Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:36:28.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Resurrection of Aristeides, Miltiades, Solon and Perikles in Eupolis’ Demes*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

Giulia Torello
Giulia Torello*
Affiliation:
Monash University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The arrival of Aristeides, Miltiades, Solon and Perikles in Eupolis' Demes was arguably one of the most celebrated scenes of Attic Old Comedy. Platonios (diff. char. 13-4) praises Eupolis for ‘being capable of resurrecting (ἀνάγειν) from Hades the characters of lawgivers and through them to discuss the establishment or the repeal of laws.’ Aelius Aristides (3.365) observes that ‘a certain comic poet depicted four of the Athenian leaders as coming back to life (ἀνεστῶτας).’ Platonios uses the verb ἀνάγω to refer to the ascent of the four statesmen to the upper world, whereas Aelius Aristides chooses ἀνίστημι. Both ἀνάγω and ἀνίστημι describe an upwards movement, and suggest a return to the world of the living. Neither of them, however, specifies the nature of this journey.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 42 , 2008 , pp. 40 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Australasian Society for Classical Studies (ASCS 27) hosted by the University of Tasmania in February 2006. I wish to thank Ian C. Storey, whose penetrating criticism has made me reconsider aspects of this work, and Alan H. Sommerstein and the journal's anonymous referees for their invaluable comments.

References

1 This scene is partly preserved in a fragmentary Cairo Papyrus (Pap. Cair. 43227) dated to the 4th-5th century AD. The papyrus was first edited by Lefèbvre, G., ‘Papyrus de Ménandre’, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire (Cairo 1911)Google Scholar and later included in Kassel, R. and Austin, C., Poetae Comici Graeci, vol. 5 (Berlin 1986) (= PCG5).Google Scholar

2 Perusino, F., Platonio: la commedia greca (Urbino 1989).Google Scholar

3 Keil, B., ‘Über Eupolis Demen und Aristophanes Ritter’, Nachrichten der K. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse (Göttingen 1912)246;Google ScholarJensen, C., ‘Zu den Demen des Eupolis’, Hermes 51 (1916) 321-54;Google ScholarKoerte, A., ‘Zu neueren Komödien-funden, I: Eupolis Demen’, Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzigll 71 (1919) 1–28;Google ScholarSchmid, W., ‘Zu Eupolis Δήμοι’, Philologus 93 (1939)413-29;Google ScholarD.L. Page, Select Papyri, vol. 3 (Cambridge Mass. 1942)203-4;Google ScholarRivier, A., ‘L’ esprit des Dėmes d’ Eupolis’, in id. Études de littérature grecque (Geneva 1975)216;Google ScholarPlepelits, K., Die fragmenten der Demoi des Eupoholis (Vienna 1970) 74 ff.Google Scholar

4 Storey, I.C., Eupolis Poet of Old Comedy (Oxford 2003)121-4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarNorwood, Greek Comedy (London 1931)183Google Scholar, first suggested that Nikias summoned up Aristeides, Miltiades, Solon and Perikles through necromancy. The hypothesis that the arrival of the four statesmen could be the result of a necromantic rite was also suggested in passing by Edmonds, J.M., The Fragments of Attic Comedy (Leiden 1957) 978Google Scholar, Rivier (n. 3) 201 and, more recently, by Heath, M., ‘Aristophanes and his rivals’, G&R 31 (1990) 156.Google Scholar

5 Telò, M., Eupolidis Demi (Florence 2007)24–36.Google Scholar

6 Cf. n. 3.

7 The identification of the comic hero with Myronides is now generally rejected by the critics, since Plepelits (n. 3) 116-21 convincingly demonstrated that the comic protagonist of the Demes is an invented character named Pyronides. Plepelits’ main arguments are also conveniently summarised in Storey (n. 4) 116-21.

