Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:29:34.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IG ii2 2343, Philonides and Aristophanes' Banqueters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

D. Welsh
D. Welsh
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Aristophanic relevance of IG ii2 2343, a late fifth or early fourth century cult table; of Heracles, listing a priest and fifteen thiasotai, was first argued by Sterling Dow. Dow's summary of the communication which he presented to the Archaeological Institute of America is brief and a number of his conclusions may be too confident, but something of substance appears to remain.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , January 1983 , pp. 51 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1983

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.)

References

1 AJA 73 (1969), 234–5Google Scholar.

2 According to Σ 243, the latter was a hipparch. For the identification with the author of the treatise περ⋯ ἱππικ⋯ς (PA 12689), cf. Neil, , n. ad Knights 242Google Scholar; Gelzer, , RE, Suppl. 12 (1970), 1398Google Scholar.

3 For the controversy surrounding Wasps Hyp. i. 32–4, see Gelzer, , op. cit. 1405–6Google Scholar. Since it is inconceivable that the didaskalos also wrote a Proagon which has disappeared without trace, it seems at any rate certain that he brought out Aristophanes', Waspsor Proagon (or possibly both) in 422Google Scholar. The testimony of the II. κωμ. (below with n. 17) does not prove that he produced the first version of the Clouds in 423, but Wasps 1017–22 indicates that he did in fact bring out a play of Aristophanes before 424 (below, with n. 18). He later produced the Amphiaraus (Birds, Hyp. ii. 25) and Frogs (Hyp. i. 28–9).

4 Ach. 45 f., 129, 175 f.

5 The rascally Simon of Clouds 351Google Scholar, 399 (PA 12686) is unknown.

6 Griffith, J. G., Hermes 102 (1974), 367Google Scholar.

7 cf. PA 14904.

8 For the importance of the demes as religious units, cf. Mikalson, J. D., AJP 98 (1977), 424–35Google Scholar. Dow's assumption that the cult table must originally have come from a sanctuary in Cydathenaeum is plausible, but (presumably) based upon the identification of Philonides as well as the deme of Simon. There is an obvious danger of circular arguments here, but (if Dow is correct) Aristophanes' membership of the deme does provide a coherent and economic explanation for his acquaintanceship with Heracles' celebrants.

9 As Griffith, , op. cit. 368Google Scholar, observes, the name is ‘scarcely less improbable than Amphitheus’. Dow suggests (without argument) that Antitheus was the brother of Amphitheus and that the latter's son was another member of the thiasos mentioned by Aristophanes.

10 Only Theopomp. Com. fr. 30. 4 (Kock) and Hsch. (s.v.) are also cited in LSJ. The first is a dubious conjecture (Edmonds reads λ⋯σανδρον), while Hesychius (somewhat gratuitously) explains that the word means ⋯ λ⋯ων τ⋯ς ⋯ν⋯ας. The whole speech of Strepsiades (1154–64) is full of paratragic phrases (cf. Dover, n. ad loc), and 27E cites S. fr. 801 (Nauck) for παυσαν⋯ας. Yet it is doubtful whether the spectators could have picked up the parody (or that it was intended), and in any case this does not affect the point.

11 Prominent individuals of the name include the archon of 443/2 (Diod. 12. 24) and the trierarch who was killed in action in the last decade of the fifth century (cf. Bradeen, , Hesp. 33 (1964), 43, no. 15, 48 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.).

12 It is almost certainly a coincidence that Apollodorus is listed as a thiasotes in IG ii2 2343 and that an Apollodorus was also the protagonist of the Peace (Hyp. i. 42). The name is very common, and it is doubtful whether the comic playwrights had any say in the selection of their actors at this date; see, however, below (n. 15) for Callistratus and Philonides.

13 cf. Gelzer, , op. cit. 1398Google Scholar, who suggests that Aristophanes' demesmen in the thiasos could have played a role in his troubles with Cleon, who was also from Cydathenaeum.

14 For these thiasotai, cf. Suid. (s.v. δαιταλεῖς); Orion, 49. 10. Galen refers to the old father who was one of the main characters as ⋯⋯κ το⋯ δ⋯μου τ⋯ν Δαιταλ⋯ων πρεσβ⋯της (Kühn 19. 66; fr. 222). This apparently indicates that the thiasotai of Heracles were fellow-demesmen and that Aristophanes transformed the thiasos into a comic deme. See in general Cassio, A., Aristofane: Banchettanti (Pisa, 1977), pp. 21–5Google Scholar.

15 ΣN (531b, Koster) states that the ‘other girl’ who ⋯νε⋯⋯λετο this play was Philonides. ΣN (531a) also reads δηλον⋯τι ⋯ φιλων⋯δης κα⋯⋯ Καλλ⋯ς οἱ ὕστερον γεν⋯μενοι ὑποκριτκἱ το⋯ Aριστοπ⋯νοους. This is apparently only intelligible if it is a preliminary attempt to explain ⋯τ⋯ρα (Clouds 531) which has been wrongly interpreted to mean ‘one of the two’. The assertion that Philonides and Callistratus were actors (Philonides is also designated a hypokriles in ΣN 531b) is common in the ancient sources, and is usually dismissed as a misinterpretation of such expressions as ⋯διδ⋯χθη δι⋯ φιλων⋯δου (Καλλστρ⋯του). Yet perhaps it is not totally impossible. According to the II. κωμ. (Koster, IA. iii. 26–30), both Crates and Pherecrates were once actors, and Σ Knights 537 says that Crates acted in the plays of Cratinus. The latter statement implies that a generation earlier a poet could make regular use of the same actor.

