated or mock-heroic argument (the proof of the divinity of the Clouds or the Birds, &c.) ; while the iambic tetrameter generally suggests something more degraded (the Unjust Argument, Euripides, Pheidippides’ justification of mother-beating, Cleon, &c.). But the distinction is not quite constant.

O N TH E F O R M OF TH E OLD C O M ED Y

203

Lysistrata each has 47 lines, and the symmetry is thus com­ plete. In the Wasps the 69 lines of the antepirrhema just fail to correspond with the 72 lines of the epirrhema. In both contests in the Clouds the correspondence is inexact (epirrhema of 47 lines, antepirrhema of 49 lines in the first ; in the second 33 and 46 lines respectively; and slight differences in the pnige). In the Frogs the lines of the epirrhema and antepir­ rhema are 64 and 71 respectively. Thus the symmetry, though, as a rule, roughly observed (as would be natural in a fairly ordered debate, and in a structure freely adapted from that of the parabasis) is not rigorously exact ; the chorus (though they may begin as partisans) are judges, or at least ‘keepers of the ring’ in the agon : they are accordingly not dancing but listening, and there would therefore be no need to provide for symmetrical evolutions of the chorus during the discussion by the litigants.1 In one agon only, so far as can be seen, were the chorus in motion ; in the Lysistrata (539-42) the singers in the women’s chorus exhort each other to move and help their friends, and declare that dancing will never tire them. Zielinski argues (and though the argument is not conclusive, he may be right) that this cannot refer to the brief dancing during the antode, but must mean that they will dance through the antepirrhema, as the men’s chorus has (ex hypothesi) just danced through the epirrhema. But if the phrase ‘dancing never tires me’ does not refer to the antode or is not perfectly general—if it means that the chorus danced throughout—we have here one of those exceptions which prove a rule. For in this agon the two semi-choruses do not pretend to be judges, but are keen partisans ; they have no judicial calm, and may quite well be in movement all the time. (The contest is left drawn, when the Proboulos and Lysistrata divide the sphragis 1 Zielinski’s argument from the Schol. on Aristoph. Clouds 1352 is most in­ conclusive. The scholium runs: ‘By speaking to the chorus they meant that while the actor was delivering his speech the chorus danced. Therefore they normally chose tetrameters in such parts, anapaestic or iambic, because such a metre fits easily.’ The scholium is nonsense as an explanation of the passage, which simply means ‘to tell the chorus’; but it may have some meaning if applied not, as Zielinski suggests, to the agon, but to some of the scenes before it, in which the chorus are often in violent motion. (The mention of the actor excludes the parabasis.) But it seems doubtful whether any importance at all should be attached to so confused and obscure a scholium.

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

(598 f.) between them.) It is confirmatory of this that the agon is perfectly symmetrical. Zielinski however wishes to impose exact symmetry every­ where, and to raise the number of lines in every epirrhema and antepirrhema to a multiple of four; and to accomplish this he has to assume pauses of from one to four lines’ length in many places,1 and to suppose that these were filled with instrumental music to which the chorus danced. But the dis­ tribution of these pauses is very unconvincing; in some places the suggested pause is not only unnecessary but unnatural, nor is there anything in the matter to account for the varying lengths of these pauses. The explanation above given of the want of symmetry, namely that symmetry was unnecessary to the performance, because the words of the agon had not to be correlated with dancing movements of the chorus, seems much more likely. § 4. The Preparatory Scenes The scenes between the prologue (or introductory iambic scene) and the agon vary much more in form than those which we have been considering, and if we were right in deriving them from an original ^omo^-sequence there is nothing un­ natural in this ; a band of revellers breaking in upon the scene might behave very freely and variously before coming at length to the conventional agon and parabasis. But one of the commonest types of scene which we find in this place in Aristophanes is that which Zielinski conveniently terms a proagon (though the technical use of the word in antiquity was different) and which often takes the form which Mazon calls a ‘scène de bataille’. The business of this scene is to single out and present the disputants in the coming agon to the audience, to calm them (and often the chorus, which at first sides with 1 e.g. in the second ag6n of the Knights he makes up the epirrhema and ant­ epirrhema to multiples of four, with pauses of three lines’ length at 11. 780 or 784, 867 and 880; of four lines’ at 889: of one line’s at 849 and 905. Again, pauses are inserted at Clouds 1429, 1436, and the epirrhema cut down to thirtytwo lines by joining 1. 1385 to the prdgos. In the Wasps also epirrhema and ant­ epirrhema are raised to eighty lines each, with pauses of four lines’ length at 5595 two lines’ at 695 and 699; three lines’ at 706; and one line’s at 577, 589, 600, 615, 649, 663, 703 (some of these are most improbable).

O N TH E FO R M OF TH E OLD C O M EDY

205

one of them) down to the debating point, and generally to arrange the terms of the debate, to which, often after a violent beginning, the scene leads. The proagón often includes sym­ metrical elements of an epirrhematic type, at least in the earlier plays. Thus in the Acharnians 280-357, there is a com­ pletely symmetrical epirrhematic scene, of the abb'a' form, with katakeleusmos and sphragis : the chorus are evidently in energetic movement all the time.1 In the Knights it is difficult to distinguish proagón from parodos (242-302) ; the scene is all in trochaic tetrameters, but after the katakeleusmos or invoca­ tion by Demosthenes, the speeches (247-68) are symmetrically arranged, though the dialogue afterwards becomes unsymmetrical until it terminates in a pnigos (284-302). In the first part of the Clouds there is no distinct proagón: but in the Wasps there is a long and elaborate scene (317-525), portions of which are plainly of the (roughly) symmetrical epirrhematic type (see Analysis), e.g. 333 to 388 or 402, and 403-525.2 In the Peace the preparatory scenes are very freely constructed, but there are marked symmetrical elements, viz. 346-430 (strophe and antistrophe with iambic scenes, almost equal, for epirrhemata, and sphragis) and 459-511 (a similar though not exactly correspondent structure) ; the whole passage from 346-600 leads up, by its vigorous action (the raising of Peace), to the half-agon (601-56). In the Birds the ‘battle-scene’ (352432) which succeeds the parodos is not epirrhematic; nor are the scenes in iambic tetrameters (350-81), with pnigos (382-6) and trimeters (387-466) which precede the agon in the Lysistrata. In the Thesmophoriazusae and the Frogs (in which the agon is postponed) there is no proper proagón, though in the second part of the Frogs the iambic scenes from 830 to 894 deserve the name; and in the Ecclesiazusae (520-70) and the Plutus (415-86) the same purpose is again served by an iambic scene. In plays in which an agon occurs in the second half of the play, it may also be preceded by a scene which is 1 The schol. says they are dancing a kordax, but was this a choral dance at all? 2 403-4 correspond with 461-2 ; 405-29 correspond with 463-87, except that the latter part of the antode (463-71 ) is not exactly in accordance with that of the ode (405-14) ; there is an epirrhema (430-60) of thirty-one lines, and an antepirrhema (488-525) of thirty-eight lines.

2o 6

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

recognizably of the proagón-type, at least as regards matter, e.g. Clouds 1321-44; Knights 611-755, which is also in syzygy form, but with iambic scenes (nearly equal) in place of epirrhema and antepirrhema ; Frogs 830-94. The first agon in the Clouds is preceded by a preliminary contest in anapaestic dimeters between the two Arguments (899-948). The term parodos is nowhere defined in ancient writers with reference to comedy,1 and its use by modern writers on the subject varies, and that almost inevitably : for the actual entrance-song of the chorus is so closely connected in many plays with passages which follow it (and more rarely, as in the Birds, with passages which precede it), that to separate them would be unnatural, so that for convenience sake the term may well be used to cover these. In the Acharnians the parodos proper or entrance-scene (204-41) is quite symmetri­ cal in structure, and the first part epirrhematic {bab'a') ; the parodos in the wider sense includes Dicaeopolis’ celebration of the Rural Dionysia, after which the battle-scene or proagón follows. The parodos (or proagón) of the Knights with its sym­ metrical opening has already been mentioned.2 In the Clouds the parodos proper consists of an ode and antode sung by the chorus unseen, with an invocation in anapaestic tetrameters preceding them and a brief dialogue in the same metre dividing them, the whole section (263-313) forming a rough epirrhematic syzygy of the form bab'a’: in the wider sense the parodos will include the dialogue which follows, down to the exchange of greetings between Socrates and the now visible chorus (356-63). In the Wasps the chorus enter stumbling and talking (230-72) in iambic tetrameters (only exchanging a few words with one of the ‘link-boys’ who are lighting their way) ; they then sing an ode, in strophe and antistrophe (27389), and take part in a quaint antistrophic kommos with the boy (290-316) ; but strictly epirrhematic structures do not appear till the next scene, which we have treated as part of the proagón. The parodos of the Peace (301-45) is in trochaic tetrameters with a pnigos; it would be unnatural to include the next scene, which is essentially a discussion between 1 The definition which Aristotle (Poet, xii) gives of it for tragedy is clearly inapplicable to Comedy. 2 p. 205.

O N TH E F O R M OF T H E OLD C O M ED Y

207

Hermes and Trygaeus. The parodos of the Birds is elaborate and beautiful. The invocation-scene (209-66) is really an integral part of it; each song of the Epops is succeeded by four iambic trimeters : the parodos proper begins with the trochaic dialogue at 268, during which the birds enter one by one, till they join in the ode and antode (separated by a few trochaic lines), and then bring on the ‘battle-scene’. In the Lysistrata the divided chorus enters in two semi-choruses, the men (254-318) with a long speech which (after a katakeleusmos) falls into the form of an epirrhematic syzygy, followed by a strophe and antistrophe and thirteen iambic tetrameters. The women (319-49) are content with a katakeleusmos, strophe and antistrophe. In the Thesmophoriazusae the chorus enter as the herald makes the proclamation open­ ing the assembly ; they sing an ode; another proclamation follows, and an ode which does not correspond exactly with the preceding one, and the herald reads the notice convening the meeting and calls for speakers. The parodos of the Frogs, containing the incomparable lyrics of the mystae, is quite unique, and may be, as Zielinski suggests, founded upon the actual procession of the initiated to Eleusis, with the accom­ panying jokes. The parodos of the Ecclesiazusae consists of a few iambic tetrameters followed by lyrics ; that of the Plutus of a dialogue in iambic tetrameters between the chorus and Cario, followed by five lyric strophes, which the chorus and Cario sing alternately. This summary illustrates the predominance of tetrameter metres in the first scenes after the prologue, and the occasional occurrence of definitely epirrhematic structures, as well as the possibility of great variety of form in this part of the play. § 5. Iambic Scenes Having now reviewed the scenes which we have regarded as probably derived from the kómos, we may conveniently con­ sider the iambic scenes which form the greater part of the last half of each play, i.e. ofthat portion of the play which succeeds the parabasis, when there is one. These scenes are treated by the poet in two different ways.

2

o

8

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

( i ) They may be paired, and associated with a parallel ode and antode, so as to form what (when dealing with epirrhematic scenes) we called a syzygy. In such cases it is usual to find that there is an evident relation in subject-matter between the coupled scenes, and that (as in an epirrhematic syzygy) they are not interrupted by lyrics (whether original or parodied), or by the entry and exit of speakers.1 It would probably be right to think of these iambic syzygies (if the term may be used) as modelled on the epirrhematic, but affected also by the structure of tragedy, the influence of which upon Aristophanic comedy is very plain. ( 2 ) On the other hand, we find iambic scenes strung together without any structural rela­ tionship, and divided from one another, not by a correspond­ ing ode and antode, but by a song complete in itself and including both strophe and antistrophe together (whereas the separated ode and antode form a separate strophe and anti­ strophe) . Several virtually separate scenes of this kind may follow in succession without any choral interlude. In these epeisodic scenes (as scenes of this class have been termed) casual lyrics may be introduced where required, and there is no restriction on entrance and exit. Writers on the subject2 often add that the choral odes which separate these iambic scenes are irrelevant to the subject of the play. It is, however, 1 The facts, as regards Aristophanes, have been carefully worked out by Zielinski. He points out that where the scenes are parallel in matter, or form two stages of the same action, and yet are not grouped in syzygies, it is usually because the poet wished to introduce lyrics into the dialogue. He considers {Gliederung, p. 219) the two or three apparent exceptions to the rule against introducing such lyrics into iambic syzygies. 2 e.g. Comford, op. cit., p. 108. The lyric interludes between the iambic scenes have been carefully studied by Wüst, in Philologus, lxxvii (1921), pp. 26-45. He distinguishes (a) a type closely modelled on the skolion (as known from Athen. X V . 693 if.) and composed in short, similar stanzas, usually of four lines, relevant to the action and scarcely ever including any attack upon contemporaries ; (b) a type composed usually in 10- or 1i-line stanzas, irrelevant to the action, contain­ ing satire on individuals, and commonly ending with an unexpected joke—a type derived, as he supposes, from the gephyrismoi or ‘jokes from wagons’ of Athenian processions (the Lenaean among others). His classification is not exhaustive, and there are some slight overlappings between the two types, while the derivation of the second from gephyrismoi is not more than a conjecture; but on the whole the distinction which he draws corresponds to the facts. Neither type is found (except for special reasons) in the first half of the play. Typical in­ stances of (a) are Aristoph. Ach. 929-51, Eccles. 938-45; of (b) Ach. 1150-73, Knights 1111-50, Frogs 416-33; but both occur in nearly all the plays.

O N TH E FO R M OF TH E OLD C O M EDY

209

only a limited number of the odes which are thus irrelevant, so that this supposed irrelevance cannot be used to prove the original distinctness of the iambic scenes from the epirrhematic, in which the choral odes are relevant; and indeed their dis­ tinctness is plain enough without. As regards the relation of the scenes which follow the parabasis to the plot of the play, it occasionally happens (as has already been said) that the main plot is carried over the whole play, and the issue not finally decided till the end. This is certainly so in the Knights and the Frogs, and (in a smaller degree) in the Thesmophoriazusae, in which indeed the discomfiture of Mnesilochus by the women is complete by the middle of the play, but the question whether he will or will not escape remains open to the last. But in general the second half of the play, though it may include some minor action of its own, for the most part illustrates or carries somewhat further—it may be to a climax1—the results of the decision reached in the first half by means of the agon. This is so in the Acharnians, Wasps, Peace, Birds, and Lysistrata, as well as in the two plays which have no parabasis, the Ecclesiazusae and Plutus.2 In the early plays one particular type of iambic scene is particularly frequent—that in which one ridiculous or pre­ tentious character after another comes in, tries to ‘get round’ the victorious hero, and is driven away discomfited. Most of the iambic scenes in the Acharnians, the Peace, and the Birds are of this kind; so are the scenes between Strepsiades and Pasias and Amynias in the Clouds and the scenes in the Wasps (1387 if., 1415 if.) in which the Bakeress and the Accuser figure, and perhaps one scene (1216 if) in the Lysistrata; and though this kind of scene is not much employed by Aristo­ phanes after the earlier plays, he reverts to it in the latter half of the Plutus. The characters who appear in this way belong to well-known contemporary types, and the farcical 1 As in the Acharnians, where the last discomfiture is reserved for Lamachus himself, the incarnation of bellicosity; and still more in the Birds and the Plutus, where at last the results of the action are displayed as discomfiting the gods themselves. 2 The Clouds, with its two contests in the second half, is peculiar in its present form. See above, p. 200. 6188

P

a io

THE BEGIN NINGS O F GREEK COMEDY

treatment of such types was just what we connected with early Dorian buffoonery. We sometimes find iambic scenes in the first half of the play, belonging both to the paired type and to the epeisodic ; but usually there are special reasons for this. We have already seen the reason for the two iambic syzygies which replace the agon (and part of the proagori) in the Acharnians. In the Wasps (760-1008) there are two scenes, divided by a lyric interlude, which are epeisodic and precede the parabasis, and yet are not in principle exceptional, since they illustrate the conse­ quences of Philocleon’s submission. (The second half of the play is really a separate action, and represents his ‘education’ and its consequences.) In the Peace the iambic scenes which (with the intervening lyrics) follow the parodos, are grouped in a more or less symmetrical structure. (This may be con­ nected with the fact that they replace the epirrhematic scenes which would be normal.) So do those in the early part of the Thesmophoriazusae (e.g. 312-80, 433-530), though the analy­ sis will show that this play is very irregular in form. In the Frogs the section of the play which precedes the parabasis forms a clear syzygy. Of the two fourth-century plays, the greater part (early as well as late) consists of iambic scenes, and the structure cannot be considered typical of the Old Comedy. Separate mention must be made of one special kind of iambic scene—the transition-scene which often leads from the agon to the parabasis, e.g. in the Knights, Clouds, Peace, and Birds, and also in the Lysistrata (unless 11. 608-13 are more conveniently regarded as the sphragis of the agon). This scene owes its function mainly, perhaps, to the union of two origin­ ally distinct kinds of performance in Attic comedy, and serves to knit the two together, preparing, in the first half, for the action, or at least for the incidents, of the second half. Its structural value is obvious. In some of the later plays—the Birds, Lysistrata, Ecclesiazusae, and Plutus—there is a some­ what similar scene before the agon, making a break in the succession of tetrameters, and serving as a proagón or part of one.

EXCURSUS

211

§ 6. The Exodos1 It is clear from the extant plays that there was no stereotyped method of concluding a comedy, though there are features which recur in several of the final scenes. Thus in the Acharnians. Wasps, Birds, and Ecclesiazusae the last stage of the play begins with a ‘Messenger’s Speech’, evidently based on tragic models and announcing what is to follow. A messenger also appears in the Knights, and the servant in the Ecclesiazusae performs the same function. In several plays the last scene is marked by gross indecency, generally in connexion with a ‘wedding’-scene (which in the Birds appears in a greatly refined form). In some plays there is a song of victory or for victory. The Acharnians ends with the tenella kallinikos, which is led by Dicaeopolis to celebrate his victory in the drinking-match, as the context makes plain. In the Birds the strain of victory is blended with the wedding-hymn ; in the Lysistrata also, while singing a wedding-hymn, the choruses dance ‘as for victory’, and it is ‘as for victory’ that the two semi-choruses dance their way to the feast in the Ecclesiazusae. There can be little doubt that the victory of which the chorus sings in these three plays is their own anticipated success in the dramatic contest; otherwise the confusion of the hymeneal and triumphal songs would hardly be natural, and in fact the victory of the hero of the play is long past. When there is not a wedding, there may still be a feast; even in the Frogs Pluto gives an invitation to a banquet. (We may well believe that ancient, as well as modern, seasonal kómoi ended in feasting.) The chorus sometimes leaves the scene marching, but not dancing. This is clearly so in the Acharnians and Clouds, and probably was so in the Peace, Birds, Thesmophoriazusae, Frogs, and Plutus.1 2 On the other hand, they depart dancing with extreme vigour in the Wasps, Lysistrata, and Ecclesiazusae. Occasionally, as in the Clouds, Thesmophoriazusae, and Plutus, 1 The word ought perhaps to be confined to the final utterance of chorus; but it has become usual to include under the term the whole final scene. 2 The conclusion of the Knights is lost.

2X 2

THE BEG IN NING S OF GR EEK C OM E DY

the exit of the chorus follows very abruptly upon the termina­ tion of the action, and they only speak a few words of a more or less formal kind. § y. The Prologue or Introduction We have left the Prologue or Introduction until last. It is, in Aristophanes, always a scene in iambic trimeters,1 usually from 200 to 300 lines in length, and sometimes including a prologue in the narrower sense, modelled at times upon the tragic, and particularly upon the Euripidean, prologue. The prologue in the wider sense constitutes (as Navarre has noticed) a relatively complete little action by itself, generally based on some paradoxical or fantastical idea,12 which is just about to be carried into effect when it is rudely interrupted by the invasion of the chorus. The function of the prologue is to introduce the subject of the play to the audience (whether by a formal explanation, or by letting it reveal itself through the dialogue and action) ; to put them into a good humour by a number ofjests, which may be unconnected with the subject of the play; and to bring the action up to the point required for the entrance of the chorus. As an iambic scene, coming before the epirrhematic parts of the play, while other iambic scenes follow them, it also serves to knit the whole together. Its dependence upon Euripides is plain, whether it begins with a set speech,3 or a dialogue followed by a set speech,4 or a dialogue making the situation clear, but without any soliloquy or address to the audience.5 In the later plays Aristophanes, among other steps towards the introduction of greater unity into his plays, confines his prologues to what is relevant to the plot, and discards such irrelevant jests as appear (e.g.) in the Wasps. 1 Lyrics are introduced occasionally, e.g. in the Thesmophoriazusae and the Frogs. 2 A study of the lost plays of the Old Comedy makes it clear that many of them also were based on such ideas—descents to Hades, voyages to Persia, to the wilds, &c. 3 Acharnians, Clouds, Ecclesiazusae, Plutus. 4 Knights, Wasps, Peace, Birds. 5 Lysistrata, Thesmophoriazusae, Frogs.

(213 )

A N A L Y S I S O F PLAY S ACHARNIANS

1-203 Parodos, 204-79 A . Parodos proper : (1) Epirrhema, 4 troch. tetr., 204-7 Ode (paeonic), 208-18 Chorus Antepirrhema, 4 troch. tetr., 219-22 Antode (paeonic), 223-33 (2) Chorus, 3 troch. tetr., 234-6 \ Dicaeop., 1 irregular line, 237 I Chorus, 3 troch. tetr., 238-40 j Dicaeop., 1 irregular line, 241 J B . Phallic procession (iambic scene and lyric monody), 242-79 B a ttle scene, 280-357 Katakeleusmos (2 troch. and 2 paeon. ' dimeters), 280-3 Ode (with troch. tetr. by Dicaeop. inserted), 284-301 Epirrhema (16 troch. tetr.), 302-18 Antepirrhema (16 troch. tetr., of which 3 divided), 319-34 Antode (with troch. tetr. as in ode), 335-46 Sphragis (11 iamb. trim, spoken by Dicaeop.), 347-57 P roagón, 358-489 Ode, 358-63 Katakeleusmos, 364-5 Iambic scene (speech of Dicaeop. 19 iamb, trim.), 366-84 > Iambic syzygy Antode, 385-90 Antikatakeleusmos, 391-2 Iambic scene (dialogue, 97 iamb, trim.), 393-489 Q uasi-agón, 490-625 Ode, 490-5 Iambic scene (70 11.), 496-565 Iambic syzygy Antode, 566-571 Iambic scene (53 11.), 572-625 Prologue,

T H E B E G I N N I N G S OF G R E E K C O M E D Y

214

626-718 Kommation, 626-7 (anap. tetram.) Anapaests, tetrameters, 628-58 pnigos, 659-64 Ode, 665-75 Epirrhema (16 troch. tetr.), 676-91 Antode, 692-702 Antepirrhema (16 troch. tetr. ), 703-18

P arabasis,

Ia m b ic scenes a n d lyric interludes

Iambic scene, 719-835 Stasimon, 836-59 Iambic scene, 860-928 Lyric dialogue, 929-51 Iambic scene, 952-70 Stasimon, 971-99 1000-68 Introduction, 1000-7 Ode, 1008-17 Iambic scene (19 11.), 1018-36 \ Antode, 1037-46 | Iambic scene (22 11.), 1047-68 J

Ia m b ic syzygy,

Ia m b ic scene a n d stasim on

Iambic scene, 1069-1142 Stasimon, 1143-73 (anap. dim. 1143-9, str. and ant. 1150-73) 1174-1233 Messenger, 1174-89 Finale, 1190-1233

E xo dos,

Notes. (1) The passage from 1. 347 to 1. 489 might be differently arranged as follows:1 Proagdn, 347-92 Iambic scene (11 11.), 347-57 Ode, 358-65 Iambic scene (19 11.), 366-84 Antode, 385-92 Iambic transition scene, 393-489 (2) The ode and antode in the quasi-agóra do not correspond exactly, the two middle lines being iambic trimeters in the former and dochmiacs in the latter. 1 As by J. W. White, The Verse of Greek Comedy (1912), p. 423.

A N A L Y S IS OF PLAYS

215

KNIGHTS P rologue,

1-241

242-332 Katakeleusmos (5 troch. tetr. ), 242-6 Semi-chorus (8 troch. tetr.) Cleon (3 „ „) 247-68 Semi-chorus (8 „ „) Cleon (3 „ „) Dialogue (15 troch. tetr.), 269-83 (19 troch. dim.) 284-302

Parodos,

303-460 ( str. a ', 303-13 \ Ode I 8 mesodic troch tetr., 314-21 { str. b ', 322-32 Katakeleusmos (2 iamb, tetr.), 333-4 Epirrhema (32 iamb, tetr.), 335-66 Pnigos (15 iamb, dim.), 367-81 ( antistr. a ', 382-90 6 mesodic troch. tetr., 391-6 antistr. b ', 397-406 Antikatakeleusmos (2 iamb, tetr.), 407-8 Antepirrhema (32 iamb, tetr.), 409-40 Antipnigos (16 11.), 441-56 Sphragis (4 iamb, tetr.), 457-60

Agon I,

Ia m b ic transition scene,

461-97

498-61 o Kommation, 498-506 Anapaests, tetrameters, 507-46 pnigos, 547-5° Ode, 551-64 Epirrhema (16 troch. tetr.), 565-80 Antode, 581-94 Antepirrhema (16 troch. tetr.), 595-610

P a ra b a sis I ,

611-755 Introduction (5 iamb, trim.), 611-15 Ode, 616-24 \ Iambic scene (59 11.), 624-82 I Antode, 683-90 1 Iambic scene (65 11.), 691-755 J

Ia m b ic syzygy,

Proagón

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

2 i6

11, 756-941 Introduction (5 iamb, tetr., of which ' 2 syncopated), 756-60 Katakeleusmos (2 anap. tetr.), 761-2 Epirrhema (61 anap. tetr.), 763-823 Pnigos (12 anap. dim.), 824-35 Introduction (5 iamb, tetr., of which 2 syncopated), 836-40 > Antikatakeleusmos (2 iamb, tetr.), 841-2 Antepirrhema (68 iamb, tetr.), 843-

Agon

9 i° >

Antipnigos (30 iamb, dim.), 911-40 Sphragis, 941 (prose)

;

Ia m b ic scenes a n d lyric interludes

Iambic scene, 942-72 Stasimon, 973-96 Iambic scene, 997-1 n o Lyric dialogue, 1111-50 Iambic scene, 1151-1263 P a ra b a sis I I , 1264-1315 Ode, 1264-73 Epirrhema (16 troch. tetr.), 1274-89 Antode, 1290-9 Antepirrhema (16 troch. tetr.), 1300-15

' ,

E xo d o s

Solemn anapaests (sausage-seller as messenger and chorus),

13 1 6 - 3 4

Iambic scene, 1335-1408 Finale (lost) Note. In the first agon, the strict correspondence is only broken by the inser­ tion of an iambic trimeter line (441) [if this should not be increased to two dimeters] in the antipnigos, and by the fact that there are only six mesodic lines in the antode. CLOUDS Prologue,

1-262

263-363 Epirrhema, invocation (12 anap. tetr.), 263-74 1 Ode, 275-90 I

Parodos,

A N A L Y S IS O F PLA Y S

Antepirrhema dialogue (7 anap. tetr.), 291-7 \ Antode, 298-313 I Scene in anap. tetrameters, 314-63 364-475 Dialogue in anap. tetr., 364-438 Pnigos, 439-56 Ode (lyric dialogue), 457-75

Q u a si-h a lf-a g o n ,

476-509 Katakeleusmos (2 anap. tetr.), 476-7 Iambic scene, 478-509

T ra n sitio n scene,

510-626 Kommation, 510-17 ‘Anapaests’ (Eupolideans, without p n ig o s ), 518-62 Ode, 563-74 Epirrhema (20 troch. tetr.), 575-94 Antode, 595-606 Antepirrhema (20 troch. tetr.), 607-26

P a ra b a sis I ,

627-813 Iambic scene (73 11.), 627-99 Ode, 700-6 Lyric dialogue, 707-22 Iambic scene (81 11.), 723-803 Antode, 804-13

Ia m b ic syzygy,

Ia m b ic transition scene, P roagón,

814-88

889-948 (anap. dim.)

949-1104 Ode, 949-58 Katakeleusmos, 959-60 Epirrhema (47 anap. tetr.), 961-1008 (16 anap. dim.), 1009-23 Antode, 1024-33 Antikatakeleusmos, 1034-5 Antepirrhema (49 iamb, tetr.), 103684 (4 iamb. trim, and 19 iamb, dim.), 1085-1104 j

Agon I,

Ia m b ic transition scene,

1105—13

2

i

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

8

1114-30 Kommation, 1114 Epirrhema (16 troch. tetr.), 1115-30

P a ra b a sis I I ,

Ia m b ic scenes a n d lyric interludes

Iambic scene, 1131-53 Lyrics (Strepsiades and Socrates), 1154-69 Iambic scene, 1170-1205 Lyrics (Strepsiades), 1206-13 Iambic scene, 1214-1302 Stasimon, 1303-20 Ia m b ic transition scene {or proagori),

1321-1344

A g o n I I , 1 345-14 5 1

Ode, 1345-50 Katakeleusmos, 1351-2 Epirrhema (33 iamb, tetr.), 1353-85 (5 iamb, dim.), 1386-90 Antode, 1391-6 Antikatakeleusmos, 1397-8 Antepirrhema (46 iamb, tetr.), 1399-1444 (7 iamb, dim.), 1445-51 1452-1510 Iambic scene, 1452-1509 Choral exodos, 1510

F in a l scene,

Notes. (1) Lines 314-438 might be grouped together in the half-agón. In the present state of the play any analysis can only be tentative. (2) The antode, 804-13, has two extra lines as compared with the ode, but otherwise corresponds; and the dimeter dialogue after the ode is unusual. Possibly these things are due to imperfect revision. (3) The mutual abuse (in dimeters) of the two Arguments, leading up to the formal agon, may be conveniently treated as a kind of proagon. (4) The correspondence between the non-tetrametric parts of the epirrhema and antepirrhema of the agon is defective. (5) Perhaps the whole passage from 1131-1302 should be treated as one iambic scene, with lyrics inserted ; the section 1214-1302, however, seems to consist of two short scenes of the primitive epeisodic type. WASPS Prologue,

230-316 Entry of chorus (18 iamb, tetr.), 230-47

Parados, A.

1-229

A N A L Y S IS OF PLAYS

Dialogue of boy and chorus (25 syncopated iamb. tetr. 248-72 C. Choral ode (str. and antistr.), 273-89 (extra line), 290 D . Lyric dialogue (str. and antistr.), 291-316 B.

3 ^ 7~ 525 Lyric monody of Philocleon, 316-32 ' B. Ode (with mesodic troch. tetr.), 333-45 Katakeleusmos (2 anap. tetr.), 346-7 Epirrhema (10 anap. tetr.), 348-57 (7 anap. dim.), 358-64 > Antode (with mesodic troch. tetr.), 365-78 Antikatakeleusmos (2 anap. tetr.), 379-80 Antepirrhema (22 anap. tetr.), 381-402 > C . (1) 2 troch. tetr. (chorus), 403-4 \ Ode, 405-14 3 troch. tetr., 415-17 2 11. lyrics, 418-19 8 troch. tetr., 420-7 2 11. lyrics, 428-9 Epirrhema (31 11. troch. tetr.), 430-60/ (2) 2 troch. tetr. (Bdelycl.), 461-2 ^ Antode, 463-70 \ 3 troch. tetr., 471-4 I 2 11. lyrics, 475-6 >( 8 troch. tetr., 477-85 2 11. lyrics, 486-7 J Antepirrhema (38 11. troch. tetr.), 488-525 ; A g o n , 526-727 Ode (with mesodic iamb, tetr.), 526-45 Katakeleusmos (2 anap. tetr.), 546-7 Epirrhema (72 anap. tetr.), 548-620 Pnigos (13 anap. dim.), 621-30 Antode (with mesodic iamb, tetr.), 631-47 Antikatakeleusmos (2 anap. tetr.), 648-9 Antepirrhema (69 anap. tetr.), 650-718 Antipnigos (6 anap. dim.), 719-24 Sphragis (3 anap. tetr.), 725-7

P roagón, A.

219 11.),

220

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

L y ric a n d iam bic scenes

Lyric transition scene, 728-59. Introduction, 728 (anap. tetr.) Strophe, 729-36 Anap. dim., 737-42 Antistrophe, 743-8 Anap. dim., 749-59 Iambic scene, 760-862 Lyric interlude, 863-90 Iambic scene, 891-1008 1009-1121 Kommation, 1009-14 Anapaests, tetrameters, 1015-50 Pnigos, 1051-9 Ode, 1060-70 Epirrhema (20 troch. tetr.), 1071-90 Antode, 1091-1 ιοί Antepirrhema (20 troch. tetr.), 1102-21

P a ra b a sis I ,

Ia m b ic scene,

1122-1264

P a ra b a sis I I ,

1265-91

Ia m b ic scenes, S tasim on,

1292-1449

1450-73

1474-1537 Xanthias (as messenger), 1474-81 Dialogue, anap. dim., 1482-95 iambic scene, 1496-1515 Choral finale, 1516-37

E xo d o s,

Notes. ( i ) Lines 403-4 might be called a katakeleusmos, but the correspond­ ing 11. 461-2 are not such. (2) The latter part of the antode, 463-71, does not correspond with that of the ode, 405-14, though the earlier part does. (3) There are eleven anap. dim. in 11. 750-9, answering to seven in 11. 73742. (4) The second parabasis is quite irregular in form; White (p. 435) regards it as a stasimon. (5) The iambic scene, 1292-1449, falls into several parts or even separate scenes, viz. 1292-1325 (Xanthias as messenger), 1326-63 (Philocleon drunk), 1364-86 (Philocleon and Bdelycleon), 1387-1414 (the Bakeress), 1415-41 (the Accuser)—these two scenes being of the primitive epeisodic type— 1442-9 Philocleon and Bdelycleon. (6) The choral finale, 1516-37, consists of two anap. tetr., a short strophe and antistrophe, and several Archilochiam.

A N A L Y S IS O F PLA Y S

221

PEACE P rologue, P arodos,

1-300 301-45 (in troch. tetr. with p n ig o s, 339-45)

346-600 I. Ode, 346-60 Iambic scene (24 11.), 361-84 Antode, 385-99 Iambic scene (26 11.), 400-25 Sphragis, troch. tetr., 426-30

Series o f irregular scenes,

Iambic syzygy

II. Introduction, iambic scene, 431-58 Lyric dialogue (str.), 459-72 (the first attempt) Iambic scene (13 11.), 473-85 > Iambic syzygy Lyric dialogue (antistr.), 486-99 (the second attempt) Iambic scene (8 11.), 500—7 Sphragis, iamb, tetr., 508-11 1 The fina] a t iamb, dim., 512-19 ) III. Iambic scene, 520-49 \ Transition, 550-2 j Scene (troch. tetr. and dim.), 553-81 J IV. Epode, 582-600 (corresp. to ode and antode in I) Q u a si-h a lf-a g o n , 601-56 Katakeleusmos, 601-2 Epirrhema, troch. tetr., 603-50 troch. dim., 651-6 Ia m b ic transition scene,

657-728

729-818 Kommation (anap. tetram.), 729-33 Anapaests, tetram., 734-64 pnigos, 765-74 Ode (with mesodic iamb, tetr.), 775-96 Antode (with mesodic iamb, tetr.), 797-818

P a ra b a sis I ,

819-921 Iambic scene (37 11.), 819-55 > Ode, 856-67 Iambic scene (42 11.), 868-909 Antode, 910-21

Ia m b ic syzygy,

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

2 22

922-1038 Iambic scene (17 11.), 922-38 Ode (with proodic and mesodic iamb, tetr.),

Ia m b ic syzygy,

■

939-55

Iambic scene (17 11.), 956-73 \ Anap. dim. dialogue, 974-1015 \ Iambic scene (7 11.), 1016-22 J Antode (with proodic and mesodic iamb, tetr.), 1023-38 Ia m b ic scene,

)

1039-1126 (1063-1114, hexameter passage)

1127-90 Ode, 1127-39 Epirrhema, 16 troch. tetr., 1140-55 3 troch. dim., 1156-8 Antode, 1159-71 Antepirrhema, 16 troch. tetr., 1172-87 3 troch. dim., 1188-90

P a rabasis I I ,

E peisodic scenes, 1 191-1304

\ I I j /

(1270-1301, hexameter passage)

1305-56 Invitation to wedding (iamb. tetr. and dim.), 1305-15 Choral invocation (anap. tetr. and dim.), 1306-28 Wedding procession and song, 1329-56

E xo d o s,

Notes. (1) The ode, II. 582-600, treated above as an epode corresponding (as it does metrically) with the ode and antode, 11. 346-60 and 385-99, might (apart from this correspondence) be regarded as the ode of the half-agon; but the whole of the scenes between the parados and the parabasis are difficult to schematize. (White, pp. 436-7, treats them somewhat differently.) (2) White regards 1305-15 as a stasimon (1305-10 = 1311-15), perhaps rightly. BIRDS Prologue,

209-351 Invocation, 209-66. Lyric invocation, 209-22 4 iamb, trim., 223-6 Lyric invocation, 227-62 4 iamb, trim., 263-6

Parodos, A.

1-208

A N A L Y S IS O F PLA Y S B.

223

Parodos proper, 267-351 Irregular line, 267 Dial, troch. tetr. (59 11.), 268-326 Ode, 327-35 Dial, troch. tetr. (7 11.), 336-42 Antode, 343-51

352-434 Dialogue, troch. tetr., 352-86 troch. dim., 387-99 Anap. dim. (chorus), 400-5 Lyric dialogue, 406-34

B a ttle scene,

la m b ic transition scene,

435-50

451-638 Ode, 451-9 Katakeleusmos (2 anap. tetr.), 460-1 Epirrhema, 61 anap. tetr., 462-522 16 anap. dim., 523-38 , Antode, 539-47 \ Antikatakeleusmos (2 anap. tetr.), 548-9 I Antepirrhema, 61 anap. tetr., 550-610 j 16 anap. dim., 611-26 J Sphragis (anap. tetr. and iambic trimeters with syncopation), 627-38

A gon,

Ia m b ic transition scene,

639-75 (with anapaestic insertions)

676-800 Kommation, 676-84 Anapaests, tetram., 685-722 pnigos, 723-36 Ode, 737-52 Epirrhema (16 troch. tetr.), 753-68 Antode, 769-84 Antepirrhema (16 troch. tetr.), 785-800

P a ra b a sis I ,

Ia m b ic syzygy ,

801-902 Iambic scene (50 11.), 80 1-50 Ode, 851-8 Iambic scene (35 11.), 859-94 (with prose insertions) Antode, 895-902

\

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y

224

Series o f epeisodic scenes ,

903-1057 (with lyric and hexameter in­

sertions)

1058-1117 Ode, 1058-70 Epirrhema (16 troch. tetr.), 1071-87 Antode, 1088-1100 Antepirrhema (16 troch. tetr.), 1101-17

P a ra b a sis I I ,

Ia m b ic syzyg y ,

1118-1266 Iambic scene (71 11.), 1118-88 Ode, 1189-96 Iambic scene (65 11.), 1197-1261 Antode, 1262-6 1269-1493 Iambic scene, 1269-1312 Lyric dialogue, strophe, 1313-22 2 lines, Peithet., 1323-4 antistrophe, 1325-34 Iambic scene, 1335-1469 (with lyric insertions) Stasimon, 1470-93

Ia m b ic scenes a n d lyric interludes,

1494-1705 Iambic scene (59 11.), 1494-1552 Ode, 1553-64 Iambic scene (129 11.), 1565-1693 Antode, 1694-1705

Ia m b ic syzygy,

1706-65 Messenger’s speech, 1706-19 Wedding procession, 1720-65

E xodos,

The iambic scene, 1335-1469, consists of three typical epeisodic scenes. [Gelzer, op. cit., p. 21, takes 334-99 as a first agdni]

N ote.