8 Storey (n. 4) 122.

9 Fr. 101 is preserved by P. Oxy. 863 edited by Grenfell, B.P. and Hunt, A.H., The Oxyrhyn-chus Papyri, vol. 6 (London 1908) 169, 172;Google ScholarSchroeder, O., Novae Comoediae Fragmenta in Papyris Reperta Excerptis Menandreis (Bonn 1915)65Google Scholar, ascribed it to Eupolis' Demes. Early twentieth-century scholarship (Schmid [n. 3] 419 and Roerte [n. 3] 12–3) attributed these words to Pyronides in the belief that this character was a comic distortion of the general Myronides. More recently, Plepelits (n. 3) 138 and Kassel and Austin, PGC v 353, have identified one of the four statesmen as the speaker of fr. 101. Telò, ‘Eupoli, Solone e l'adulterio’, ZPE 146 (2004) 1–12,Google Scholar interprets ‘Pandes’ as ‘adulterers’ and suggests that the speaker could be Solon, who was known for his legislation on adultery. I believe that the speaker could equally be Miltiades, given his recurrence to the participle (fr. 101.11) and considering that Paris is portrayed in literary sources more as a coward than he is as an adulterer.

10 Schroeder's convincing restoration τεθνηΐκώς at the beginning of 1. 4 implies that άνεβίων must be read as a first person singular. Due to the state of preservation of the papyrus the subject of άνεβίων could also be ‘they’.

11 Storey (n. 4) 122 n. 13 suggests that the passage could also allude to Hades having granted the dead permission for a temporary absence from the underworld, as happens in Lucian. In Lucían's Fishermen 4, Plato along with other illustrious philosophers is granted by Hades a short leave in order to go to the upper world and punish Frankness for vituperating all philosophers. In Lucian's Charon it is Charon himself who obtains permission to spend a day in the upper world to discover why men grieve when they have to descend to the underworld.

12 Storey (n. 4) 171.

13 Telò, M., ‘Due note ai Demi di Eupoli’, Philologus 147 (2003) 13–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar A more synthetic treatment is in Telò (n. 5) 28-30. Telò’s interpretation relies on the assumption that Phrynis is long dead at the time of the staging of the Demes. The date of Phrynis’ death cannot be established from either chronological or literary evidence. The controversial scholion to Ar. Nub. 491 (cf. West, M.L., Ancient Greek Music [Oxford 1992] 360Google Scholar n. 15) seems to indicate that he gained the first prize in a Panathenaic contest between 456 and 446. This date does not exclude the possibility that he was still active at the end of the century. Sophocles’ dramatic career, for instance, spanned six decades: he competed for the first time at the City Dionysia of 468 (Mar. Par. A56; Plut. dm. 8.7) and for the last time at the same festival in 406 (Vit. Eur. 3.11). Phrynis is described as the representative of the ‘new music’ at Pher. fr. 155. For a detailed analysis of the passage from Pherekrates’ Cheiron and a discussion of the new musical trends cf. West (n. 13) 356-72 and Dobrov, G.W. and Urios-Aparisi, E., “The Maculate Muse: Gender, Genre and the Chiron of Pherecrates’, in Dobrov, G.W. (ed.), Beyond Aristophanes: Transition and Diversity in Greek Comedy (Atlanta 1995)139-74.Google Scholar

14 Paestan bell-krater, c. 350, Museo Archeologico Provinciale di Salerno (Pc1812), first published by Sestieri, P.C., ‘Vasi pestani di Pontecagnano,’ ArehClass 12 (1960)155-69.Google Scholar Sestieri suggested that Pyronides was forcing Phrynis to a discreditable action, such as an erotic encounter with a prostitute. Trendall, A.D., Phlyax Vases, 2nd edn. (BICS Suppl. 19, London 1967)Google Scholar 14, equally unconvincingly, identified Pyronides with Agis, ephor of Sparta, who violently criticises Phrynis’ musical innovations. Taplin, O., Comic Angels and Other Approaches to Greek Drama through Vase-Paintings (Oxford 1993) 42,Google Scholar 114 and plate 16.16, first suggested that the vase-painting could illustrate a scene from Eupolis’ Demes.

