wa:r with Cleon.2 Later in the Knights

497 Pages·2017·24.93 MB·English

PREFATORY NOTE
Appendix D (The Age of Majority in Athens) has
appeared as an article in somewhat different form in the
October 1977 issue of Classical News and Views. Appendix
F (Knights 230-3 and Cleon's_Eyebrows) has been accepted
for publication in substantially the same form in Classical
Quart erl.
ABBREVIATIONS
For the names of ancient authors and their works,
I have tried to use customary and obvious abbreviations;
so too for familiar works of reference such as CAH, OCD,
, RE. For the titles of periodicals, I have been guided
by the abbreviations used in L'Anne Philologique, while
feeling free to employ a different abbreviation In common
use or none at all.
For the titles of modern works which I have cited
frequently in the notes, the following abbreviations are
used:
AB P.J. Rhodes, The Athenian Boule, Oxford,
1972. -
AC K.J. Dover, Aristophanic Comedy, Berkeley,
1972.
APF J.K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families
600-300 B.C., Oxford, 1971.
ATL The Athenian Tribute Lists, by B.D. Meritt,
H.T. Wade-Gery, and M.F. McGregor, 4 vols.,
Cambridge (Mass.), I, Princeton, ii-iv,
1939-53.
Beitrge G. Gilbert, Beitrge zur Innern geschichte
Athens im zeltalter des peloponneslschen
Krieges, Leipzig, 1877.
DFA A.W. Pickrd-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals
of Athens', revised by J. Gould and D.M. Lewis,
Oxford, 196g.
FGH F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechlschen
Historiker, Berlin and Leiden, 1923-
GdA E. Meyer, Geschlchte des Altertums5, Basel,
1956.
GG G. Busolt, Griechische Geschichte, Gotha,
l93-19O4..
ABBREVIATIONS
HCT A.W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary on
Thucydides, 3 vols. (to v.24), Oxford,
1945-56.
IG Inscriptiones Graecae, Berlin, 173--
MEGHL A.W. Gomme, More Essays in Greek History and
1962.
Literature, Oxford,
ML R. Meiggs and D.M. Lewis, A Selection of
Greek Historical Inscriptions to the end of
the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford, 1969.
NP W.R. Connor, The New Politicians of Fifth-
Century Athens, Princeton, 1971.
Reference to the following is made by author's
name only:
Croiset M. Croiset, Aristophanes and The
Political Parties at Athens (tr. by
J. Loeb), London, 1909.
de Ste. Croix G.E.M. de Ste. Croix, The Origins of
the Pe].oponnesian War, London, 1972.
Dover K.J. Dover, Aristophanes Clouds,
Oxford, l96.
Dttbner F. Dilbner, Scholia Graeta in Aristopha-
nem cum prolegomenis grammaticcrum,
Paris, 1877.

Edmond s J.M. Edmonds, The Fragments of Attic
Comedy, Leiden, 1957.

Ehrenberg V. Ehrenberg, The People of Aristophanes,,
Oxford, 1951.
Geissler P. Geissler, Chronologie der altatti-
schen komödie, Berlin, 1925.
Hignett C. Hignett, A History Of The AthenIan
Constitution To The End Of The Fifth
Century B.C., Oxford, 1958.

Kagan D. Kagan, The Archidamian War, Cornell
U.P., 1974.

Kock T. Kock, Comicorurn Atticorum Fragmenta,
Leipzig, 1880-8.
ABBREVIAT IONS
9

Landfester M. Landfester, Die Ritter des Aristo-.
panes, Amsterdam, 196?.