LTSISTRATA Prologue,

254-349 (Men’s chorus) Katakeleusmos (2 iamb, tetr.), 254-5 Ode, 256-65 Epirrhema (5 iamb, tetr.), 266-70 Antode, 271-80 Antepirrhema (5 iamb, tetr.), 281-5

Parodos, A.

1-253

A N A L Y S IS O F P LA Y S

225

Ode, 286-95 Antode, 296-305 Quasi-katakeleusmos (1 iamb, tetr.), 306 Epirrhema (6 iamb, tetr.), 307-12 Antepirrhema (6 iamb, tetr.), 313-18

B. (Women’s chorus) Katakeleusmos (2 iambo-choriambic tetr.), 319-20

Ode, 321-34 Antode, 335-49 P ro a g ó n ,

350-86 (iamb. tetr. and dim.)

Ia m b ic scene, A gdn, A.

B.

387-466

467-607 Introd. (9 iamb, tetr.), 467-75 Ode, 476-83 Katakeleusmos (2 anap. tetr.), 484-5 Epirrhema (47 anap. tetr.), 486-531 (7 anap. dim.), 532-8 Introd. (2 iamb, tetr.), 539-40 Antode, 541-8 Antikatakeleusmos, 549-50 Antepirrhema (47 anap. tetr.), 551-97 (10 anap. dim.), 598-607

Ia m b ic tra n sitio n scene,

,

608-13

614-705 (Men.) Kommation (2 troch. tetr.), Ode, 616-25 Epirrhema (10 troch. tetr.), (Women.) Kommation (2 troch. tetr.), Antode, 638-47 Antepirrhema (10 troch. 648—58

P a r a b a s is , A.

B.

6188

(Men.)

614-15 626-35 636-7 tetr.),

Ode, 659-70 Epirrhema (10 troch. tetr.), 671-81 (Women.) Antode, 682-95 Antepirrhema (10 troch. tetr.), 696-705

0,

T H E B E G IN N IN G S O F G R E E K C O M E D Y Ia m b ic scenes a n d lyric interludes,

706-1013

Iambic scene, 706-80 Lyric dialogue (str. and antistr.), 781-829 Iambic scene, 830-953 Dial, in anap. dim., 954-79 Iambic scene, 980-1013 Agon I I

(?)

Dial, of semi-choruses (trochaic-paeonic tetr.), 1014-42 Ia m b ic syzygy, 1043-1215 Ode, 1043-71 \ 2 anap. tetr. (chorus), 1072-3 Iambic scene (34 11.), 1074-1107 4 anap. tetr. (chorus), 1108-11 Iambic scene (77 11.), 1112-88 Antode, 1189-1215 Ia m b ic scene, 1216— 46 E xo d o s, 1247-1319 Laced, chorus, 1247-70 Iambic trim. (Lysistrata), 1271—8 Athen, chorus, 1279-94 Iambic trim. (Lysistrata), 1295 Laced, chorus, 1296-1320 (1) 608-13 might be treated as the sphragis of the agon. (2) 830-1013 might be treated as a single scene, with lyric interruption (as by White).

Motes.

THESM

OPHORI AZ USA E

1-294 P arodos, 295-380 Proclamation (prose), 295-311 Ode, 312-30 Proclamation (iamb, trim., 21 11.), 331-51 Ode, 352-71 (not corresp. to 11. 312-30) Proclamation, &c. (iamb, trim., 9 11.), 372-80 Q uasi-agón, 381-530 Katakeleusmos (2 iamb, tetr.), 381-2 Iambic speech, 383-432 P rologue,

Ode, 433-42 Iambic speech, 443-58 Lyric interlude, 459-65 > Iambic speech, 466-519 Antode, 520-30 J

A N A L Y S IS O F P L A Y S Ia m b ic tetra m e te r scene, Ia m b ic trim e ter scene,

227

531-73

574-654

655-784 Chorus, 4 anap. tetr., 655-8 4 troch. tetr. and dim., 659-67 lyrics, 668-86 (Ode?) 2 troch. tetr., 687-8 Iambic scene (10 11.), 689-98 Lyrics, 699-701 Dial, troch. tetr. (5 11.), 702-6 Lyric dialogue, &c., lyrics, 707-25 (Antode?) 2 troch, tetr., 726-7 Iambic scene (37 11.), 728-64 Mnesilochus’ soliloquy, iamb, trim., 765-75 lyric, 776-84

I r re g u la r scene,

(imperfect), 785-845 Kommation, 785 (anap. tetram.) Anapaests, tetram., 786-813 pnigos, 814-29 Epirrhema (16 troch. tetr.), 830-45

P a r a b a s is

846-1159 Iambic scene, 846-946 Stasimon, 947—1000 Iambic scene (with lyric insertions), io o r -i 135 Stasimon, 1136-59

Ia m b ic scenes a n d s ta s im a ,

1160-1231 Iambic scene, 1160-1226 Choral finale, 1227-31

E x o d o s,

As 668-86 appears to correspond to 707-25, 655-764 might be treated as an irregular iambic syzygy and 765-84 as an iambic transition scene.

N ote.

FROGS P ro lo g u e ,

1-322

P a ro d o s,

323-459

460-673 Iambic scene, 460-533 Lyric dial, in troch. dim. (22

Ia m b ic scenes, & c . ,

11.),

534-48

T H E B E G IN N IN G S

Iambic scene, 549-89 Lyric dial, in troch. dim. (22 Iambic scene, 605—73

OF

GREEK COM EDY

11.),

590-604

674-737 Ode, 674-85 Epirrhema (20 troch. tetr.), 686-705 Antode, 706-17 Antepirrhema (20 troch. tetr.), 718-37

P a r a b a s is ,

738-894 Iambic scene, 738-813 Stasimon, 814-29 Iambic scene, 830-74 Lyric invocation, 875-84 Iambic scene, 885-94 A g ó n , 895-1098 Ode, 895-904 ^ i Katakeleusmos (2 iamb, tetr.), 905—6 1 Epirrhema (64 iamb, tetr.), 907-70 J (21 iamb, dim.), 971-91 J Antode, 992-1003 \ Antikatakeleusmos (2 anap. tetr.), 1004-5 I Antepirrhema (71 anap. tetr.), 1006-76 j (21 anap. dim.),1077-98J Ia m b ic scenes a n d s ta s im a ,

1099-1499 Stasimon, 1099-1118 Iambic scene, 1119-1250 Lyric interlude, 1251-60 Iambic scene (with lyric insertions), 1261-1369 Lyric interlude, 1370-7 Iambic scene, 1378-1481 Stasimon, 1482-99 E x o d o s, 1500-33 Dial, in anap. dim., 1500-27 Choral finale (dactyl, hex.), 1528-33 Ia m b ic scenes, & c . ,

(1) Evidently two of the three scenes, 460-673, might be grouped with the two trochaic dimeter passages, as a syzygy; but the entrance of a new character in 1. 503 is against such a treatment of the scene 460-533. (2) The whole passage 830-94 might be regarded as a kind of proagSn, though not in tetrameters; or the scene 885-94 might be taken as a transition-scene serving as introduction to the agon. (3) The whole passage 1099-1481 is an agdn in matter but not in form.

N otes.

A N A L Y S IS O F PLA Y S

229

ECCLESIAZUSAE

1-284 285-310 Ia m b ic scenes, 311-477 Second parodos, 478-519 Iambic tetr. and dim. (chorus), 478-503 Iambic trim, (speech of Praxagora), 504-13 Dial. anap. tetr., 514-19 Ia m b ic scene, 520-70 H a lf-a g o n , 571-709 Ode, 571-80 Katakeleusmos (2 anap. tetr.), 581-2 Epirrhema, anap. tetram., 583-688 anap. dim., 689-709 Ia m b ic scenes, 710-1153 (with lyric insertions). E xodos, 1154-82 Address to audience, 1154-62 (1154 iambic trim., 1155-62 troch. tetr.) Choral finale, 1163-1182

P rologue, P arodos,

The iambic scenes, 710-1x53, were broken at 729 and 876 by choral interludes (not written for the play).

N ote.

PLUTUS

1-252 Parodos, 253-321 Dial. iamb, tetr., 253-289 Lyric dialogue, 290-321 Ia m b ic scene, 322-414 Ia m b ic scene (Proagon) 415-86 H a lf-a g o n , 487-618 Katakeleusmos (2 anap. tetr.), 487-8 Epirrhema, anap. tetr., 489-597 anap. dim., 598-618 Ia m b ic scenes, 619-1207 (mainly of the epeisodic type) E xodos, 1208-9 P rologue,

Choral interludes (not written for the play) were inserted after 321, 626, 770, 801, 958, 1096, 1170 (cf. E. W. Handley, C.Q,., n . s . iii (1953), 55 O d

[N ote.

IV EPICHARMUS i. Life, &c., of Epicharmus A l l th at can be said w ith certainty about the life of Epicharm us can be stated in a few lines. He wrote comedies at Syracuse in the reigns of Gelo (485-478 b .c.) and Hiero

(478-467 b .c.) and may have been writing for many years before 487/6 b .c .— the year of Chionides’ first appearance in Athens, since our text of Aristotle records that he was ‘much earlier than Chionides and Magnes’. It may also be taken as possible that he wrote comedies at Megara Hyblaea before he did so at Syracuse ; part of the Megarian claim to have originated comedy (recorded by Aristotle) was based on the fact that Epicharmus belonged to Megara Hyblaea, and the claim would have been pointless unless he had actually written there. (Megara Hyblaea was destroyed by Gelo in 483 b .c.) These statements are based on the following pas­ sages : Aristot. P o e t. iii. 1448^0 if. : Therefore also the Dorians make a claim to tragedy and comedy (the Megarians claim comedy, both those here . . . and those from Sicily; for the poet Epicharmus was from there, being much earlier than Chionides and Magnes). Ibid. V. i449b5 if.: Making plots (Epicharmus and Phormis) came in the beginning from Sicily, but of Athenian poets Crates first abandoned the iambic form and began to make general arguments and plots. Marm. Par. E p . 71 : From when Hiero was tyrant of Syracuse, 208 years, when Chares was archon in Athens (i.e. 472/1 b.c.). Epicharmus the poet was also a contemporary of Hieron. Anon. de Com. (Kaibel, C .G .F ., p. 7) : (Epicharmus of Syra­ cuse) first recovered the scattered fragments of comedy and made many artistic additions. In date he was in the 73rd Olympiad (i.e. 488-485 b.c.) ; in his poetry he was full of maxims, original,

L IF E , E T C ., O F E P I C H A R M U S

231

and artistic. 40 of his plays are preserved, of which 4 are dis­ puted. [App.] Clem. Al. Strom, i. 64 : Of the Eleatic sect Xenophanes was the founder, whom Timaeus says was a contemporary of Hiero the ruler of Sicily and Epicharmus the poet. Apollodorus says he was born in the 40th Olympiad and lived until the time of Dareius and Cyrus. The Suda, s.v. Epicharmus : Son of Tityrus and Chimarus and Sikis, Syracusan or from the city Krastos of the Sicans. He in­ vented comedy in Syracuse with Phormus. He produced 52 plays, but Lycon says 35. Some say that he was a Coan of those who crossed with Cadmus to Sicily, some that he was a Samian, others that he came from Sicilian Megara. He produced in Syracuse six years before the Persian Wars. And in Athens Euetes, Euxenides, and Myllus were putting on their comedies. Epicharmian argu­ ment, argument of Epicharmus. [App.] s.v. Phormus: Syracusan, comic poet, contemporary of Epi­ charmus, belonged to the household of Gelo tyrant of Sicily and looked after his children. He wrote 6 plays : Admetus, Alcinous, Alkyones, Sack of Troy, Horse, Cepheus or Kephalaia, Perseus. He first used a full-length garment and a background of purple skins. Athenaeus mentions another play, Atalanta. [App.] s.v. Deinolochus : Syracusan or Agrigentine. Comic poet, was (born?) in the 73rd Olympiad (488-485 b . c . ) , son of Epicharmus, but some say pupil. He produced 14 dramas in Doric dialect. [App·] Schol. Pind. Pyth. i. 98 : That Anaxilaus wished the Naxians to perish utterly and was prevented by Hiero, Epicharmus records in the Islands. (The event referred to took place between 478 and 476 b . c .) (Fr. 98 Kaibel, 121 Olivieri.) Other writers, such as Diogenes and Iamblichus, who did not think of Epicharmus primarily as a comic poet, also mention his residence at Syracuse, and this, and the facts that he was associated with Hiero and wrote comedies, are all that is beyond dispute. How far his life can be carried back beyond the reigns of Gelo and Hiero depends : (1) upon the interpretation put upon Aristotle’s expression ‘much earlier than Chionides and Magnes’. It is clear that the later authorities quoted date Epicharmus by his associa­ tion with Hiero and not by anything earlier, though the Suda

232

E P IC H A R M U S

may give as Msfloruit the date of his actual or supposed migra­ tion to Syracuse,1and seems to have an independent tradition about Epicharmus’ contemporary, Phormus, as a friend of Gelo. But to alter Aristotle’s phrase to ‘not much earlier’12 does not seem to be justifiable, and the number of ‘plays’ ascribed to Epicharmus implies a long period of activity. (2) upon the view taken of the tradition, which we must now consider, that Epicharmus was a hearer of Pythagoras. Pythagoras is said to have arrived at Groton in 530 b . c ., and the persecution of the Pythagoreans in Magna Graecia seems to have begun about 510 b.c. If the tradition is true, it is fairly probable that Epicharmus’ attendance on Pythagoras would have been earlier than 510 b.c. rather than after Pythagoras’ withdrawal to Metapontum, and that he would have been bom at least by 530 b.c. If he began writing plays while young (as e.g. Aristophanes did) he might be described as ‘much earlier than Chionides’, who (according to the Suda) appeared first in 487/6 b . c . ‘eight years before the Persian Wars’.3 [The date assumed for Epicharmus’ birth has been pushed as far back as 555 b .c .4 But, if the date (488-5 b .c .) given by the Anonymus is not his birth but his floruit, a floruit date is likely to be his fortieth year; Olivieri5 therefore dates his birth in 528 b .c . and his death 438-431 b .c . The other dates that we have are his allusion to Anaxilaus (fr. 98) not before 478/6 b .c . and his mockery of Aeschylus (fr. 214) not before 1 As suggested by Wilamowitz, Gott. Gel. Anz. (1906), p. 620. 2 This was done by Butcher in his first edition, and approved by various scholars : but he afterwards abandoned the emendation. 3 Assuming with Capps that the year of the ‘Persian Wars’ was 480/79 b . c., and the reckoning inclusive (though 488/7 b . c. must be admitted to be possible). Wilamowitz is not convincing when he attempts (Gott. Gel. Anz. (1906), pp. 621-2) to prove that the dating of Epicharmus by Aristotle (implied also in Plato, Theaet. 152 d, e, see below) is inconsistent with the date given by the Suda and the ‘grammatical’ tradition. The two are quite reconcilable if we suppose that he was composing at Megara long before he was famous at Syracuse and the Suda’s statement that Magnes in his youth succeeded the aged Chionides is absolutely consistent with the facts that Epicharmus was writing in 476 b .c. and that the first (recorded) mention o f a victory by Magnes is in 472 b . c. 4 e.g. in Schmid-Stählin, 1. 639, n. 6.

5 Frammenti della comedia greca e del mimo nella Sicilia e nella Magna Grecia (5934) 3 PP· 5 f·

L I F E , E T C ., O F E P I C H A R M U S

233

470 (Aeschylus’ Sicilian visit) and probably considerably later; it will be argued below that the Pyrrha or Prometheus must also have been written after 469 b . c . at the earliest and another play, possibly Odysseus Nauagos, after 466 b . c . It must be noted that there is no ancient evidence for his having produced in Megara Hyblaea (or for any other performances there), and Megara Hyblaea is only one of five possible birth­ places mentioned by the Suda. The Suda is clear that Epicharmus ‘discovered comedy in Syracuse with Phormus’, and Theocritus’ epigram (see below) speaks of him as the discoverer of comedy and a Syracusan. The text of Aristotle strictly taken says that Epicharmus came from Sicily, i.e. Syracuse, not from Megara Hyblaea; it was the claimants who came from Megara Hyblaea. To save ‘much earlier than Chionides, Seed, two assumptions have to be made, (1) that Epicharmus was working long before 486, (2) that he did not go on working to the end of his life; if his creative life, as seems natural to suppose, lasted from 488 to at least 450 b.c., he could not be said to be ‘much earlier than Chionides and Magnes’. The two possible solutions seem to be (1) Butcher’s insertion of a negative ‘not much earlier’, when the whole sentence becomes a comment on the claim, (2) Professor Else’s ingenious argument1 that the sentence is a late inter­ polation by someone who did not understand that the line of development which interested Aristotle was not Epicharmus to Chionides (who were contemporaries) but Epicharmus to Crates.] The tradition of Epicharmus as a Pythagorean and a ‘wise man’ is recorded by various writers : Plut. Life of diurna, ch. viii : The Romans inscribed Pythagoras in their list of citizens, as Epicharmus the comic poet records in a treatise written to Antenor (certainly spurious). Epicharmus lived long ago and belonged to the Pythagorean school. (Fr. 295 Kaibel, 280 Olivieri, 65 Diels-Kranz.) Clem. Al. Strom, v, § 100 (introducing fr. 266 Kaibel, 232 Olivieri, 23 Diels-Kranz) : Epicharmus (and he was a Pytha­ gorean) . . . . Diog. L. i. 42: Hippobotus (third/second century b . c .) in his 1 Aristotle's Poetics, pp. 113 if.

E P IC H A R M U S

list of philosophers. Orpheus, Linus, Solon, Periander, Anacharsis, Cleobulus, Myson, Thales, Bias, Pittacus, Epicharmus, Pythagoras. Ibid. viii. 78: Epicharmus, son of Helothales, Goan.1 He also was a hearer of Pythagoras. At the age of three months he left Sicily for Megara and went from there to Syracuse, as he himself says in his treatises. His statue has this inscription : ‘if the mighty sun surpasses the stars in brightness and the sea has greater force than the rivers, I say that I, Epicharmus, am equally superior in wisdom, whom this my native city of Syracuse crowned.’ He left treatises on physics, maxims, and medicine. In most of them he made acrostics to show that they are his own work. He died at the age of 90. [App.] Ibid. iii. 12 : (Plato) profited much from Epicharmus the comic poet. Lucian, M a c r . 25 : And Epicharmus, the comic poet, is said to have lived to the age of 97. Theocritus, E p ig ra m 18 (Gow) : The dialect is Dorian and the man is he who discovered comedy, Epicharmus. Bacchus, to thee in bronze instead of flesh they dedicated him here, they who live in the mighty city of Syracuse, a fitting reward for a fellow citizen, whose wise words they remembered. For he spoke to the young many things to help their lives. Great is the gratitude to him. Anon, in Plat. T h ea et. 152 e {B eri. K la s s . T e x te , ii, col. 71. 12) : Epicharmus associated with the Pythagoreans. (Cf. below, p. 250.) Iamblichus, V it. P y th a g . 166: Those who are interested in maxims dealing with life quote the sentiments of Epicharmus (to show the influence of Pythagoras). Ibid. 226 : Epicharmus was one of the external hearers but did not belong to the inner circle. When he came to Syracuse, be­ cause of Hiero’s tyranny he refrained from public philosophy but put the circle’s sentiments into verse, thus publishing Pythagoras’ ideas under cover of entertainment. Ibid. 241 : Metrodorus . . . says that Epicharmus and before him Pythagoras regarded Doric as the best of the dialects. [The rest of this passage is very doubtful and the readings uncertain, but it tells us nothing more about Epicharmus.]

It is clear that in these passages two traditions are to be distinguished. The first is that of the introduction of philo1 A very confused passage of Diogenes (vii. 7) about supposed writings of Pythagoras also mentions ‘Helothales the father of Epicharmus the Goan’.

L IF E , E T C ., O F E P IC H A R M U S

235

sophical ideas into the comedies of Epicharmus (if the Anonymus on Comedy, Theocritus, and Iamblichus may be so interpreted) ; the second, which only occurs distinctly in Diogenes, viii. 78, affirms that he wrote treatises on Nature and Medicine, as well as gnomic wisdom. The first tradition is all that can be extracted with certainty from Iamblichus, and fortunately (since the authority of the work which passes under the name of Iamblichus, and particularly of this part of it, is very weak) it does not need his support. We shall return shortly to the subject of the maxims of Epicharmus. The second tradition proves its own worthlessness, when it records that most of the ‘treatises’ contained acrostics showing Epicharmus to be the author. The acrostic does not appear before the Alexandrian age,1and the writings before Diogenes (or his source) were plainly spurious. The statement that Epicharmus was a hearer or follower of Pythagoras, though not one of his intimate disciples, may or may not be true; though the authority for it is very weak, there is nothing unlikely in it; but we shall see that there is nothing in the extant fragments of a ‘philosophical’ kind which proves more than that the poet was generally acquainted with the discussions of contemporary thinkers about Change and Permanence—a point which is also sufficiently proved by Plato, Theaet. 152 d, e: From decay and movement and mixture with each other come into being all the things which we say ‘are’, using the word in­ correctly. For nothing ever ‘is’ but always coming into being. Let all the philosophers assemble (except Parmenides), Protagoras and Heraclitus and Empedocles, and the best poets of either kind, Epicharmus the poet of comedy and Homer the poet of tragedy.

The reference to Homer shows that Plato was not thinking only of set philosophical discussions, and if he had known of any treatises of Epicharmus On Nature, it is not likely that he would have referred to him simply as a comic poet. The ques­ tion of Epicharmus’ relation to Pythagoras, and therewith the question how far back he may be dated, must therefore be left open. The notices are at variance as regards the poet’s parentage 1 See Pascal, Rivista di filologia e d’istruzione classica (1919), p. 58.

E P IC H A R M U S

and birth-place. The matter is not of great importance, and may be discussed briefly. Diogenes (viii. 7), who is interested in Epicharmus as a ‘wise man5, makes him the son of Helothales, who in a confused way is also brought into some relation to Pythagoras. Diogenes also makes him a native of Cos, the seat of a great medical school, with which perhaps he desired to connect Epicharmus on account of the spurious medical writings. A variety of this account appears in the Suda, which says that ‘some have made him a native of Cos, one of those who migrated to Sicily with Cadmus’. Cadmus was a tyrant of Cos, who, according to Herodotus (vii. 164) abdicated owing to conscientious objections to tyranny, and migrated to Zancle (afterwards called Messene) with cer­ tain exiles from Samos. But this took place after the fall of Miletus in 494 b .c . (Herod, vi. 22-25); and it is scarcely possible that Epicharmus should have arrived in Sicily as late as this, if he was producing plays at Syracuse in 483 b .c . and in Megara Hyblaea long enough before that to be called ‘much earlier than Chionides’ [but this text of Aristotle is itself a problem]. This account would also make it very im­ probable that he should have been a hearer of Pythagoras, but not much stress can be laid upon this. Nor need we be troubled by the statement of Diomedes (about the end of the fourth century a .d .) : ‘sunt qui velint Epicharmum in Co insula exulantem primum hoc carmen frequentasse, et sic a Coo comediam dici.’1 It remains possible that the poet was born at Cos, and taken to Sicily in infancy, as Diogenes says ; but in view of the uncritical character of Diogenes’ notice, the question must at least be left open; and the Treatises on which Diogenes drew must be assumed to be the spurious ones. The theory mentioned by the Suda, that he was a native of Samos, may have been intended to bring him into early relations with Pythagoras, or to account for the sup­ posed association of the poet (along with other Samians) with Cadmus. 1 Kaibel, C.G.F. i . 5 8 , 1 7 1 . Grysar, de Doriensium Comoedia (Cologne, 1 8 2 8 ) , builds on this an elaborate theory that Epicharmus was driven into exile by the persecution of the Pythagoreans about 5 1 0 b . c ., but returned with Cadmus to Sicily in 494 b . c .

237 But another tradition makes Epicharmus a Sicilian from the first. One of the alternatives mentioned by the Suda makes his birth-place Krastos, a Sicanian town; but the Suda prob­ ably got this from Neanth.es’ Onfamous men. (Neanthes lived under Attalus I of Pergamum, who reigned 241-197 b .c .) As Neanthes in the same breath made Krastos the birth-place of the famous hetaira Lais, who is known (from Polemo ap. Athen, xiii. 588 c) to have been born at Hykkara, no weight can be attached to the story.1 The other account mentioned by the Suda makes Epicharmus a Syracusan; and he was probably also claimed by the Megarians. The only possible conclusion is that we cannot tell where he was born. The futility of some of the Suda’s sources is illustrated by his description of Epicharmus as son ofTityrus or Chimaros—■ evident inventions like those (also reported by the Suda) which made Phrynichus son of Minyras or Chorocles, and Arion son of Gycleus. In the text of the Suda his mother’s name is given as Sikis. The name has been emended by some to Sekis, in which case the name would be a false inference on some one’s part from fr. 125 (Kaibel) ;2by Welcker to Sikinnis, the Sikinnis being a satyric dance, and the name at least as appropriate for a parent of Epicharmus as Tityrus or Chima­ ros. Once more we can only conclude that we cannot tell who the poet’s parents were any better than the early grammarians could.3 O f the poet’s relations to Hiero we know nothing apart from one or two anecdotes. The statement of Iamblichus that Epicharmus was a philosopher who was driven by fear of Hiero’s tyrannical character to veil his philosophy under the forms of entertainment is not likely to be true ; for though on one occasion the poet got into trouble for an indecent remark made in the presence of Hiero’s wife (Plut. Apophth. Reg., L IF E , E TC ., O F E P IC H A R M U S

1 Steph. Byz., p. 382. 13. Plutarch, Symp. Quaest. x. x. 2, animadverts on the unreliability of Neanthes, and Polemo Periegetes wrote a work called Opposition to Neanthes (Athen, xiii. 602 f). 2 Schol. Ar., Peace 185 (explaining the thrice-repeated ‘most hateful’ of Trygaeus) : ‘This has its origin in the Sciron of Epicharmus’ (quoted below, p. 268, when the word is given, as by Kaibel, in the Doric form Sakis). 3 Phot. Biblioth., p. 147 a (Bekker), states (after Ptolemaeus, son of Hephaestion, late second century a . d . ) that Epicharmus was descended from Achilles, son of Peleus.

238

E P IC H A R M U S

p. 175 c), another story shows that he could give himself con­ siderable freedom : viz. Pint. Quomodo quis adulatorem distinguat ab amico, p. 68 a: ‘When Hiero put some of his companions to death and after a few days invited Epicharmus to dinner, Epicharmus said “But you did not invite me the other day when you were butchering your friends” .3Aelian (Far. Hist. ii. 34) narrates another anecdote : ‘They say that when Epicharmus was very old he was sitting with his contem­ poraries in a meeting-place. They said one after another, the first “Five years are enough for me to live”, another “three for me”, and the third “four for me” . Epicharmus took them up and said “My friends, why do you squabble about a few days? All of us here are in the sunset of life by some fate. It is time for us all to go as quickly as possible before we suffer from some old man’s trouble” .’ We are also told that he laughed at Aeschylus for his fondness of a particular word:1 and we may regret that we can only imagine the life of the brilliant literary circle of Hiero’s court, frequented as it was by Aeschylus, Pindar, Simonides, and Bacchylides, and enter­ tained by the performance of their works.2 A good deal is sometimes made (after the example of Lorenz, pp. 92 ff.) of the supposed influence of the social and intellectual habits of the Sicilians, and of the Syracusans in particular, upon Epicharmus and so upon Greek comedy in general. There may be some truth in the statement commonly made that the Sicilians were naturally a witty people. Plato {Gorgias 493 a) speaks of ‘a wit, perhaps a Sicilian or Italian’, and Cicero {II Verr. iv, § 95) writes ‘numquam tam male est Siculis, quin aliquid facete et commode dicant’ ; and they may well have been as witty in the prosperous days of Gelo and Hiero as they were under Dionysius and Verres. The rise of Rhetoric in Sicily belongs to the generation after Hiero; but the attribution of certain rhetorical tricks to Epicharmus himself shows that such cleverness could be ap­ preciated in his day as well as later. But when Lorenz and 1 Schoh Aesch. Eum. 626. 2 Apart from the epinikian odes of the great lyric poets we know that the Aetnaeae of Aeschylus was composed in honour of Hiero’s newly founded city of Aetna ( Vit. Aeschyli) and that the Persae was reproduced at Syracuse ( Vit. Aesch. ; Schol. Ar. Ran. 1028).

L IF E , E T C ., O F E P IC H A R M U S

239

others attribute to the influence of the proverbial luxury of the Syracusans1 the fact that Epicharmus could write long passages of ‘patter’ containing little but the names of fish and other eatables, it is natural to ask whether such things do not belong to popular comedy everywhere and are not more likely (if they were derived from anywhere) to be derived from the mime-like performances in the Peloponnese to which both Sicilian and Athenian Comedy owed some of their characteristic features. The dances—chiefly of a mimetic kind—which were in vogue in Sicily are enumerated by Athenaeus, and no doubt contributed something to comedy, though few definite points of contact can be discerned.2 It need only be observed here that such indications as there are suggest that Syracuse provided the comic poet with an atmosphere in which comedy might easily flourish. If we ask why there was no political comedy in Sicily, we need not have recourse to Hiero’s temper or to the dangers of life under a monarch for an explanation.3 The simple reason seems to be that the earlier kinds of performance out of which Sicilian comedy developed were entirely non-political, and that political comedy was a special extravagance peculiar to Athens and does not lie in the main stream of the develop­ ment of the art. i l The Spurious Writings ascribed to Epicharmus § i . The vestiges of the Pseudepicharmeia are collected and the problems to which they give rise are discussed in Kaibel’s edition of the fragments.4 Besides the statement of Diogenes about the Commentaries of Epicharmus ‘in which he writes physics, maxims, and medicine’ (the spuriousness of which is proved by the acrostics which Diogenes found in them), the chief evidence (apart from fragments) is that of Athenaeus 1 Cf. Plat. Rep. iii. 404 d and Gorg. 518 b; Hor. Od. nr. i. 18; Strabo vi. ii. 4; Schol. Ar. Knights, 1091 ; Athen, iii. 112 d; vii. 282 a, 352 f; xii. 518 c; xiv. 655!, 661 e, f. 2 Athen, xiv. 629 e, f. Cf. also Pollux iv. 103; see above, pp. 138, 165. On the dance of Artemis Chitonea, which Athenaeus mentions first as specially Syracusan, see below (p. 268). 3 For the few traces of political allusions in Epicharmus, see below, p. 271. 4 PP· *33 ff·

240

E P IC H A R M U S

xiv. 648 d : ‘The hemina is known to those who composed the poems ascribed to Epicharmus, and these are the words in the work entitled Chiron : “and drink twice as much hot water, two heminai.’’ These Pseudepicharmeia were written by wellknown men including Chrysogonus the flute-player, who, according to Aristoxenus in the eighth book of the Politikoi Nomoi, wrote the Politela. Philochorus in his work on Prophecy says that Axiopistus, whether the Locrian or the Sicyonian, wrote the Canon and the Maxims. Apollodorus recounts the same.’ [App.] Chrysogonus flourished in the last part of the fifth century B.c.1but though the spuriousness of the Politela was known to Aristoxenus in the latter part of the fourth century, and to Apollodorus of Athens in the second, it is still quoted without any hint of spuriousness by Clement of Alexandria in the second century a .d . Ten lin es or so from the poem have thus been preserved.2 The Chiron is conjectured by Kaibel to have contained medical instruction, placed in the mouth of the centaur Chiron, who was, in mythology, acquainted with the healing art; and the line above quoted is consistent with this. Whether the various prescriptions for men and animals attributed to Epicharmus by Roman writers3 came from this poem cannot be stated; it is at least likely.4 If, as is conjectured with great probability by Susemihl,5 the Opsopoea of ‘Epicharmus’6 was 1 Athen, xii. 535 d. 2 Fr. 255-7 (Kaibel). 3 Colum, vm. iii. 6; Pliny, NM . xx. 89 and 94. Columella 1. i. 8 may refer to such prescriptions (for animals) when he writes : Siculi quoque non mediocri cura negotium istud (sc. res rusticas) prosecuti sunt, Hiero et Epicharmus disci­ pulus, Philometor et Attalus. (The text is perhaps wrong; the agriculturally minded Hiero was a later one than the patron of Epicharmus, and ‘Epicharmus discipulus’ can hardly be right.) Cf. Statius, Silv. v. iii, 1. 150, quantumque pios ditavit agrestes / Ascraeus Siculusque senex. Censorinus, De die natali, vii. 5, also refers to Epicharmus’ views on the period of gestation (in human beings). Whether or not the Chiron discussed this cannot be said; Kaibel thinks the reference is to a poem On Nature. 4 Pascal, Riv. di filol. (1919), p. 62, collects the evidence for the association of veterinary writings in the Roman age with the name of Chiron, when the title Mulomedicina Chironis was given to such writings; and cf. Veget. Praef. 3. In the second century a . d . a medical work in forty books of verse was written by Marcellus Sidites, of whom Anth. Pal. v i i . clviii, 11. 8, 9, speaks. 5 Philologus, liii. 565; cf. Kaibel on fr. 290. 6 Antiatt. Bekk. 99. 1.

S P U R IO U S W R IT IN G S

241

actually the Chiron, or part of the Chiron, there may be a reference to this in Alexis, fr. 135 (K). From the fact that the Canon was mentioned by Philochorus in his On Prophecy and from the statement of Tertullian1 ‘ceterum Epicharmus etiam summum apicem inter divinationes somniis extulit cum Philochoro Atheniensi’, Kaibel naturally supposes that divination may have been one of the subjects treated in the poem. § 2. The treatment of Nature in the Pseudepicharmeia is a more difficult subject. Kaibel2 believes that there was a poem On Nature bearing the name of Epicharmus at a date early enough to have enabled Euripides to read it. The argu­ ment, stated briefly, is that lines are found in Euripides which are closely parallel to lines of Ennius quoted by Varro, and referred by scholars, with great probability, to the Epicharmus of Ennius. It is urged that it is more likely that Ennius should have imitated a connected poem (as he did in the Hedyphagetica and Euhemerus) than that he should have collected references to scientific matters from the plays of Epicharmus, particu­ larly as the tone of the philosophical passages which do come from plays is that of parody, and is alien from the grand seriousness of some of the lines of a philosophical type, which are quoted as from Epicharmus, and (according to Kaibel) are probably to be ascribed to the supposed poem On Nature. Kaibel’s argument is not perfectly convincing. It is true that of the two Euripidean passages quoted, one is from the Bacchae (275-7), one °f Euripides’ latest plays, and that the unknown play from which the other comes (fragm. 941, Nauck, ed. 2) may have been late; and this partly meets the difficulty of supposing that an important poem would be forged in the name of Epicharmus sufficiently soon after his death to be familiar to Euripides. But it remains easier to suppose that if Ennius did adapt some entire poem passing under the name of Epicharmus, it was a forgery of later date, and that the resemblances to Euripides in Ennius’ poem (if substantiated) are due to reminiscences of Euripides by Ennius himself (for he certainly knew Euripides as well as he knew Epicharmus) or by the forger. In fact, however, the 1 De anima 46. 6188

2 C.G.F., pp. 134-5.

R

E P IC H A R M U S

resemblances to Euripides are not themselves convincing, and without them the whole argument for a fifth-century forgery fails. The passages are as follows : (1) Eur. fr. 941 (Nauck) : You see yonder on high the boundless aether with earth encircled in its soft embrace. Call this Zeus, count this god. Cf. Varro, De ling. Lat. v. 65 : idem hi dei caelum et terra Iupiter et luno, quod ut ait Ennius, Istic est is Iupiter quem dico, quem Graeci vocant aerem, qui ventus est et nubes, imber postea, atque ex imbre frigus, ventis post fit aer denuo. haece propter Iupiter sunt ista quae dico tibi, quando mortalis atque urbes beluasque omnes iuvat.

The only common point between the two passages is the identification of Zeus or Jupiter with the sky, and this doctrine was not peculiar to Epicharmus. (Ennius may have got it from Euripides.) (2) Eur. Bacch. 275: The goddess Demeter. She is earth but call her any name you like. She nurtures men on dry stuff. Cf. Varro, De ling. Lat. v. 64: Terra Ops, quod hic omne opus et hac opus ad vivendum, et ideo dicitur Ops mater quod Terra mater. Haec enim terris gentis omnis peperit, et resumit denuo quae dat cibaria.

But the points of the passages are clearly quite different. All that is common is the statement that the earth gives food to men, and this need not be derived from Epicharmus. It may be added that, while these passages are quoted by Varro from Ennius, they are not in fact stated to come from the Epicharmus (though passages, to which there is no Euripidean parallel, are ascribed to that poem in chs. 59 and 68 of the same book) ; that the Epicharmus was not the only poem in which Ennius used this metre; and that the quotations may well be from the tragedies of Ennius, copying the tragedies of Euripides. It may be suggested,1 as an alternative to Kaibel’s theory, 1 Almost the same suggestion was made by Susemihl, Philolog. liii. 564 ff., which I had not seen until after the above was written.

S P U R IO U S W R IT IN G S

243

that if there was a forged physiological poem1 bearing the name of Epicharmus and used by Ennius it was forged very late in the fifth or else during the fourth century, by some one well acquainted with Euripides, or at least with the scientific theorists from whom Euripides drew. This would equally account for a third pair of passages quoted by Kaibel: Eur. Suppl. 531: Let the dead now be covered in earth, and whence each part came to the body, thither return, breath to aether, body to earth. Epich., fr. 234: There was assembly and dispersal and de­ parture back whence it came, earth to earth and air above. What is difficult here? Nothing.1 23 Both writers evidently draw on the same ideas, which seem to be those of Anaxagoras, but in fact neither need be sup­ posed to derive them from the other. The hypothesis of a fourth-century forgery would also account for the reference to ‘Epicharmus’ by Menander fr. 614 Körte : ‘Epicharmus says the gods are winds, water, earth, sun, fire, stars’—a doctrine also ascribed to Epicharmus by Vitruvius viii, Praef. i, and to Ennius by Varro, de Re Rustica i. 4, though it does not seem at all impossible that the reference should be to some passage in the comedies of Epicharmus. In fact, the case for the existence of an independent physiological poem is not at all strong. A considerable number —if not all—of the fragments ascribed by scholars to this sup­ posed poem are passages which it is not impossible to think of as occurring in comedies. Fr. 250, on which Kaibel lays some stress, ‘Be sober and remember to mistrust. These are the sinews of mind’, is as suitable to a comedy as to a poem On Mature. The line ‘Mind sees and mind hears. The rest is deaf and blind’ (fr. 249),3 which is quoted by a number of 1 Whether, if there was such a poem, it was identical with the Politela forged by Chrysogonus, as Wilamowitz thinks, cannot be stated in view of the want of evidence. It is not safe to base arguments on the few lines (frs. 255-7) quoted by Clement from the Politela. 2 [A clear case of forged Epicharmus copying Euripides is fr. 297 Kaibel, 46 Diels-Kranz, 266 Olivieri.] 3 On the history of the quotations of this line by subsequent writers, see Gerhard, Cercidea ( Wiener Stud, xxxvii (1919), 6-14).