15 Keil (n. 3) 248-51 proposed that the underworld chorus could have consisted of old or dead demes. His argument was followed by Koerte (n. 3) 16 and Page (n. 3) 203-4. Telò (η. 5) 43 suggests that the Chorus could appear early in the play in an Athenian setting and subsequently leave and be absent from the scene when the action moves to the underworld, and reappear upon the return of Eupolis and the four statesmen. A long absence of the chorus is very uncommon in Old Comedy, although it occurs in Aristophanes’ Ekklesiazousai (311-478).

16 Schmid (n. 3)127.

17 Storey (n. 4) 128.

18 Storey (n. 4) 141, 173 ascribes fr. 129 in iambic tetrameters to an agonal scene that sees Pyronides opposing an ‘antagonist’. His reconstruction of the play is based on the suggestion that fr. 99.1-34 preserves part of the parodos rather than that of a parabasis and that the agon was followed by a shorter parabatic interlude. Our limited knowledge of the play hampers any definite conclusions; one cannot exclude the possibility that the Demes was an exceptionally long play. Aristophanic plays, for instance, show a wide variation in length, the Ekklesiazousai being his shortest work (1183 lines) and the Birds his longest one (1765 lines). However, if one assumes with Storey that Pyronides is engaged in an agon, the problem remains to determine the identity of the antagonist. As far as the surviving lines allow us to deduce, at this stage the characters that have appeared besides Pyronides are the Chorus and the four statesmen. Logically none of those can be Pyronides’ antagonist, since they are all sympathetic to him.

19 Cf. Imperio, O., Parabasi di Aristofane. Acamesi, Cavalieri, Vespe, Uccelli (Bari 2002)3.Google Scholar For the unusual presence of iambic dimeters in the parabasis of the Demes see Zimmermann, B., ‘Lyric in the fragments of Old Comedy’, in Harvey, D. and Wilkins, J. (eds.), The Rivals of Aristophanes. Studies in Athenian Old Comedy (London 2000)276-9.Google Scholar

20 For instance, the parodos of Aristophanes’ Acharnians (204-18) is formed by trochaic tetrameters followed by a series of cretic paeonics, that of the Knights (242-302) consists of trochaic tetrameters and a trochaic pnigos, whereas the parodos of the Clouds (275-90) is mostly in dactylic with only brief interruptions. Finally, the parodos of the Wasps (230-47) is in iambic tetrameters. Interestingly, iambic tetrameters are used for the entry of a chorus composed by old men also in the Lysistrata (254) and the Wealth (253).

21 Storey (n. 4) 173-4. To this scene of Pyronides’ preliminary encounter he ascribes frags 108, 102,103, tentatively 104,105,110,111,112,115 and 127.

22 Cf. n. 4.

23 Storey (n. 4) 123.

24 Aeschylus’ Psychagagoi (TGFiii, fr. 273a). Accounts of necromancy in Roman times can be found in Hor. Sat. 1.8.23-36; Verg. Aen. 6.149; Lucan. 6.637-711. For a full account of literary references see Ogden, D., Greek and Roman Necromancy (Princeton 2001).Google Scholar

25 Ogden (n. 24) 97-8; Storey (n. 4) 123.

26 Archilochoi (frags 1-16 K.-A.) is probably to be dated to the mid 420s for the mention of Rallias, son of Hipponikos (fr. 12). Rallias is portrayed as a squanderer of his father’s fortune in Eupolis’ Kolakes, which gained the first prize at the City Dionysia of 421. In fr. 2 (olov σοφιστών σμήνος άνεδιφήσατβ) the expression σοφιστών σμήνος (‘swarm of poets’) could effectively describe the gathering of the dead at the place of the nekuomanteia. The Cheirones was probably staged in the early 420s as the mention of Perikles at fr. 258 seems to indicate (see PCG 4 245). T. Bergk, Commentationum de Reliquiis Comoediae Atticae Antiquae Libri Duo (Leipzig 1838) 240, first argued that Solon's appearance at fr. 246 could be the result of necromantic rite.

27 Storey (n. 4) 123.

28 It is not accidental if the word nekuomanteion indicates both the place where the necromantic rite is performed and the ‘Oracle of the dead’. See Ogden (n. 24) xix.