16 Koster, , IA. iii. 38Google Scholar.

17 Koster, , IA. iii. 38–40Google Scholar.

18 At Wasps 1017–22, Aristophanes describes his career as falling into two parts: before the Knights he had spoken through the lips of ‘other poets’; the Knights itself he had produced in his own name. The ‘other poets’ are naturally Callistratus and Philonides, but it is certain that Callistratus brought out the Babylonians and Acharnians. It is highly unlikely that there can I be an anachronistic reference to the Clouds here, even if Philonides did produce it (above, n. 3),or that ⋯τ⋯ροισι ποιηταῖς is a ‘generic plural’ (cf. MacDowell, n. ad loc). The attempts which (have been made to date one of the lost plays (usually the Δρ⋯ματα ἢ Κ⋯νταυρος) before 424 are not convincing (cf. Gelzer, , op. cit. 1408–9)Google Scholar, and it would seem to have been enough for i Aristophanes to compete with one play annually during the first three years of his career.

19 Knights 514–16, 541 -6; Clouds 528–31.

20 Suidas (s.v. Φιλων⋯δης) describes him as a κωμικ⋯ς ⋯ρχαῖος and names three of his plays: Κ⋯θορνοι, Aπ⋯νη, φYiota;λ⋯ταιρος. Some fragments of the first have survived.

21 Cassio, , op. cit. 24Google Scholar, also cited IG ii2 2343 in his discussion of the Banqueters, but he accepted the testimony of the II. κωμ. that the play was produced by Callistratus.

22 Wasps 1029–37; Peace 751–60.

23 For the possible prominence of the cult of Heracles Alexikakos through the plague of 429, cf. Woodford, S., AJA 80 (1976), 291–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For Heracles, as καθαρτ⋯ς, MacDowell, , n. ad Wasps 1043Google Scholar, cites S. Tr. 1012, E. HF 225. This ‘Heracles-Aristophanes’ harmonizes neatly with the ‘Ceberus-Cleon’ of Knights 1030, Peace 313.

24 At Wasps 1029, ὅτε πρ⋯τ⋯ν γ'ἦρξε διδ⋯σκειυ must allude to Aristophanes' first production in his own name. There is no indication that Cleon figured in the Banqueters, and everything that is known about the politician and his ‘oratory’ suggests that he would have enjoyed watching the (presumed) downfall of the precocious καταπ⋯γων who affected the neologisms of fashionable politicians and sophists (fr. 198).

25 π⋯ρυσιν at Wasps 1037 makes this explicit.

26 Rostagni, , RFIC 53 (1925), 175 fGoogle Scholar.

27 One Vita (Koster, , IA. xxviii. 9–11Google Scholar) states that Aristonymus (fr. 4) an d Ameipsias (fr. 28): mocked him in this way. Another (Koster, , IA. xxxi. 8–11Google Scholar) names Aristonymus (fr. 4) and Sannyrio (fr. 5), citing their 'Hλιος ῥιγ⋯ν and Г⋯λως respectively. It is not certain whether Plato. Com. is referring to Aristophanes, in his Peisander (frs. 99, 100)Google Scholar.

28 That two or more poets independently inserted it into plays which were performed at the same festival is obviously improbable. It is logical to assume that one playwright coined the joke I and the other(s) took it up.

29 Whether any secrecy ever surrounded Aristophanes' authorship of the Banqueters and Babylonians is a controversial question which depends upon the exact significance of Wasps 1016–22 (particularly οὐ πανερ⋯ς and κρ⋯βδη in 1017). In any case, Aristophanes' relationship. with Callistratus (and with Philonides if he produced the Banqueters) must have become public knowledge during Cleon's action of 426. This is partially confirmed by Knights 512–14.

30 Athen. 6. 216d. The tradition that Plato Com. was compelled by poverty to sell his plays to other men is clearly suspect; cf. Norwood, , Greek Comedy (London, 1931), p. 166Google Scholar. In any case he was (like Eupolis) a contemporary of Aristophanes.

31 Clouds 528–9 with Σ.

32 Koster, , IA. xxviii. 7–10Google Scholar.

33 This, however, would not preclude repetition of the joke if it had initially gone down well with the spectators. Perhaps a playwright used it again in 423 and this provoked Aristophanes to reply in the Wasps and Peace.

34 The chorus preface their long explanation why Aristophanes has never undertaken production before with the statement that he has ordered them to answer a question which has perplexed many (512–14). As Neil, n. ad loc, observes, προσι⋯ντας and βασαν⋯ζειν indicate that the poet's numerous interrogators had approached a superior in a meddling manner. They can scarcely have been ‘a number of his friends’ as MacDowell, , n. ad Wasps Hyp. i. 32Google Scholar, suggests. καθ' ⋯αυτο⋯ς at 506 anticipates καθ' ⋯αυτ⋯ν at 513 and also shows that something about the public reaction to his reliance upon Callistratus and Philonides had annoyed Aristophanes.

35 Probably in 427 or 426. It would be cutting things fine to suppose that a competitor learnt. that Philonides was going to produce a play of Aristophanes at the Dionysia of 425 and inserted the joke into a play of his own which was performed at the same festival.