E P IC H A R M U S

writers, may well be genuine. We know that Epicharmus had some kind of controversy with Xenophanes, and the line may have been some speaker’s reply to Xenophanes’ ‘All of him sees, all of him knows, and all of him hears’ (fr. 24 D -K ). (The familiarity of Epicharmus with Xenophanes can possibly be seen in fr. 173: and Aristotle, Met. iii. ioioa5, refers to a remark of Epicharmus against Xenophanes—fr. 252 Kaibel —which Alexander of Aphrodisias, p. 670. 1, explains : ‘Epicharmus, the poet of comedy, said some slanderous and scornful words against Xenophanes, scurrilously mocking him as unlearned and ignorant of the truth.’) Nestle1 greatly enlarges the list of parallels between Euripides and Epichar­ mus, and ascribes nearly all the fragments to the real Epicharmus. We may indeed doubt whether Euripides was really imitating or remembering Epicharmus in very many of these passages ; the sentiments mostly belong to the common stock of fifth-century ideas or are such that they might easily occur to two writers independently ; but he is obviously right in rejecting as a mere petitio principii? and, we may add, as rather futile in itself, the statement of Kaibel that Euripides would not have quoted comedies : and it is in fact impossible to lay down a priori that this passage or that could not have found a place in the comedies of Epicharmus, who obviously was well acquainted with the thoughts of the philosophers of his time.3 (Nestle shows how closely some of the shorter frag­ ments correspond with fragments of Heracleitus ; the longer ones will be discussed later.) Kaibel’s argument that Ennius is most likely to have copied an entire poem passing under the name of Epicharmus loses its force, when we observe that Ennius borrows from authors as he wants them (from Epi­ charmus himself, probably, fr. 172, in the Annals, fr. 12), and reflect that if, as appears to have been the case, the setting of his Epicharmus was a visit in a dream to the lower world, this at least is not likely to have been the setting of the supposed physiological poem. 1 Philologus, Suppi. Bd. viii. 601 ff.

2 On this see also Rohde, Psyche, iiz. 258. 3 [The reader should, however, be warned that in none of the fragments attributed to particular plays is there a well-rounded single- or two-line maxim like those quoted in this section.]

S P U R IO U S W R IT IN G S

245

On the whole, the existence of the supposed poem1 seems to be an unnecessary hypothesis. The parallels with Euripides, and also all that Diogenes records of the (spurious) works, are accounted for without it. The extant fragments of the Politela show us at any rate that some ‘physiology’ was included in the poem, and the same may have been the case with the Canon ; the explanation of ‘medicine’ already has been dis­ cussed. § 3. With regard to Diogenes’ ‘maxims’ and Axiopistus’ forgery in the fourth century of a book of Maxims in the name of Epicharmus, it may be conjectured that such forgery was rendered plausible by the occurrence of many sententious maxims in the comedies themselves.12 The fragment quoted by Diogenes Laertius iii. 12,3together with a fragment4unknown to Kaibel, probably come from the introduction to some similar collection or perhaps even from a copy of Axiopistus’ own book : Here are many ingredients of every sort which you could use to friend or foe, in the assembly, to poor man, gentleman, foreigner, quarreller, drunkard, vulgarian, or anyone else who is difficult. Against these there are stings here, but there are also wise maxims, which if one should obey, he would be more clever and better in all respects. It is not necessary to say much but one thing only, applying to the problem whichever of these maxims fits. For they said that although I was clever I was long-winded and could not make short maxims. Hearing this I composed this manual that it might be said : ‘Epicharmus was a wise man who said many witty things of every sort, verse by verse, giving proof of himself that he could speak briefly.’ Crönert5 restores the last line somewhat differently, and expands some very fragmentary lines which follow to suit the context. He has no difficulty in showing that the extant 1 There is no hint in antiquity of any forgeries besides the three attributed to Chrysogonus and Axiopistus, and no doubt treated as forgeries by Apollodorus. 2 [Cf., however, n. 3 p. 244.] 3 After, but not among, the quotations furnished by Alcimus; see p. 248, below. 4 Hibeh Papyri, 1. i. The date of the papyrus is between 280 and 240 b . c . ; Diels, Vorsokr?, p. 116; Diels-Kranz, p. 193; Olivieri, p. 108, No. 2x7; Powell, Coll. Alex., 219. 5 Hermes, xlvii. 402 if.

246

E P IC H A R M U S

maxims attributed to Epicharmus can easily be distributed under the headings mentioned in the early lines of this pas­ sage, and he supposes that most of them come from this poem. The fragment (fr. 254)1 quoted by Diogenes is in the same style, and perhaps concluded the introduction: ‘As I think—think? I know full well that my words will be re­ membered. Someone will take them and untie the metre which now binds them, give them clothing and purple, adorn them in fair language ; he will be hard to fight, he will show up others as weak adversaries.’ There is no reason why such a collection should not have contained many genuine maxims of Epicharmus, but we have now no sure test for distinguish­ ing the true from the false, and Crönert’s inclination to regard almost all as genuine does not rest upon proof.12 [It is clear that the papyrus fragment introduces an antho­ logy of useful maxims ; some of these may have been genu­ ine if Epicharmus wrote maxims, but the fragments of the plays give no evidence that he did. Professor Thierfelder3 has pointed out that the Diogenes Laertius fragment (fr. 254) does not fit particularly well with the papyrus fragment as it is apparently only concerned with worsting an opponent; the papyrus fragment envisages also generally helpful maxims. He suggests that fr. 254 is a prophecy by some character like Odysseus in a play by Epicharmus envisaging the use of Epicharmus by his contemporaries (Korax, Xenophanes, and Parmenides are suggested). This is an ingenious suggestion. It should, however, be noted that the description of a writer of elaborate prose who will use Epicharmus would fit Plato admirably, and Diogenes Laertius quotes this fragment im­ mediately after the four fragments he quotes from Alcimus (see below) : ‘such things Alcimus notes in four books, showing the use Plato made of Epicharmus. That Epicharmus himself 1 218 Olivieri, 6 Diels-Kranz. 2 The metrical investigations of Kanz, De tetrame ro trochaico (Darmstadt, 1913) show that in the Pseudepicharmeia taken as a whole (he examined 69 lines) there are far fewer non-trochaic feet, and much less irregularity as regards caesura, than in the 116 lines certainly derived from comedies. But, of course, the test is based on far too small a number of lines in all to be of much value. Out of the 116 lines from comedies there are 44 without any non-trochaic feet. 3 Festschrift Bruno Snell (1956), pp. 173 if.

S P U R IO U S W R IT IN G S

247

was not unaware of his own wisdom is to be learnt also from these verses in which he prophesies his emulator5: fr. 254. It is certainly possible, as Thierfelder admits, that the fragment comes from Alcimus and refers to Plato.1]

hi.

‘Philosophical* Fragments

It will be convenient to consider next four fragments pre­ served by Diogenes Laertius which have some reference to philosophical questions. Diogenes here is expressly quoting from the treatise of Alcimus To Amyntas. It is generally believed that the Alcimus quoted is the Sicilian rhetorician and historian of the name, who was the pupil of Stilpo12 and lived about the end of the fourth and the beginning of the third centuries b . c .; and that he is addressing (or controvert­ ing) Amyntas of Heracleia, who had been a pupil of Plato and was a mathematician. The object of Alcimus was to show that some of Plato’s most characteristic doctrines were derived from Epicharmus—a conclusion in itself most im­ probable, though Epicharmus was no doubt travestying theories which were afterwards considered by Plato in a more developed form. The assertion of Wilamowitz3 that the frag­ ments imply a knowledge of Plato’s fully developed Theory of Ideas, and that Alcimus was therefore deceived in thinking them the work of Epicharmus, can hardly be accepted. In fact the fragments, when carefully studied, do not seem to be really parallel to Plato at all. That the quotations given by Alcimus were taken from the comedies of Epicharmus, and not from a separate philosophical poem, is, if not proved, at least strongly suggested by the facts (1) that they are in dialogue; (2) that something like parody is discernible in 1 Gf. Gigante, Parola del passato, viii (1953), 173, η. i. 2 This view seems more probable than the conjecture that he was an unknown Neoplatonist, which rests only on the fact that the Neoplatonists tried to dis­ cover Plato’s doctrines in many earlier writers. Alcimus is mentioned as an historian by Athen, vii. 322 a; x. 441 a, b. Schwartz (R.E. i, col. 1544) refuses to identify the historian with the rhetorician (Diog. L. 11. xi. 114), and not more than high probability can be claimed for the identification. [It is rejected by Gigante, Parola del passato, viii (1953), 161, who takes Alcimus to be a younger contemporary of Plato.] 3 Gott. Gel. Anz. (1906), p. 622.

248

E P IC H A R M U S

them ; that Diogenes calls the author ‘Epicharmus the comic poet3, while an anonymous commentator on Plato’s Theaetetus1 also uses the word ‘made fun of5 of the illustration which he gives from Epicharmus of the point which is also elaborated in the long fragment quoted by Alcimus. § i . This first fragment (fr. 1 7 0 ) , which deals mainly with the problem how that which changes can yet retain its identity, is given as one fragment in the text of Diogenes,2 but Diels divides it into two, the first of which ends with 1. 6 and speaks of the eternity of the gods and the unchangingness of ‘intelligibles’, while the second emphasizes the ceaseless muta­ bility of all particular things, which is such that nothing remains itself from one moment to another. Diels thinks that the first alludes to the theory of the Eleatics, the second to that of Heracleitus, whereas most scholars have been content to treat the whole as alluding to Heracleitus, and Rostagni3 thinks that it is Pythagorean doctrine which is travestied. The truth seems to be (as this diversity of views suggests) that the allusions are not sufficiently specific to be definitely referred to any one school. As regards the second portion (11. 7 if.), all schools of philosophy or science were familiar with the spectacle of continual change. Heracleitus had, no doubt, particularly emphasized this, and many of his frag­ ments are variations on the theme : but, as Rostagni points out, Heracleitus admits no exceptions to the general flux and inter­ change of opposites, not even the gods, and at the same time he points to an underlying and permanent harmonia, whereas in Epicharmus the gods and ‘these things’ (the meaning of 1 Berliner Klassikertexte, ii. 47 (quoted Diels-Kranz, p. 147). 2 Diog. L. III. xii: ‘Plato was much helped by the comic poet Epicharmus and simply rewrote many points, as Alcimus says in To Amyntas. There are four books, and in the first he says as follows : “Plato manifestly repeated much of Epicharmus. This must be considered. Plato says that the sensible is what never remains fixed in quality or quantity but is always in flux and changing. For things from which one removes number have neither equality nor number nor quality nor size—these are things of which there is always becoming and never being. But the intelligible is that from which nothing is subtracted and to which nothing is added, and this is the nature of eternal things, their like and un­ changing nature. Now Epicharmus has spoken clearly about sensibles and intelligibles : fr. 170.” 5 Plato himself refers to Epicharmus’ discussion of the subject in Theaet. 152 d, e (quoted above, p. 235). 3 II verbo di Pitagora, chs, ii, iii. See above, p. 235.

‘P H IL O S O P H IC A L ’ F R A G M E N T S

249

which we shall presently discuss) are exceptions to the flux, and there is no hint (though in view of the fragmentary nature of the passage no stress must be laid on this) of any harmonia.1 So far as any contrast of sensibles and intelligibles, such as Alcimus had in view, had been formulated at this time, it may be found either (as Rostagni thinks) in the Pythagorean theory of numbers or (as Diels supposes) in the Eleatic contrast of Appearance and Reality: but probably the contrast, like the perception of the mutability of sensibles, was a common topic in the discussions of all schools. In the first part of the fragment (11. 1-6) the principal speaker denies some of the statements of poetical cosmogonies, and affirms the eternity of the gods and of ‘these things’ in 1. 2. The text of the fragment is as follows : Fr. 170 Kaibel; 152 Olivieri; 1-2 Diels-Kranz : A. ‘The gods, you know, were always there and have never yet failed, and these things were always alike and present in the same way.’ B. ‘But Chaos is said to have been the first of the gods.’ A. ‘How could it be? It had as a first nowhere to come from and nowhere to go to.’ B. ‘Then did nothing come first?’ A. ‘No, by Zeus, nor did any of the things which we are talking about come second but they always were in existence.’ A. ‘If you add a pebble to an odd number (or, if you like, to an even number) or take away one of those there, do you think the number would stay the same?’ B. ‘No, I do not.’ A. ‘Nor if you were to add to a cubit length another length or cut it off from what was there would the length remain?’ B. ‘No.’ A. ‘Look at men in the same way. One grows, another withers, all are chang­ ing all the time. W hat changes by nature and never stays in the same place would now be something different from what it was before. And you and I were yesterday different and today we are 1 [So also G. S. Kirk, Cosmic Fragments of Heraclitus (1954), pp. 374 f.] The attempt of Rostagni to show that Heraclei tus’ book could not have been pub­ lished until shortly before Epicharmus’ death is not conclusive. It rests on the assumption, made first by Zeller, that Hermodorus, whose exile from Ephesus is mentioned by Heracleitus, would not have been exiled before the collapse of the Persian supremacy—an assumption to which Burnet {Early Greek Philosophy3, p. 130) sufficiently replies—together with the further assumption that Epi­ charmus cannot have lived beyond 470 b . c . and must have been bom some ninety years earlier. [On the chronology of Epicharmus, cf. above, p. 232. If he lived until 430, there is no reason why he should not have known the work of Parmenides and Zeno.]

E P IC H A R M U S

different and tomorrow different and never the same according to the same argument.’ As regards the two difficulties—the meaning of ‘these things’ and the division of the fragment—a few words will suffice. ( i ) Diels thought that ‘these things’ are sensibles—die Vorgänge hier {in der Natur). But the words of Alcimus strongly suggest that they must be eternals or intelligibles, and the only difficulty in this is the adversative particle, which seems to involve a contrast with the previous line : there may, how­ ever, be a contrast between the gods and the other eternals— a contrast perhaps carried over from the preceding context ; or the particle may be quasi-inferential, ‘and so’. The con­ trast cannot really be between gods and sensibles, for in reference to the latter the line would be plainly untrue and inconsistent with the second part of the fragment. [Reediting Diels, however, Kranz accepted Reinhardt’s inter­ pretation of ‘these things’ as ‘divine things’ (nearly—‘divini­ ties’), and this is surely right : the application to ‘intelligibles’ was made by Alcimus.] (2) Diels’ suggestion that the corrupt heading of some manuscripts conceals the fact that a separate fragment (noted as such by Alcimus) began ‘If you add a pebble’ is ingenious and may be right. It certainly gets rid of an extremely abrupt transition ; but the text of the line is really very uncertain, and it may be better to suspend judgement on the proposed division. It happens that the point of this passage of Epicharmus is made plain by Plutarch1and by the anonymous commentator on the Theaetetus, who enable us to see how such a passage could have got into a comedy. Epicharmus, we are told, used, 1 Plut. de sera mm. vind., p. 559 b. Gf. de comm, notit., p. 1083 a. Plutarch’s language a few lines after the last quoted passage is very like that of Epicharmus. For the special application of the auxanomenos logos to human existence, see Plut. de tranq. anim., p. 473 d. Plutarch also states ( Vit. Thes. xxiii) that philo­ sophers used to illustrate the logos by the ship which Theseus repaired with so many new planks that some said it was no longer the same ship. The ‘Epicharmian argument’ (Suda, s.v.) was probably the auxanomenos logos under another name. Both Plato in the Theaetetus (cf. above, p. 234) and his commen­ tator are plainly thinking of the comedies of Epicharmus, not of a philosophical poem.

‘P H I L O S O P H I C A L ’ F R A G M E N T S

251

and in fact invented, the auxanomenos logos—the ‘fallacy of the sorites’ of later logicians, so called from the use of a heap of corn (sows) as the favourite illustration of it. (How many grains of corn must be taken away before a heap of com will cease to be a heap? What if that number less one be taken away? and so on.) Epicharmus applied it to personality. How much change will make a man a different person? And he appears to have argued that a debtor who borrowed money yesterday does not owe it today, since he is already a different man from the borrower; and that the man whom you invited yesterday to dinner may be turned away when he arrives today, ‘for he is another’ : while the commentator on the Theaetetus tells the story of a man who refused to pay a promised subscription on the ground that he was a different person : the would-be collector struck him and demanded the debt, but he rejoined that the man who had struck him was no longer the same as the claimant. It is obvious that there is here some pretty material for comedy. We have a quackphilosopher using subtleties of argument to justify him in playing tricks on his neighbours—a character very like Socrates in the Clouds of Aristophanes, and still more like what Socrates makes of Strepsiades ; and it has been argued that such a character-type persisted from the time of the old Peloponnesian buffoonery, which contributed much both to Attic and to Syracusan comedy, down to the Middle Comedy, when the philosopher was frequently presented in this guise.1 It should be added that the attempt made by some scholars2 to prove this fragment to be a Sophistic forgery is rightly answered by Körte,3 who points out the contrast of this vigorous and dramatic dialogue with the tone of the spurious maxims of later forgers. § 2 . The second fragment (fr. 171 Kaibel, 153 Olivieri, 3 Diels-Kranz) which Alcimus quoted he supposed to fore­ shadow the Platonic theory of ideas and of the Idea of Good.4 1 Another rhetorical figure, epoikodotnesis, is said to have been invented by Epicharmus (Aristot. Rhet. i. i3Ö5aio; De Gen. An. i. 724^9). It is illustrated by fr. 148 (Kaibel). See below, p. 274. 2 e.g. Schwartz, in R.E. i, col. 1543. 3 Bursian’s Jahresber. (i grr), pp. 230 ff. 4 Diog. L., loc. cit. : ‘Therefore also (Plato) says that the Ideas are set in

E P IC H A R M U S

The chief speaker does in fact speak of ‘the Good’ as ‘a thing in itself5; not, however, in the Platonic sense of a self-existent Idea, but simply in the sense of something distinguishable from the person who knows what ‘good’ is, just as any art is distinguishable from the artist. A. ‘Is flute-playing a thing?’ B. ‘Certainly.’ A. ‘Then is flute­ playing a man?’ B. ‘Not at all.’ A. ‘Come, let me see. W hat is a flute-player? W hat does he seem to you? A man or not?’ B. ‘Certainly.’ A. ‘Then don’t you think it is the same with the good? The good is a thing in itself. Whoever has learnt it and knows it is already good. For as the man who learns flute-playing is a fluteplayer or dancing a dancer or plaiting a plaiter or anything else of this kind you like, he would not himself be the art but an artist.’

We have here no Plutarch to guide us to Epicharmus’ point : the argument is in part not unlike some passages in Plato’s Hippias Maior (e.g. 287 c), and Diels thinks that the fragment, though not open to suspicion so far as its language is con­ cerned, is possibly (in view of its contents and its catechetical form) the work of a fourth-century writer; he suggests that it is an interpolation inserted by Dionysius in the comedies of Epicharmus which he had reproduced on the stage for Plato’s benefit. (Dionysius’ interest in Epicharmus is reflected in the Suda’s statement that he wrote on the poems of Epicharmus.) If the dialogue is very like some of those put in the mouth of Socrates, it is certainly not one which Epicharmus could not have written : the parallelism with Plato’s Apology 27 b, which Diels thinks the forger had in mind, is really very superficial, if carefully examined, and the points of the ex­ ternally parallel phrases are not the same. There seems to be no sufficient reason for judging the fragment to be spurious, and it is scarcely likely that, if this or any of the other frag­ ments had been forged after the publication of Plato’s writings, they could have imposed upon writers so little junior to Plato, and so well-versed in the literature of the time as presumably both Alcimus and Amyntas must have been. It is tempting to suppose that the argument in the frag­ ment led to some subtle travesty of the theory that knowledge nature as examples, and everything else is like them, copies of them. So Epi­ charmus speaks thus about the good and about the Ideas.’

‘P H I L O S O P H I C A L ’ F R A G M E N T S

253

produces virtue; but it would probably be an anachronism to date the discussion of this topic so far back as the time of Epicharmus, and for the present we must be content to be ignorant of the context. [The preceding sentence points to one of the difficulties in accepting this fragment as Epicharmus : it certainly does imply that virtue is a matter of knowledge, and this is a Socratic theory which seems to have been fairly new when Euripides wrote the Medea in 431 b .c .1 Nor is it clear that ‘the good is a thing in itself’ could be said before Plato (or at least Socrates) : in Parmenides2 ‘in itself’ still means ‘by itself’, and the use of neuter adjective and definite article for mental constituents seems to have started with the Hippocratics in the second half of the fifth century;3 it is from the usage of the doctors rather than from the quite different use of ‘the wise’ in Heracleitus that ‘the good itself’ derives. If ‘the good in itself’ was Socratic, as it probably was, it also belongs to the period when he was making ethical definitions, scarcely before 430 b .c. In our fragment the induction has the same form as in the early Platonic dialogues : one instance is worked out at length ‘flute-playing’, others are added briefly and the rest are included with an ‘etcetera!. Denniston4has pointed out that the rejoinder ‘Certainly’ (in Greek an adverb with two particles) is only known from Plato and Aristophanes’ Plutus (where Aristophanes is parodying Plato). The fragment seems therefore to be fourth-century comedy; it is not a forgery by Alcimus, because it does not illustrate his point. Alcimus seems therefore not to have been able to distinguish between Epicharmus and later Dorian comedy, and each of his quotations has to be considered on its merits.] § 3. The two other fragments were quoted by Alcimus as parallels to Plato’s theory of animal life and instinct :s Frs. 172-3 Kaibel, 154 Olivieri, 3-4 Diels-Kranz : ‘Eumaius, the wise is not in one thing alone but all that lives has intellect. 1 Gf. B. Snell, Philologus, xcvii (1948), 125. 2 Diels-Kranz., fr. B 8, 58· 3 Gf. my Greek Art and Literature 730-530 B.C., p. 88. 4 Greek Particles (1954), p. 478. 5 Diog. L. loc. cit. : ‘Plato in his treatment of our reception of the Ideas says that if there is memory, the Ideas are in things because memory is of what is steady and abiding. Nothing abides except the Ideas. For in what way, he

254

E P IC H A R M U S

For the female breed of hens, if you want to make the clear dis­ tinction, does not bear living children but lays eggs and makes them have a soul. But this wisdom nature alone knows how she has it. For she is taught by herself’ and again ‘There is no wonder that we say so and please ourselves and seem to be beautiful. For dog seems most beautiful to dog, and ox to ox, and ass to ass most beautiful and even pig to pig’.

The fragments affirm the possession of reason or instinct by animals, and the attraction of like to like—neither point requiring any great depth of philosophical thought ; the second seems to be reminiscent of Xenophanes, fr. 15, in which it is suggested that if oxen, lions, or horses could paint or sculpt, they would make gods in their own likeness. The vein of parody in the two fragments is clear enough, and the mention of Eumaeus in the first has led to the natural conjecture that it, or both, came from the Odysseus Nauagos. There is obviously no difficulty in supposing that the two passages fitted well into the dialogue of one of Epicharmus’ plays, and possibly the speaker again may have been some one in the character of a quack wise-man, as is even more probable in the case of the two other fragments. [The great difficulty of accepting the second fragment (171) as Epichar­ mus throws doubt on the other three. The last two (172-3) have a suspicious use oiphysis1and are so flat and long-winded that one is unwilling to ascribe them to Epicharmus. The said, would living things be preserved if they did not touch the idea, possessing mind as a gift of nature for this purpose? And now they remember the likeness of their birth and growth, showing that all animals have an inborn perception of likeness. Therefore also they perceive their kind. How then does Epicharmus go?’ (the two fragments follow). Alcimus supposes Epicharmus to foreshadow Plato, Parmen., p. 129; of course he does not really do so. The first passage is perhaps imitated by Ennius, Annals, i, fr. 12 (Vahlen) : Ova parire solet genus pinnis condecoratum, non animam; et post inde venit divinitus pullis ipsa anima. 1 [Heinimann, Nomos and Physis (Basle, 1945), pp. 102 f., regards the use of physis for Nature in 172 as impossible in Epicharmus, but Kirk, op. cit., p. 395, compares the Pindaric use ofphya for ‘nature’ or ‘genius’ ; he notes also the verbal correspondences with Heracleitus, frs. 32 and 78. It may be objected that physis is not the genius of the hen but Nature in general. The particle in the last line guarantees the second fragment as Sicilian (Denniston, Greek Particles, p. 289).]

‘P H IL O S O P H IC A L ’ F R A G M E N T S

255

first ( 170) is unexceptionable in itself and should perhaps be accepted in spite of its bad company because of the ascription of the auxanomenos logos to Epicharmus and of its likeness to Eleatic argumentation.] IV.

The

Plays and F r a g m e n t s

Before attempting any general description of the Comedy of Epicharmus it will be well to survey briefly the extant remains. § i. A large number of the plays were evidently mytho­ logical burlesques, and it is clear that the two favourite heroes were Odysseus and Heracles ; cunning and violence (the latter combined with voracity) are natural themes for comedy of a simple type. [The Odysseus Automolos, Odysseus the Deserter, has now to be reconsidered with the evidence of the papyrus com­ mentary published in Oxyrh. Pap., voi. xxv,1 which links the already known papyrus fragment (99 Kaibel, 50 Olivieri) with another fragment preserved in quotation (100 Kaibel, 51 Olivieri).12 Hitherto it had been assumed that the play dealt with Odysseus’ entry into Troy disguised as a beggar, which is recounted in Od. iv. 242-58, and that Epicharmus’ Odysseus, thinking discretion the better part of valour, pro­ posed to pretend that he had been to Troy and in the papyrus rehearsed the speech that he would make when he re-entered the camp. Professor Stanford,3 however, thought that in a moment of reflection before setting out Odysseus imagined himself to have completed his mission. Professor A. Barigazzi4 believes that Odysseus has in fact deserted and is living as a swineherd in Troy, preferring the quiet life to the noble one. The new commentary puts a new complexion on the whole situation and perhaps suggests that the incident dramatized was the Doloneia rather than the episode mentioned in Od. iv; Dr. Lobel notes three reminiscences of II. x. 205-12 in the old papyrus fragment and a reminiscence of II. x. 511 is noted 1 No. 2429, fr. i, pi. iv. 2 D. L. Page, Greek Literary Papyri, No. 37; cf. E. D. Phillips, Greece and Rome, v i (1959), 59. 3 W. B. Stanford, Class. Phil, xiv (1950), 167. 4 A. Barigazzi, Rhein. Mus. xcviii (1955), 121.

256

E P IC H A R M U S

by t h e new commentary in t h e next column to the old frag­ ment; t h e r e f e r e n c e t o d a w n i n t h e f i r s t c o l u m n w o u l d a l s o t a l l y w i t h II. x. 2 5 1 . The new commentary is desperately corrupt; fr. 1 {a) + (b), col. ii, starts rather before the beginning of the old papyrus fragment; then there is a gap after a comment on the fourth line of the old fragment; fr. 1 (a), col. iii is level with the last 15 lines of col. ii, and fr. 1 (c), which at the end comments on the old fr. 100, may have formed part of the same column, perhaps earlier rather than later. The following account gives what is moderately clear with full translation where possible : fr. i {a)-\-(b)} col. ii. A. (I would despise a task like a tow-chandler’s), leering as if meeting someone on the road. I could do this very easily or any­ thing else. . . . But I see—Why, you miserable man, do you interrupt?—Here are the Achaeans near so that I am in a very bad way. B. ‘You certainly are a bad m an.’ A. T could not go back thus. It is bad to be thrashed. (You cruel gods !) I ’ll1 go and sit here and say that this is easy even for those cleverer than me.’ B. ‘You and your like seem to me to be entirely right in making prayers, if one thinks about it.’ A. ‘Would that I had gone, as you bade me, preferred evils to camp comforts, run the risk, obtained divine glory by entering the Trojan city, learnt everything clearly, brought the news back to the goodly Achaeans and the dear son of Atreus, and myself come unscathed.’

The new commentary is entirely clear about the two utter­ ances of the second speaker, except that it breaks off when commenting on ‘You seem to me’ and therefore does not tell us whether the next line belongs to A or B; but this is clear from the scholiast to the old papyrus. If A is Odysseus, B may be Diomede, and his arrival is presumably referred to by Odysseus as ‘here are the Achaeans near’ (mock-heroic plural). Diomede’s last words seem to refer to an imprecation made by Odysseus either at the beginning of fr. 99 or earlier when Diomede first enters. It seems therefore likely that the 1 Here the old papyrus (fr. 99) starts; but the commentary fills some of the gaps at the beginning and end of the lines and shows that 11. 3-4 are spoken by the second actor who (has heard someone) praying at his entrance.

T H E P LA Y S A N D F R A G M E N T S

257

ancient comment on fr. 99 Ί will pretend it is all over’ refers to the wish that it was all over, and this is probably the best way to take the following lines. Fr. i a, col. iii. gives no connected sense. Perhaps Odysseus asks Diomede not to chide him, and there is a reference to Athena’s warning to Diomede not to let himself get captured by the Trojans. Fr. ic has perhaps an appeal to turn and fly ‘more quickly’ and then ‘he said I was doing traffic with the Achaeans’ (fr. 100) on which the commentary notes something about Trojans. The whole text of fr. 100 is: Ί was keeping my neighbours’ sucking pig for the Eleusinian Mysteries and strangely I lost it; it was not my fault. And he said I was doing traffic with the Achaeans and swore that I was a traitor to the sucking pig.’ The speaker must surely be a Trojan. Dolon is certainly a possibility. Another fragment mentions a slice of a very large tunny ( 102 Kaibel, 54 Olivieri). Finally, a fragment in anapaestic dimeters (all the rest are in trochaic tetrameters) : ‘Quietness is a lovely lady and lives near Sophrosyne’ (ιοί Kaibel, 53 Olivieri). The reference in this fragment, which may be the envoi of the play, should be to Odysseus’ discretion in preferring ease to valour. It seems at least possible that the Trojan (Dolon?) who broke in on Odysseus proposed a feast and that Odysseus was a ‘Deserter’ because he feasted with the Trojans. The other fragments mention an ambush, certainly suitable for the Doloneia (103 Kaibel, 55 Olivieri) and the word choregos in some form which is not entirely clear (104 Kaibel, 56 Olivieri). Wilamowitz ascribed another fragment to this play: ‘a Phrygian will hit you on the neck with a wooden stick’ ( ί ooa Kaibel, 52 Olivieri) ; but as it is quoted on Ar. Av. 1233 without reference to author or play, it should not be taken into account. In the above reconstruction Diomede must retire before Dolon appears, and there is therefore no argument here for three actors ; moreover, the commentary uses the phrase ‘the other of the actors’, not the second actor, and therefore implies only two actors.] No fragment of the Odysseus Nauagos is preserved, unless 6188 s

258

E P IC H A R M U S

frs. 172, 173 (154 Olivieri), in the first of which the name of Eumaeus is preserved, belonged to this play, and the only information we have about it is to the effect that the poet mentioned in it (as also in the Alcyoneus) the name ofDiomos, a Sicilian shepherd who invented Pastoral Song (Athen, xiv. 619 a, b), and used a word meaning the lower part of the mast. [It may be chance that a further fragment [Oxyrh. Pap. 2429, fr. 7) of the papyrus commentary quotes Od. xviii and xix. If it belongs, someone claims to be a cook ; there is an allusion to sycophants ; and someone plays with figs instead of knuckle­ bones. [Oxyrh. Pap. 2427, fr. 51 has several ship-words but nothing to fix it to this play.) Mr. Lobel notes that the lemmata of Oxyrh. Pap. 2429, fr. 7 appear to be iambic rather than trochaic. The reference to sycophants excludes a date before the establishment of the democracy in 466 b .c .] Odysseus was also the hero of the Sirens. A hexameter parody-line (fr. 123 Kaibel, 70 Olivieri), quoted as from Epicharmus by the scholiast on Homer, II. xix. 1, probably belongs to this play : cBow-shirted men, listen to the Sirens.’ [‘Bow-shirted’ is a parody of ‘bronze-shirted’. Mr. Phillips1 says that they must have been dressed in an odd way; Boeotian padded dancers on one vase2 have chitons which flare out below the belt and they might be called bow-shirted. The other fragment (124 Kaibel, 71 Olivieri) is in trochaic tetrameters : A. ‘Early, straight from dawn we were heating fat sprats and roasting sucking-pig and octopus, and we drank sweet wine after­ wards.’ B. ‘Alack, alack.’ A. ‘And what should one say about our dinner?’ B. ‘Ah! woe is me.’ A. ‘We had a fat mullet and two mackerel cut in two and as many pigeons and sculpin.’

It seems probable that A is the speaker of the Sirens and B is Odysseus tied to his mast and forced to listen. Mr. Phillips suggests that he was tied to the mast of a wheeled ship : an Attic lekythos3 of about 500 b .c . (too early for Epicharmus) shows him tied to a column while two Sirens flute at him from 1 Op. cit., p. 62. 2 List of Monuments, No. 62. 3 Athens, N.M. 1130; Haspels, Attic Blackfigure Lekythoi, 217, No. 27; Kenner, Theater, p. 125 ; G.T.P.. No. A 1.

T H E PLA Y S A N D F R A G M E N T S

259

neighbouring rocks, and Professor Hed wig Kenner has claimed this as a reminiscence of the Athenian stage.] The Philoctetes is represented only by one intelligible line (an iambic trimeter) : ‘There is no dithyramb when you drink water’ (fr. 132 Kaibel, 78 Olivieri) and two which are corrupt but also bear witness to the poverty-stricken condition of Philoctetes ; probably the cunning Odysseus also had some part in it. Of the Cyclops only three scraps in iambic trimeters survive : (1) By Poseidon, hollower than a mortar (81 Kaibel, 45 Oli­ vieri) , (2) Guts are sweet, by Zeus, and ham (82 Kaibel, 44 Olivieri), (3) Come, pour into my cup (83 Kaibel, 46 Olivieri), of which the last two may be the words of the Cyclops to Odysseus and the first the words of Odysseus to the Cyclops. The subject of the Trojans is unknown, and the text of the two short fragments is quite uncertain. As given by Kaibel they are as follows : (1) Zeus lord, dwelling on the snowy tops of Gargara1 (130 Kaibel, 76 Olivieri), (2) From any piece of wood stocks could be made or a god (131 Kaibel, 77 Olivieri). The first may be reminiscent of Homer ; the second seems to be a proverb. § 2. Five plays were constructed out of the stories about Heracles. The Alcyoneus treated in some way the story of Heracles’ struggle with the giant Alcyoneus ; of this there were various versions,2 but there is nothing to show which Epicharmus followed. The herdsman Diomos, who was credited with the invention of Pastoral, was mentioned in the play,3 but that he was introduced as the herdsman of Alcyoneus, as Kaibel suggests, is only a conjecture. A local legend made Diomos the father of Alcyoneus.4 1 On Zeus and Gargara see Cook’s Zeus>ϋ (1915), 949 ff. 2 See Robert, Hermes, xix. 473 ff., and art. Alkyoneus in R.E. i, col. 1 5 8 1 . 3 Athen, xiv. 619 a, b. Here, and also in Apollon, de pron., p. 80 b (where fr. 5 is quoted), the manuscript reads Alcyon, but as no legend of Alcyon is known, O. Jahn’s emendation Alcyoneus is generally accepted. 4 Nicander ap. Anton. Liberal. 8.

26ο

E P IC H A R M U S

The Busiris .dealt; with a story found in Apollodorus (π. v. 11). Busiris, son of Poseidon, was a king of Egypt, who was recommended by a Cyprian prophet, named Phrasios or Thrasios, to obtain prosperity after many unfruitful years by the annual sacrifice of a stranger ; Busiris promptly sacrificed the Cyprian prophet, and later on, when Heracles visited Egypt on his way to the Hesperides, tried to make a victim of him also : but Heracles broke his bonds and killed Busiris. In this play he doubtless satisfied his appetite from the late king’s stores,1 and a fragment describes him while eating : ‘First, if you were to see him eating you would die. His throat roars within, his jaws clash, his molars bang, his dog-tooth squeaks, his nostrils hiss, and he waggles his ears’, fr. 21 Kaibel, 8 Olivieri. [The fragment is in iambic trimeters, and it is possible that a papyrus fragment about Heracles belongs to the same play.123Unfortunately we learn little from this except that Heracles referred to the Hydra, the Hesperides, and Libya, and to getting rid of yesterday’s dinner : the other character who addresses Heracles rudely as ‘you there’ may be Eurys­ theus, but the fragment is so tattered that all is conjecture.] Of the Marriage of Hebe, which was reproduced in a revised form under the title of Muses* there are a good many frag­ ments, nearly all, however, consisting of little more than a string of names of fish and other good things, taken evidently from a narrative, delivered by one of the gods, of the weddingfeast of Heracles and Hebe. To this feast, apparently, came seven Muses ; these Muses were named after seven great rivers or lakes,4 and probably brought the fish of their rivers with them ; they were represented as the daughters of Pieros and Pimpleis—‘Fat’ and ‘Fill’—if we may distort two classic names of English poetry as Epicharmus did those of the Pierides and Pimpleides ; there is no ground for thinking (with Welcker, Kl. Sehr. i. 289 ff.) that they appeared on the stage. Poseidon also brought cartloads of fish in Phoenician merchant-ships (fr. 54 Kaibel, 19 Olivieri), and Zeus had the one specimen of the sturgeon, a fish of particular delicacy, specially served 1 Epicharmus is said to have used the Siceliot word for ‘granaries’ in this play (Pollux ix. 45). 2 P. Heid. 181 (Siegmann). 3 Athen, iii. n o b. 4 Fr. 41 Kaibel, 11 Olivieri.

TH E PLAYS A N D F R A G M E N TS

q6 i

for himself and his queen (fr. yi Kaibel, 36 Olivieri). The Dioscuri sang (or danced) a martial strain, accompanied by Athena on the flute,1 an instrument which in more orthodox legend she had flung away in disgust.12 Again we do not know if this took place on the stage; it is very probable that the ‘comedy’ was nothing but a comic narrative,3 as, at a later time, a mime might be. [The narrative was given by a god since a list of shellfish [fr. 42 Kaibel, 12 Olivieri) ends : ‘on the other side land-snails and sand-snails, uninteresting and cheap, which all mankind calls “man-shy” but we the gods call them “white” .’ Over fifty lines, all cataloguing food in trochaic tetrameters, are preserved. One fragment (58 Kaibel, 22 Olivieri) refers to Ananius as an authority for seasons of fish; he is said to have been an early writer of choliambic poetry.] Only two lines remain of the Heracles and the Girdle, but those not without interest, as they contain the earliest mention in literature of the Aetnaean beetle (Kantharos), which Aristo­ phanes employed as the Pegasus of Trygaeus in the Peace. The interpretation of the phrase was uncertain in antiquity, and is still disputed. On 1. 73 of the Peace—‘he brought in a very large Aetnaean beetle’—the scholiast in the Codex Venetus writes as follows : Very big. For Aetna was a very big mountain. Or because special beetles are found there. Otherwise. Beetles are said to be big on Aetna. The natives testify to this. Epicharmus in the Heracles and the Girdle (fr. 76 Kaibel, 41 Olivieri) : ‘Pygmarion is the commander of the beetles, the larger size, which, they say, Aetna has’. Aeschylus may also be quoted as a native. He says in the Sisyphus rolling the rock (fr. 233 Nauck, 385 Mette) : ‘He is an Aetnaean beetle toiling under compulsion.’ Sophocles in the Daedalus (fr. 162) : ‘But surely not a beetle of the Aetnaean kind.’ His point is its size. Plato in the Festivals (fr. 37) : ‘How big they say Mount Aetna is you can guess. There it is said that the beetles grow as big as men.’ Or he means as big as Aetna. Or because 1 Fr. 75 Kaibel, 40 Olivieri; cf. Schol. Pind. Pyth. ii. 127. 2 See above, Ch. I, pp. 41, 52. 3 The use of the phrase ‘if you like’, evidently as a ‘deictic’ formula, in fr. 55 does not necessarily imply that there was a second person on the stage, but is more probably addressed to the audience.