29 Storey (n. 4) 122 himself points out that the questioning of the dead statesmen takes place after their resurrection.

30 Sommerstein, A.H., Aristophanes. Frogs (Warminster 1996) 10Google Scholar n. 45.

31 Lefèbvre read the marginal note in correspondence of line 35 of Pap. Cat. 43227 first as APM. This reading was later confirmed by C. Austin, Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta in Papyris Reperta (Berlin 1973) 87 and T. Braun, ‘The Choice of Dead Politicians in Eupolis’ Demof, in Harvey and Wilkins (n. 19) 192. Edmonds interpreted the note ββ’αρμϊοδιοϊ]. However, there is no other indication in the play of the presence of Harmodios among the characters. Conversely, Jensen’s reading AP which assigns the line to Aristeides, has found consensus among the critics. Although the identification of the speaker with Aristeides is amply justified by the context, the difficulty in interpreting the marginal note still leaves the question open.

32 The text reported hereafter follows the main edition compiled by Kassel and Austin (n. 1) 346-8 with apparatus criticus.

33 Suppl. Robert. Cf. the opening (11. 1–2) of Lucian's Menipposor The Descent into Hades, in which Menippos who has come back from his own journey to the underworld, greets ‘the halls and portals’ of his home.

34 The Cairo Papyrus’ marginal note to 1. 37, which presumably identified Aristeides’ inter¬locutor, unfortunately is difficult to read. The editio princeps read M, Jensen interpreted Πϱ (πρόβουλος), Edmonds εΠ (επιστάτης των πρυτάνεων), Kassel and Austin do not take any stance. It seems logical to identify the speaker with the Chorus, given that Aristeides enters an empty stage and an interlocutor different from the Chorus would have had to make a very rapid entrance. Assuming that line 37 was spoken by the Chorus, the marginal note could perhaps be read as ήμ[ιχόριον. However, it is not to be excluded, as Storey (n. 4) 113 suggested, that the interlocutor of Aristeides ‘could be an oiketês or a neighbour of Pyronides’.

35 My supplement; Koerte and Wilamowitz supplied [α]ύτό[ν, ‘him’ (i.e. ‘Pyronides’).

36 Van Leeuwen and Wilamowitz first indentified the speaker of 11. 73–5 with Pyronides and their interpretation has been unanimously and unquestionably accepted. See my discussion below.

37 Lit. ‘so that we become acquainted with the inward parts’, σπλάγχνα (inward parts such as the heart, lungs, liver and kidneys) were roasted and eaten at the beginning of a sacrifice; this explains why σπλάγχνα is sometimes used with the meaning of ‘start of a sacrificial feast’ (cf. Ar. Eq. 410 and Vesp. 654). The rest of the sacrificial meat was boiled (hence the instruction to ‘heat up the cauldron’ at fr. 99.41-2) and consumed and the έντερα (‘entrails’) were prepared as sausages and eaten last. As Detienne, M., ‘Culinary Practices and the Spirit of Sacrifice’, in Detienne, M. and Vernant, J.-P. (eds.) The Cuisine of Sacrifice Among the Greeks (Chicago and London 1986) 10Google Scholar and n. 26 remarks, the chronological order of these rituals is always maintained. Telò (n. 5) 415 unconvincingly translates ‘affinché possiamo soccorrere le nostre viscere.’