2Ö2

E P IC H A R M U S

Aetnaean horses are famous and good runners and their teams are good. Pindar says: ‘a chariot from fair-fruited Sicily.’ To the passages quoted by the scholiast must be added Soph. Ichneutae 300 : ‘But is it like a horned Aetnaean beetle in shape?’ The scholiast evidently hesitates between the interpretation ‘as big as Aetna’, or ‘as fine as an Aetnaean horse’ ; and modern writers improve on the second suggestion by sup­ posing kantharos in Aristophanes to be a surprise for kanthelios or kanthon.1 If the phrase only occurred in Aristophanes this would be possible, but the passage of Epicharmus excludes this interpretation, while ‘horned’ in the Ichneutae cannot be explained by any reference to horses, and is very appropriate to certain large beetles. And further, the association of a real beetle (not merely a pun-beetle) with the town—-not the mountain—of Aetna is proved by the occurrence of a scarab on a tetradrachm of Aetna, between 476 and 461 b . c .12 But why such a beetle should have been especially associated with the town of Aetna we do not know. It is conjectured by von Viirtheim3 that a city, whose inhabitants were connected by origin with Chalcis and Naxos, would, like those cities, have been devoted to Dionysus and to the Libyan Ammon, and that the kantharos, or wine-cup, which appears on the coins of those cities, was replaced on the coinage of Aetna through a kind of insulting jest on the part of Hiero, by a scavengerbeetle ; but this seems very far-fetched and improbable. It is perhaps more likely that the place may have been (perhaps only temporarily) inhabited by large scavenger beetles, pos­ sibly imported by accident or design from Africa, and that the fact may have been notorious just at this time. This seems rather more likely than that there was a special breed of scara­ baei at Aetna, as Jebb suggests ;4 if there was stich a breed it is now extinct. 1 Van Leeuwen, loc. cit.; cf. Pearson, loc. cit. That Soph. Oed. Col. 312 de­ scribes Ismene as ‘riding on an Aetnaean horse’ has not, I think, any necessary bearing on the point. There was no doubt a fine breed of horses associated with Aetna; but it may be doubted whether they were ever called kanthelios or kanthon, which seems to mean a ‘pack-ass’. 2 G. F. Hill, Historical Greek Coins (1906), p. 43, pi. iii. 22, &c. 3 Mnemosyne, xxxv (1907), 335-6. 4 On Soph. Oed. Col. 312.

T H E PLAYS AND F R A G M E N T S

263

Crusius conjectures that Heracles in this play was presented or described as fighting with a race of pygmies, riding on beetles’ backs, and refers to Philostratus,1 by whom the story is told, how the pygmies in Libya set upon Heracles in his sleep after his victory over Antaeus, and how he swept them all into his lion-skin and carried them off. There is no mention of beetles as steeds in Philostratus, and Athenaeus2 quotes a story to the effect that ‘that small infantry warred on by cranes’ in India rode on partridges ; but it is quite possible that Epicharmus used some early variety of the tale, or in­ vented one for himself. It is uncertain where the scene of the play was laid. It is generally assumed to have been in Sicily, not in Libya ; and Epicharmus is supposed to have invented a Sicilian pygmy race on the analogy of the African; and this is not impossible, though it would have been as easy for him to transport an Aetnaean beetle to Libya, as for Aristophanes to bring one to Athens. It is commonly believed that the ‘girdle’ of which Heracles was in quest was the girdle of Hippolyte, queen of the Amazons, which Heracles obtained by violence at the bidding of Eurystheus; the scene of that adventure was on the Thermodon or in Scythia. But it is possible that Epicharmus was thinking of the girdle of Oeolyce, daughter of Briareus, the seizure of which was treated by Ibycus ;3 and that the scene of Heracles’ exploit was laid in the West.4 The last of the Heracles-plays, Heracles with Pholos, doubt­ less presented or narrated the story5 of Heracles’ fight with the centaurs over the cask of old wine which Dionysus had entrusted to Pholos, with the injunction that it was not to be opened until Heracles came. The only two lines which remain are quoted by Eustratius6 for the sake of the proverb which 1 Imag. ii. 22. 2 ix. 390 b. 3 Schob Apoll. Rhod. ii. 777. 4 The conjecture of Wilamowitz that the name of Aphannae, an obscure Sicilian town, used proverbially for the other end of the world, came in this play is quite probable, but does not settle the scene of the play (fr. 77 Kaibel, 42 Olivieri). 5 For the story and its varieties see Gruppe in R.E., Suppl. iii, col. 1045 ff. 6 Fr. 78 Kaibel, 43 Olivieri, 7 Diels-Kranz, Eustratius on Aristot. Eth. Nie. iii. V , § 4. [Poneros is used here of ‘misery’ not of ‘wickedness’. In the papyrus commentary to the Odysseus Automolos (cf. above) the commentator notes that

264

E P IC H A R M U S

they contain: ‘But I of necessity do all these things. I think no one of his own free will suffers misery or disaster.’ The words may have been spoken by Heracles with reference to his enforced labours. § 3. Of the other plays which presented legendary subjects, the Amykos dealt with the boxing-match of Polydeuces with the giant Amycus, son of Poseidon, who tried to prevent the Argonauts from getting water, when they landed in the territory of the Bebrykes. The scholiast on Apoll. Rhod. ii. 98 says that Epicharmus, like Peisander, made Pollux bind the giant after defeating him, whereas in Apollonius he slew him; and perhaps a few words (fr. 7 Kaibel, 4 Olivieri) preserved by lexicographers refer to the ‘packing-up’ of Amycus. Fr. 6 Kaibel (3 Olivieri) is more interesting : ‘Amykos, do not abuse my elder brother.’ The words must have been addressed by Castor to Amycus, and show that the play must have included three persons taking part in the same dialogue. [There is, however, ab­ solutely no evidence that Pollux was present while Castor addressed Amycus.] The fragment, slight as it is, reminds us of the scenes of dispute which in Attic comedy led up to the agon; and it is at least possible that the play consisted of a wrangle, a boxing-match, and a scene in which the giant was safely tied up.1 The occurrence of a word for a Sicilian coin in the play shows that the language was not confined to words suitable to the Argonautic expedition ; but the sugges­ tion of Welcker2 that the word shows that the quarrel arose out of an attempt of the Argonauts to buy provisions is a mere guess. Sophocles wrote a satyric play on the same subject. The Komasts or Hephaestus is shown by a note of Photius3 to have dealt with a story which was a favourite subject of vasepainters and other artists4 in the sixth and fifth centuries b.c. A. uses the word of ‘misery’ and B. understands it of ‘badness’. Is there a faint parody here of Simonides (fr. 4 D) : ‘Whoever of his own free will does nothing base, but with necessity not even the gods fight’? Cf. also Thierfelder, op. cit., p. 173.] 1 Radermacher, Aristophanes Frösche, pp. 15 if., 21 if. 2 Kl. Sehr. i. 299. 3 Under the heading ‘Hera’s binding by her son’. The story is told by Libanius iii. 7, and Paus. 1. xx, § 3. 4 Gf. above, p. 171.

T H E PLAYS AND F R A G M E N T S

265

in all parts of Greece. Wilamowitz1 thinks that it was prob­ ably the subject of an Ionian ‘Hymn5of the same type as the extant Homeric Hymns ; and it was the subject of a poem of Alcaeus ;2 but both literature and art seem to have lost interest in the story after the fifth century. Hera, annoyed at the lameness of Hephaestus, had cast him out of heaven, and in revenge he sent her a golden chair so contrived that no one but himself could release her from it. Ares tried and failed ; and all attempts to induce Hephaestus to return to heaven were unsuccessful, until Dionysus made him drunk and trans­ ported him back in that condition, accompanied (on the vases at least) by a kómos of satyrs. [It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this kómos accounts for the alternative title of Epicharmus’ play and therefore that satyrs or fat men had a part in it. Three fragments remain. The first (84 Kaibel, 47 Olivieri) is an account of a feast in trochaic tetrameters, perhaps the feast at which Hephaestus was made drunk. The second is hopelessly corrupt (85). The third (86) ‘Ask Phrygios’ is quoted as a joke : Dr. Lobel,3on a small fragment ofpapyrus text which cannot however be firmly attributed to this play, suggests that Phrygios might have a long first syllable and mean ‘Dry man’ (the dactylic scansion in this position is possible for Epicharmus).] The problem set by the titles Prometheus or Pyrrha (Oxyrh. Pap. 2426), Pyrrha and Prometheus (Athen, iii. 86 a, and prob­ ably Pollux X. 82), Pyrrha (Athen, x. 424 d), Prometheus (Etym. Magn. 725. 25), Deukalion (Antiatt. Bekk. 90. 3), Pyrrha or Leukarion {Etym. Magn. s.v. Leukarion), has not been completely solved. One or more of these titles may belong to revised editions of plays originally bearing other titles in the list. Wilamowitz has made the brilliant conjecture that Epichar­ mus presented Pyrrha and Leucarion (a play on Deucalion) —‘Red-hair’ and ‘White-hair’—as husband and wife. This would suit fragment 117 Kaibel (64 Olivieri) ‘Leukarion seeks Pyrrha’, and the remark of the scholiast on a passage of 1 Göttinger Nachrichten (1895), ΡΡ· 217 ff. 2 Traces survive in frs. 9, 9 A, and 133 (Diehl) = 349 (Lobel-Page). [Cf. also D. L. Page, Sappho and Alcaeus, pp. 258 f.; T. B. L. Webster, Greek Art and Literature 700-530 b . c . , p. 63.] 3 Oxyrh. Pap. 2427, fr. 53.

266

E P IC H A R M U S

Pindar (fr. 122 Kaibel, 69 Olivieri) referring to Pyrrha and Deucalion, ‘Epicharmus says the people were called laoi from the word laoi = ‘stones’ ; [now the name Leukaros has been found in a papyrus fragment, which may belong {Oxyrh. Pap. 2427, fr. 27).] There may possibly have been two plays, or two versions of the same play. Whether there was a serious legend of Leukarion, as well as of Deucalion, maybe doubted. Some writers1think they have found such a legend connected with Opuntian Locris, but the evidence rests upon very un­ convincing hypotheses, and it is much more likely that if the word Leukarion is correct at all, it was due to a pun of Epicharmus. [Our knowledge of the play is materially changed by the papyrus fragments. The first {Oxyrh. Pap. 2427, fr. 1) describes the ark in which Pyrrha and Deucalion made their escape and Pyrrha is attested both in the text and as a speaker ; the ark itself is mentioned four times. It is to have a lid of beech and ash. ‘How big is it to be?’ ‘Big enough to hold you (plural) . . . and a month’s rations.’ Then apparently Pyrrha says that she is afraid that Prometheus will make off with all their possessions. Deucalion begs her not to think so ill of him. The fragment is in trochaic tetrameters. Dr. Lobel argues for three speakers : Prometheus giving instructions, Deucalion asking questions, and Pyrrha interrupting. But perhaps two speakers are enough : Deucalion describing (he seems to refer to Prometheus in the third person in 1. 2 : ‘he says’) and Pyrrha questioning ; the ‘you’ (plural) to be contained in the ark could in Deucalion’s mouth be Pyrrha and her maid or children. Of the old fragments ‘cup, table, lamp’ (118 Kaibel, 65 Olivieri)12 could describe supplies for the ark. In the second papyrus fragment {Oxyrh. Pap. 2427, fr. 27) there is mention of the disaster and the debts of Leukaros. If Deucalion was called Leukarion, his father Prometheus may be called Leukaros. Only the ends of lines are left, but it seems clear that someone is describing as a thing of the 1 See Reitzenstein, Philologus, lv (1896), 193 ff., and Tümpel in R.E. v, col. 265. 2 There is no valid reason for ascribing fr. 115 Kaibel (65 Olivieri) to this play.

T H E PLA Y S A N D F R A G M E N T S

267

past the difficulties of cooking by sunlight and taking a bath without fire. Possibly the other speaker objects (1. 10) that Prometheus’ debts brought them disaster (the flood). It is a guess to suggest that Prometheus’ debts to the gods consisted of the fire which he had stolen and that the old fragment ‘many debtors, no payers’ (116 Kaibel, 63 Olivieri) belonged in this neighbourhood. At least the mention of Leukaros and the whole content of the papyrus fragment support the ascrip­ tion to the Pyrrha and possibly more narrowly to a continued defence of Prometheus by Deucalion against Pyrrha ; the fact that two words for bread used in the first line are said to have been found in the Marriage of Hebe (52 Kaibel, 35 Olivieri) does not weigh against this because there is no reason why Epicharmus should not have used them more than once. All the fragments are trochaic except one which is an anapaestic tetrameter (or dimeter+ dimeter catalectic) : ‘There ’s a clam, there ’s a mussel, look, and what a big limpet’, 114 Kaibel, 61 Olivier. Is it possible that at the end of the play the ark is already assumed to be at sea and that the anapaests here and in the Odysseus Automolos (see above) belong to an envoi? The second papyrus fragment (Oxyrh. Pap. 2427, fr. 27), if the above interpretation is accepted, suggests that Epicharmus knew the Prometheus Vinctus or at least the Prometheus Pyrkaeus of Aeschylus. His knowledge of Aeschylus was already estab­ lished (214 Kaibel, 194 Olivieri). In the new fragment some­ one describes the difficulties of cooking by sunlight and taking a bath without fire. The Prometheus who instituted cooking and hot baths is not simply a fire-stealer but the inventor of the arts, and this conception of Prometheus seems to have been due to Aeschylus, who at the very beginning of the sophistic period combined the Attic potter god with the Hesiodic Titan.1 He already had this development in mind when he wrote the Pyrkaeus, if one fragment (205) describes bandaging and another (206) boiling water.2 This play may have been acted again in Sicily when the Persae, which was 1 Cf. Gilbert Murray, Aeschylus ( 1940), pp. 19 ff. ; Wilamowitz, AischylosInterpretation, pp. 142 ff. ; W. Kraus, R.E., s.v. Prometheus, 671. 2 Cf. Wilamowitz on the fragments, Aischylos (1914), p. 120.

E P IC H A R M U S

produced with it in Athens, was played again for Hiero, probably in 470 b . c . If the Prometheus Vinctus was produced, as there is some reason for thinking, in 469 b . c ., it may also have been played in Syracuse before Aeschylus returned.1 In that case the Epicharmus play was not earlier and may have been considerably later than 469 b . c .] The Skiron must have dealt with the story of the highway­ man who gave his name to the Scironian rocks, where, until Theseus overcame him, he threw the passers-by over the rocks, to feed a gigantic tortoise : but the only connected fragment is a passage (fr. 125 Kaibel, 72 Olivieri) in iambic trimeters quoted by the scholiast on Aristoph. Peace 185 if., where a somewhat similar verbal repetition is employed : A. ‘Who is your mother?’ B. ‘Sakis.’ A. ‘Who your father?’ B. ‘Sakis.’ A. ‘And who your brother?’ B. ‘Sakis.’

(The first speaker, according to the scholiast, was a basket and sakis means a maidservant, but may also be a proper name.) Of the Sphinx nothing is known except the title and a couple of lines, in one of which (fr. 127 Kaibel, 74 Olivieri) the speaker calls for a tune proper to Artemis Ghitonea or in honour of Artemis Ghitonea, who according to Athenaeus (629 f) had a special dance and flute melody in Syracuse : ‘let someone flute to me a tune of Artemis Chitonea’ (iambic trimeter). The text of the other, which mentioned a species of figs, is uncertain.12 There are references in ancient authorities to three plays bearing the plural titles Atalantai, Bakchai, Dionysoi. No signi­ ficant fragment of any of these survives, nor any hint of the plot : but the first is probably ascribed to Epicharmus in error,3as the play seems to have referred to some of the victims of the Attic comedy of the last half of the fifth century. § 4. A few plays bear titles which may (but do not neces1 On the dates cf. Lesky, Tragische Dichtung, p. 52; Pohlenz, Griechische Tragödie2, ii (1954), 35. 2 A possible allusion in the new papyrus (Oxyrh. Pap. 2427, fr. 8) also tells us nothing. 3 Athen, xiv. 618 d, 652 a; Etym. Magn. 630. 48. Others, e.g. Hesychius and Schob Ven. Ar. Birds 1294, onh speak of the writer as the ‘writer’ or ‘composer’ of the Atalantai.

TH E PLAYS AND F R A G M E N T S

269

sarily) imply the portraiture of a character-type. Of the ‘Rustic’ the only significant words (fr. 1 Kaibel, 81 Olivieri) refer to an athletic trainer named ‘Fisticuffs’. O f the Harpagai there are two significant fragments (frs. 9, 10 Kaibel, 84 Olivieri), of which one speaks of fraudulent soothsaying-women, and both mention a number of Sicilian coins. The metre is trochaic tetrameter. The attempt of Crusius1 to connect the title of the play with a Sicilian feast of Cotytto, at which a half-ritual, half-sportive theft of cakes and acorns took place, is very unconvincingly argued. Of the Victorious Athlete and the Dancers we know nothing beyond the statement of Hephaestion2 that both were written in anapaestic tetrameters throughout ; which shows at least that they were ‘plays’ of a very different kind from those of Attic comedy. The Temple-visitors takes its place in a series of Greek poems representing or describing visitors who are studying the beauties of a temple—in this case male visitors looking at the dedications in the temple of Apollo at Delphi.3 The fragment is like parts of Herodas’ fourth mime, in which two women are portrayed while visiting the temple of Asklepios ; and Sophron is known to have written a mime Women looking at the Isthmia which was said to have been the original of the Adoniazusae of Theocritus, itself a poem of kindred subject to those mentioned.4 It is quite likely that such subjects may have been a favourite theme from very early times in Dorian towns. The longer fragment (fr. 79 Kaibel, 109 Olivieri) is as follows (iambic trimeters) : ‘lyres, tripods, chariots, bronze tables, basins, libation bowls, bronze cauldrons, mixingbowls, spits . . . .’5 It is to be noted that the objects enumerated belong partly to the interior of the temple, and probably therefore the speaker had come actually to consult the oracle, after offering the necessary sacrifice, as the few other words of the play 1 Philologus, Suppi.-Bd. vi. 285. 2 De Metris, viii. 25 (Gonsbr.) 3 Athen, viii 362 b, cf. ix. 408 d. 4 The title of Aeschylus’ Theoroi or Isthmiastai suggests a similar subject [cf. now Loeb, Aeschylus, voi. ii, Suppi.] Compare the first chorus of Eurip. Ion and Eurip. Hypsipyle, fr. 764. 5 The concluding line is corrupt but says something about ‘stands for spits’.

EPICHARM US

which have been preserved may refer to the parts of a sacri­ ficial animal (fr. 80). The Megarian Woman is represented only by an uncom­ plimentary and partly unintelligible description, perhaps of a certain Theagenes (fr. 90 Kaibel, 114 Olivieri) and a pleasanter account of some woman whose name does not appear, both in trochaic tetrameters (fr. 91 Kaibel, 115 Olivieri) : ‘Sweet in song, possessed of all music, lover of the lyre.’ The title in itself tells no more than the many similar titles of plays of the Middle and New Comedy.1 The title of the Periallos is given only by Athenaeus, who mentions it twice ;2 it has been suspected, but it may be a word coined by Epicharmus, and may possibly, as Lorenz suggests, mean ‘the Superior Person’. The only fragment which certainly comes from the play is as follows (fr. 109 Kaibel, 123 Olivieri) : ‘Semele dances and X on his flute accompanies the pariambides to the kithara, and she rejoices, hearing the swift strings.’3 This tells us nothing of the meaning of the word. But the possibility that it may have had an indecent signification cannot be entirely excluded. Arcadius4 gives the meaning of periallos as ischion, and Meineke, writing on Alciphron, Ep. i. 39 (iv. 14), § 6, makes a strong case for the restoration of the word in the text of Alciphron, and for connecting it (in an obscene sense) with other words of almost similar formation. [Meineke’s interpretation would imply that Periallos was the personification of a part of the body (hip-joint or the flesh round it) or rather of the movement of the hip-joint because of its erotic significance. A close parallel is Lordios (‘backbender’) in a Corinthian vase already quoted, itself confirmed by Lordo in Plato’s Phaon.5 Periallos might then be the name of a satyr or a fat man, and the play may have been simply 1 See below, p. 286. 2 iv. 139 b, 183 c. 3 The line is corrupt. Pariambides were ‘nomes sung to the lyre which had a flute obbligato’ (Photius; Pollux iv. 83) [cf. List of Monuments, No. 1, and above, p. 46]. This makes the emendation ‘accompanies on his flute’ certain; the letters sphinsophos conceal the proper name of the subject o f ‘accompanies’. Kaibel suggests Dionysus himself [but perhaps a satyr is more likely as a flautist: of satyr names Stusippos is remotely possible (A.R.V., p. 81, no. 89)]. 4 Arcadius, On Tones, p. 54. 10, ed. Barker. 5 List of Monuments, No. 40. Plato, fr. 174 (K).

T H E PLA Y S A N D F R A G M E N T S

271

a description in anapaestic tetrameters of the revels of satyrs or fat men in the presence of Semele.] Whether Pithon, as the title of a play by Epicharmus, meant a ‘cellar’ (as in some fragments1 of the Old Comedy) or a ‘monkey’ (as once in Pindar2), no one can tell. The few words preserved do not help. Two plays need only (and in fact can only) be mentioned by name—the Mines (the title of which recalls the Mines of Pherecrates), and the Triakades. Nothing is known of these. Offerings to Hecate were made on the 30th day of the month ; but the triakas was also a political division of the state at Sparta, and may have been so in Syracuse. In either sense the title Triakades could be paralleled from Old Comedy plays such as the Numeniai of Eupolis, and the Dodekate of Philyllius, or the Demes of Eupolis. The word Orna means ‘a sausage’ ;3 an obscure gloss of Hesychius4 suggests that the play may have contained some political allusions. The Persians has only its title to speak for it ; but this, and the certainty5 that the Islands referred to a political event of 477/6 b .c ., imply that political subjects were not altogether barred to Sicilian comedy. The event was the attempt to destroy Locri, made by Anaxilas of Rhegium and prevented by Hiero. Otherwise all that is known of the play is that it contained a mention of the proverb ‘The Carpathian and the hare’.6 The Pots is conjectured by Crusius7 to have presented a poor potter building castles in the air; but the evidence for this will not bear inspection. § 5. There are three plays which are generally supposed to have consisted mainly of a conflict or debate between two 1 Pherecr., fr. 138 (K), Eupolis, fr. u i (K). 2 Pyth. ii. 73. 3 Athen, iii. 94 f. 4 ‘Orwfl. Sausage, and political syntrimma, with which Epicharmus’ play deals.’ Syntrimma might be used of ‘sausage-meat’ pounded up together, and metaphorically of a political ‘hash’; cf. Aristoph. Knights 214. Dieterich {Pul­ cinella, p. 79) thinks that the title may be equivalent to satura or farsa; but this seems less likely. 5 Schol. Pind. Pyth. i. 98. 6 The Carpathians introduced hares into the island, and they multiplied so rapidly (like the rabbits introduced into Australia) that they devoured all the produce of the island (Prov. Bodl. 731, Gaisf.). The title of the play is given in Athen, iv. 160 d as Feast and Islands, but Kaibel has shown that this is probably a misreading. 7 Philologus, Suppi.-Bd. vi. 293.

EPICHARM US

characters. These are Earth and Sea, Logos and Logma, Hope or Wealth. The first of these may have presented the rival claims of Land and Sea to have benefited mankind most, particularly by their edible produce. The very slight fragments (in trochaic tetrameters) contain several names of fish, and Aelian1 states that many fish were named in the play. (This theory of the play, though only a conjecture, seems more probable than the suggestion ofWelcker that Earth and Sea were two courtesans, even though such names of courtesans are known in Attic comedy.) It is interesting to compare the apparent subject of the play with that of a late poem2 presenting a contest of the Nile and the Sea: ‘Sailors, deep wave runners, Tritons of the sea waters, and Nile men, sweet runners, sailing the smiling waters, tell of the comparison, friends, of the sea and the productive Nile.’ The dispute of the fisherman with the rustic, which must have been the subject of Sophron’s mime The Fisherman and the Rustic, may have been of the same type. (Wilamowitz con­ jectures that the fifth poem of Moschus was based on this.) The words of fr. 24 (‘nor does it bear climbing-vines’) may be part of the depreciation of Sea by Land ; otherwise the frag­ ments contain nothing more interesting than the oath ‘By the Cabbage’, which Athenaeus3states to have been invented by Ananios, a writer of iambi who was quoted in the Marriage of Hebe* The Logos and Logina is conjectured to have contained a contest between the Masculine and the Feminine Reason, and so to have been parallel to the argument of the Just and Unjust Reason in Aristophanes’ Clouds. But we know nothing significant of the play (which was composed in iambic tri­ meters), except that it contained in fr. 88 Kaibel (112 Olivieri)5 a mention of an earlier poet, Aristoxenus of Selinus, and, in fr. 87 ( i n Olivieri) a pun of the kind which is 1 Mat. Hist. An. 13. 4. 2 Oxyrh. Pap. iii. 425 (p. 72). 3 ix. 370 b. 4 See above, p. 261. s [The text is corrupt ; perhaps Vaillart’s ‘anapaestic manner’ is the best suggestion. Cf. Wüst, Rhein. Mus. xciii (1950), 340 f. ‘Those who write iambics and the anapaestic manner, which Aristoxenus first introduced’ is one of Epicharmus’ rare allusions to his own world.]

T H E PLAYS AND F R A G M E N T S

273

common in the Old Attic comedy, and which occurred in a dialogue : ‘A. Zeus called me, giving Pelops a party (g’ eranos). B. A rotten food, a crane (geranos). A. I said a party, not a crane.’ The interest of this fragment lies in the fact that it shows that the characters were mythological ; and it is quite unclear how the Masculine and Feminine Reason fitted in with these. From the Hope or Wealth, if that was the title, we have one of the few long and important fragments of Epicharmus that have survived. It is in two unconnected parts (frs. 34, 35 Kaibel, 103 Olivieri, in iambic trimeters), in the first of which a speaker notices a parasite following on the heels of another character (again showing that there must have been at least three persons on the stage),1 while in the second the parasite describes his life in answer to inquiries. (It is not certain whether the name parasitos was used in the play; the evidence as to the date when the word came into use is contradictory ;2 but there is no mistaking the character) : (a) Another was walking at his heels, whom you will easily find in present circumstances cheap and ready to dine. At any rate he drinks up his life like a cup in a single draught. (b) I dine with whoever likes and he only has to invite me—and with whoever does not like and he need not invite me. And for him I am witty and make many jokes and praise my host. And if anyone contradicts him, I reprove him and become his enemy. And then with much eaten and much drunk I go home. No boy carries my light. I slither about alone in the darkness. And if I meet the police, I count this a blessing from the gods that they want nothing more but only give me a beating. And when I reach home destroyed, I sleep without a blanket. I don’t care about all that as long as the wine holds me fast and wraps up my wits. We have here the first of many such descriptions in Greek comedy ; and fr. 37 contains a scrap of a remark addressed to a parasite : ‘Someone invited you to a feast unwillingly, and willingly you ran after him.’ 1 [It is, however, possible that the words belong to a prologue speaker de­ scribing the scene to the audience. Cf. Pyrrha, fr. 117 Kaibel.] 2 Athen, vi. 235 e, f, 236 b, e, 237 a; Pollux vi. 35; Schol. on II. xvii. 577; cf. Mein. Hist. Crii., pp. 377 ff.; Wüst, op. cit., p. 364. 6188

T

EPICHARMUS

But the place of the parasite in the play is quite uncertain. It is tempting to suppose that Hope was represented by the parasite, always on the look-out for an invitation, and Wealth by one of his patrons (or victims) very unwilling to invite him; and this really seems more natural than the more elaborate theory of Birt,1 who thinks that there was an agon (like that of Wealth and Poverty in Aristophanes) between Hope and Riches, and that Hope was personified in a Fisher­ man. There is really no proof of the latter suggestion, except that in Greek and Roman comedy and other literature the hope which buoys up the poor is often found in the fisherclass, that this was so in Theocritus, and that an epigram of Theocritus shows that he was familiar with the works of Epicharmus ; and this is no proof at all. It is perhaps more likely that the plot consisted of a series of farcical encounters between the parasite and the rich men who tried to shake him off. It is hardly worth while to lay stress, as some would do,12 on the contrast between the ‘and’ in the titles of Earth and Sea, Logos and Logina, and the ‘or’ in Hope or Wealth. Either would be intelligible in a title denoting a conflict of interests ; but the possibility cannot be excluded that the original title was simply Hope (words are several times quoted from the play as ‘in the Hope of Epicharmus). Much therefore remains uncertain. § 6. Of the fragments which are not taken from any named play, few, except those quoted from Alcimus,3 are of much interest. In one (fr. 148 Kaibel, 175 Olivieri) there is an example of the rhetorical figure epoikodomesis, and quoted as such by Aristotle,4 though he only paraphrases it. What seems to be nearer the original text is given by Athenaeus:5 ‘A. After sacrifice there was a feast, after the feast drinking. B. Pleasant, as it seems to me. A. After drinking abuse, after abuse swinishness, after 1 Birt, Elpides (1881), pp. 28 ff. 2 Ibid., p. 106, n. 92. Birt compares the title of a discussion of Antisthenes On Wisdom or Strength. 3 See above, pp. 247 ff. 4 De Gen. An. i. 724. 28; Rhet. i. 1365“10. 5 ii. 36 c, d.

T H E PLA Y S A N D F R A G M E N T S

275

swinishness litigation, after litigation condemnation, after condemnation fetters and stocks and fine.’ Another fragment (fr. 149 Kaibel, 178 Olivieri) presented a riddle which needed Oedipus to solve it.1 (The last line is corrupt.) ‘A. What is this? B. Clearly a tripod. A. Why then has it four feet? It is not a tripod, but, I think, a tetrapod. B. Its name is tripod, but it has four feet. A. Oedipus could guess that riddle.’ [It has been indicated above2 that the fruit-stealer was mentioned by Epicharmus. Zenobius quotes ‘The Sikel takes unripe grapes’ as derived from Sikels stealing unripe grapes and says that the saying is found in Epicharmus (fr. 239 Kaibel, 164 Olivieri).] One or two lines are apparently of a gnomic or proverbial type, e.g. : Fr. 165 Kaibel (256 Olivieri) ‘Silence also is good, when better men are present.’ Fr. 168 Kaibel (168 Olivieri) ‘Like mistress, like dog.’3 Fr. 221 Kaibel (158 Olivieri) ‘Where there is fear, there is respect.’ Fr. 229 Kaibel (173 Olivieri) ‘It lies on the knees of five judges.’4 The following maxims, among others, are definitely ascribed to Epicharmus by the writers who quote them ; but we can­ not tell which of them may be forgeries by Axiopistus, nor whether Crönert is right in grouping them all with others as parts of one gnomic poem.5 They are Nos. 265-74, 277, 280-8 Kaibel.6 1 A similar joke appears in Aristoph., fr. 530. 2 Cf. above, p. 136. 3 It is not certain that this is a line of Epicharmus, but Kaibel’s conjectural ascription of it to him is probable. It is quoted by Clem. Alex. Paed. in. xi. 296, and there are other references to it. 4 This is ascribed to Epicharmus by Zenob. iii. 64. But see below, p. 284. [As quoted this is an anapaestic dimeter and might come from an envoi.] 5 See above, p. 245. 6 Nos. 22-31, 33-37, 41-44 Diels-Kranz, 225-6, 229, 231-2,235-6, 241-2, 244, 248-50, 252-5, 257, 262 Olivieri.

276

EPICHARMUS

A few of these seem to bear the true Epicharmean stamp ; such are Nos. 268, 270, 272, 273, 274, 288: but most of them have nothing witty or characteristic about them. Some, if genuine, have become Atticized in the course of repetition. It is certain, however, that works of the kind to which mimes and primitive comic performances generally belong con­ stantly contain such moral and sententious maxims, and it is such maxims which form a considerable part of the frag­ ments of the Roman mime-writer, Publilius Syrus. Sometimes, perhaps, they pointed a moral, and sometimes travestied the moralizing temperament. V.

The Character o f Epicharmus3 Comedy

§ i . The anonymous ancient writer (quoted at the beginning of this chapter) says of Epicharmus ‘he first recovered the scattered fragments of comedy and made many artistic addi­ tions’ and that ‘he was full of maxims, original, and artistic’. The writer is no doubt condensing or repeating statements which had become traditional, and had no knowledge of the works of Epicharmus at first hand, but his words sum up con­ veniently the general impression which a study of the frag­ ments makes, though the suggestion in the word ‘recovered’, that comedy had already existed in some organized form but had been broken up and was put together again by Epichar­ mus, is probably misleading. There is no trace, at least, of any organized comedy before him; but he did unite various elements into a structure which was sufficiently coherent to be regarded as the beginning of artistic comedy. What these elements were will be presently considered : but first it will be well to deal briefly with a point of which some writers perhaps make too much1—the fact that the plays of Epichar­ mus are never in antiquity actually called ‘comedies’. This seems to be true, but it is probably an accident ; Aristotle, Poet. V, evidently thinks of his writing as properly called ‘comedy’ : Plato speaks of ‘the leaders of each kind of poetry, Epicharmus in comedy, Homer in tragedy’ : later writers call 1 Wilamowitz, Einl. in die gr. Trag., pp. 54-55; Kaibel, in R.E. vi, col. 36; Radermacher, Ar. Frösche, p. 15.

T H E C H A R A C T E R OF E P IC H A R M U S ’ C O M E D Y

277

him ‘comic, writer of comedy, maker of comedy’ : and it seems hard to believe that if all these and other writers could use the word ‘comedy’ to describe the species of poetry which he composed, they would not, if they had wished, have spoken of the single plays as ‘comedies’. (In fact the plays are seldom referred to distributively. They are spoken of as ‘dramas’ by Athen, iii. 94 f and Hesych. s.v. orna. The word ‘drama’ appears not to be used in Attic of the classical period in application to Attic comedy, but in a fragment ofEcphantides there is a mention of a Megarian drama,1which was evidently a comic performance, and it is possible that the word was also used of comedy and similar performances in Sicily. This would agree with Aristotle’s statement in Poet, iii that some people regarded ‘drama’ as a Dorian word.12) § 2. It is clear that in the opinion of Aristotle,3 who evi­ dently knew of no written comedy in Sicily before Epicharmus, the essence of the work of Epicharmus was the composition of plots of general, as distinct from personal, interest; and Aristotle perhaps would hardly have given the title of mythoi to any but more or less connected and coherent structures ; [but he is primarily interested in the negative side, the ab­ sence of attack on individuals, as his next sentence shows.] But he does not say that all the works of Epicharmus were alike or possessed these merits in equal degrees, and it seems very probable that it was not so, but that there were ‘plays’ of several different types included among his works. We have found traces of dialogues in which [possibly] three speakers took part, in the Amykos, Hope, [OdysseusAutomolos, smdPyrrha] : of narrative speeches in the Busiris and Marriage of Hebe. In the Amykos there was probably a quarrel, a boxing-match, and a scene in which the giant was tied up: in the Temple Visitors there may have been a scene (and this may have been the whole play) like that of Theocritus’ Adoniazusae and of certain mimes : the Victorious Athlete and the Dancers were composed entirely in anapaestic tetrameters : some plays 1 [The text is, however, extremely doubtful, cf. above, p. 180.] 2 See above, pp. 109 ff. 3 Poet. V [quoted at the beginning of the chapter : ‘Epicharmus and Phormis’ is a gloss.]

278

E P IC H A R M U S

perhaps consisted mainly (or at least in part) of an agon or set debate:1in some plays an alazon (and possibly more than one) was made a fool of or else outwitted his neighbours ; [Heracles and Odysseus seem to have been gluttons with no great love for heroism rather than alazones; Amykos perhaps qualifies, but otherwise the presence of alazones is inferred from the philosophical fragments and of these only fr. 170 is likely to be genuine.] Some of the plays on mythological subjects may have had plots of several scenes ; e.g. the Komasts or Hephaestus, and some of the Heracles-plays, though it is uncertain how much was acted and how much narrated. Now and then the action may have been interrupted by a dance or assisted by an instrumental performance : a flute solo in the Marriage of Hebe, accompanying a dance by two performers, and a song associated with Artemis Chitonea12 in the Sphinx, are well attested (unless indeed the first-named play was entirely narrative) ; and there is some reason for the conjecture that a ‘boxing-song’ accompanied the boxing-match in the AmyhosA There was probably no uniform or prescribed structure in the plays of Epicharmus and his contemporaries. That such a set form was so closely adhered to in Attic comedy was largely the result of the presence of the chorus ; and of a chorus, at least as a regular element in the play, there is, in 1 The attempt of Sieckmann (de Comoediae A tticae prim ordiis [1906]) to prove that something like an agon occurred in nearly all the plays of Epicharmus comes to very little. He shows that most plays included more than one speaker; that the anapaestic tetrameter, one of the regular metres of the Attic agon, was common in Epicharmus, and that in the extant fragments (as in the epirrhematic portions of Attic comedy) there are virtually no traces of characters entering or leaving th e scene [cf., however, above on the Odysseus Automolos], But this is a very different thing from proving that most plays consisted of an agon, with (in some) a prologue or epilogue in iambics. That the comedies of Epicharmus were (as he believes) of about the same length as an agon of Aristo­ phanes also proves nothing, and a general review of the fragments is sufficient to dispose of his theory. (I find that a reply to Sieckmann, on the same lines, was given by Süss in the Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift (1907), pp. 1397 ff.) The further suggestion of Sieckmann, that the agon of Attic comedy was of Dorian rather than of native origin, seems to be equally groundless. (See above, pp. 147 ff.). 2 A specially Syracusan dance and tune of this kind are mentioned by Athen, xiv. 629 e. See above, p. 268. ·’ See Pollux iv. 56, where pyktikon li melos seems to be a certain correction of poetikon, and Kaibel on fr. 210.

T H E C H A R A C T E R O F E P IC H A R M U S ’ C O M E D Y

279

the fragments of Epicharmus, no distinct trace. There may have been some kind of kómos in the Komasts or Hephaestus : and the Seven Muses may have sung together in the Marriage of Hebe, though they may only have figured in the narrative of the feast. It cannot be inferred from the title Sirens (or even from the expression listen to the Sirens’ in fr. 123) that there was a chorus of Sirens, or that more than one was actually a character in the play. Nor do the plural titles of the Atalantai (if genuine), Bakchai, and Dionysoi necessarily imply a chorus.1 It is sometimes argued that Epicharmus employed a chorus on the strength of a note in Pollux12 that he called the dramatic training-school choregeion. But the use of choregeion for didaskaleion may well have been derived from the training of the tragic chorus there, or some chorus other than the comic, and so Epicharmus might naturally use the word, even if he had no chorus himself.3 [The view that Epicharmus had no chorus was reasserted by Wüst4 with no new arguments in 1950. Radermacher,5 however, notes ( i ) that the Dancers and the Victorious Athlete, which were completely written in anapaestic tetrameters, were either performed as a recitative from beginning to end or sung to the tune of a marching song, (2) that the Dancers may have been a kind of ballet with a chorus and no actors, and (3) that in the Sirens the Sirens were a chorus and Odysseus an actor. To this Herter6 adds the evidence of the plural titles and notes that in Cratinus the Demoi and Ploutoi are so called because they had a chorus of Demes and Wealth­ giving Titans. It is indeed difficult to see what Epicharmus’ Bakchai can 1 Cratinus’ Odysses, Archilochoi, Kleoboulinai and Teleclides’ Hesiodoi need not have been so named owing to the presence of the chorus. The titles may mean either ‘persons like Odysseus, &c.5 or Odysseus, &c. and their companions’. [But who were these if not a chorus? The natural explanation is Odysseus, &c., and his companions, who formed the chorus; and this is supported by the Aeschylean Choephori, where the chorus are companions of Electra, who alone carries and pours the libations.] 2 ix. 41, 42 = fr. 13 Kaibel, 87 Olivieri. 3 On the absence of a chorus from Dorian comedy, see also Reich, M im us, i. 503-4. 4 Rhein. M n s. xcviii (1950), 348. 5 Aristophanes’ Frösche, pp. 17 f. 6 Vom dionysischen T a n z zum komischen Spiel, pp. 35 f., with n. 176.