38 Heath (n. 4) 155.

39 This staging reconstruction is based on the assumption that four was the number of speaking actors in Old Comedy. This issue has been the centre of a long debate. In recent times, MacDowell, D.M., ‘The Number of Speaking Actors in Old Comedy’, CQ 44 (1994)325-35CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Marshall, C.W., ‘Comic Technique and the Fourth Actor’, CO 47 (1997)77–84Google Scholar expressed contrasting views on the subject. MacDowell suggested that ‘the number of actors in comedy was fixed by the rules of the contest.’ After a careful analysis of selected Aristophanic passages, he concluded that those rules restricted the number of actors to four. He rightly observed that once one accepts the limit of four, one must not allow that a fifth actor was sometimes used. He, however, confessed the difficulty of applying this general rule to two scenes of the Acharnians (43-175 and 824-8), where five actors seem to be required. To overcome the obstacle he argued that the two scenes could have been staged with only four actors, admitting a rapid costume change for the first scene (43-175) and the presence of dolls or mute characters to play the roles of the Megarian daughters in the second scene (824-8). Marshall argued that only three actors were required to stage Aristophanic plays if one postulated the use of ventriloquism and rapid costume changes. His suggestions for the staging of some difficult passages are, however, rather hazardous.

40 Sommerstein, A.H., Aeschylus. Eumenides (Cambridge 1989)7, 93Google Scholar and A.J. Podlecki, Aeschylus. Eumenides (Warminster 1989) 12 put forward some very convincing arguments in support of the use of this theatrical device. For an overview of the role of the Erinyes in Aeschylus’ Oresteia, along with a valuable discussion of staging problems, see Brown, A.L., ‘The Erinyes in the Oresteia: Real Life, the Supernatural and the Stage’, JHS 103 (1983) 13–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarContra the use of the ekkyklêma see Taplin, , The Stagecraft of Aeschylus. The Dramatic Use of Exits and Entrances in Greek Tragedy (Oxford 1977)369-74,Google Scholar who argued that the Erinyes are not visible until 1. 140 when they enter the scene all together, their nightmarish appearance then producing a powerful effect. In my view, the weakest point of Taplin's staging of this scene lies in his suggestion that Orestes and Apollo entered on foot from the stage door. As Sommerstein (n. 40) 93 noted, ‘the sight of Orestes protected by Apollo and not beset by the Erinyes would anticlimactically dispel the tension created by the Pythia's description of the scene within the temple.’

41 Brown (n. 40) 28 n. 15.

42 Garland, R., The Greek Way of Death (London 1985),Google Scholar offers a useful insight of Greek funerary practice. See also Grossman, J., Greek Funerary Sculpture. Catalogue of the Collections at the Getty Villa (J.P. Getty Museum 2001).Google Scholar

43 Collard, C., Euripides. Hecuba (Warminster 1991)130Google Scholar; Mossmann, J., Wild Justice: A Study of Euripides’ Hecuba (Oxford 1995)50Google Scholar. Hickman, Contra R.M., Ghostly Etiquette on the Classical Stage (Iowa 1938) 51Google Scholar, who suggested that Polydoros could enter from one of the eisodoi. His condition is at any rate rather different to that of the other dead. Indeed, Polydoros does not belong entirely to the underworld, his body being still unburied (άταφος, 1. 30).

44 Taplin(n.40) 116-8.

45 References to the ‘gates of Hades’ are disseminated in many ancient sources; see e.g. Hom, . Il. 5.646Google Scholar and 23.71, Od. 24.204Google Scholar; Theog, . Eleg. 1.427Google Scholar.

46 Aesch. Ag. 1372; for the use of the ekkyklêma in the staging of this scene cf. Taplin (n. 40) 325-6,442-3; Cho. 973 with scholion.

47 Cf. e.g. Kassel and Austin (n. 1) ad loc.; Storey (n. 4) 162.

48 The character's reference to a prolonged absence from Athens rules out his identification with Pyronides. Pyronides’ absence from Athens had to be only brief, allowing him the time required to bring the four statesmen back to earth. This negative evidence is not easy to dismiss, as Storey's attempts to re-interpret the sentence demonstrate. He unconvincingly suggests (Storey [n. 4] 164) that ‘Pyronides could just be saying that he has been away from Athens for some years or (more likely) that he has for some years been aggrieved at the state of Athens (a city with no real leaders).’

49 Cf. fr. 104.

50 Plut. Per. 3.7: .

51 Cf. Cratin. fr. 73 with references, κεφάλαιον means last and greatest of a series (Dem. 21.18, 27.7). It can also indicate the head of a vegetable (Ar. Nub. 981, κεφάλαιον τής ραφανίδος).