28ο

E P IC H A R M U S

have been but a play with a chorus of Maenads or his Komasts but a play with a chorus of fat men or satyrs, and it must be admitted that Dionysus and his followers is much the easiest explanation of the title Dionysoi (and the corresponding Attic titles are much best explained in the same way; we know in fact that Cratinus’ Odysses had a chorus of Odysseus’ sailors1). If, as we have supposed, Epicharmus’ comedy developed out of the dances of the fat men, its background, as Herter says, was choral, and at least a memory of this was preserved in the use of choregos, choregeion (instead of the Attic didaskalos, didaskaleion (fr. 13 Kaibel, 87 Olivieri). There is nothing to suggest that the chorus was either so large or so highly developed as the Attic comic chorus and their activity may have consisted of dancing to recitative rather than singing; but the natural interpretation of Dancers, Sirens, Maenads, Komasts, and companions of Dionysus is that they were a chorus. If this is so, the Muses, Persians, and the Trojans were probably named after their chorus. Epicharmus’ three normal metres were anapaestic tetra­ meters, trochaic tetrameters, and iambic trimeters. On our evidence he never mixed them in a play (the lone hexameter of the Sirens is obviously a special case) .12 The two tetrameters were recitative metres, and there is no reason to suppose that they were ever anything else. Too little of Epicharmus’ ana­ paests survive ; the fragment of the Periallos (109 Kaibel, 123 Olivieri) sounds like narrative perhaps sung while a chorus (of fat men or satyrs?) danced, like the trochaics of the Marriage of Hebe, if there one of the Muses sang the recitative. In the trochaic Amykos, Herakles with Photos, Komasts, Megaris, Odysseus Automolos, Pyrrha, and Sirens there is evidence for dialogue, but the Komasts must have been plural, in the Sirens one of the speakers represents a plurality and addresses a plurality (123), and for the Odysseus Automolos and the Pyrrha an anapaestic envoi is preserved, which may have been sung and may be vestigial remains of the earlier long anapaests. Unfortunately we have no dates for any of these plays, except 1 Cf. above, p. 160. 2 In both the apparent exceptions ( n o Kaibel, 124 Olivieri and 131 Kaibel, 77 Olivieri) the wording (and therefore the metre) is uncertain.

TH E C H A R A C TER OF E P IC H A R M U S ’ C O M EDY

281

perhaps the Pyrrha, and we cannot tell whether the anapaestic

recitative ballet represents an early stage, the trochaic dialogue a middle stage, and the iambic spoken dialogue a late stage in Epicharmus’ development ; at least the top date of 470 for the Pyrrha and of 466 for an iambic play, possibly the Odysseus Mauagos, is not inconsistent with this theory.] The poems were probably short, like the mimes and their earlier predecessors in Dorian lands. We are told that Apollo­ dorus divided the plays of Epicharmus into ten volumes:1 Birt (followed by several scholars since) argues12 that as ap­ parently each Aristophanic comedy constituted a tomos, such a tomos would contain about 1,500 lines, and the plays of Epicharmus (which he counts as 35) would therefore average between 300 and 400 lines each. The argument itself is not quite satisfactory. It postulates an unnatural uniformity (dis­ proved in fact by Birt himself) in the size of volumes ; and we do not know how much (if any) of the spurious works Apollodorus may have included in the ten volumes : the fact that he distinguished the genuine from the spurious does not prove that he excluded the latter from his edition. Nor is a statement in the Liber glossarum quoted by Kaibel (p. 72), to the effect that the early comedies did not exceed 300 lines,3 of great weight, since we do not know its authority, and it appears to refer to Attic comedy as composed by Susarion and others.4 But that the plays were actually short is rendered likely from the slight nature of their subject-matter, so far as we can trace it, and by their apparent resemblance to the mime ; and although the statement about Apollodorus’ edition cannot be made the basis of a numerical calculation, it does suggest comedies much shorter than those of Aristo­ phanes. Apart from the kind of farce and horseplay that is always 1 Porphyr. Vit. Plotin. 24. 2 Antikes Buchwesen (1882), pp. 446, 496. 3 ‘Sed prior ac vetus comoedia ridicularis extitit. . . . Auctor eius Susarion traditur. Sed in fabulas primi eam contulerunt non magnas, ita ut non exce­ derent in singulis versus trecenos.’ 4 Gf. Usener, Rhein. Mus. xxviii. 418; Kaibel, Die Proleg., p. 46, who rightly rejects the authority of this late passage for facts upon which Aristotle was unable {Poet, iv) to obtain information.

282

E P IC H A R M U S

an element of popular comedy of a not very advanced type, the great interest of Epicharmus’ work seems to have lain in its presentation of character. We are already familiar with the Parasite as depicted by him; Körte’s conjecture1 that with the Parasite there appeared also his companion in so many Athenian plays, the Boastful Soldier, while not substan­ tiated by evidence, is possible, and no doubt the mercenary captains employed by Sicilian tyrants could have provided specimens of the type. We have seen also in the philosophical fragments the ingenious philosopher in a guise very like that in which he appears in Attic comedy, and traces of various other types flit across the scene in the fragments—the Trainer, the Sight-seer, the Victorious Athlete, and many others. Athenaeus asserts12 that Epicharmus was the first to bring a drunkard on the stage (and was followed by Crates in the Neighbours), and probably many of his personages were in one way or another connected with the pleasures of the table. It must also be admitted that the fragments are not free from traces of those indecencies which the hearers of the earlier Greek comedies everywhere enjoyed,3 though Crusius4 goes beyond the evidence in supposing that these traces show that the actors of Epicharmus wore the gross phallic costume which was adopted by Attic actors, and which is seen also on the vases which depict fourth-century performances in Magna Graecia. It may have been so, but it is not proved. Traces of contemporary allusions are very rare ; but we have seen that there was certainly an instance in the Islands [probably also the reference to sycophants in the new fragment, Oxyrh. Pap. 2429, fr. 7] ; and the reference to the Eleusinian mysteries in the Odysseus Automolos exhibits the same kind of incongruity as was common in both the Old and the Middle Comedy of Athens. He also mentioned the poets Anananius and Aris­ toxenus. Besides the comic character of the plot and the drawing of the personages, much of the amusement of the audiences of 1 D ie griechische Komödie, p. 13, and in R .E . xi, col. 1225. [Cf., however. Wüst, Rhein. M u s. cxviii (1950), 358.] 3 Frs. 191, 235. 2 X . 429 a. 4 Philologus , Suppi.-Bd. vi. 284.

T H E C H A R A C T E R OF E P IC H A R M U S ’ C O M E D Y

283

Epicharmus must have been derived from the language. In this the stock devices of Greek comedy are already apparent —parody,1 word-play,2 the coinage of long-words,3 diminu­ tives,4 and significant proper names,5 and the rattling off of lists of the good things of the feast. The rapidity of his ‘patter’, or perhaps of the interchange of question and answer, may be referred to by Horace:6 ‘Plautus ad exemplar Siculi p ro p e ra re Epicharmi’ (sc. ‘dicitur’). § 3. It is not easy for us to judge broadly of the effect of the Dorian dialect when used on a large scale ; the first impression of awkwardness and inelegance is no doubt superficial and due to the comparative strangeness of the Doric forms to our eyes ; there is certainly no reason for supposing that the sounds were harsh or unmusical. The dialect employed by Epichar­ mus is in the main that of Corinth and its colonies, of which Syracuse was one, and which in general form a homo­ geneous group ; but Bechtel has shown that in Epicharmus this is modified in two ways. There are elements in his language which seem to be Rhodian, and these he ascribes, as Ahrens did, to the influence of the citizens of Gela (a colony of Rhodes), whom Gelo settled in Syracuse,7 and who would naturally be found about the court of Gelo and Hiero : and there are also words taken entirely or in part from Latin, as is natural enough. But, as Kaibel has well pointed out, the language is not merely that of the street, but is full of allusions and turns of wit and argument, which, despite occasional slang and vulgarity, presuppose an alert and educated audi­ ence [with a knowledge of the technical terminology of the new Sicilian rhetoric]. In handling his metres Epicharmus secures a vigorous movement and a certain liveliness by allowing free resolution of long syllables, as well as changes of speakers in the middle of the line—a licence not allowed in early tragedy, but found in the satyric Ic h n e u ta e of Sophocles. There is no trace of lyric metres in the fragments ; only fr. 101 [and probably fr. 114, 1 3 5 6

Frs. 123, 130; cf. Athen, xv. 698 c. e.g. in fr. 46 [and the new Pyrrha]. Kolaphos (Fisticuffs) in the Rustic. Epp. i i . i. 58.

2 Fr.87.

4 e.g.infr. 142. 7 Herod, vii. 156.

E PIC H A R M U S 284 possibly fr. 229] comes from an anapaestic dimeter-system. In a few fragments only1 we find anapaestic tetrameters, but we are told (as has already been noticed) that the Victorious Athlete and the Dancers were composed entirely in this metre.2 There is one line of parody in hexameters.3 The metres chiefly represented in the fragments are the trochaic tetrameter (which Marius Victor calls the ‘metrum Epicharmeum’)4 and the iambic trimeter ; the former was probably already in use in popular songs as well as in earlier literature ; the latter had a long history before Epicharmus. § 4. It has already been stated that we have no reason for associating the plays of Epicharmus, any more than the mimes which they so closely resemble, or their Peloponnesian ancestors, with a Dionysiae homos; and in fact we know nothing of the external conditions of their performance, nor whether they formed part of a contest, as at Athens. If Aelian5 is right in speaking of Deinolochus as ‘an antagonist of Epicharmus’, some kind of contest is probably implied. The proverb ‘it lies on the knees of five judges’ is quoted by Zenobius,6 and both he and Hesychius7 state or imply that five judges decided between the comic poets in Sicily ; but this may possibly be a mere inference from the occurrence of the proverb in Epicharmus, if indeed it is quoted from the real Epicharmus at all. Tragedy was very probably performed in competition before five judges, this custom, like tragedy itself, being imported from Athens ; but the custom may or 1 Frs. 109,

114, 152. [114 is better taken as dim eter+ catalectic dimeter.] that the metre was of Dorian origin. It was certainly asso­ ciated with the Spartan marching-songs, and a special variety of it was termed Laconian (Hephaestion, de M etris, viii. 25. 22 Conbr.). Hephaestion quotes a line in the metre from Aristoxenus of Selinus (who was earlier than Epicharmus) ; but Kaibel and others doubt its genuineness (see Bergk, Poet. L y rP ii. 21; Cic. Tusc. D isp . π. xvi, § 37. &c.). 3 Fr. 123. [Add probably the quotation of II. ix. 63 in Oxyrh. P ap. 2427, h

i

,

2 It is possible

fr. 51.]

4 For the theories of Hoffmann and Kanz on Epicharmus’ use of this metre, see above, p. 246. [Wüst, Rhein. M u s. xci (1950), 343 f. stresses the technical differences between the metres of Epicharmus and Attic comedy.]

5 N a t. H ist. vi. 51. 6 iii. C4. 7 ‘Five judges. So many judged in comedy. Not only at Athens but also in Sicily.’

T H E C H A R A C T ER OF E P IC H A R M U S ’ C OM ED Y

285

may not have been adopted for comedy, and the proverb itself may have been imported with the custom. [Perhaps we do in fact know a little more about perfor­ mance than the preceding paragraph implies. Theocritus’ epigram (cf. above, p. 234) is on a statue of Epicharmus dedicated to Dionysus and it is generally assumed that the statue was in the theatre at Syracuse. Syracusans of that date evidently thought that Epicharmus performed in the theatre and in honour of Dionysus. The padded dancers danced in honour of Dionysus in Corinth,1 and apart from general probability two hints (‘the bow-shirted Achaeans’, fr. 123, and the wine-thieves, fr. 239) suggest that Epicharmus developed their performances. If his performances were in honour of Dionysus, titles like the Komasts, the Bakchai, and Dionysoi (and, if correctly interpreted, Periallos) are entirely suitable.2 The probability that he had a chorus and the references to the dance demand an orchestra, and his con­ temporary Phormos used a background (skSné) with purple hangings instead of skins (cf. above, p. 180). This implies a stage-building ; our fragments give no evidence that it had a door but argument from silence would be extremely unsafe. Phormus also used ‘full-length garments’ for the first time; it is perhaps unlikely that the male characters of Sicilian comedy were decently dressed at this early date (in the fourth century the male characters on Sicilian phlyax vases are no differently dressed from other actors of comedy) but he may have been the first to give female characters long clothes.] § 5. The precise degree to which Epicharmus influenced Attic comedy cannot be determined ; it is difficult to agree either with Zielinski,3 who does not think that the plays of Epicharmus were known to the early Attic comic poets, or with those who, like von Salis,4 find the influence of Epicharmus 1 Syracuse was a Corinthian colony. T h e phlyakes in south Italy were nearer. Cf. above, p. 138, for the derivation of the word phlyax and its connexion with titles o f Dionysus. This would suggest that the fat men danced in honour of Dionysus in south Italy. 2 The animal masqueraders who sang in honour of Artemis at Syracuse (above, p. 155) should also be remembered but are probably irrelevant. 3 Glied, aitati. Kom., p. 243; cf. Bethe, Proleg., p; 61. 4 De Doriensium ludorum in comoedia Attica vestigiis. [A useful summary of views is given by E. Wüst, Rhein. Mus. xciii (1950), 337 if.]

286

E P IC H A R M U S

everywhere. It is clear that many features are common to Epi­ charmus and the Old Comedy—the characters of the philoso­ pher, the parasite, the drunkard, the rustic, the voracious and turbulent Heracles, the crafty Odysseus, the burlesqued gods ; but Athens may well have derived most of these (if they were borrowed at all) from Dorians nearer home [or from Ionia]. The agon was also probably home-grown in Attica. Nor would Athenian poets need to go to Sicily for the use of parody, of word-play in countless forms, and of ‘patter’ containing long lists of the good things of the feast. We have seen reason to doubt whether the scholiast was right, who found an imita­ tion of Epicharmus in Aristophanes, Peace 185 if.1 It is also very unsafe to infer direct imitation in lines of Aristophanes in which common and colourless words occupy the same place as in lines of Epicharmus.12 The puzzle about a ‘three­ footed table’ in Aristophanes, fr. 5303 may or may not have been suggested by Epicharmus, fr. 149; the same is the case with the conceit employed in the Peace, when Trygaeus rides on an ‘Aetnaean beetle’. (The creature was proverbial, but its use as a steed is not found before Epicharmus.4) The use of the anapaestic tetrameter in comedy by Cratinus and his successors may have been suggested by Epicharmus, but this would hardly account for its regular and predominant use in what appear to have been native elements in Attic comedy, the agon and parabasis. The enumeration of parallel lists of titles of plays from Epicharmus and from Attic comedy undoubtedly suggests that the two had many subjects in common;5 but against this must be set the extraordinary difference of treatment in two such very different kinds of comedy. The resemblance between 1 See above, p. 268. 2 Von Salis compares Epich., fr. 171 with Aristoph. P i n t . 97. 1195; and fr. 171,1. 2, and ir. 128, with Aristoph. F r o g s 56, L y s i s t r . 916, and Pherecr., fr. 69, 1. 4. Other instances which he gives (p. 41) are even less convincing. 3 See above, p. 275. 4 See above, p. 261. 5 Von Salis compares the M e g a r i s with plays entitled A c h a ii s , & c . ; and points to Attic comedies called C y c lo p s , B u s i r is , S c ir o n , P h ilo c te te s , I s l a n d s , M o n t h s , B a c c h a e , M u s e s , S ir e n s , C o m a s ts , &c. The H e r a c le s m a r r y in g of Archippus may have had the same subject as the M a r r i a g e o f H e b e and the D r a m a s o r C e n ta u r of Aristophanes may have resembled the H e r a c le s w i t h P h o lu s (cf. Kaibel, H e r m e s , xxiv. 54 ff. ; Prescott, C la s s . P h i l . xii. 410 ff.).

THE

CHARACTER

OF EPICH A RM U S’ COM EDY

287

the parasite in Eupolis5 Kolakes1 and the same character in Epicharmus may well have been due to the fact that both drew from the same type in real life; and although there is some parallelism of subjects between Epicharmus and the Middle Comedy, the explanation is probably to be found in a common mythology and a similar social life. It is dangerous, therefore, to exaggerate resemblance into imitation; and the tricks of comic poets and performers are much the same all the world over; but to suppose that the Attic poets were unacquainted with Epicharmus and derived no suggestion or inspiration from him seems to be at least equally extravagant ; and if Plato knew and admired him, it is unlikely that he was quite unknown to the generation before Plato. [Aristotle’s mention of Crates immediately after the statement that ‘the making of plots’ came in the beginning from Sicily would suggest that he thought that Sicilian comedy was known in Athens by or soon after the middle of the fifth century. If, as is likely, the making of plots means, or includes as a very large element, the travestying of mytho­ logical stories, it is worth noting that Cratinus like Epicharmus wrote a Busiris and a Dionysoi and that his Odysses had the same subject as Epicharmus’ Cyclops]. In the same way it is impossible to trace in detail the influence which Epicharmus may have had on the comic performance of later times in Magna Graecia, though that influence is not likely to be disputed. The subjects of his plays and those of the paintings on the phlyax~vases are noticeably alike, though the writings known as phlyakes are never classed as comedies.12Among the mimes of Sophron (also never called comedies3) are some, the titles of which resemble those of 1 159 ( K ) .

2 [Gf. above, p, 13g. The vases cover the first three-quarters of the fourth century b.c., and some of their subjects are certainly Attic (cf. Webster, M o n u ­ m e n ts o f O l d a n d M i d d l e C o m e d y , Institute of Classical Studies, Suppl. No. 9, p. 3). The writers belong to the third century b . c . ] 3 At least not before the Suda (s.v. Sophron). I think Reich, M i m u s , i. 269, overstates the extension of the word ‘comedy’ to mimes, &c. It is doubtful whether Athen, ix. 402 b, in speaking o f Sciras o f Tarentum as a writer of socalled Italian comedy refers to the p h ly a k e s . In any case both Athenaeus and the Suda are very late, and Athenaeus’ expression shows that the name was not used in its strict sense.

EPICH A RM U S

plays of Epicharmus, such as Rustic, Women looking at the (if that was the title), P ro m eth eu s , and in his travesty of heroic stories he may have affected the h ila ro tra g o id ia of the third-century Rhinthon. But whatever may be conjectured where so much is uncer­ tain, it remains the outstanding merit of Epicharmus, as Aristotle saw, that he created a type of comedy which turned largely upon topics of general interest ; and so he was the forerunner not only of the later comedies which travestied heroic legend, but of the comedy of social life and manners which has never entirely disappeared, and has sometimes taken shape in literature of the first order. [It is extremely difficult to form a just estimate of Epichar­ mus. The fragments contain a great deal about food and very little else, particularly if the majority of the maxims and all the philosophical fragments except one have to be taken away from him. Aristotle saw two steps towards Middle Comedy, which he liked, and away from the comedy of personal invective, which he disliked—(i) Sicilian comedy, and (2) Crates—and the equation of Epicharmus with Gelo and Hiero put him comfortably earlier than Crates. Epichar­ mus’ achievement seems to have been to convert into comedy a performance which was largely recitative accompanied by dancing, and no one would wish to deny that title to the fragments of the O d ysseu s A u to m o lo s, P y rrh a , and H o p e . It is likely that this development belongs to the years after 466 B . c . when rhetoric was beginning to flourish. When, however, he is called the forerunner of later mythological comedy and social comedy the other ancestors must not be forgotten— Attic tragedy and early Attic comedy (to say nothing of Archilochus and Hipponax). Epicharmus’ debt to early Attic comedy cannot be assessed, but the P y r r h a provides a hint of his debt to tragedy. Tragedy is also likely to have influenced Attic comedy from the beginning, as it did later, partly as a model, partly as an object for parody. The main line of drama was Attic ; Epicharmus is an interesting side development of which we know too little.]

I s th m ia

( 289 )

vi.

P h o r m u s a n d D e in o lo c h u s

It is convenient to append here a note on the little that is known about Epicharmus’ fellow poets, Phormus and Deino­ lochus. Phormus is known to us only from a few scattered notices of Athenaeus and the Suda, as a contemporary of Epicharmus, and with him the ‘inventor’ of comedy, and as the friend of Gelo and tutor of his children.1 With regard to the titles of his comedies, which are more in number than six (the number given by the Suda) there is a difficulty which cannot be solved, even if it were worth solving;2 but it is evident that most or all of the plays were mythological burlesque, prob­ ably of the same type as those of Epicharmus. The Suda states also that he introduced a robe, reaching to the feet, for his actors, and decorated his stage with purple hangings.3 Pausanias4 mentions a Phormis who came from Arcadia to Syracuse and did good service both to Gelo and to Hiero by his brilliant generalship, and whose statue was erected at Olympia both by himself and by his friend Lycortas of Syracuse. Some writers have assumed without question that the comic poet and the general were identical ; but, apart from the difficulty in regard to the termination of the name, there is no evidence which clearly connects the two. No fragment of Phormus survives. Deinolochus is described by the Suda as of Syracuse or Acragas, and the son or pupil (Aelian says the rival5) of Epi­ charmus. The titles of his plays which have been preserved are Althaea, The Amazons, Medea,0 Telephus, and Komoidotragoidia. 1 The Suda, see above, p. 231. Athen, xiv. 652 a gives the title of the Atalante as Atalantai. Aristot. Poet, v gives the poet’s name as Phormis, but the reading of the passage is in any case very uncertain. 2 Sack of Troy and Horse may have been the same play in different versions or with an alternative title; so may Cepheus and Perseus and Kephalaia. Kephalaia may have some reference to the Gorgon’s head which figured in the story of Perseus. Lorenz suggests that Alkyones is a dittography from Alcinous, though the name is in itself unsuspicious. It is very doubtful whether either Epicharmus or Phormus wrote an Atalantai (see Kaibel Fragm., p. 93). 3 Cf. Aristotle on Megarian Comedy quoted above, p. 180. [Cf. also, p. 285.] 4 V. xxvii, § 7. 5 N.H. vi. 51. For the Suda see above, p. 231. 6 Medea is included by Oxyrh. Pap. 2426 in a list of plays apparently ascribed to Epicharmus. 6188

U

290

EPICH A RM U S

The last is only known as the title of plays by much later writers, such as Alcaeus and Anaxandrides ; but there is no reason why Deinolochus, who must have seen tragedies acted at Syracuse, should not have travestied them under such a title. The fragments are very meagre and tell us nothing of his work, except that he made use of proverbs and of local (as opposed to literary) words. Aelian says that Deinolochus, like some other poets, treated a quaint story to the effect that, when Prometheus had stolen fire, Zeus offered to give any one who detected the theft a drug which would keep off old age. Those who earned this reward took it away tied on to a donkey’s back. The donkey grew thirsty, and went to a spring to drink ; but the snake which guarded the spring would only let the donkey drink, if he gave him the drug in exchange. So the snake got free of old age, but received in addition the thirst of the donkey. The only interest of these two writers lies in the evidence they afford of the existence of a small school of comic poets in Sicily in the early fifth century.

APPENDIX GREEK

TEXTS

i. pp. io, g y : Suda. Ά ρ ίω ν Μηθυμναΐος, λυρικός, Κυκλέως υιός, γέγονε κατά την λη' ’Ολυμπιάδα· τίνες δε μαθητήν Άλκμάνος ιστόρησαν αυτόν, έγραφε δε άσματα· προοίμια εις έπη β'. λέγεται και τραγικού τρόπον εύρετης γενέσθαι, καί πρώτος χορόν στησαι καί διθύραμβον ασαι καί όνομάσαι τό άδόμενον υπό τ ο υ χορού, καί Σατύρονς είσενεγκεΐν έμμετρα λέγοντας, φυλάττει δε το ώ καί επί γενικής. 2 . ρ ρ . 14,

39 ? 43

ff·:

P s e u d o - P l u t a r c h , de M u sic a , e h . x x ix —x x x .

Λάσος δ’ ο Έρμιονεύς εϊς την διθυραμβικήν αγωγήν μεταστήσας τούς ρυθμούς καί τη των αυλών πολυφωνία κατακολουθήσας, πλείοσί τε φθόγγοις καί διερριμμένοις χρησάμενος, εις μετάθεσιν την προυπάρχουσαν ηγαγε μουσικήν, ομοίως δέ καί Μελάνιππίδης 6 μελοπο ιός επιγενόμενος ούκ ενέμεινε τη ύπαρχουση μουσική, άλλ’ ο υ δ έ Φιλόξενος ουδέ Τιμόθεος· οΰτος γάρ, έπταφθόγγου τής λύρας ύπαρχούσης έως εις Τέρπανδρον τον Άντισσαΐον, διέρριφεν εις πλείονας φθόγγους, άλλα γά ρ καί αύλητική άφ’ άπλονστέρας εις ποικιλωτέραν μεταβέβηκε μουσικήν, τό γάρ παλαιόν, έως είς Μελανιππίδην τον τών διθυράμβων ποιητήν, συμβεβήκει τούς αύλητάς παρά τών ποιητών λαμβάνειν τούς μισθούς, πρωταγωνιστούσης δηλονότι τής ποιήσεως, τών δ ε αυλητών ύπηρετούντων τοΐς διδασκάλοις· ύστερον δε καί τούτο διεφθάρη, ώς καί Φερεκράτην τον κωμικόν είσαγαγεΐν την Μουσικήν εν γυναικείω σχήματι, όλην κατηκισμένην τό σώμα, ποιεί δέ την Δ ικαιοσύνην διαπυνθανομένην την αιτίαν τής λώβης καί την Ποίησιν λέγουσαν. Μ. λέξω μεν ούκ ακόυσα, σοί τε γάρ κλύειν έμοί τε λέξαι μύθον ηδονήν έχει, έμοί γάρ ήρξε τών κακών Μελανιππίδη ς, εν τοΐσι πρώτος δς λαβών άνήκέ με χαλαρωτέραν τ ’ εποίησε χορδαΐς δώδεκα. άλλ’ οΰν όμως οΰτος μεν ήν άποχρών άνήρ εμοιγε . . . προς τά νΰν κακά.

A P P E N D IX

Κινησιας οε μ' ο κατάρατος Α τ τ ι κ ό ς , εξαρμονίους καμπάς ποιων iv ταΐς στροφαΐς, άπολώλεχ ούτως, ώστε της ποιήσεως των διθυράμβων, καθάπερ iv ταΐς άσπίσιν, άρίστερ' αύτοΰ φαίνεται τα δεξιά, άλλ' ονν ανεκτός ουτος ήν όμως εμοί. Φρΰνις δ' Ίδιον στρόβιλον εμβολών τινα κάμπτων με και στρόφων δλην διεφθορεν, εν επτά χορδαΐς δώδεχ' αρμονίας εχων. άλλ' οΰν εμοιγε χοΰτος ήν άποχρών άνήρ· εΐ γάρ τι κάξήμαρτεν, αύθις άνελαβεν. ό δε Τιμόθεός μ', ώ φίλτατε, κατορώρυχε καί διακεκναιχ αΊσχιστα. Δ.

ποΐος ούτοσί δ Τιμόθεος ;

Μ.

Μιλήσιός τις Πυρρίας· κακά μοι πάρεσχεν οίς άπαντας οΰς λέγω παρελήλυθεν, άγων εκτραπελους μνρμηκίας, καν εντύχη που μοι βαδιζούση μόνη άπεδυσε κάνελυσε χορδαΐς δώδεκα.

καί Αριστοφάνης ό κωμικός μνημονεύει Φιλόξενου καί φησιν ότι εις τούς κυκλίους χορούς μέλη είσηγαγεν. ή δε Μουσική λεγει ταυτα· εξαρμονίους ύπερβολαίους τ' άνοσίους καί νιγλάρους, ώσπερ τε τάς ραφάνους δλην καμπών με κατεμεστωσε,

3· ρ. ΐ7 : A t h e n a e u s xiv. 617 b (Pratinas text as in A. M. Dale, Words, Music, and Dance (1960), 12) Πρατίνας δε ό Φλιάσιος, αυλητών καί χορευτών μισθοφόρων κατεχόντων τάς ορχήστρας, άγανακτήσας επί τω τούς αύλητάς μή ξυναυλεΐν τοΐς χόροις, καθάπερ ήν πάτριον, άλλα τούς χορούς ξυναδεΐν τοΐς αυληταΐς, δν ουν είχε θυμόν κατά των ταυτα ποιουντων ό Πρατίνας εμφανίζει διά τοΰδε του ύπορχήματος· τίς ό θόρυβος δδε ; τί τάδε τά χορεύματα ; τίς υβρις εμολεν επί Διονυσιάδα πολυπάταγα θυμελαν; εμός εμάς ό Βρόμιος· εμε δει κελαδεΐν, εμε δει παταγεΐν, άν' δρεα συμενον μετά Ναϊάδων, ο ΐ ά τε κύκνον άγοντα ποικιλόπτερον μέλος.

GREEK TEXTS

«93

ràv άοιδαν κατέστασε Πιερίς βασιλείαν ο δ5 αυλός ύστερον χορευέτω· καί γάρ έσθ' ύπηρέτας. κώμω μόνον θυραμάχοις τε πυγμαχίαις νέων θέλει παροίνων έμμεναι στρατηλάτας. n a te τον φρυνεοΰ ποικίλου πνοαν έχοντα, φλέγε τον όλοοσιαλοκάλαμον λαλοβαρύοπα παραμελορυθμοβάταν θήτα τρυπάνω δέμας πεπλασμένον. Μ >ς» i/o . Cs > > ην ιο ο ν αθ€ σοι ο€ςια καί ποδός διαρριφά, θριαμβοδιθυραμβε κισσόχαη' άναξ, ακούε τάν εμάν Αωρων χορείαν.

4 · ΡΡ· 33> Γ36> ι6 5 · P o llu x iv. 104-5 ήV δέ riva καί Λακωνικά όρχήματα διά Μαλέας. Σειληνοί δ’ ήσαν καί ύπ* αυτοΐς Σάτυροι ύπότρομα όρχούμενου καί ΐθυμβοι επί Διονύσια,

καί Καρυάτιδες επ' Άρτέμιδι. καί βαρύλλιχα, το μεν εύρημα Βαρυλλίχου, προσωρχοΰντο δε γυναίκες Άπόλλωνι καί Άρτέμιδι. οι δέ υπογύπωνες γερόντων υπό βακτηρίαις την μίμησιν εΐχον, οι δέ γύπωνες ξύλινων κώλων έπιβαίνοντες ώρχοΰντο, διαφανή ταραντινίδια άμπεχόμενοι. καί μην Έσχαρίνθον ορχημα, έπωνυμον δ’ ην του εύρόντος αύλητοΰ. τυρβασίαν δ5 έκάλουν το ορχημα το διθυραμβικόν. μιμητικήν (? μιμηλικην) δέ δι' ής έμιμοΰντο τούς επί τη κλοπή των έωλων κρεών άλισκομένους. λομβρότερον δ’ ήν δ ώρχοΰντο γυμνοί συν αισχρολογία, ήν δέ καί το σχιστός ελκειν, σχήμα όρχησεως χωρικής· έδει δέ πηδώντα επαλλάττειν τ α σκέλη.

5· ρ. 63: Suda Φρύνιχος, Πολυφράδμονος η Μινύρου, οί δέ Χοροκλέους· Αθηναίος, τραγικός, μαθητής Θέσπιδος του πρώτου την τραγικήν είσενέγκαντος. ένίκα τοίνυν επί τής ξζ' Ό λυμπιάδος. οΰτος δέ πρώτος ό Φρύνιχος γυναικείου πρόσωπον είσηγαγεν εν τή σκηνή, καί ευρετής του τετρα­ μέτρου έγένετο. καί παΐδα εσχε τραγικόν Πολυφράδμονα· τραγωδίαι δέ αύτοΰ είσιν εννέα αύται· Πλευρωνίαι, Α ιγύπτιοι, Άκταίων, Άλκηστις, Ανταίος ή Λίβυες, Δίκαιοι ή Πέρσαι ή Σύνθωκοι, Δαναΐδες. 6.

ρ. 6$: S u d a

Πρατίνας, Πυρρωνίδου ή Ε γκω μ ίου, Φλιάσιος, ποιητής τραγωδίας·

A P P E N D IX

άντηγωνίζετο δε Αίσχυλω τε καί Χοιρίλω επί τής o' Όλυμπιάδος, καί πρώτος εγραφε Σατύρους, επιδεικνυμενου δε τούτου συνέβη τα ίκρία, εφ’ ών εστηκεσαν οί θεαταί, πεσεΐν, καί εκ τούτου θεατρον ωκοδομήθη Άθηναίοις. καί δράματα μεν επεδείξατο ν', ών Σατυρικά λβ'" ενική σε δε άπαξ. η. ρ . 6 8 : H e s y c h ì u s

Χοιρίλος Αθηναίος τραγικός, ξδ' Ό λυμ πιάδι καθείς εις αγώνας [/cat] εδίδαξε μεν δράματα ξ' καί ρ', ενική σε δε ιγ '. οΰτος κατά τινας τοΐς προσωπείοις καί τη σκευή τών στολών επεχείρησε.

8.

ρ . G g: S u d a

Θεσπις· Ίκαρίου πόλεως Αττικής, τραγικός εκκαιδεκατος από του πρώτου γενομενου τραγωδοποιού ’Επιγόνους τού Σικυωνίου τιθέμενος, ώς δε τινες, δεύτερος μετά Έ π ιγενη ν. άλλοι δε αυτόν πρώτον τραγικόν γενεσθαι φασί. καί πρώτον μεν χρίσας το πρόσωπον φιμυθιω ετραγώδησεν, εΐτα άνδράχνη εσκεπασεν εν τώ επιδείκνυσθαι, καί μετά ταΰτα είσήνεγκε καί την τών προσωπείων χρήσιν εν μόνη οθόνη κατασκευάσας. εδίδα£ε δε επί τής πρώτης καί ξ' ’Ολυμπίαδος. μνημονεύονται δε τών δραμάτων αυτού Α θ λα Πελίου ή Φόρβας, 'Ιερείς, Ή ιθεοι, Πενθεύς. T h e m i s t i u s , O r a t. x x v i. 3 1 6 d

αλλά καί ή σεμνή τραγωδία μετά πάσης όμοΰ τής σκευής καί τού χορού καί τών υποκριτών παρελήλυθεν εις το θεατρον; καί ου προσεχομεν Αριστοτελει ότι το μεν πρώτον 6 χορός είσίων ήδεν εις τούς θεούς, Θεσπις δε πρόλογόν τε καί ρήσιν εζεϋρεν, Αισχύλος δε τρίτον υποκριτήν καί όκρίβαντας, τα δε πλείω τούτων Σοφοκλεους άπελαύσαμεν καί Εύριπίδου ; IoANNES D

ia c o n u s , C om m . in H erm ogen em

( R a b e , R h e in . M u s .

lxiii (1908), 150) τής δε τραγωδίας πρώτον δράμα Αριών ο Μηθυμναΐος εισήγαγεν, ώσπερ Σόλων εν τα ΐς επιγραφομεναις Έ λεγείαις εδίδαζε. Δράκων δέ 6 Ααμφακηνός δράμά φησι πρώτον Άθήνησι διδαχθήναι ποιήσαντος Θεσπιδος. Δράκων; Χάρων Wilamowitz

9.

ρ . 1 2 4 f · : Z e n o b iu s ν . 4 0 .

Ούδεν προς τον Διόνυσον. Ε π ειδή τών χορών εζ αρχής είθισμενων διθύραμβον αδειν εις τον Δ ιόνυσον, οί ποιηταί ύστερον εκβάντες τήν

GREEK TE X TS

295

συνήθειαν ταύτην Αϊαντας και Κένταυρους γράφειν επεχείρησαν. οθεν οι θεώμενοι σκώπτοντες ελεγον, Ούδεν προς Δ ιόνυσον. διά γοΰν τούτο τούς Σατυρους ύστερον εδοξεν αύτοΐς ττροεισάγειν, ί'να μή δοκώσιν επιλανθάνεσθαι του θεού. S ud a Ούδεν προς τον Διόνυσον. Επιγόνους του Σικυωνίου τραγωδίαν εις τον Διόνυσον ποιήσαντος, επεφώνησάν τινες τούτο. οθεν ή παροιμία, βελτιον δε ούτως, το πρόσθεν εις τον Διόνυσον γράφοντες τούτοις ήγωνίζοντο, απερ και σατυρικά ελεγετο. ύστερον δε μεταβάντες εις το τραγωδίας γράφειν, κατά μικρόν εις μύθους καί ιστορίας ετράπησαν, μηκετι τού Διονύσου μνημονεύοντες. οθεν τούτο καί επεφώνησάν. καί Χαμαιλεων εν τω περί Θεσπιδος τα παραπλήσια ιστορεί. io . ρρ. 13 4 s χ3 7 : A th e n a e u s xiv, pp. 621 d, 622 d παρά δε Λακεδαιμόνιόις κωμικής παιδιας ήν τις τρόπος παλαιός, ώς φησι Σωσίβιος, ούκ άγαν σπουδαίος, άτε δή καν τούτοις τό λιτόν τής Σπάρτης μεταδιωκούσης. εμιμεΐτο γάρ τις εν εύτελεΐ τή λόξει κλεπτοντάς τινας οπώραν ή ξενικόν ιατρόν τοιαυτϊ λεγοντα, ώς Άλεξις εν Μανδραγοριζομενη διά τούτων παρίστησιν εάν επιχώριος ιατρός εΐπη “τρυβλίον τούτω δότε πτισάνης εωθεν” , καταφρονοΰμεν ευθέως’ αν δε πτισάνας καί τρουβλίον, θαυμάζομεν. καί πάλιν εάν μεν τευτλίον, παρείδομεν. εάν δε σεΰτλον, ασμένως ήκούσαμεν, ώς ου τό σεΰτλον ταύτόν δν τω τευτλίω. εκαλούντο δ οι μετιόντες την τοιαύτην παιδιάν παρά τοΐς Λάκωσι δεικηλίσται, ώς άν τις σκευοποιούς εΐπη καί μιμητάς. τού δε είδους των δεικηλιστών πολλαί κατά τόπους είσί προσηγορίαι. Σικυώνιοι μεν γάρ φαλλοφόρους αυτούς καλοΰσιν, άλλοι δ5 αύτοκαβδάλους, οί δε φλύακας, ώς ’Ιταλοί, σοφιστάς δε οι πολλοί’ Θηβαίοι δε καί τά πολλά ιδίως όνομάζειν είωθότες εθελοντάς. . . . Σήμος δε 6 Δήλιος εν τω περί παιάνων, “οί αύτοκάβδαλοι” , φησί, “ καλούμενοι εστεφανωμενοι κιττω σχεδην επεραινον ρήσεις, ύστερον δε ίαμβοι ώνομάσθησαν αυτοί τε καί τά ποιήματα αυτών, οί δε ιθύφαλλοι” , φησί, “ καλούμενοι προσωπεία μεθυόντων εχουσι καί εστεφάνωνται, χειρίδας ανθινάς εχοντες· χιτώ σι δε χρώνται μεσολεύκοις καί περιόζωνται ταραντΐνον καλύπτον αυτούς μέχρι των σφυρών, σιγή δε διά τού πυλώνος

296

A P P E N D IX

είσεΧθόντες, όταν κατά μεσην την ορχήστραν γενωνται, επιστρεφουσιν είς το θέατρον Xάγοντεςάνάγετ’, ευρυχωρίαν ποι­ είτε τω θεω· εθεΧει γάρ [ό Θεό?] ορθός εσφυδωμενος Sia μέσου βαδίζειν. οι δε φαλλοφόροι” , φησίν, “προσωπείου μεν ου Χαμβάνουσιν, προσκόπιον δ ’ εζ ερπύΧΧου περιτιθεμενοι και παιδερωτος επάνω τούτον επιτίθενται στέφανον δασύν Ίων και κιττον■καυνάκας τε περιβεβλη μόνοι παρέρχονται οΐ μεν εκ παρόδου, οι δε κατά μεσας τάς θύρας, βαίνοντες εν ρυθμω και Χεγοντες, σοί, Βάκχε, τάνδε μούσαν άγΧα'ίζομεν, άπΧοΰν ρυθμόν χεοντες αίόΧω μεΧει, καινόν, άπαρθενευτον, οϋ τι ταΐς πάρος κεχρημεναν φδαΐσιν, άλλ’ άκήρατον κατάρχομεν τον ύμνον. etra προτρεχοντες ετώθαζον οΰς προεΧοιντο, στάδην φαΧΧοφόρος ι θ ν βαδίζων καταπασθείς αΙθάΧωΣ

i i . ρ. 15 5 : S c h o lia

in T h e o critu m vetera,

δε

επραττον. ό δε

W endel, p. 2

δ δ ε άΧηθής Χόγος οΰτος. εν ταΐς Σνρακούσαις στάσεως ποτέ γενομενης καί ποΧλών ποΧιτών φθαρεντων, εις ομόνοιαν του πλήθους ποτέ εΙσεΧθόντος εδοξεν Άρτεμις αίτια γεγονεναι τής διαΧΧαγής. οι δε αγροίκοι δώρα εκόμισαν καί την θεάν γεγηθότες ανύμνησαν, επειτα ταΐς ζτώ ν) αγροίκων ωδαΐς τόπον εδωκαν καί συνήθειαν, αδειν δε φασιν αυτούς άρτον εζηρτημενους θηρίων εν εαυτω πΧεονας τύπους εχοντα καί πήραν πανσπερμίας άνάπΧεων καί οίνον εν αίγείω άσκω, σπονδήν νεμοντας τοΐς ύπαντώσι, στέφανόν τε περικεΐσθαι και κέρατα εΧάφων προκεΐσθαι καί μετά χεΐρας εχειν ΧαγωβόΧον. τον δε νικήσαντα Χαμβάνειν τον του νενικημενου άρτον κάκεΐνον μεν επί τής των Συρακονσίων μενειν ποΧεως, τούς δε νενικημενονς εις τάς περιοικίδας νωρεΐν άγείροντες εαυτό ΐς τάς τροφάς. αδειν τε άΧΧα τε παιδιάς καί γεΧωτος εχόμενα καί εύφημοΰντας επιΧεγειν

δεξαι τάν άγαθάν τύχαν, δεξαι τάν ύγίειαν, άν φερομες παρα τάς θεού αν ]■ εκΧεΧάσκετο f τήνα. (άν τ’ ΐκαλίσκετο, Radermacher)

GREEK T EX TS

297

12. p. 165: H esychius βρυδολίγα’ πρόσωπον γνναικ€Ϊον παρά το γελοΐον καί αισχρόν f ορρος τίθεταιf ορίνθω την ορχήστραν καί γυναικεία ίμάτια ενδέδυται. δθεν καί τάς f μαχράς f βρυδαλίχας καλοΰσι Λάκωνες. βρυλλιχισταί’ οι αισχρά προσωπεία περιτιθέμενοι γυναικεία και ύμνους άδοντες. λόμβαι- al τη Άρτέμιδι θυσιών αρχουσαι από της κατά παιδίαν σκευής· οί γάρ φάλητες ούτω καλούνται. 1 3 " Ρ· 1 7 9 °·

Schol. to Aristophanes,

W asps

54

ή ώς ποιητών τινων από Μεγαρίδος άμουσων καί αφυώς σκωπτόντων, ή ώς τών Μεγαρεων καί άλλως φορτικώς γελοιαζόντων. Εύπολις Προσπαλτίοις· το σκώμμ’ άσελγες καί Μεγαρικον σφοδρά. A r . Eth. N ie. ιν. ii. 1123 a 20

εν μεν γαρ τοΐς μικροΐς τών δαπανημάτων πολλά αναλίσκει (sc. ο βάναυσος) και λαμπρύνεται παρά μέλος, οΐον ερανιστάς γαμικώς εστιών καί κωμωδοΐς χορηγών εν τή παρόδω πορφύραν είσφέρων, ώσπερ οί Μ εγαροΐ.

Schol. ad loc. σύνηθες εν κωμωδία παραπετάσματα δερρεις ποιεΐν, ού πορφυρίδας. Μυρτίλος εν Τιτανόπασι . . . “ το δεΐν’ ακούεις; 'Ηράικλεις, τουτ εστί σοι I το σκώμμά άσελγες και Μεγαρικον και σφοδρά | φυχρόν γέλα (yà p , ώς'} ορας τά παίδιαΕ διασύρονται γάρ οι Μεγαρεΐς κωμωδία, επει και αντιποιούνται αυτής ώς παρ’ αύτοΐς πρώτον εύρεθείσης, ε ϊ γ ε και Σουσαρίων ο κατάρζας κωμωδίας Μεγαρεύς. ώς φορτικοί τοίνυν και φυχρο'ι διαβάλλονται και πορφυρίδι χρώμενοι εν τή παρόδω. και γοΰν Αριστοφάνης επισκώπτων αύτοΐς λέγει που, “μηδ5 αύ γέλωτα Μεγαρόθεν κεκλεμμένον ’5. αΑΛά και Έκφαντίδης παλαιότατος ποιητής τών αρχαίων φησί, “ Μεγαρικής | κωμωδίας άσμ’ ζ_ου} δίειμ5· αίσχύνομαι | τά δράμα Μεγαρικον π ο ιεΐνΣ δείκνυται γάρ εκ πάντων οτι Μεγαρεΐς τής κωμωδίας εύρεταί.

Ι4· ρ. 230: Anon.

de

Com. (Kaibel, Com.

Graec. Fr.,

p. 7)

(Ε π ίχα ρ μ ος Συρακόσιος}. οΰτος πρώτος διερριμμένην την κωμω­ δίαν άνεκτήσατο πολλά προσφιλοτεχνήσας. χρόνοις δε γέγονε κατά την ογ' ’Ολυμπιάδα, τή δε ποιήσει γνωμικάς και ευρετικάς και φιλότεχνος, σώζεται δε αύτοΰ δράματα μ', ών άντιλέγονται δ'.

A P P E N D IX

298

Suda ’Επίχαρμος' Τιτύρου η Χιμάρου και Σικίδος Συρακούσιος η εκ πόλεως Κραστοΰ των Σικανώ ν ός εΰρε την κωμωδίαν i v Συρακούσαις άμα Φόρμω. έδίδα^ε δέ δράματα νβ', ώς δε Λύκων φησί, λε'. T i v è s δε αυτόν Κώον ανάγραφαν των μ€τά Κάδμου e l s Σικελίαν μετοικησάντων, άλλοι Σάμιον, άλλοι Μεγαρέα των i v .Σικελία, ην δε προ των Περσικών έτη έζ διδάσκων εν Συρακούσαις- εν δε Άθηναΐς Εύέτης καί Εύξενίδης καί Μύλλος επεδείκνυντο. καί Έ πιχάρμειος λό^/ο?, του ’Επιχάρμου. Φόρμος· Συρακούσιος, κωμικός, σύγχρονος Έ πιχάρμω , οικείος δε Γελωνι τω τυράννω Σικελίας καί τροφεύς των παίδων αυτού, εγραφε δράματα ζ', ά εστι ταύτα· Άδμητος, Αλκίνοος, Άλκύονες, ’Ιλίου πόρθησις, "Ιππος, Κηφευς η Κεφάλαια, Περσεύς. εχρησατο δέ πρώτος ενδνματι ποδηρει καί σκηνη δερμάτων φοινικών. μεμνηται δέ καί ετέρου δράματος Αθηναίος εν τοΐς Δειπνοσοφισταΐς, Αταλάντης. Δεινόλοχος· Συρακούσιος η Άκραγαντΐνος· κωμικός ην επί της όγ' Όλυμπιάδος, υιός ’Επιχάρμου, ώς δέ τινες μαθητης. έδίδα^ε δράματα ιδ Ζίωρίδι διαλέκτω. ΐ5 · ρ . 2 3 4 : D

io g .

L . v ili. 78

’Επίχαρμος 'Ηλοθαλοΰς Κώος. καί ούτος ηκουσε Πυθαγόρου. τριμηνιαίος δ’ υπάρχων άπηνέχθη της Σικελίας εις Μέγαρα, εντεύθεν δ’ εις Συρακούσας, ώς φησι καί αύτός εν τοίς συγγράμμασιν. καί αύτώ επί τού άνδρίαντος επιγέγραπται τάδε· ε ΐ τι παραλλάσσει φαέθων μέγας άλιος άστρων καί πόντος ποταμών μείζον’ ’έ χει δύναμιν, φαμί τοσοΰτον εγώ σοφία προέχειν ’Επίχαρμον ον πατρίς εστεφάνωσ’ άδε Συρακοσίων. ούτος υπομνήματα καταλέλοιπεν εν οΐς φυσιολογεΐ, γνω μολογεΐ, ίατρολογεΐ. καί παραστιχίδια εν τοίς πλείστοις τών υπομνημάτων πεποίηκεν, οΐς διασαφεί ότι εαυτού εστί τα συγγράμματα. βίους δ5 έτη ενενη κοντά κατέστρεφεν.

ι6. ρ. 240: A thenaeus xiv. 648 d την μεν ημίναν οί τα εις ’Επίχαρμον άναφερομένα ποιήματα πεποιηκότες οϊδασι, καν τώ Χίρωνι επιγραφομένω ούτως λέγεταικαί πιείν ύδωρ διπλάσιου χλιαρόν, ημίνας δυο.

GREEK T EX TS

299

τα Se ψενδεπιχάρμεια ταΰτα ότι πεποιήκασιν ανδρες ένδοξοι Χρυσόγονός τε 6 αυλητής, ώς φησιν Αριστόξενος εν όγδόω Πολιτικών Νόμων, την Πολιτείαν επιγραφομενην. Φιλόχορος S’ εν τοΐς περί μαντικής Ά ξιόπιστον τον είτε Λοκρον γένος είτε Σικυώνιον τον Κανόνα και τάς Γνώμας πεποιηκεναι φησιν. ομοίως 8è ιστορεί καί Απολλόδωρος.

LIST OF M O N U M E N T S list is divided into: i. Dithyramb. 2. Early Athenian Per­ formers. 3. Early Corinthian Performers. 4. Early Laconian Performers. 5. Other early Performers. 6. Classical Satyr-play Performers. 7. Ancestry of Satyrs, Fat men, Maenads. Each full entry gives definition of object, museum, find-spot, date, subject, and summary bibliography. The following abbreviations are used:

T h is

A.A.

Archäologische Anzeiger (supplement to Jahrbuch des deutschen archäo­ logischen Instituts). A.B.L. M. E. Haspels, Attic Black-figure Lekythoi (1936). A.B.V. J. D. Beazley, Attic Black-figure Vase-painters (1956). American Journal of Archaeology. A.J.A. Ath. Mitt. Athenische Mitteilungen. A. R.V. J. D. Beazley, Attic Red-figure Vase-painters ( 1942). B. C.H. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (London). B.I.C.S. Breitholtz G. Breitholtz, Die Dorische Farce (i960) B. S.A. Annual of the British School at Athens. C. V. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. T. B. L. Webster, Greek Art and Literature 700-530 B .C . (1959). de Carle D. M. Bieber, Denkmäler zum Theaterwesen in Altertum ( 1920). D.B.F. J. D. Beazley, Development of Attic Black-figure. A. W. Pickard-Cambridge, Dramatic Festivals of Athens (1953). Festivals G. T.P. T. B. L. Webster, Greek Theatre Production ( 1956). Herter H. Herter, Vom Dionysischen Tanz zum komischen Spiel (1947). Higgins R. A. Higgins, Catalogue of Terracottas in the British Museum (1954). H . T. M. Bieber, History of the Greek and Roman Theater (* 1939, 2 1961). J.d.l. Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts. J.H.S. Journal of Hellenic Studies. M.H. T. B. L. Webster, From Mycenae to Homer (1958). M.M.R. M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion (1950 2nd ed.). Mon. Line. Monumenti Antichi della Reale Accademia dei Lincei. JV.C. H. G. G. Payne, Necrocorinthia (1931). Orthia R. M. Dawkins, The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta 1929). Pfuhl E. Pfuhl, Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen (1923). R.B. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library. R.E. Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie. S-S. F. Brommer, Satyrspiele (1958). Seeberg A. Seeberg, Corinthian Padded Dancers, Symbolae Osloenses (forth­ coming) . W.S. Wiener Studien.

L IS T O F M O N U M E N T S

i. 1.

301

DITHYRAMB

Attic r . f . krater New York 25. 78. 66 425 b . c . (Polion) Subject : Old satyrs with lyres at Panathenaia (01 A 01 Π Α Ν Α Θ Ε Ν Α ΙΑ ) Refs.: Bieber, H .T .1, fig. 17,2 fig. 9; A.R.V. 797/7; Beazley, Hesperia, xxiv (*955), 3*4 (with dating) ; here, PI. I a.

2. Attic b . f . lekythos London, B 560 (Marathon painter) Subject : Hairy satyrs with lyres.

c.

490

Refs.: Haspels, A.B.L. 233/24; A.B.V. 495/158. Gf. also, Berlin, Peters, A.B. V. 281 /5 (Circle of Antimenes painter) ; Gerhard, A V., pi. 52 ; Buschor, Satyrtänze, 72; Roos, Orchestik, 220-30; and Taranto 5081, Brommer, S-S., No. 222; Haspels, A.B.L. 208/56 (Gela painter).

3. Attic r . f . stamnos Paris, Louvre 10754 c. 480 (Eucharides ptr.) Subjects : A . Hairy satyrs in drawers hammering at tomb. B. Sacrifice ofbull : goat and amphora under handles. Refs.: Beazley, Miscellanea Libertini, 91 (dates earlier than No. 90 below) ; Brommer, S-S., No. 23; A.R.V. 156/40.

4. Attic r.f. bell krater Copenhagen, N.M. Inv. 13817 425 (Kleophon ptr.) Subjects : A . Dithyramb singers (Phrynichos, &c.) before maypole. B. Satyr with torch and maenads. Refs. : K. Friis Johansen, Arkaeol. Kunsthist. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk. 4, No. 2 (1959); here, VI. lb.

5. Attic r.f. chous New York 24. 97. 34 400 Subject: Boys carrying maypole; Dionysos and Basilinna (?). Refs.: Friis Johansen, op. cit., 17; Richter, Handbook, 103, pi. 84c; Van Hoorn, Choes, 159, No. 757; Bieber, Hesp., Suppl. 8, 34; H .T .2, fig. 218. 2. E A R L Y A T H E N I A N P E R F O R M E R S

6. Attic volute krater Florence 4209 Chiusi 570 (Kleitias) Subject : Mythological scenes including frontal Dionysos and Return of Hephaistos with Silens (name inscribed; legs caprine). Refs.: A.B.V. 76/1 ; D.B.F., pi. 11 ; de Carle, No. 46; Cook, Greek Painted Pottery, pi. 19; Richter, Greek Art, fig. 432.

3°2

L IS T OF M O N U M E N T S

7. Attic b.f. lekythos Athens N.M. 11749 Athens 500/480 Subject : Dionysos mask between Dionysos with mule and maenads. Refs. : Haspels, A.B.L. 208, Gela ptr. ; Wrede, Ath. Mitt, liii (1928), 92, Beilage 28 (with a full discussion of masks of Dionysos). O f the vases with masks on a pillar (cf. Festivals, p. 27; de Carle, pp. 66 ff.) Sydney 56. 33 (Gigliogli, Annuario, 4-5 (1924), 131 f.) is illustrated on PI. Ila. Of the shipcar vases (cf. Festivals, p. 11) Bologna 130 (Haspels, A.B.L. p. 253, No. 11) is illustrated on Fig. 3.

8. Attic b.f. amphora Oxford 1920, 107 Kameiros of Panathenaic shape (Burgon group) Subject : Return of Hephaistos with frontal satyr.

570-550

Refs.·. A.B.V. 89/2; C.V., pi. 4/1 ; 9/2; de Carle, No. 48.

9. Attic Dinos (fragments) Athens, Agora P 334 575 Subject : Fat dancers naked : hairy satyr in another scene. Refs. : Hesperia, iv (1935), 430; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 583; A.B.V. 23 (group of Dresden lekanis) ; Buschor, Satyrtänze, 29; Brommer, Satyroi, 25; here, PI. lib. With the satyr cf. Istanbul 4574, by Sophilos (Cook, Greek Painted Pottery, pi. 15b).

10. Attic tripod kothon Athens N.M. 12688 575/550 (KY painter) Subject : Padded youths and padded women (woman between each pair of men). Refs.: Payne, M.C. 88a; Beazley, Hesperia, xiii (1944), 48; A.B.V. 33, 680; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 583, n. 3; Buschor, Satyrtänze, fig. 26; de Carle, No. 43; here, PI. 3.

11. Attic dinos Louvre E 876 570/560 (Painter of Louvre E 876) Subject : Komasts with flute and dinos (two phallic, one masked) ; return of Hephaistos including frontal satyr. Refs. : A.B.V. 90/1 ; Buschor, Satyrtänze, 39; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 583, n. 1 ; 584, n. 2. Cf. Tyrrhenian amphorae, A.B.V. 103/11 for komasts and satyrs in Return of Hephaistos ; 103/92, 107 for komasts and satyrs intermingled.

12. Attic cup Palazzolo Akrai 575/560 (Palazzolo ptr.) Subject : Komos with naked men, one with frontal bearded face; woman with chiton to mid-thigh. Ref.: A.B.V. 34/1 ; here, Fig. 2.

13. Attic cup Cambridge, Fogg Museum (Palazzolo ptr.)

575/560

80S Subject : Frontal komast with pointed beard and red breast and woman with shortest chiton. L IS T O F M O N U M E N T S

Refs.: A.B.V. 34/2; C.V., Hoppin, pi. 1/11.

14. Attic neck amphora Florence 70995 560/540 (Lydos) Subject : Dionysos and Ariadne with young komasts and women in mid-thigh chitons. Refs. : A.B.V. 110/32 ; Rumpf, Sakonides, pis. 2-3; Buschor, Satyrtänze, fig. 29.

15. Attic b.f. cup Florence 3897 Subjects : A . satyr. B. fat man on phallus-pole.

Mid-6th cent.

Refs. : Nilsson, Gesch. i. 558; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 584; Buschor, Satyrtänze, 50; Herter, 17, nn. 72-73; G.T.P., No. F 2 ; de Carle, No. 54; here, PI. IV.

16. Attic amphora Louvre F 36 550/540 (Amasis painter) Subject : Dionysos with two maenads and two bearded komasts. Refs.: A.B.V. 150/6; Karouzou, No. 16, pi. 24; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 584, n. 3. Cf. A. Bruckner, Antike Kunst, i (1958), 33 f. ; here, Pi. Va.

17. Attic limestone relief Subject :

Athens, south of Dionysos theatre Satyrs and maenads (about Dionysos).

570/55°

Refs. : Studniczka, A.M. xi (1886), 78, pi. 2, pediment of older Dionysos temple; Svoronos, pi. 236; Frickenhaus, J.d.I. xxxii (1917), 2, fig. 1 ; Brommer, Satyroi, 27; Pickard-Cambridge, Theatre, 4; Bieber, H .T .1 99, fig. 144, H .T .2 fig. 222; R.B. xlii (i960), 493 f.

18. Attic b.f. mastos cup Rome, Mus. Industriale 520 Subject : Eight young dancers, three with female heads above their heads. Refs.: Mercklin, R.M. xxxviii (1923), 82; Herter, 8, n. 16; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 585; Beazley, Attic Vase Paintings in Boston, ii. 84, 102; Brommer, Antike und Abendland, iv (1954), 42 f.; G.T.P., No. F 6; W.S. lxix (1956), 113; de Carle, No. 55; Bieber, H .T .2, fig. 182; here, PI. Vb.

19. Attic r.f. cup Würzburg 474 (Attic) 520 (Ambrosios ptr.) Subject·. Satyr inscribed s a t r y b s (miswriting for s a t y r o s ) . Refs.: Beazley, A.R.V., p. 71/6; Flickinger, Theater, p. 32, fig. 11; Lesky, Tragische Dichtung, p. 27.

20. Attic b.f. pyxis Eleusis 1212 Mid-6th cent. Subject : Young men dressed as maenads and flute-player. Refs. : Hesperia, vii (1938), 409; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 585; Buschor, Satyrtänze, 55; G.T.P., No. F 4; B.I.G.S. v (1958), 47; de Carle, No. 55; here, PI. Via.

L IS T O F M O N U M E N T S 304 21. Attic b.f. cup Amsterdam 3356 (Heidelberg ptr.) Subject : Choruses of men dressed as women.

Mid-6th cent.

Refs. : C.V. Pays-Bas, III, He, pi. 2. 4; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 574, 585; A.B.V. 66/57; Buschor, Satyrtänze, 51 ; Herter, 8, nn. 17-20 (with bibliography and interpretation); G.T.P. No. F 3; ώ Carle, No. 53; here, PI. VH. 22.

Attic r.f. fragment Athens, Acropolis 702 Athens 480 (Berlin painter) Subject : Elderly man holding phallus-stick : flowered chiton and boots. Refs. : R.B. xxxvi (1954), 573, n. 3; Beaziey, A.R.V. 143/95; Herter, 16, n. 68; G.T.P., No. F 9; Kenner, Theater, 38; Binsfeld, Grylloi, 1956, 12.

23. Attic b.f. amphora (ptr. of Berlin 1686) Subject : Knights.

Berlin 1697

550

Refs.: A.B.V. 297/17; Bieber, H .T .1, fig. 79, H .T.2, fig. 126; Herter, n. 28; G.T.P., No. F 5 ; de Carle, No. 56; here, PI. VII.

24. Attic b.f. amphora University of Canterbury, Christchurch, (The Swing Painter) N.Z. 530 Subject : Men on stilts. Refs.: de Carle, No. 60; Australian Humanities Research Council, Annual Report, No. 2 (1957-8), 5; Fasti Arch, xii (1959), no. 251 ; here, PI. V illa .

25. Attic b.f. skyphos Boston 20. 18 (Heron group) Subjects : A . Riders on ostriches. B . Riders on dolphins.

480

Refs. : Haspels, A.B.L. 108, 144; A.B.V., 617; Brommer, A.A., 1942, 67; Bielefeld, A.A., 1946-7, 47; Bieber, H .T .1, fig. 78, H .T.2, fig. 125; here, PI. VIII6.

26. Attic b.f. oenochoe (Gela painter) Subject : Feathered men.

London B 509

480

Refs.: A.B.V. 473; Bieber, H .T .1, fig. 36, H .T.2, fig. 123; Haspels, A.B.L. 214, No. 187; G.T.P., No. F 7; de Carle, No. 64; here, PI. IXa.

27. Attic b.f. amphora Subject : Cocks.

Berlin 1830

480

Refs.: Bieber, H .T .1, fig. 77, H .T.2, fig. 124; G.T.P., N 0 .F 8 ; here, PI. IXè.

28. Attic b.f. neck amphora (Tyrrhenian group)

New York, Metropolitan 560 Museum (Eugene Holman)

LIST OF MONUMENTS 305 Subject: Dionysos and Ariadne on couch: two bearded and one young man with hands on hips under large cloaks. Ref.: Metropolitan Museum Bulletin, xviii (1959), 57.

29. Attic b.f. oenochoe Würzburg Subject : Men in large cloaks with helmets.

344?500

Refs.: A.B.V. 434/3; Beazley, Vases in Cyprus, 37-38; Brommer, A.A., 1942, 67; Bieber, H .T .2, fig. 182.

30. Attic b.f. amphora

Brooklyn Late 6th cent./ Museum 09. 35 early 5th cent. Subjects : A. Two pairs of helmeted men advancing ; long flowered himatia with red edges, wrapped round left hand and falling low on right leg : red beards. B. Single pair of warriors.

31. Proto-Attic amphora Eleusis 680/650 (Polyphemos painter) Subject: Odysseus and Polyphemos ; lion and boar; Perseus and Gorgons. Refs.: J.H.S. Ixxiv (1954), suppl. 30; Mylonas, Praktika, xxx (1955), 29; A.J.A. Ixii (1958), 225; de Carle, No. 33; Richter, Greek Art, fig. 405; Robertson, Greek Painting, p. 42. 3. E A R L Y C O R I N T H I A N P E R F O R M E R S

32. Proto-Corinthian kyathos Ithaca 52 (Boston painter) Subject: Orpheus (?) singing, satyr (?).

Ithaca

675/660

Refs.: Robertson, B.S.A. xliii (1948), 21, 58; xlviii (1953), 178; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 581 ; Seeberg, No. 1 ; de Carle, No. 67.

33. Corinthian vases moulded into form of fat men (a) London, B.M. 94. 7. 17. 3 Description : Scaly all over, breast line strongly marked.

650

Refs.: Buschor, B.S.A. xlvi, 36 f., fig. 1 ; Higgins, ii, No. 1664.

(b) Louvre Thebes 600/575 Description : Panther skin and boots, chiton spotted, holding large cup. Refs. : R.B. xxxvi (1954), 581, n. 13; Pottier, B.C.H., 1895, 225, fig. 3; C.V., pis. 500-1 ; Payne, N.C. 175, 180, pis. 44, 48; G.T.P., No. F 15.

(c) Dunedin, Otago Museum E 48. 187 625/600 Description : Bearded squatting figure wearing boots. Refs.: Anderson, Greek Vases in Otago Museum, No. 47, pi. IV; de Carle, No. 79. Cf. Higgins, ii, Nos. 1665-7, with list; here, PI. Xa. 6188

X

L IS T O F M O N U M E N T S

3'o6

(d ) Corinth IP 1708 Isthmia 600/575 Dots on breast, grossly phallic, painted dancers (?) on either side of phallus.

Subject :

Refs.: Broneer, Hesp. xxviii (1959), 335, No. 10, pi. 71 a, b; here PI. X6.

34. Corinthian bowl London Kameiros 625/600 with reflex handles B.M. 61. 4-25. 45 Subject : Padded dancers with reclining banqueter and animals. Refs.: Payne, M.C., No. 717; Seeberg, No. 224; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 580, n. 3.

35. Corinthian alabastron Paris, Louvre S 1104 Subject: Bearded head between five dancers.

625/600

Refs.: C.V. 9, pi. 33. 1-6; M.C. No. 461 ; Seeberg, No. 216; Buschor, Satyrtänze, 19, fig. 9 (epiphany of Dionysos) ; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 581.

36. Corinthian aryballos Subject : Padded dancers.

London, B.M. A 1437

625/600

Refs.: Payne, M.C., pi. 21. 8, No. 515; Buschor, Satyrtänze, 18, fig. 8; See­ berg, No. 218; G.T.P., No. F 10; here, PI. XI.

37. Corinthian kothon Würzburg, 118 Subject : Dancers with goat tied to dinos.

625/600

Refs.: Langlotz, pi. 9. 12; M.C. No. 724, fig. 4.4b; Buschor, Satyrtänze, 20; Seeberg, No. 215; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 581.

38. Corinthian amphoriskos Athens N.M. 1092 (664) Subject : Return of Hephaistos with dancers.

600/575

Refs.: Payne, M.C., No. 1073; Brommer, Satyroi, 21 ; Buschor, Satyrtänze, 2i ; Her ter, 12, n. 46; Seeberg, No. IV ; Bieber, Η. T.1, fig. 83, H .T .2, fig. 130; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 580; G.T.P., No. F 14; de Carle, No. 77; Breitholtz, 136, 160 ff. ; here, Fig. 5.

39. Corinthian krater London B.M. B 42 Subject : Padded dancers and return of Hephaistos.

600/575

Refs.: Payne, M.C., No. 1176; Seeberg, No. 227; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 580; G.T.P., No. B 13.

40. Corinthian skyphos Paris, Louvre CA 3004 600/575 Subject : Dancers with names inscribed : Komios, Lordios, Loxios, Paichnios, Whadesios. Refs.: Amandry, Mon. Plot, xli (1944), 23 if.; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 580, fig. 1 ; Seeberg, No. 202; G.T.P., No. F 12 ; de Carle, No. 78; Cook, Greek Painted Pottery, pi. I2b; Breitholtz, 133.

4 1. Corinthian krater Louvre E 632 600/575 Subject : Padded dancers and wine-stealers with inscribed names : Eunos (masked), Ophelandros, Omrikos.

307

L IS T OF M O N U M E N T S

. Refs. : Payne, N.C. 122, No. r 178; Bieber, H. T J, figs. 84^85, H .T.2,.Rg. 132; Radermacher, Frogs, 22; Brommer, Satyroi, 21; Buschor, Satyrtänze, 24; Herter, 10, nn. 33-38; Seeberg, No. 226; /?./?. xxxvi (1954), 579; G.T.P., No. F i i ; Kenner, Theater, 39; Breitholtz, 130 f., 165 f.

42. Corinthian neck amphora London, B.M. B 36 Subject : Padded dancers and nude women.

575/550

Refs.·. Payne, JV.C., No. 1438, Seeberg, No. 231.

43. Corinthian kylix Paris, Louvre MNC 674 600/575 Subject: Padded dancers with dinos: Triton and dolphin. Refs.·. JV.C.,No.$8$; C.V., pi. 12. 1-6; Seeberg, No. 197; R.B.xxxvi (1954), 582 ; here, Fig. 6.

44. Corinthian aryballos Brussels Inv. A 83 Subject : Hairy runner with indication of sleeves.

575/550

Refs.: Payne, JV.C., No. 1258; C.V. iii G, pi. I. 26; Seeberg No. VI.

45. Corinthian kotyle Berlin 3925 600/575 Subject : Padded dancers ; two with red spots on their chitons. Refs.: JV.C., No. 953, pi. 33. ro; Seeberg, No. 201.

46. Corinthian aryballos Oslo, Jensen Collection 600/575 Subject '. Padded dancer with large phallus and panther skin. Refs.: Webster, W.S. Ixix (1956), n o ; Seeberg, No. V; de Carle, No. 76; Breitholtz, 145 f. For other possible instances of padded dancers wearing the phallus, cf. R.B. xxxvi (1954), 582, n. 3; here, PI. Xc.

47. Corinthian mastos Paris, Musée Rodin 503 Subject : Return of Hephaistos.

575/550

Refs. : C.V., pi. 7; R.B. xxxvi ( 1954), 580; G.T.P., No. F 16; Brommer, Satyroi, 21; Seeberg, No. 228.

48. Corinthian krater Dresden f j V 1604 600/575 Subject : Dancers male and naked women with inscribed names : Dion, Syris, Varis, Poris, -yros. Refs.: Payne, JV.C., No. 1477; Buschor, Gr. V. (1940), fig. 80; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 581 ; G.T.P., No. F 17; Seeberg, No. 232. Note: For dancers dancing with naked women, cf. above, No. 42; Payne, N.C., Nos. 1359, 1439, 1460; Kraiker, Ägina, No. 423. Naked women dancing with satyrs : Payne, N.C., No. 1372. 4.

EARLY LACONIAN PERFORMERS

49. Terracotta statuette Sparta Museum Subject : Squatting ithyphallic figure.

Sparta

y th

cent.

Refs.: Orthia, p. 156, pi. 40. 9; Buschor, Satyrtänze, 8; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 576, n. 4.

308

L IS T O F M O N U M E N T S

50. Lead figures Sparta Museum Subject : Padded dancers.

7th and 6th cent.

Refs. : Orthia, 254, 264, 270, pis. 183. 22, 25; 189. 12-15; 190. 30, 35-37; Brommer, Satyroi, 24; Buschor, Satyrtänze, 17; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 567, n. 3,

51. Limestone figure Sparta Museum Subject : Padded dancer, phallic.

Sparta

6th cent.

Refs. : Orthia, 188, pi. 63/7; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 576, n. 4.

52. Laconian Aryballos

Exeter 87. 10. 18 Subject : Plastic komast head.

Rhodes (Biliotti)

6th cent.

53. Laconian cup (fragment) Brussels A 1760 575 Subject : Inside frieze of pairs of komasts, two in red chitons ; two phallic? Refs.: C.V.,Brussels, 3, III D, p i.4., fig. 7a; Lane, B.S.A. xxxiv (1933), 143, 160, n. 6.

54. Terracotta masks Subject : Satyr.

Sparta Museum

Sparta

6th cent.

Refs.: Orthia, pis. 56/1 ; 57/2; 59/3, 4; 62/1 ; p. 182 (early 6th cent.); Buschor, Satyrtänze, 17.

55. Laconian cup Sparta Museum Subject : Women attacked by satyrs.

Sparta

550

Refs.: Lane, B.S.A. xxxiv (1933), pis. 39a and 40; Brommer, Satyroi, 27; Buschor, Satyrtänze, 28, 36; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 576, n. 4; G.T.P., No. F 22.

56. Laconian cup T aranto Taranto, Via Pitagora c. 540 Subject : I. ? Funeral banquet with robed lyre-player and attendants ; lion and cock frieze, five padded dancers round krater. Refs.: P. Pelagatti, Annuario, xxxiii-xxxiv (1955-6), 35; Lane, B.S.A. xxxiv (1933), 158 ff.; Shefton, B.S.A. xlix (1954), 302. Cf. Payne, JV.C. 123, n. 7.

57. Laconian cup Vatican, Mus. Greg. Etrusc. B 9 550/525 Subject : Long-robed lyre-player between two young padded dancers. Refs. : Buschor, Satyrtänze, 33 f.; Beazley, Raccolta Guglielmi, No. 3, pi. 1. 3. For lyre, cf. Payne, N.C., No. 460.

58. Terracotta masks Sparta Museum Subject : Gorgon or old woman.

Sparta

7th cent.

Refs.: Orthia, pis. 60/1-2, 61/1 ; Barnett, J.H.S. Ixviii (1948), p. 6, n. 35; R.B., 1954, 577; W.S. lxix (1956), 108; de Carle, No. 18; cf. Higgins, i, Nos. 1037-8, 1049-58; G.T.P., No. F 21.

L IS T O F M O N U M E N T S

59. Terracotta masks Sparta Museum Subject : Gorgon or old woman.

Sparta

309 7th/6th cent.

Refs.: Orthia, pis. 47/1-3, 49/2; here, PI. ΧΙΙα.

60. Terracotta mask Subject : Gorgon.

Sparta Museum

Sparta

6th cent.

Ref: Orthia, pis. 56/2-3, 61/2. 5.

OTHER EARLY PERFORMERS

61. Boeotian b.f. aryballos

Göttingen Early 6th cent. University 533 g. Subject: Two padded dancers ; one phallic ; one with tail and red-spotted chiton. Refs.: R.B. xxxvi (1954), 575, n. 3; G.T.P., No. F 20.

62. Boeotian b.f. puzzle cup Berlin, Inv. 3366 Early 6th cent. Subject : Dancers and satyrs : flautist in flared chiton. Refs.: Bielefeld, Festschrift pucker, 27 f.; A.B.V. 680; G.T.P., No. F 19. For the flared chiton compare possibly the Corinthian aryballos, Mainz 65, C.V., Mainz, pi. 30, and certainly the fourth-century terracotta in the British Museum, Higgins, i, No. 263, G.T.P., No. B 75.

62. Boeotian b.f. tripod kothon Athens N.M. 038 6th cent. (B.D. Group) Subjects : 1. Satyr, fat man in chiton. 2. Two fat men. 3. Fat man. Ref: A.B.V. 30, No. 4.

64. Boeotian b.f. kantharos (B.D. Group) Subject : Komasts dancing.

Athens N.M. 623

6th cent.

Refs.: A.B.V. 30, No. 7. Cf. also Nos. 6 and 8; Buschor, Satyrtänze, 58 f.; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 575, n. 3.

65. Boeotian b.f. kantharos Leipzig T 326 Subject : Phallic komast with cripple on a chain.

575/550

Ref. : Bielefeld, Komödienszene, Leipzig, 1944.

66. B.f. kylix Munich 426 Boeotia Mid-6th cent. Subject : Two male dancers and maenad with long skirt. Refs.: Payne, JV.C. 192, n. 2; A.B.V. 36.

67. Bronze krater Syracuse S. Mauro (Sicily) 600/550 Subject : Incised on neck: ten dancers with three long-robed flute-players. Refs.: Payne, JV.C. 124; Mon. Line. 20. 810, pi. 8.

L IS T OF M O N U M E N T S

g io

68. Limestone relief Syracuse S. Mauro (Sicily) 550/530 Subject : Above two sphinxes : five dancers about krater. Refs.: Payne, N.C. 124; Mon. Line. 20. 826, pi. 9.

69. Terracotta head Nauplion (Tiryns 1051) Tiryns 725/700 Subject : Gorgon heads ; one large and bearded ; two slightly smaller and beardless. Refs. : Hampe, Sagenbilder, 63, pi. 42; Kenner, Theater, 22; Webster, W.S. lxix (1956), 108; Karo, Archaic Greek Sculpture, 32 ff. ; de Carle, No. 8; here, PI. XII6.

70. Chalkidian krater Brussels A 135 Vulci 560/540 Subject : Satyrs and maenads with inscribed names : Dorkis, Nais, Poris, Simos, Xantho, Hippos, Io, Simis, Megas, Phoibe. Refs. : Rumpf, Chalk. Vasen, No. 13; G.T.P., No. F 18; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 581, n. 4; Greifenhagen, Schwz. Vasengattung, 53.

71. Chalkidian neck amphora Leiden 1626 Vulci 560/540 Subject : Shoulder: Padded dancers. Body: Satyrs and mae­ nads with inscribed names : Andes, Molpe, Dason, Klyton, Hippaios, Xantho, Dorkis, Chora, Oaties, Myro, Simos, Io. Refs. : Rumpf, Chalk. Vasen, No. 2 ; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 581, n. 5; Greifenhagen, 53 ; Buschor, Satyrtänze, 61.

72. Bronze group Athens, N.M. 13. 788 Methydrion 700/600 Subject: Dancing ithyphallic goats. (Arcadia) Refs: Brommer, Marò. Jb. 1949/50, 2f., fig. 1 ; R.E., s.v. Pan, 953 (with literature) ; Lesky, Trag. Dichtung der Hellenen, 24; Lamb, Greek Bronzes, 42; de Carle, no. 10.

73. Bronze statuette

Samos

600/550

74. Terracotta masks Heraklion Museum Gortyn Subject : Gorgon masks (v. strong vertical folds).

700/600

Subject :

Athens N.M. 6091 Goat-headed phallic figure.

Ref. : de Carle, No. 21.

Refs.: Levi, Annuario, xxxiii-xxxiv (1955-6), 265 (with reference to Hagia Triada, and Hesychius korythalistriai).

75. Cretan Alabastron Heraklion Fortetsa 600 Subject : Flute-player in long robe; phallic man; hairy man; animals. Ref.: Brock, Fortetsa, No. 1512.

76. Limestone relief Nicosia Museum Subject : ? Padded dancer.

Trachonas

610/580

311

L IS T O F M O N U M E N T S

Refi. : Swedish Cyprus Expedition, i, 464, fig. 186; iv, 33 ; de Carle, No. 62. The likeness was noted by A. Seeberg.

77. Terracotta statuette

British Museum

Rhodes

6th cent.

61. 10-24. 2 S u b ject :

Fat man crouching.

Refi.: G.T.P. 157; Higgins, i, Nos. 86 ff. (with wide distribution).

78. Fikeliura (Rhodian) amphora S u b jec t :

London Tell Defenneh B.M. 88. 2-8. 50

550/540

Komast in loin-cloth.

Refs. : Buschor, Satyrtänze, 64; Cook, B.S.A. xxxiv (1934), 16, J 6, pi. 7a, of. pis. 5, 8, 9, 13; C.V. II d i, pi. 12/3; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 578.

79. Chiot b.f. vases British Museum, &c. Naukratis (Chios), &c.

600/575 S u b ject :

Komasts with pointed caps and loin-cloths.

Refs.: Buschor, Satyrtänze, 12; Price, J.H .S. xliv (1924), pi. 11 ; Cook, B.S.A. xliv (1949), 155; R.B., xxxvi (1954), 575; Lamb, B.S.A. xxxv (1935), 160.

80. Naukratite polyBritish Museum chrome fragments S u b ject : Komast with pointed cap.

Naukratis

575/550

Refs.: Price, J.H .S. xliv (1924), pi. 5.13, cf. 27; Boardman, B.S.A. li (1951), 60; cf. Herter, n. 20 on the cap.

81. Fikeliura dinos Oxford G 121. 7 Naukratis S u b ject : Komasts with woman flute-player.

575/550

Refs.: C.V. Oxford II d, pi. 6. 5; Cook, B.S.A. xxxiv (1934), 53, pi. 10 a-b.

82. Clazomenian amphora Oxford 1924. 264 Kamak S u b ject : Satyrs in loin-cloth on ship carried by komasts.

550

Refs. : C. V. II d, pi. 10. 24; Cook, B.S.A. xlvii (1952), 159; Buschor, Satyr­ tänze, 65; Boardman, J.H .S. Ixxviii (1958), 4; de Carle, No. 94; here, Fig. 4

83. Clazomenian London, B.M. 88. 2 Tell 54o/525 amphora 8. 108, & c . Defenneh S u b jec t : Fat bearded komasts and woman flute-player. Refs.: Cook, B.S.A. xlvii (1952), 131, C ii 18 ; cf. B 10, 11, 18; C.V. II d n, pi. 11 /1—2.

84. Caeretan hydria Louvre, Campana 10227 Italy 530/520 S u b ject : Shoulder: naked male bearded komasts with women in very short chitons (one komast is not bearded). Refs. : Devambez, Mon. Biot, xli (1946)535 ff.; Hemelrijk, No. 12; cf. also satyrs on his No. 4, &c.

312

L IS T O F M O N U M E N T S

6. CLASSICAL SATYR-PLAY: PERFORM ERS 85. Attic r.f. volute krater Naples 3240 Late 5 t h cent. (Pronomos ptr.) S u b ject : Dionysos and the cast of a satyr-play with the fluteplayer Pronomos. Refs.: A.R.V. 849/1 ; Bieber, D., No. 34; H .T .1, fig. 20,H .T .Z, fig. 31-33; Pfuhl, fig. 575; F.R., pis. 143-5; Brommer, S-S., No. 4; Festivals, fig. 28; G.T.P., No. A 9; here, PL X III.

86. Attic r.f. kalyx krater Vienna 985 (Altamura painter) S u b ject : Return of Hephaistos with satyr choreut.

470/460

Refs. : A .R.V ., p. 413/15; Ath. Mitt, fix (1934), beil. 13. 3; Brommer, S-S., No. 13.

87. Attic r.f. hydria Boston 03. 788 (Leningrad painter) S u b ject : Masked satyr choreuts building a couch.

470/460

Refs. : Brommer, Satyrspiele, No. 1 ; A.R.V. 377/5; G.T.P. No. A 3 ; Beazley, Hesperia, xxiv (1955), 310; Bieber, H .T .2, fig. 15.

88. Attic r.f. stemless cup Boston 03. 841 450 (Sotades ptr.) S u b jec ts : A . Seated goddess and satyr wearing smooth loin­ cloth. B . Satyr in smooth loin-cloth with staff (?) raised above his head. Refs.: A.R.V. 450/4; Brommer, S-S., No. 14a; Webster, Antike und Abendland, viii (i959)5 95 η· ιΐ·

8g. South Italian r.f. bell krater Sydney 47. 05 400/375 (Tarporley ptr.) S u b jec t : Satyr choreuts with masks and smooth embroidered drawers. Refs.: Tillyard, Hope Vases, No. 210; Trendall, Frühitaliotische Vasenmalerei, p. 41, No. B 73; Nicholson Museum Handbook, pi. 10; Brommer, S-S., No. 8; G .T.P., No. A 27.

90. Attic r.f. cup Munich 2657 500/480 (Makron) S u b ject : Satyr chorus man in drawers with spots (i.e. a skin). Refs.: Beazley, A.R.V. 312/191; P.B.Ä. xxx (1947), 41; Brommer, S-S., No. 5; G.T.P., No. A 2; here, PI. XlVa.

L IS T O F M O N U M E N T S

3 !3

91. Attic r.f. cup Lost 500/480 (Apoliodoros) S u b jec t : Satyr choreut in breastplate with smooth drawers. Refs.: A .R .V . 87/18; Brommer, S-S., No. 11.

92. Attic r.f. bell-krater Oxford 1927. 4 Tarentum 440 (Lykaon painter) S u b jec t : Prometheus : satyr choreut with brown drawers. Refs.: A .R .V . 691/10; C.V ., pi. 66. 40; Brommer, S-S., No. 9.

93. Attic r.f. bell krater Paris market (Manner of Polygnotos) S u b jec t: Dionysus, Hephaestus, satyr choreut.

440

Refs.: A.R.V. 682/2; Tillyard, Hope Vases, No. 136; Brommer, S-S., No. 12.

94. Attic r.f. dinos Athens N.M. 13027 (Painter of Athens Dinos) S u b ject : Flute-player and four satyr choreuts.

420

Refs. : A.R. V. 796/1 ; Festivals, fig. 30; Bieber, Ath. Mitt, xxxvi (1931), 259; Brommer, S-S., No. 2; Bieber, H .T .2, fig. 27.

95. Attic r.f. bell krater Bonn 1216. 183 Athens (Painter of Athens Dinos) S u b ject : Flute-player and at least three satyr choreuts.

420

Refs.: A.R.V., p. 796/4; Brommer, S-S., No. 3; Festivals, fig. 31 ; Beazley, Hesperia, xxiv (1955), 313; Bieber, H .T .2, fig. 28.

96. Attic r.f. rhyton London, B.M. E 790 S u b jec t : Satyr choreut with shaggy drawers.

410/400

Refs. : C.V., pis. 37. 5, 38. 3; Bieber, J.d.I. xxxii (1917), 56, fig. 28; H .T .2, fig. 26; A.R.V., p. 908, Group W , No. 1 ; Brommer, S-S., No. 6.

97. Attic terracotta Athens Agora Athens, Pnyx statuette Pnyx T 139 Long Stoa S u b jec t: Satyr choreut in shaggy drawers.

400/350

Refs. : D. B. Thompson, Hesperia, Suppl. 7 (1943), 147, fig. 61, No. 63; Brommer, S-S., p. 72; Agora Picture Book, No. 3, fig. 34; here, PI. XIV/;.

98. Attic r.f. cup Corinth Museum Corinth Late 5th cent. S u b jec t: Woman in satyr drawers, shaggy with phallus, dancing before Dionysos. Refs.: Brommer, S-S., p. 72; Luce, A .J.A . xxxiv (1930), 339, fig. 4.

99. Mosaic

Naples

Pompeii (Casa del Poeta Tragico)

is t c en t.

a .d

.

L IS T O F M O N U M E N T S

3H

Subject : Chorus of satyrs in rehearsal (Pan mask is resterà·* tion). Refs.: Bieber, D., No. 35; H .T .1, fig. 21, H .T .2, fig. 36; Blake, Mem. Am. Ac. vii (1930), 122; Pfuhl, fig. 686; Pickard-Cambridge, Theatre, fig. 98; Festivals, fig. 69; Beazley, Hesperia, xxiv (1955), 314.

100. Attic r.f. kalyx krater (Niobid ptr.) S u b ject : Dance of Pans.

London, B.M. E 467

460

Refs.: Bieber, D., No. 39, fig. 104; H .T .2, fig. 16; A.R.V., 420/21 ; Brommer, Satyroi, p. 14; S-S., No. 150; Herter, p. 9; Rumpf, J.d.I. lxv-lxvi (1950/1), 171 ; G.T.P., No. A 5; Beazley, Hesperia, xxiv (1955), 316; here, PI. X V a.

7. ANCESTRY OF SATYRS, FAT MEN, MAENADS 101. Attic vase Berlin A 32 650 S u b ject : (Under the handles) hairy man with stones; two smooth men with stones. Refs.: C.V., pl. 20/21 ; Beazley, D.B.S. 9, pi. 3; Buschor, B.S.A. xlvi ( 1948), 36 ff.; R.B. xxxvi (1954), 584; G.T.P., No. F 1 ; here, PI. XVI«.

102. Ionian plastic vase S u b ject : Phallic daimon.

Samos

700/675

Refs.: Buschor, B.S.A. xlvi (1951), 32 f.; G.T.P., No. F 23.

103. Sealing S u b jec t:

Cyprus Museum Nicosia, B 1436 Squatting man

Bamboula

1500/1300

Refs. : Benson in Aegean Art and Archaeology (Studies presented to H. Goldman) , 78, fig. 3, pl. 7. 2 (dates the seal itself to 1700/1500 b.c.).

104. Steatite vase Heraklion Hagia Triada S u b ject : Harvesters with crouching objector.

1500

Refs. : Nilsson, M .M .R . 160; Webster, M .H . 50, fig. 16; Forsdyke, J.W .I., xvii (1954), I; B.I.C.S., v (1958), 47, n. 6 gives further examples.

105. Terracotta Athens N.M. Larisa (?) 2200/2000 statue 5894 S u b ject : Phallic man: right hand to brow; left hand to phallus ; seated. Refs.: Wace and Thompson, Prehistoric Thessaly, fig. 30, cf. fig. n o ; Möbius, A.A., 1954, 209 f.; B.I.C.S. v (1958), 47, n. 6; G.T.P., p. 164.

106. Seal S u b ject:

Heraklion Museum Squatting man.

Knossos

2500

L IS T OF M O N U M E N T S

315

Refs. : Evans, Palace of Minos, i, fig. 93a, No. cl; Schachermeyr, Ältesten Kulturen, 216, fig. 76.

107. Seal impression Heraklion Phaistos 1400 Subject : Bearded frontal head between two wild goats. Refs.: Nilsson, M.M .R. 234; Webster, M.H. 50, fig, 12; B.I.C.S. v (1958), 45; here, PI. XVIb.

108. Minoan ring Heraklion Subject : Woman dancing.

Isopata

1450/1400

Refs.: Nilsson, M .M .R., pp. 279, 322; Webster, M.H., p. 51, fig. 13; B.I.C.S. v (1958), 47, n. 14; here, PI. XVIc.

109. East Greek vase fragment Subject :

Miletus 700/675 Temple of Athena

Five padded dancers.

Refs.: P. Hommel, Istanbuler Mitteilungen, 9/10 (1959/60), pi. 60/2. This is considerably earlier than the earliest Corinthian padded dancers (Kraiker, Ägina, no. 423). Here PI. XV b.

P LA T E I

b. No. 4. Dithyrambic chorus at the Anthesteria

P L A T E II

a.

b.

No. 7 (notes). Column with Dionysus mask, cakes, branches, flautist, maenads

No. 9. Attic padded dancers; hairy satyr and maenad

No. io. Attic padded dancers as men and women

P L A T E IV

No. 15. Phallos-pole ridden by fat-man; phallos-pole ridden by hairy satyr

PLA TE V

b.

No. 18. Eight padded dancers, three with female ‘masks’

PLA TE VI

a.

No. 20. Young men dressed as maenads with flute-playe

b.

No. 2i. Choruses of men in women’s clothing

No. 23. Chorus of mounted knights with flute-player

PLATE V ili

a.

b.

No. 24. Chorus of men on stilts

No. 25. Chorus of men riding ostriches

P L A T E IX

a.

No. 26. Chorus of feathered men

I?#

r

M

i

b.

No. 27. Chorus of cocks

No. 46. Bearded figure wearing phallos

No. 33d. Bearded phallic squatting figure with drinking horn in hand; two small figures dancing on either side of phallos

No. 33c. Bearded squatting figure wearing hairy chiton and boots

PLA TE X

No. 36. Corinthian padded dancers

PL A T E X II

a.

No. 59. Mask of old woman from Ortheia sanctuary, Sparta

b.

No. 69. Mask of Gorgon from Tiryns

No. 85. Cast and chorus of satyr play

PLATE X III

(terracotta statuette)

P L A T E XV

a.

b.

No. ioo. Chorus of Pans

No. 109. East Greek Padded Dancers

INDEX I Achaeus : 173. Actors and acting : 70, 78 £, 90 if., i 2 i 5 170. Actor’s costume (comic) : 144, 169 ff. Actor’s costume (tragic) : 76, 79 ff., 113. Adrastus : 93, ιο ί, 103 if., i n f., 119, 130 f. Aeschylus : chorus in, 60 ff. ; use of trochaic tetrameter, 61, 95; tetra­ logies and trilogies, 62; improve­ ments, 75, 88, 90 f., 112. Plays : Aegyptii, 60 f. ; Aetnaeae, 238; Agamemnon, 65; Amymone, 60; Choephoroe, 106 £; Danaides, 60 f.; Eumenides, 61, 106; Glaucus Potnieus, 61 ; Laius, 60; Lycurgeia, 62; Oedipus, 60; Oresteia, 62; Persae, 60 f., 64 £, 95, 106, 130 f., 238, 267 f. ; Phineus, 61 ; Prome­ theus Pyrkaeus, 61, 117, 267 f.; Prometheus Vinctus, 267 £; Sep­ tem, 60 f,, 107; Sphinx, 60; Suppli­ ces, 60 f. ; Theoroi or Isthmiastae, 173, 269. Aetiology in Tragedy: 127. Agathocles : 21, 25. agógé: 14, 33. Agon: in Tragedy, 120 f., 123, 127; in Comedy, see Comedy. alazon : 174 ff. Alcaeus : 265. Alcaeus (comicus) : 136. Alcibiades : 55. Alcimus : 245 £, 247 ff. Alexander the Great : 53, 55 f. Alexis : 134, 136. See Index II. Amyntas : 247. anabolai : 40 £, 44, 50, 56. Ananius : 261, 272. Anaxandrides : 53 f., 192. -amb- : 8. Ameipsias : 134, 174. animal choruses : 151 ff., 159 f., 162. Antheas: 133. Anthesteria: 7, 37 f., 58 f., 82, 103. Antigenes : 16. Antigenidas : 48, 55 f. Apollo Agyieus: 106; Pythius, 4, 37; and see Dithyramb, Paean, Thargelia. Apollodorus of Athens : 240, 245, 260, 281.

Archestratus : 54. Archilochus : see Dithyramb and In­ dex II. Archippus: 154. Arion : 77, 88 £, 96, 108, n o ff., 113; and see Dithyramb. Aristarchus : 54. Aristarchus of Samothrace : 27. Aristias : 19, 65, 67. Aristocles : 71, 86. Aristophanes : on new music, &c., 38 £, 43 £; improved upon stock devices, 167, 176, 180; characters, see Comedy ; use of Prologue, 212; of Parabasis, 143, 149, 197 ff ; of Agon, 158 £, 200 ff.; animal choruses, 154; form and structure of plays, 194 ff., and see Comedy; analysis of plays, 213 ff. Plays (see also Index II) : Acharnians, 145 ff., 197-212, 213 f.; Babylonians, 157; Birds, 197-212, 222 ff.; Clouds, 197 £, 209, 212, 216 f f , 272; Dramata, 109; Ecclesiazusae, 198, 205, 207-12; Frogs, 175, 197-212, 227 ff. ; Knights, 197-212, 2 15 f. ; Lysistrata, 149, 197-212, 224 ff ; Peace, 197-212, 221 £, 261; Plutus, 198, 209 ff., 229; Thesmophoriazusae, 197212, 226 £; Wasps, 197-212, 218 ff Aristophanes of Byzantium: 17, 182. Aristotle: on beginnings of Tragedy, 75, 78 £, 86, 89 fr., 125 b; on be­ ginnings of Comedy, 75, 132 ff., 147; on dithyramb, 12, 40. Aristoxenus: 19, 39, 42, 54, 58, 68, 71, 84, 240. Aristoxenus of Selinus : 272, 282, 284. Artemis Chitonea : 164 £, 239, 268, 278; Kordaka, 168 £; Lyaia, 155, 159; Ortheia, 163 £, 167; Orthosia, 179· askdliasmos: 72 £, 123. Athenaeus : on Ananius, 272; An­ theas, 13; autokabdaloi, 137 £; Arte­ mis Chitonea, dance to, 165, 239, 268, 278; Bacchiadas, 15; Chioni­ des, 190; Chrysogonus, 240; circu­ lar choruses, 32 ; deikelistai, 134 ff. ; Ecphantides, 192 ; Epicharmus, 260, 265, 268-72, 277, 282 £;

318

IN D E X I

Athenaeus {coni.) iambistai of Syracuse, 138; Italian Comedy, 287 f.; ithyphalloi, 137 if.; Lamprocles, 25; Lasos, 14; Licym­ nius, 54; Magnes, 191 ; maison, 181 ; Neanthes, 237; phallophoroi, 137 if.; Pherecrates’ Cheiron, 39; Phormus, 289; Phrynichus, 70; Pratinas, 18, 20, 68, 70; Pygmies, 263; Satyric drama, 71, 86; Thespis, 70; Timo­ theus, 51; Tragedy (early), 70 £, 86. See also Index II. Authorities : for history of Comedy, 132- 8, *55) 164 if., 179 if., 183 if., 189 if., 230 if., 239 f.; of Dithy­ ramb, i, 11 if., 18 f., 26 f., 39 f. ; of Tragedy, 69-76, 78, 86-90, 9 9 ,101, 124 if. See also Inscriptions and List of Monuments. autokabdaloi: 137 f. Axiopistus: 240, 245, 275. Bacchiadas : see Dithyramb. Bacchylides : see Dithyramb. bómolochos: 174 if., 177 f. boukoliastai : 155 f. bryllichistai : 165 if. Callimachus : 3, 27, 38, 158. Cantharus : 154. Chaeremon : 54. Chamaeleon : 54, 58, 74 f., 125 f. Chares : 55. Charilaus: 55. Chionides : 132, 134, 189 f. Choerilus : 68 f., 192. choregia: 36 f. Choricius : 136. Chrysogonus : 55 f., 240, 243, 245. Clearchus : 14. Cleisthenes: 101 if., h i , 129f. Clement of Alexandria : 41, 240, 243; and see Index II. Comedy : Origins, Aristotle’s account, 132 if., 147; origin from phallic processions not proved, 142 ff.; kind of komos required, 148 if.; origin partly in animal masquerade, 151 if.; begging processions, 156 f.; qualification of these points, 159 f. ; origin in choruses of fat men, 138 ff., 160; interrupter-antagonist, 161 f., 177 f.; Attic padded dancers enacting ritual-myth, 169 ff., 193 f. ; Attic pre-drama tic choruses, 173 f., 187; association with villages, 132, 157, 184 if.; suggested common

origin with Tragedy, 186; and see Tragedy. Dorian elements, 162 if.; deikelistai, 134 ff., 163, 171; evidence of masks, 163 ff.; of dances, 164 ff.; of costume, 169 ff.; of stock char­ acters, 166, 174 ff. ; Megarian Comedy, 132, 178 ff. ; qualification of these points, 167, 173 f., 177 f., 186 f. Corinthian padded dancers and fat men, 139 f., 170 ff. Professor Cornford’s theory, 193 f. Form and structure, 194 ff. ; epirrhematic elements, 147 ff., 161, 173, 195ff.; Parados, 148if., 160ff., 173; Proagon, 148, 201, 204 if., 210, 264; Agon, 148 ff., 156, 158 ff, 160 ff., 173, 175 ff , 193 f-> 200 ff., 210, 271 if., 278; Parabasis, 142 f., 147 ff., 158, 160 ff., 173, 197 ff.; Prologue, 159, 175 f., 212; Iambic scenes, 174, 177 f., 186, 207 ff. ; lyrics between iambic scenes, 199, 208 f. ; Exodos, 157, 211 f. character types, 136 f., 164 ff., *74 ff· metres of, 148, 151, 196 f., 202, 206 f., 213 ff , 246, 278, 283 f. of Susarion, 183 ff.; of Euetes, Euxenides, and Myllus, 187 ff.; of Chionides, 189 f. ; of Magnes, 189 ff. ; of Epicharmus {see s.v.) ; of Ecphantides, 191 ff. Crates : 134, 136, 154, 282, 288. Cratinus : 8, 68, 138, 149, 160 ff., 171, 174, 178, 185, 279, 286. Damasias : 57. deikelistai : 135 if., 142, 163, 175. Deinolochus : 289 f. Diagoras: see Dithyramb. Dicaearchus : 14. Dicaeogenes : 54. Dieuchidas of Megara : 109. Dionysia : at Delos, 3; at Athens, 35 if., 66 f., 69, 77, 82, 88, 105, 125, 145; Rural, 144 ff. Dionysius of Halicarnassus : on Pin­ dar’s dithyrambs, 21 f., 23 f.; on later dithyramb, 43, 50. Dionysius of Syracuse: 45, 252. Dionysius of Thebes : 57. Dionysus : and Osiris, 6 f. ; double birth, 2 f., 7; not a hero, 6 f., 104; worship on Mt. Pangaeum, 6; con­ nexion with dead, 7, 103 f., 130;

IN D E X I Dionysus (coni,) vegetation god, 7, 194; in Minoan and Mycenaean times, 8 f., 128 f.; Eleuthereus, 10, 82, 120 f., 145, 194; and phallic cult, 96; and fer­ tility cult, 10, 100, 115, 129, 170; associated with Basilinna, 38, with goats, 118 if.; Melanaigis, 120f.; associated with satyrs, padded dancers, nymphs, 82, 100, 115, 118 f., 129, 139, 170, 285; phleos, 139; ritual of, 126 ff; in Pentheus of Thespis, 130 f.; and kordax, 169; and see List of Monuments. Diophon: 55. Dithyramb : primarily Dionysiae, 1 ff., 50; ‘ox-driving’, 2; derivation of name, 2, 7 ff.; Ridgeway’s theory of, 12 f.; in honour of Apollo, 3 f., 6, 26, 28, 32; of Asclepius?, 4; at festival of Poseidon, 4, 57; Dithy­ rambus, &c., as proper names, 5 P, 8, 18, 33; d. and heroic subjects, 6 f., i t , 17, 26 f., 93, 100 f.; no chthonic connexions, 7, 58; Phry­ gian influence, 8 f., 31 f.; d. and wine, i, 10; d. and fertility cult, 10, 100, 129; development of literary form, 10 if., 31; language of, 21 AT., 24 f., 30 i f , 47 i f , 50 if ; structure of, 14, 23 ff., 28 ff., 40, 46, 56 f.; music of, 3, 9, 11, 13 i f , 17, 31, 35, 39 ff-> 42 ff , Φ ff·, 50 if , 55 ff·, 595 Pratinas on, 17 ff.; dialect of, 31; meaning of ‘circular chorus’, 32; dances associated with, 33 f. ; ab­ sence of masks, 34; costume of per­ formers, 16, 34 P, 96, 100; choregia for, 4, 16, 35 ff., 57 £; prizes for, 2, 34, 36, 57; cost of performance, 37; later d., 38 if ; for reading, 54; general spirit of d., 58 f. ; relation to Tragedy, 91 ff , 98 if , 125ff; satyric d., 20, 92 ff., 96 ff., 98 ff., 129; meaning of the word in Aris­ totle, 93 f f , 96 ff. composers of: Archilochus, 1, 9 £, 12, 52, 69, 94, 96, 129; Arion, 2, 10 ff, 17, 31, 34, 92, 97 ff, 129; Bacchiadas, 15; Bacchylides, 25 ff., 33, 34, 58; Diagoras, 18, 42; Hier­ onymus, 42; Hypodicus, 15, 31; Ion, 30; Kedeides, Kekeides, Kydias, Kydides, 30; Krexos, 52; Lamprocles, 25; Lasos, 12 ff , 17 ff, 24, 31, 112 ; Melanippides, 18 £, 39 ff , 52 £; Nicostratus, 31; Pantacles, 30; Philoxenus, 19, 34, 39, C1S8

3*9

43, 4 5 ff, 535 Phrynis, 43 £, 48; Pindar, 2 ff., 20 ff, 32, 58; Polyidus, 52 £, 56; Praxilla, 25; Simon­ ides, 3, 13!., 15 ff; Telestes, 41, 43, 52!.; Timotheus, 19, 43, 46, 48 ff, 56 £ ; minor poets of fourth cent. B.c., 53 ff at Athens, 1, 13, 15 £, 21 £, 25, 27 ff, 31 ff, 48, 52, 54, 58; at Anthesteria, 37 £, 58 £; at Thargelia, 4, 29 p, 35, 37; at Panathenaea, 4, 20, 34, 37; at Prometheia and Hephaesteia, 4, 37. at Argos, 24; Geos, 57; Chios, 30; Corinth, 2, 10 ff, 24, 31; Delos, 3, 17, 26, 28, 57; Delphi, 3 p, 27, 57 p; Eleusis, 57; Hermione, 13; lasos, 57; Naxos, 12, 31; Paros, 1, 9P, 31; Peiraeus, 4, 57; Salamis, 57; Thebes, 12, 23, 31; Thespiae, 15· Dorion, 51, 55. drama, dran, dromena: 100, 103, 108 ff, 111,277. Ecphan tides: 69, 109, 180, 186, 191 ff, 277. eleos : 71, 86 £ Eleutherae : 121. Empedocles: 108. eniautos daimón : 126 ff. Ennius, relation to Epicharmus : 241 ff. Epameinondas : 58. Epicharmus: date, 132, 187, 189, 230 ff ; parentage and birthplace, 235 ff; a Pythagorean? 232 ff; relations with Hiero, 237 ff. Spurious writings, 239 ff. ; Poli­ tela, 240, 243, 245; Chiron, 240 P; Canon, 240 P, 245; Opsopoea, 240 P; Maxims, 240, 245; question of a poem On Mature, 241 f. General character of his Com­ edy, 134, 276 ff. ; were his plays ‘comedies’? 276 P; ‘philosophical’ fragments, 247 ff; mythological burlesque, 255 ff., 278, 287; charac­ ters, 175, 177, 268 P, 273, 278, 282; knowledge of Aeschylus, 267 f. ; contemporary and political allu­ sions, 271; number of speakers in dialogue, 264, 277; metres, 246, 280 ff. ; language, 283 ; had his plays a chorus? 278 ff.; their length, 281; circumstances of their performance, 284 f. ; influence on Attic Comedy, 278, 285 P; and on

320 Epicharmus {coni.) phlyakes, 287 f. ; estimate of his con­ tribution, 288. Plays: Alkyoneus, 259; Amykos, 264, 2778, 280; Atalantai, 268; Bakchai, 268, 279, 285; Busiris, 260, 277, 287; Cyclops, 259, 287; Dancers, 269, 277, 279, 284; Dionysoi, 268, 279 f., 285, 287; Earth and Sea, 272, 274; Harpagai, 269; Heracles and the Girdle, 261; Heracles with Pholos, 263 f., 280; Hope or Wealth, 272 ff., 277, 288; Islands, 271, 282; Komasts or Hephaestus; 264 f., 278 f., 280, 285; Logos and Logina, 272 f., 274; Marriage of Hebe or Muses, 260 f., 267, 272, 277 ff., 280; Megarian Women, 270, 280; Mènes, 271; Odysseus Automolos, 255 ff., 267, 277, 280, 282, 288; Odysseus Nauagos, 233, 254, 257 f., 281; Orua, 271; Periallos, 270, 280, 285; Persians, 271, 280; Philoctetes, 10, 259; Pithon, 271; Pots, 271 ; Pyrrha and Prometheus, 233, 265 fr., 273, 277, 280, 283, 288; Rustic, 269; Sirens, 258 f., 279 f. ; Skiron, 268; Sphinx, 164, 268, 278; Temple visitors, 269, 277; Triakides, 271; Trojans, 259, 280; Victorious Athlete, 269, 277, 279, 284; fragments of unknown plays, 274 ff. Epicurus : 55. Epigenes: 67, 71, 77, 104, 125. Eraton : 55. Eratosthenes: 39; and see Index II. ethelontai: 137 f. Eucles: 54. Euetes: 187 f. Euius : 55. Eupolis: Aiges, 154; Astrateutoi, 197; Kolakes, 287; Maricas, 164; Prospaltioi, 179 f. ; use of kordax, 167 f. ; and see Index II. Euripides: on name Dithyrambos, 2 f., 5, 7; supporter of literary inno­ vations, 39, 48 f., 57; trilogies of, 62; use of satyrs, 82, 117; use of tomb-ritual, 106 f. ; and Year God ritual, 127 f. ; and Pseudepicharmeia, 241 ff. Plays: Alcestis, 62, 107; Andro­ mache, 107, 127; Bacchae, 127; Hecuba, Helena, 106; Hippolytus, 107,127; Iphigeneia in Tauris, 107; Medea, 253; Phoenissae, Rhesus,

Supplices, Troades, 107; and see Index II. E.usebius : 68. Euxenides: 187. exarchon, 9, 29, 31, 77 f., 86, 90 f., 94, 99, ” 2, 129, 133, 143, 146, 159, 161, 173. Flute and flute-players : 3 £, 7, 11, 14 £, 17 ff., 20 f., 31, 35 f., 40 f., 48, 5 1, 53, 55 f·, 58, .71, ” 7, I5L 159, 165; and see List of Monu­ ments. Glaucus of Rhegium : 11, 58. Goat-chorus: 113 ff.; and see Satyrs. Goat-prize : 69, 77, 103, 113, 123. Goat-sacrifice: 72 ff., 123. Harrison, Jane: 126 f. Hellanicus (poet) : 55. Herakleides Ponticus: 14, 71, 84 f. Herakleitus: 103, 244, 248. Herodotus (historian) : on Arion, 11 f., 97 f.; on Lasos, 13; on Sicyonian Tragedy, 101 ff.; on Cadmus of Cos, 236; and see Index II. Herodotus (musician) : 56. Heroes, ritual of: 101-7, 126 ff. Herois: 7. Hiero of Syracuse : 230, 237 ff., 240, 262, 289. Hieronymus: 42. Hittite reference to thyrsus %8. Hypodicus : 15, 31. hypogypónes, gypSnes : 81, 166 f. hypokrités, 79. hyporchima: 18, 20. lambic trimeter in Tragedy: 79, 95. iambistai: 138. Iamblichus (on Epicharmus): 231, 234/. iamboi: 137 f. Iambos : 8. Icaria: 72 ff., 120, 123, 183, 185, 187, 191. Ion: 30. Ismenias : 56. ithyphalloi: 81, 137, 139 ff., 146. kallabides, kallabidia: 165. Kantharos (Aetnaean beetle): 261 f. Kaphisias: 56. Kapnias : 192. Karkidamos: 55. Kedeides, Kekeides: 30. Kinesias, 43 ff.

IN D E X I kómos, kSrnoi : at the Dionysia, 66; antecedent to Comedy, 122, 132 if. ; 144 fr., 178, 184, 194, 207, 2786, 284. kordax : 164, 166 ff. Krexos: 52. Kydias, Kydides: 30. Laconian dances: 136, 164 fr., 171. Laments, ritual: 9 £, 90, 105 ff., 130. Lamprocles, 25. Lasos: see Dithyramb. Lenaea: 144 fr., 151, 154. Liber Glossarum: 281. Licymnius: 54. ‘Life of Sophocles’: 68. Lycurgus: 129, 193 f. Lysiades : 54 f. Lysicrates, monument of: 36, 54 f. Maenads : dancers disguised as, 80 f., 128 ff., 280; and see List of Monu­ ments. Magnes: 132, 154, 157, 189 fr. Maison: 181 f., 188. Margites : 133. Masks: 34, 62, 68, 71 f., 79 ff., 90, 92, 117 f., 134 f., 137 f., 140, 163 ff., 167, 177, 181 f., 193; and see List of Monuments. Maypole: 38, 143, 301. Megarean Comedy: see Comedy. Meidogenes: 55. Melanippides: 18 f., 39 ff., 52 f. Meletus: 62. Menander: 56, 164, 173. Menecles : 56. Mimes : 163, 174, 176 f., 181, 239, 269, 272, 276 f., 281, 287 f. motfwn: 169. Mycenaean: language, 8; cult of Dionysus, 8 f. ; evidence from art, i28f. ; masked dancers, 193. Myllus : 187 ff. Nauplios: 55. Neanthes: 237. Nicomachus (poet) : 39. Nicomachus (‘the rhythmical’): 39. Nicostratus: 31. nomes : 49. Nymphs: dancers disguised as, 80; with satyrs and fat men, 115,130, 160. Oeniades: 55. Oipholios: 10. Onomacritus : 13.

321

Osiris: 6. Padded dancers (fat men) : dancing dithyrambs and satyrika, 80, 82, 96, 100 f. ; at time of Thespis, 80, 130; attending Dionysus, 96, 100, 103 f., 107, 170 ff. ; in Sicyonian herodrama, 103 f., 107, 112; connexion with tragoidoi, 114 fr., 124; in Corinth, with phallic leader, 100 f., 140, 160, 171; associated with the dead, 103, 130; in Laconia, 117, 136; early examples, 118; in Minoan and Mycenaean times, 1286, 162; in Boeotia, 138; in sixth-century Magna Graecia, 139; on phlyax vases, 139; in the East, 140; in seventh-century Athens, 140; in Attic Comedy, 169 fr.; as fertility spirits, 160, 170 ff, 193 f.; singing ‘Return of Hephaestus’, 171 ff, 193 f. ; in plays of Epichar­ mus, 139, 265, 270 f., 280; linking early choruses and Comedy, 193. See also Nymphs, Satyrs, and List of Monuments. Paean: 2, 5 f., 9, 26 ff, 32, 57, 59, 93. Paideas: 54, 57. Pamphilus: 55. Pan and Panes: 117 f., 156, 159, 162, 178; and see List of Monuments. Pantacles: 30. Pantaleon : 50 f. Papposilenus : 114 f., 117. Peisistratus : 4, 15, 76 f., 102. Periander: 10, 102. Phallic revelry, costume and choruses : 76, 80, 133 fr., 137 ff·, 144 ff, 15 0 f., 157, 165 fr., 171 £, 282; and see List of Monuments. phallophoroi: 76, 80, 137, 139 fr, 144 ff , 151. Phanodemus: 5. Pherecrates : fragment of Cheiron (on lyric poets), 19, 39, 41, 43 f., 46, 49; Mènes, 271; Persians, 157 T. ; Tyran­ nis, 39. Philocles: 62. Philophron : 54 £ Philoxenus: see Dithyramb and In­ dex II. Phlyakes: 137 ff, 166, 175, 285, 287. Phormus (or Phormis) : 134, 231 £, 285, 2896. Phrygian: language, 8; tomb inscrip­ tions, 8; cult of Dionysus, 8 £ ; music, i i , 3L 47, 53· Phrynichus (Arabius) 39·

IN D E X I P h ry n ic h u s (comicus): 35, 65, 167 Γ.

Phrynichus (son of Melanthus) : 65. Phrynichus (tragicus): 18, 61, 63 fi’., 79, 84 f., 112, 131. Phrynis : 43, 48. Pigres: 133. Pindar: 2, 12, 14, 20 ff., 29, 32, 37 £, 108; a n d see Index II. Plato (comicus) : 39, 154, 270. Plato (philosopher) : on derivation of dithyramb, 2 ; on narrative charac­ ter of dithyramb, 26 f., 32, 93; on later dithyramb, 42 f., 47, 50, 57; on Kinesias, 44 f. ; meaning of d r a m a in, 109; on Epicharmus, 246, 276, 287. Plutarch (and Pseudo-Plutarch) : on dithyramb, 1 ff., 10 f., 14, 18 £, 27, 32, 40, 58 £, 93; on Osiris and Dionysus, 6 £; on earliest Tragedy, 69, 74 h, 85, 124; on Thespis, 70, 77 ff. ; on Spartan customs, 135h; on Epicharmus, 233, 237 £, 250. Pollux: on earliest Tragedy and stageproperties, 71, 86 £ ; on satyrs, 116 £; on comic masks, 164 ff.; on comic dances, n 6 £ , 136, 165 £, 293·

Polyidus : 52 £, 56. Polyphradmon : 62. Pratinas: 5, 14, 17 ff, 35, 65 ff, 92, 96, 130. Praxilla, 25. Priapus : 5. Proclus : 12, 75, 133, 183; and see In­ dex II. Pronomus : 55. psoloeis: 143. Publilius Syrus: 276. Return of Hephaestus : 100, 171 ff, 178, 194; and see List of Monuments. Rhinthon : 139, 288. Sacadas : 55. Salamis, dithyrambs at: 57. Satyric drama : general character, 62 £; relation to Tragedy, 88 £, 91 ff, 95 f f , 1x3 ff , 124 ff ; rela­ tion to Dithyramb, 88, 93 £ ; cos­ tume of satyrs, 63, 67, 80, 113 ff, 130; dancing in, 82; of Pratinas, 18, 20, 65 ff , 96, 115, 130; of Choeri­ lus? 68 £ ; not ascribed to Thespis, 124. Satyrs : attending Dionysus, 5, 80, 96, 103, 118, 130, 171 ff; as fer­ tility spirits, 10, 100, 115 £, 171 ff ;

performing dithyrambs and early choruses, 20, 33 £, 46, 80, 96 if., 112 fi; at time of Thespis, 80 f f , 130; used by Arion, 97 ff. ; per­ forming circular chorus, 98; in Sicyonian hero-drama, 103 fi, 107, 130; association with the dead, 103, 130; connexion with tragoidoi, 113 f f , 117 ; with fat men, 116 £ ; smooth satyrs, 114; early satyrs, 117 £ , 128 £; in Laconia, 117, 136; in early development of Comedy, 160 f f , 169 ff.; singing ‘Return of Hephaestus’, 171 f f ; in plays of Epicharmus, 265, 270 fi, 280. See also Padded dancers, Panes, Satyric drama, and List of Monuments. Seleucus : 74. Sem us: 76, 80 £ , 137 fi, 140, 142, 146, 150. Servius : 17, 26. Sicilian dances : 165, 239, 268, 278. Sicyon, Tragedy at: 93, 99, xox ff., 108, n o f f , 129 ff., 142. Silens, Silenus : 116 fi, 138, 162, 167. Simonides: 3, 13 f f , 15 f f , 33, 36, 108, 264. Solon: 72, 77, 88 £ , 96, 99 fi, 112 fi, 129 f. Sopater : 139. sophistai: 137 f. Sophocles : treatise on chorus, 85; Polyxena, 106; Telepheia, 62; and see Index II. Sophron : 181, 269, 272, 287 f. Sosibius : 134 fi, 142. Sotades : 139. stasimon: 11 f. Stesichorus : 11, 38. Strabo: on Simonides’s dithyrambs, 3, 16 fi; on dithyrambic story of Orion, 22. Strattis : 45. Susarion: 69, 179 fi, 183 ff., 281. Teleclides: Hesiodoi, 279; and see In­ dex II. Telephanes: 55, 57. Telesias: 54. Telestes : 41, 43, 52 fi Tetralogies, Trilogies: 60 ff. Thargelia, 4, 29 fi, 35 f f , 54. Theocritus : Adoniazusae, 269; and see Index II. Theodoridas: 55. Thespis : 69 f f ; the name, 72 ; con­ nexion with Icaria, 72 ff.; date, 76 f f ; use of ‘wagons’, 75 fi, 82;

IN D E X

Thespis ( c o n t.) disguises, 76, 79 if.; actor and set speech, 78; Th. and Solon, 72, 77, 88 f.; plays of, 81 if., 88, 129 £; style of, 85; did he write a P e n th e u s ? 129, 131, 193 f .; summary, 88. S ee a ls o 63 £ , 107, 112 f., 120 £ , 123 if., 130 £ , 174. Thrasyllus, monument of: 36. ih y m e le : 71, 86. Timotheus o f Miletus : se e Dithyramb and Index II. Timotheus of Thebes: 55 f. Tolynus: 183. Tombs and grave-ritual: 103 if. Tragedy: the earliest extant, Goff.; chorus in early T ., 60 £ ; trilogies and tetralogies, 60 f£ ; prologue, 61, 64 £ ; dialect of, 62, 11 x ; iambic metre in, 61, 65, 79, 95; number of actors, 70; costume o f actors, 68, 72, 80 f£, 112 f£; choregia in, 66; contests in, 66. o f Phrynichus, 63 if. ; of Pratinas, 65 if. ; o f Choerilus, 68 £ ; of Thespis, 69 f£, 81 f£, 124, 129 if.; before Thespis, 71 £ , 77, 86 if., 112, 129 £; of Arion, 97 f£; at Sicyon, 101 f£; suggested common origin of Tragedy and Comedy, 74 if., 88, 186; relation to Dithyramb, 91 if., 98 f£, 112, 125 fr.; relation to satyric drama, 86, 88, 91 f£, 97 i f , 112-26; Aristotle’s theory o f origin,

I

323

89 i f , 125 £, Dorian claim to origin, 89, 93, 97, 107 i f ; not derived from hero worship, 104 f£, 119; explana­ tion o f tombs and grave-ritual in, 106 £; T . and Year-God’s ritual, 126 ff. ; aetiology in, 127 fr.; rela­ tion to Dionysus and satyrs, 6, 61, 63, 124 ff., 129 ff.; probable origin, 121, 123 £, 128 if. Derivation and meaning o f name t r a g o id i a , 76, 97, i i 2 f £ ; tr a g o id o i, 99 h, 103, i i 2 f £ ; ‘tragic mode’, 98 £ , 102; tr a g ik o n d r a m a , 100, 103; tr a g ik o i c h o r o i, 101. Trilogies: se e Tetralogies. Tripods, dithyrambic: 36 £ Trochaic tetrameter: 61, 64, 79, 95, 246. tr y g ik o n : 79 £ tr y g o i d ia : 74 ff., 99, 186. tr y g o id o s , 123. Tyrbas: 33. l y r b a s ia : 33. Tzetzes: on Susarion, 184 £ ; Scholia on, 75; a n d see Index II. Varro: 157, 241 ff. Viza, performances at, 121 £ , 143, 156. Xenocritus (or Xenocrates) : 1o £ Xenophanes: 108, 244 f. Zagreus: 59.

INDEX PASSAGES

QUOTED A N D R E F E R R E D T O

Acron (Pseudo-), Schol. Hör. Ars P. 216: 67 f. Aelian, N .H . vi. 51: 284, 289. vii. 47: 15. xiii. 4: 272. V .H . ii. 34: 238. xii. 44: 45. xiii. 18: 108. Aeschines, in Tim. § 10 (Schol.) : 35 fAeschylus, Eum., 626 (Schol.) : 238. Isthm., 32 f., 71-75: 82. Persae, 548 ff. : 64. Septem c. Theb. Argt. : 19, 62. fr. 36: 61, 117. 37: 61. 205: 61, 267. 206: 61, 267. 207: 117. 233: 261. 355·· 2. Alcaeus (comicus), fr. io: 136. Alciphron, i. 39 (iv. 14), § 6 : 270. Alexander of Aphrodisias, 670. 1 : 244. Alexis, fr. 135: 241. fr. 167: 164. 237: I43· Ameipsias, fr. 18: 134. Amphis, fr. 14: 56. Anaxandrides, fr. 41: 192. Andocides (Pseudo-), iv. 20-21: 36. Anon. de Gomoed. : 75, 186, 230 fr., 276, 297. vii. 158 240. U 9 55· 410 69. 41 I 69. 707 65· xvi. 28 55· Antiatticista Bekkeri, 90. 3: 265. 99. i : 240. Antiphanes, fr. 207: 48. fr. 20g: 47. Antiphon, On the Choreut, § 11: 4, 3°> 35· Apollodorus, 11. v. 11: 260. Apollonius, de pron. p. 80 b: 259. Apollonius Rhodius, i. 746 (Schol.) :

135·

II

i. 1165 (Schol.) : 30. ii. 98 (Schol.) : 264. 777 (Schol.) : 263. Arcadius, On Tones, p. 53: 188. p. 54: 270. Archilochus, fr. 60: 175. fr. 77: 1 ,9 f., go. Arctinus, Sack of Troy, vi: 8. Aristides, Rom. Enc. i, p. 369: 57. Aristides Quintilianus, p. 29: 99. p. 42: 14. Aristophanes, Acharnians, 146 (Schol.) : 120. 158: 144. 241 ff.: 145. 247 ff. : 146. 398 (Schol.) : 186. 499 (Schol.): 186. 592: 144. 627: 14.2. 629: 149. 738: 181. Birds, 281 (Schol.) : 62. 748 ff. : 63.

787: 113. 1233 ·· 257 · 1294: 268. I 373 ff·: 44· 1379 (Schol.) : 44. 1393 (Schol.): 50. 1403 f. : 35. 1403 (Schol.): r3· Clouds, 296 (Schol.) : 186. 331 ff.: 175. 333 ff : 44· 335 (Schol.) 48. 349: 42. 537 f f : 144· 540 ff.: 166. 540 (Schol.) 168. 542 (Schol.) 144. 553 f f : 164, 168. 889 (Schol.): 159. 970 f.: 43. 985 (Schol.) : 30. 1033 (Schol.): 159. 1352 (Schol.) : 203. Eccles. 102: 55. 1069: 117. Frogs, 56: 286. I53: 45·

IN D E X II Aristophanes, Frogs (coni.) 395: ι Φ · gio ff.: 63. 1028 (Schol.) : 238. Knights, 152: 87. 214:271. 418: 136. 518 ff.: 191. 521:190. 529 £ : 68. 546 ff. (Schol.) : 145. 595 ff·: Γ54·

697 : ϊ 69 · iogi (Schol.) : 239. Lysistrata, 5: 132. 82: 169. 614, 637, 662, 686: 142. 645 (Schol.) : 151. 916: 286. 991, 1077: 144. Peace, 73 (Schol.) : 261. 136: 102. 185 (Schol.) : 237, 268, 286. 729: 142. 741 f.: 180 f. 806: 113. 827 ff.: 50. 834 ff : 30. 962 ff: 181. Plutus, 97: 286. 290 ff. (and Schol.) : 45 ff. 797 ff·: 181. 1050 ff.: 164. 1129 (Schol.) : 73. 1195: 286. Thesmoph. 164: 63. 655: 142. Wasps, 54 ff. (and Schol.) : 179, 297. 151 (Schol.): 192. 220: 63. 408: 142. 1137: 141. 1187 (Schol.) : 192. 1343: 144. 1409: 13. 141:0 (Schol.) : 108. 1478 f. (and Schol.) : 71, 84. 1487 ff: 167. 1537: 113. Fragm. 149: 102. 253: 156, 159· 530: 275, 286. Aristotle, Ath. Pol. Ivi, § 3 : 4 , 37. Eth. Nie. π. vii, p. n o 8 a2i : 174. IV. ii, p. i i23a2o (and Schol.) : 180, 185, 192, 297. vii, p. H27a2i : 174.

325

Gen. An. i, p. 724*29: 251, 274. M et. i, p. 993bt6: 43. iii, p. i o io a5: 244. Poet, iii, p. i448a29 f f : 89 f f , 109, 132 ff., 189, 230 ff., 277. iv, p. i449a9 f f : 89 f f , 133 ff, *37· p. i449a22: 79. V , p. i 449a37 f f : 89 f f , 134 f f , 189, 230 f f , 276 £ , 289. XV, p. i 454a3o: 51. xvi, p. i455a6: 52. xxi, p. i457b22: 49. xxii, p. i459a8: 50. xxiv, p. i46oai : 96. Pol. vili, vi, p. i 3 4 ia3Ö: 192. vii, p. 1342a’b : 31. p. i342bg: 47. Probi. X IX . X V : 40. Rhet. i. i, p. i365aio : 251, 274. h i. i. p . i403b23: 79. iii, p . 1406h 1 : 50. vii, p. i4o8ai2 : 137. viii, p. i4o8b36: 96. ix, p. i409b25 f f : 40. xii, p. 1413hl2: 54. xiv, p. i4 i5 aio : 56. p. I4 i 5b39: *37xviii, p. I4 ig b8 f f : 174. Arrian, Anab., vi. xxviii: 5. Athenaeus, i, p. 6 e: 45. i, p. 22 a: 70. p. 30 b: 5. ii, p. 36 c, d: 274. p. 40 a, b: 70, 72, 74. iii, p. 86 a: 265. p. 94 f: 271, 277. p. 96 b, c: 192. p. n o b: 260. p. 112 d: 239. iv, p. 137 e: 190. p. 139 b: 270. p. 160 d: 271. p. 183 c: 270. V , p . 181 e: 32, 138. vh PP- 235 e, f; 236 b, e; 237 a: 273· p. 2 5 3 c: 141. vii, pp. 282 a, 352 f: 239. p. 322 a: 247. viii, p. 338 a: 51. p. 352 b: 51. p. 362 b: 269. p. 364 a: 39. ix, p. 367 f: 191. p . 370 b: 272. p. 374 a: 54.

326

IN D E X I I

Athenaeus (coni.) p. 390 b: 263. p. 392 f: 68. p. 402 b: 287. p. 408 d: 269. X, p. 424 d: 265. p. 429 a: 282. p. 441 a, b: 247. p. 445 a, b: 133. p. 455 c: 14. X i , p. 465 a: 5. p. 491 c: 25. xii, p. 518 c: 239. p. 535 d: 240. p. 538 f: 56. p. 551 d ff, : 44 f. xiii, p. 588 c: 237. p. 602 f: 237. p. 603 d: 54. xiv, p. 617 b: 17 ff., 292 f. p. 618 d: 268. p. 619 a, b: 258 f. pp. 621 d, e, f; 622 a, d: 134fr., 137, 295 f. p. 624 e: 14. p. 628 a, b: 5, 10. p. 629 a: 15. p. 629 e, f: 165, 239, 268, 278. p. 630 c: 71, 86. p. 631 a: 45. p. 636 d: 57. p. 638 d: 190. p. 646 e: 191. p. 648 d: 240, 298 f. p. 652 a: 268, 289. p. 655 f: 239. p. 659 a: 181 f. p. 661 e, f: 239. X V , p. 698 c: 283. Autocrates, fr. 1: 168. Callimachus, Hymn to Delos, 300 ff., 3· fr. 305 Pf. : 38. Censorinus, D e die natali, vii. 5: 240. Censorinus (Pseudo-), 9: 25. Chamaeleon ap. Athen, ix. 374 a: 54. Cicero, II Verr. iv, § 95: 238. Clement o f Alexandria, Paed. ni. xi, 296:275. Protrept. ii. 12: n o . Strom, i. 64: 231. 79: 69, 183. V . 100: 233. Columella, 1. i. 8 and vili. iii. 6: 240. Cramer, Anecd. Ox. iv, 314: 3. Crates, fr. 41: 136. Cratinus, ir. 2: 138, 160.

fr. 6, 7: 160. 17: 161. 36: 8, 161. 98: 161. 138, 139,144-6: 160. 169, 222: 161. 310: 160. 335’· 68. 459: 160. Delphic Paean to Dionysus : 5. Demetrius, de Interpr., § 91: 50. Demosthenes, in Aristocr., § 40: n o . in Conon., § 14: 141. de Corona, § 129: 145. de Fals. Leg., § 247: 108. in Meid., §5: 36. § 1 3 / 1 4 : 35 · § * 5 6 : 37 · xxi, § 117: 36. fin Theocrin. § 28: 110. ‘Letter of Philip’, §4:110. Didymus on Demosth. : 56. Dio Chrysostom, 78. 22: 51. Diodorus, xiv. 46, § 6: 53. xiv, 96: 52. X V , 6 : 45. Diog. Laert. i. 14: 13. i. 42: 233 f. 59: 70. iii. 12: 2 3 4 f., 245, 248, 251 ff. 56: 70, 78. V . 92: 71. vii. 7: 234 ff. viii. 58: 108. 78: 234 f., 239, 298. xi. 114: 247. Diomedes, de poem. ix. 2: 157. ap. Gramm. Lat. i. 486: 156. 488: 185. ap. C.G.F. i. 58: 236. Dion. Hal., de Comp. Vb. xix: 43. xxii: 21 f. de adm. vi dic. Dem. vii, xxix: 50. Ep. ad Pomp. ii. 50. Dionysius (comicus), fr. 5: 164. Dionysius Thrax (Schol. on) : 75, 183. Dioscorides, Ep. on Sophocles : 65. on Sositheus : 65. on Thespis : 69, 74 f., 79 f., 82, 96, 123. Donatus, de Com. v: 70. Ecphantides, fr. 3 K: 109, 277. Epicharmus, fr. 1 K, 81 O: 269. fr. r, K: 259. 6 K, 3 Ò : 264. 7 K, 4 0 : 264.

IN D E X

Epicharmus (coni.) 9 K, 84 O : 269. 13 K, 87 O : 279 f. 21 K , 8 O: 260. 24 K: 272. 34-35 K > 103 O : 273. 37 K : 273· 41 K , i i O : 136, 260. 42 K, 12 O : 261. 46 K : 283. 52 K, 35 O: 267. 54 K, 19 O: 260. 58 K , 22 O : 261. 71, 75, 7 6 K, 3 6,40,41 O: 261. 7 7 , 78 K , 42, 43 O : 263. 79 K, 109 O : 269. 80 K : 269 f. 81-83 K, 44-46 O: 259. 84 K, 47 0 : 265. 85-86 K : 265. 87 K , i n O : 272, 283. 88 K , 112 O : 272. 90-91 K, 114-15 O: 270. 98 K : 232. 99-104 K, 50-56 O: 255 ff. I O I K, 53 O: 283 f . 109 K, 123 O: 270, 280, 284. 110 K , 124 O : 280. 111 K : 284. 114 K, 61 O : 267, 283 f. 115 K , 65 0 : 266. 116 K, 63 O : 267. 117 K , 64 0 : 265, 273. i i 8, 122 K , 65, 69 O : 266. 123 K, 70 O: 258, 279 f., 283 f. 124 K , 71 O: 258. 125 K, 72 O: 237, 268. 127 K , 74 O : 268. 128 K : 286. 130 K, 76 O : 259, 283. 131 K , 77 O: 259, 280. 132 K, 78 O: 10, 259. 142 K : 283. 148 K , 175 O: 251, 274. 149 K , 178 O : 275, 286. 165, 168 K , 256, 168 O : 275. 170 K, 152 O : 248 ff., 254h, 278. 171 K, 153 O: 251, 254, 286. 172-3 K , 154 0 : 244,254,258. 191 K : 282. 214 K : 232. 221 K , 158 O : 275. 229 K, 173 O : 275, 283. 234 K : 243. 235 K : 282. 239 K : 136. 249, 250 K : 243. 252 K: 244.

II

32'7

254 K : 246 f. 255-7 K : 240, 243. 265-74, 277, 280-8 K , 225-6, 229, 231-2, 235-6, 241-2, 244, 248-50, 252-5, 257, 262 O: 275 f. 297 K, 266 O: 243. Eratosthenes, fr.: 69, 72 f f , 123. Etymologicum M agnum, s.v. dithyrambos: 5, 7. Leukarion : 265. thymele: 71, 86. tolynium: 182. tragoidia: 74. 630. 48: 268. 725. 25: 268. Euanthius: de Com. i: 70. ii: 101. Eupolis, fr. 37, 78: 161, fr. i n : 271. 159: 287. Euripides, Bacchae, 275 f f : 241 f. 523 f f : 2 f., 5, 7. Cyclops, 63 ff. : 82. 78 f f : 117. Hippol. 1425 ff. : 105. Hypsipyle, fr. 764: 269. Ion, 184 f f : 269. M edea, 264, 1382 (Schol.) : 105. Rhesus, 924: 138. Suppi. 531: 243. Eustathius, Od. xx. 106: 188. Eustratius on Aristot. Eth. Nie. in. v, § 4 : 263. Fr. Lyr. Adesp. 109 (Bergk) : 5. Harpocration, s.v. Arkteusia : 151. Dicaeogenes: 54. Kinesias: 45. Metalleis : 39. Hephaestion, de Metris, ii, p. 9 (Consbr.) : 25. viii, p. 25 (Consbr.) : 269, 284. Introd. Metr., p. 60 (Consbr.) : 133. Poem, vii, p. 70 (Consbr.) : 5. Herakleitus, fr. 15: 103. Hermippus, fr. 46 (K) : 68. Herodotus, i. 23: 11, 97 f. ii. 171: 135. iii. 131: 13. v. 67: 101, i ig. vi. 22-25: 236. .. 73: 8. vii. 6: 13. 26: 117. 156: 283.

IN D E X

II

Herodotus (curii.) vii. 164: 236. 227: 6. viii. 43: 13. Hesiod, fr. 198 (Rzach) : 117. Hesychius, s.v. Autokabdala : 137. Bfydalicha, &c. : 165, 297. Choerilus : 68, 294. Deikela : 135. Dysmainai : 68. Ekkechoirilomene : 192. Five judges: 284. Herochia : 7. Kapnias: 192. Kordakismoi : 168. Kyrittoi : 165. Lasismata : 13. Lom bae: 165, 297. Myllos: 188. Oura: 271, 277. Phlyakes: 138. Playing the Lydian : 191. Skin-nailed gates: x8o. Theodaisios: 7. Tyrbasia: 33. Homer, Iliad, vi. 130 ff. : 129. ix. 63: 284. 215: 87. X . 205-12, 511 : 255. 251: 256. xvii. 577 (Schob): 273. xviii. 49, 316, 603: 90. xix. i (Schob): 258. xxii. 460: 129. xxiv. 720: 9, 90. Odyssey, i. 328: 72. iv. 242-58: 255. xiv. 432: 87. Homeric Hymn, v (to Aphrodite), 262: 116. ii (to Demeter), 195: 8. Horace, Ars Poet. 275-7: 69, 74 f., 79 f., 82. Epp. i i . i . 58: 283. 161-3: 84. Odes in. i. 18: 239. iv. ii. 10 ff. : 25. Hyginus, Astron. 11. iv: 72 f. Hyperides, fr. 50: 141.

John the Deacon, Gomm. on Hermo­ genes : 72, 75, 77, 88, 98 b, 184 b, 294.

Iamblichus, Vit. Pythag. 166, 266, 241: 234 b Inscriptions, I.G. i2. 769, 771: 31. 770: 30. ii2. 1138-9, 3063-72: 4, 37. I 186: 57.

Papyri, Hibeh, i. 1: 245. Oxyrh. ii. 221: 65. iii. 427: 272. xiii. 27: 16. 41: 14. 2245: 61. 2256 fr. 2: 67.

I.G . ii2. 2318: 36, 19 1. 2325: 187, 190 b 3027: 54. 3028: 45. 3029: 53. 3037, 3057, 3069: 55· 3063: 37. 3093: 57· 3120: 4. xi. 2. 105-33: 3. xii. 5. 544, 1075: 57. C.I.A. ii. 971, iv. 971: 66. C.I.G. 2671: 57. Parian Marble, 15, 45, 48, 52, 57, 60, 69, 76, 123, 183, 186 f., 230. on Archilochus : 1o. of dithyrambic victors : 54 f. from Teos: 56. of victory o f Aeschylus : 60. Iophon, fr. 1: 138. Isaeus, v, § 36: 35. Isidore, Origg., xviii. 47: 71, 86.

Libanius, iii. 7: 264. Lucian, Bacchus, § 1: 169. § 5 : 9 1· Harmonides, § 1: 50, 56. Macrobioi, § 25: 234. de Saltatione, §22: 169. Lycophron, Alex. 859: 105. . 745= 13.7· Lysias, Or. iv, § 3: 36. xxi, §§ I , 2: 4, 37, 191. fr. ap. Athen, xii. 551 e: 44. Lysippus, fr. 4: 161. Melanippides, frs.: 41. Menander, Dyskolos, 432: 1. Pn. fr. 5: 164. fr. 153 (Koerte) : 56. 614: 243. Mnesimachus, fr. 4: 168. Nicander ap. 259·

Anton.

Liberal.

8:

IN D E X

Papyri Oxyrh. ( c o n t. ) 2256 fr. 3: 60. 2309:133. 2368: 27. 2426: 265, 28g. 2427 fr. i : 266. 8: 268. 27: 266 f. 51: 258, 284. 53: 265. 2429 fr. i : 255, 263. 7: 258, 282. of Pindar’s dithyrambs, 23 f. Vienna 19996, Oellacher : 53. Parian Marble: see Inscriptions. Pausanias, 1. viii, § 4: 22. i. X X , § 3: 264. xliv, § 6 : 55. π. iii, § 7: 105. x , § 5-V42. xiii, § 6: 65. xxiii, § i : 104. xxiv, § 6: 33. xxxvii, §§ 5, 6: n o . I V . xxxvii: 17. V. xxvii, § 7: 289. VI . X , § 9 :

8.

xxii, § i : 168. xxiii, § 3: 105. xxvi, § i : 6. vili. X V, § i : 110. liii, §§ 2 if. : 105. ix. xii, § 5: 55· Pherecrates, fr. 29: 161. fr. 69: 286. 130: 192. 138: 271. Pherecrates (?), Cheiron, fr. 145: 19, 39) 4L 43 f·) 46) 49· Philodamus, Paean to Dionysus, 135: 57· Philodemus, On Music, p. 74: 52. On Piety, p. 52: 45. Philostratus, Her. 20-22: 105. Imag. i. ii: 165. ii. xxii: 263. Vit. Apoll, i. xvii: 50. Philoxenus, frs. : 45 ff. Photius, Biblioth., p. 147 a: 237. s.v. Hera’s binding, &c.: 264. Mothon : 169. Myllus: 188. Pariambides: 270. Playing the Lydian : 191. Phrynichus (tragicus), frs.: 63 ff. Pindar, clithyrambic frs.: 20 f f , 37 f. Isthm. v. 28: 138. Olymp, xi. 83 (Schol.) : 29.

II

329

Olymp, xiii. 18: 2, 12. 19 ff. (Schol.) : 12. Pyth. i. 98 (and Schol.): 231, 271. 100 (Schol.) : 29. ii. 73: 271. 127 (Schol.) : 261. fr. 61 Bowra, 70b Snell: 41. 142 Bowra, 156 Snell: 116. Plato (comicus): fr. 174 (K) : 270. Plato (philosopher), Apol. 27 b: 252. Charmid., p. 155 d: 30. Gratylus, p. 408 c: 102. p. 409 c, d: 50. Gorgias, p. 501 e: 44. p. 518 b: 8. p. 518 d: 239. Hipp. Maior, p. 287 c: 252. Laws, iii, p. 700 b: 2. p. 700 d: 42. vii, p. 815 c: 117. Rep. iii, p. 394 c (and Schol.) : 2, 26, 36, 93. p. 404 d: 239. vi, p- 4 5 1 c: I(39·

Symp., p. 208 d (Schol.) : 120. p. 215 b, 216 d, 221 d, e: 117. Theaetet., p. 152 d, e (and Com­ ment. Anon.) : 234 f., 248, 250 f. p. 209 b (Schol.): 191. Timaeus, p. 72 b: 79. Schol. Piat., p. 8g3ai4 : 62. Plato (Pseudo-) ; Alcibiad. ii, p. 147 c: I33· Minos, p. 321 a: 71, 85 f. Plautus, Asin. 799. Curcul. 96 ff. : 164. Pliny, N .H . xx. 89 and 94: 240. Plotius, de Metris, p. 508 (Keil) : 68. Plutarch, Ale. 16: 36. An sit seni, p. 795 d: 48. Apophth. Lac., p. 228 e: 105. Apophth. R eg., p. 175 c: 237 f. de And. Poet, iv, p. 22 a: 45. de Comm. N otit., p. 1083 a: 250. de Cupid. Divit. viii, p. 527d: 69, 75. de Ei ap. Delph. ix, p. 388 e: 3. p. 389 a: 59. p. 389 b: 2, 5. de Fac. in orbe Lun. xix: 30. de Glor. Ath. v, p. 348 b: 45. de Isid. et Osir. iii, p. 352 c, lxviii, p .3 7 8 a ,b: n o .

XXXV: 6. de Proverb. Alex, xxx: 74, 80. de Sera Num. Vind. xv, p. 559 b: 250.

IN D E X

S3«

Plutarch (coni.) de Tranq. Anim, xiv, p. 473 d : 250. Quaest. Conviv. vn, iii, p. 712 a: 45· Quaest. Gr. xii, p. 293 c, d: 7. xviii, p. 295 c, d: 178. xxxvi, p. 299 a, b: 6. Quomodo Quis Adul. xxvii, p. 68 a: 238. Symp. Quaest. 1. 1. § 5: 85, 124. V,

§ i : 47.

§ 2: 237. vili, ix, § 3: 63. Vit. Agesil. xxi: 135. Alex, viii: 53. Aristid. i: 54, 58. xvii: 167. Lycurg. xvii : 135. Marceli, xxii: 5. Num. viii: 233. Pyrrh. xi: 102. Solon xxix: 70, 77, 79. Thes. xxiii: 250. X Orat., p. 842 a: 4. Plutarch (Pseudo-), de Mus. iv, p. 1132 e: 49. vi, p. 1133 b: 43. X , p. 1134 e, f: io f., 27, 193. xii, p. 1135 c: 52. p. 1135 d: 46. X V , p . 1136 c: 41. xxi, p. 1138 a, b: 52, 55. xxviii, p. 1141 a: 52. xxix, p. 1141 b, c: 14. X X X , p. 1142 a: 46. xxix, xxx: 18 £, 35, 39 f., 291. xxxi, p. 1142 b, c: 54. Pollux, i. 38: 3. iv. 66: 43. 83: 270. 102: 169. 103: 165,239. 104: 33, 116 f., 136. 104-5: 165 f., 293. 123: 71, 86. 150, 151: 164. X,

v i. 3 5 : 2 7 3 ·

90: 87. ix. 45: 260. X . 82: 265. 101: 87. Ix. 41, 42: 279 f. Porphyry, Vit. Plotin. 24: 281. Pratinas, fr. 1: 5, 17 ff., 35. Praxilla, fr. 1 (Diehl) : 25. Proclus, Chrest. 12: 12, 98. 3 4 4 -5 :3 } 5· Prov. Bodl. (Gaisfd.) 731: 271.

II

Quintilian, x. 1, § 62: 11. Satyrus, V it. Eur., fr. 39: 49. Sextus Empir., ix. 402: 42. Simonides, fr. 4 (D) : 264. fr. 145 (Bergk) : 15 £ , 36. 147: 16. 148: 16, 36. Sophocles, Daedalus, fr. 162: 261. Ichneutae, 300: 262, 283. 358: 117. Oed. Col. 312: 262. fr. 406 (Pearson) : 8. Statius, Silv. V . iii. 150: 240. Steph. Byz., p. 382. 13: 237. s.v. Lenaios : 145. Stesichorus, Oresteia, fr. 37: 11. Stobaeus, Flor. 29. 70 (Gaisf.) : 13. Strabo, vi. ii. 4: 239. ix. 404: 22. X V . 728: 3, 16 £ Suda lexicon, s.v. Antigenides: 48. Arion : 11, 97 £, 291. Arktoi : 151. Chionides : 189. Choerilus : 68. Deinolochus, 231, 298. Dicaeogenes: 54. Dithyrambos : 3, 5. Empedocles: 108. Epicharmean argument : 250. Epicharmus : 187, 231 if., 298. Kinesias : 45. Lasos : 13 £ Magnes : 190 £ Margites: 133. Melanaigis : 120. Melanippides : 39 f. Nothing to do with Dionysus : 125 295· Phormus : 231, 289, 298. Phrynichus : 63, 293. Phrynis : 43. Pindar : 108. Pratinas : 65 £ , 293 £ Pythion : 4.

Sophron : 287. Stesichorus : 11. Thespis : 69, 71 £, 82 if., 294. Timotheus: 48. Susarion, fr. : 185.

77 £ ,

Teleclides, frs. 2, 4: 161. Telestes, frs.: 52 f. Terence, Andr. 228: 164. Tertullian, De anima, 46: 241.

79 £

IN D E X II Themistius, Or. xxvi, p. 316 d: 70, 78,

xxvii,

406: 10 J.

Virgil, G eo rg , ii. 380 11'.: 73.

Vita Aeschyli: 238. Vitruvius, viii, Praef. 1: 243.

Theocritus, xi. 1 (Schol.) : 47. Epigr. 18: 2 3 4 !., 274, 277, 285. Schol. on Boukoliastai: 155, 296. Theophrastus, Char. vi. 3: 168. ap. Porphyr, de abst. ii. 10: 72. Theopompus, fr. 2: 137, 181. Thucydides, ii. 15: 38. iii. 104: 3. Tractat. Coislan., § 6: 174. Tzetzes, Prooem. cie Com.: 157.

Xenophanes, fr. 15 (D .-K .) : 254. fr. 24 (D .-K .) : 244. Xenophon, Anab. v. iv. 14: 90. Gyrop. i i i . iii. 58: 90. Hipp. iii. 2: 38. M em. i. iv, § 3: 40. i i i . iv, § 4 : 35. Symp. iv. xix and v. vii: 117.

Varro, De Ling. Lat., v, 64, 65: 242. De R e Rustica, i. 4: 243. Vegetius, Praef. 3: 240.

Zenobius, iii. 64: 275, 284. v. 14: 188. 40: 3, 32, 124, 294 f.

331

INDEX

III

S C H O L A R S AND C R I T I C S Ahrens, E. L. : 283. Barigazzi, A.: 255. Barnett, R. D. : 167. Beare, W. : 144. Beazley, J. D. : 5, 10, 27, 33 f., 61,81,

88 . Bechtel, F. : 283. Bekker, I.: 35. Bentley, R. : 85. Bergk, T. : 16 £ , 47, 284. Bethe, E. : 32, 142, 166, 285. Bieber, M. : 182. Birt, T. : 274, 281. Bjorck, G. : 111. Boardman, J.: 5, 41. Boeckh, A. : 23, 107. Bosanquet, B. : 151, 163. Brandenstein, W. : 8. Brinck: 3 f., 31, 36 £ , 44, 51. Brommer, F.: 115 f. Burnet, J. : 249. Buschor, E. : 115 f. Butcher, S. H . : 232 f. Bywater, I. : 79, 91 f., 132 f. Gadoux, T . J. : 15. Calder, W. : 8 f. Capps, E. : 66, 187 ff., 190 £ , 232. Cavvadias, P. : 151. Christ, W. : 22. Comparetti, D. : 26. Cook, A. B.: 87 £ , 116, 151, 259. Cornford, F. M .: 147, 177, 181, 193, 199, 208. Crönert, W. : 245 £ , 275. Crusius, E.: 7, 25, 54, 57, 75, 182, 263, 269, 271, 282. Cunningham, M. L. : 61, 64. Curtius, E. : 79. Dale, A. M .: 17, 20, 28 £, 64. Davison, J. A.: 15, 33, 44, 133. Dawkins, R. M. : 121 £ , 163. Denniston, J. D. : 253 £ Deubner, L. : 145. Dickins, Guy: 163. Diehl, E. : 16. Diels, H. : 248 ff., 252. Dieterich, A. : 93, 152, 177, 182, 189. Düring, I. : 39, 41, 44, 46.

Edmonds, J. M. : 39, 160 £, 192. Else, G. F. : 15, 77, 79, 95 ff., n o , 113 I&7> 233. Fairbanks, A. : 57. Farneil, L. R.: 105 £, 119 £, 143, 145 Flickinger, R. C.: 67, 100, 102, 125. Forsdyke, J. : 178. Frankel, C.: 5, 33, 116. Frickenhaus, A. : 116. Furtwängler, A. : 116. Garrod, H. W. : 13, 17 £ Geissler, P. : 191. Geizer, T. : 143, 149, 160, 200. Gerhard, E.: 243. Gigante, M. : 247. Gomperz, T. : 91. Gow, A. : 86. Grenfell and Hunt: 22. Gruppe, O. : 263. Grysar: 236. Haas, O. : 8. Halbherr : 57. Hamilton, M .: 122. Handley, E. W. : 229. Harrison, J. E.: 126 £ Flartung, J. A. : 41. Harvey, A. E. : 2, 16, 27. Haspels, C. M .E. : 258. Headlam and Knox: 73, 122. Heimsoeth, F. : 79. Heinimann, F. : 254. Hermann, G. : 108. Herter, H. : 133, 140, 142, 148, 155 279 fi

Herzog, R. : 73. Heydemann, H. : 5, 33. Hill, G. F. : 262. Hill, I. T.: 145. Hiller, E.: 73, 78, 87, 108. Hincks: 169. Hoffmann, O. : 284. Immisch, O. : 108. Jacoby, F.: 30, 103, 135, 137. Jebb, R.: 26, 29, 262. Johansen, K. Friis, 21, 35, 37 £, 104.

IN D E X I I I Kaibel, G.: 75, 148!., 160, 183 fi'., 189, 239 ff., 242 ff., 259, 271, 275 £, 278, 281, 283, 286. Kakouri, K. : 122. Kanz, O. : 246, 284. Keith, A. B. : 120. Kenner, H. : 258 f. Kerenyi, K. : 103. Kirk, G. S.: 249, 254. Kondoleon, N. M. : 10. Körte, A.: 46, 116, 138, 146, 148, 150 f., 168, 170, 185, 188, 192, 196 f., 251, 282. Kranz, W. : 250. Kraus, W. : 267. Kühnert, E. : 116. Langerbeck, H. : 133. Lasserre, F. : 10. Latte, K. : 73. Lawson : 122. Lesky, A.: 2, 17, 27, 60, 64, 75, 79, 90, 98, 108, 268. Lewis, D. M. : 4, 36, 55, 190. Lloyd-Jones, H .: 173. Lo beck, G. A. : 107. Lobel, E.: 27, 61, 255, 265 f. Loeschke : 116. Lorenz, K. : 238 f., 270. Luetcke : 46. Maas, P. : 74. Mannhardt : 151. Mazon, P. : 148, 161, 195, 201, 204. Meineke, A. : 39, 180, 183, 270. Metzger, H. : 103. Miller, B. G. E.: 17. Moessner, O. : 178. Müller, K. O. : 17. Munro, H. A. J. : 15. Murray, G. : 126 ff., 151, 193, 267. Nauck, A. : 62, 85. Navarre, O. : 32, 150, 156. Nestle, W. : 244. Nilsson, M. P. : 7, 33, 77, 95, 98, 105!., 119, 122, 147, 156, 163, 165, 186. Norwood, G. : 128. Olivieri, A. : 232. Page, D. L.: 161, 167, 255, 265. Pascal, A. G. : 235, 240. Pearson, A. G. : 262. Persson, A. W.: 128. Phillips, E. D. : 255, 258.

333

Pickafd-Carnbridge, A. W. : 19, 36 f., 62, 66, 70, 78, 82, 144 f., 182, 187, 189 f., 192. Pieters, K. : 160 f. Pohlenz, M. : 268. Poppelreuter, J. : 148, 151 f., 154, 177. Powell, J. U.: 57· Prescott, L. : 286. Radermacher, L. : 138 f., 149, 155 f., 264, 276, 279. Rees, K. : 189. Reich, H. : 177, 181, 279, 287. Reinach: 19, 46. Reinhardt: 250. Reisch, E.: 15, 31, 36, 55 f., 68, 91, 99, 112, 116, 118 f., 123. Reitzenstein, R. : 2, 155, 266. Richards, H. : 109 f., 112. Ridgeway, W. : 1, 6, 94, 104 f., 119, 121 f. Robert, C. : 62, 104,141,164,177,182, 259. Rohde, E.: 7, 18, 39 f., 244. Roos, E. : 17, 84, 167 f. Rostagni, A. : 248 f. Sandys, J. E. : 141. Schmid, W. : 16, 102. Schmid-Stählin : 232. Schmidt, Μ.: 17. Schnabel, Η. : ι68. Schneider, W. : 156. Schofold, K. : 22. Schönewolf, H. : 38. Schwartz, E. : 247, 251. Schwyzer, E.: 56. Sieckmann, O. : 150, 156, 278. Smith, C.: 152. Snell, B.: 21, 23, 26, n o , 253. Snijder, G. A. S. : 103. Solmsen, H. : 33, 115. Sommerbrodt, J. : 79. Stanford, W. B.: 255. Starkie, W. J. M.r 141. Susemihl, F. : 240, 242. Süss, W. : 174 f., 278. Thiele, A. : 144. Thierfelder, A. : 246 f., 264. Tod, M. : 44. Trendall, A. D.: 44, 139, 170, 175, 182. Tümpel: 266. Turner, E. G. : 60. Usener, H.: 120, 138, 281.

IN D E X I I I Vaillart, E. : 272. Van Lecuvvcn, J. : 262. VeiTall, A. W. : 128. von Hahn: 122. von Salis, A. : 285 f. von Vürtheim, J. : 11, 262. Wade-Gery, H. T. : 64. Walker, R. J. : 85. Warnecke, B. V. : 168. Webster, T. B. L. : 10, 45, 88, 138 ff., 144 f., 169, 173, 182, 253, 265, 287. Wehrli, F. : 54. Weil, H.: 19. Welcker, F. G. : 107, 237, 260, 264, 272. Wernicke : 116.

W eslphai, R. : 46.

White, J. W .: 214, 220. Whittaker, M. : 160. Wilamowitz (U. von WilamowitzMöllendorf) : 13 ff., 16 f., 20,22, 32, 38 f., 42 f., 45, 48, 72, 92 f., 98, 109, 179, 188 f., 232, 243, 247, 263, 265, 267, 272, 276. Wilhelm, A. : 36, 66, 187 £, 191. Winnington-Ingram, R. P. : 61. Wüst, E. : 208, 279, 282, 284 :8 Yorke, E. C. : 60. Zeller, E. : 249. Zielinski, T. : 148 f., 151, 154, 195 f., 200 f., 203 f., 207 f., 285.

PRINTED AT

THE

IN

GREAT

UNIVERSITY BY

PRINTER

VIVIAN TO

THE

BRITAIN

PRESS,

OXFORD

KIDDER UNIVERSITY