?a c Dow eli D.M. YacDowell, Aristophanes Wasps,
Oxford, 1971.
Neiggs R. Neiggs, The Athenian Erpire, Oxford,
1972.
?eineke A. Meineke, Fragmenta Comicorurn
Graecoruni, Berlin, 183g-57.
Muhier-Strilbing H. MtIiier-Strtlbing, Aristophanes und
die historische Kritik, Leipzig, 1873.
Neil R.A. Neil, The Knights of Aristophanes,
Cambridge, 1901.
Platnauer M. Platnauer, Aristophanes Peace,
Oxford, 1964.
Rennie W. Rennie, The Acharriians of Aristo-.
phanes, London, 1909.
Starki e W.J-.M. Starkie, The Acharnians of
Aristophanes, Lodon, 1909.
Van Leeuwen J. Van Leeuwen, Aristophanes Eguites,
Leiden, 1900. -
Except In a few instances the comic fragments are cited
from Kock's edition, the scholia from Dflbner.
INTRODUCTION
main objectives in this thesis and the approach
I1y
which I have adopted need some definition and elaboration.
The title itself perhaps requires a word of explanation.
I have not attempted to cover the relationship of Aristo-
phanes and Cleon down to the latter's death or to the
production of the Peace in 422/1, because I do not think
.that It would have been feasible to do so adequately in a
work of this length. Reference is made to Cleon's later
career and to passages in the Clouds, Wasps and Peace where
this seems relevant, but I have taken 424, or rather the
Lenaea of 424, as a 'cut-off point'.1 This is not an
arbitrary terminus. It was at this festival that Aristo-
phanes won first prize with his Knights, a comedy which
embodied an extensive attack upon Cleon, and the politician
was at the height of his influence In the city when the
play was performed.
Individual chapters of the thesis are devoted to
Cleon's early career; to the Banqueters; the Babylonians;
Clean's reaction to the Babylonians; the Acharnians; and
the Knights. Detailed examination of several important
questions is relegated to appendices in order to try to
keep the main line of argument clear, but there Is inevi-
tably considerable imbalance in the length of the chapters.
1 The possibility that Clean attacked Aristophañes follow-
ing the production of the Knights is briefly discussed in
connection with Cleon's action after the Babylonians.
INTRODUCTION 11
Almost every line in the Knights Is concerned with Cleon,
and the chapter in which I analyze the play is far longer
than any other. There does not seem to be any way of
avoiding this, and to facilitate examination of the comedy
I have considered Cleon's 'activities' here in nine dif-
ferent sections. In the third of these, a section dealing
with the politician's use of oracles and religion, I argue
that there is some reason to think that Cleon had recently
been involved in the Athenian decision to start work upon
the Nike temple and that Aristophanes pokes fun at this In
his play. For clarity and completeness, the inscriptions
connected with the temple as well as modern controversy
about the date and context of its building have to be
discussed, and this 'expository material' makes the section
somewhat unwieldy. !et it is difficult to see how the
material could have been treated separately In an appendix,
and I decided that here too I should simpLy have to
tolerate a certain lack of proportion.
When I first began work on this subject my main
interest lay In Aristophanes rather than in Cleon. By
this I mean that I wanted to concentrate on analyzing the
various ways in which he attacks the politician in his
comedies. I soon realized, however, that in order to do
this It was necessary to try to 'unearth the real Cleon',
and the thesis in its final form is at least as much about
Cleon as about Aristophanes. Although my aim is not
primarily historical, It is suggested throughout that in
various ways (some apparently not noted before) the
INTRODUCTION 12
comedies do shed considerable light upon the politician's
career.
My main purpose is to examine in as comprehensive
a manner as possible the evidence for the relationship
between Aristophanes and Cleon (chronologically viewed)
from 427 to (early) 424. This, I think, requires no
justification. The validity of trying to trace the course
of the feud between the two men and (particularly) of
attempting to make any estimate of the seriousness of
Aristophanes' attacks upon Cleon is perhaps slightly more
controversial. These objectives certainly involve con-
siderable difficulties. It is impossible to reconstruct
the plot of either the-Banqueters or the Babylonians, and
another of the poet's lost plays may have been performed
in 427, 426, or 425)- Moreover, any judgment which one
makes about Aristophanes' intentions when he wrote the
Acharnians and the Knights (not to mention-the lost
comedies) is necessarily subjective.
The problems should not be minimized. The best
evidence for Aristophanes' political viewpoint would un-
doubtedly be the miraculous emergence of one of his
comedies which was performed prior to Cleon's attack upon
him in 426. If he wrote a fifth (or sixth?) play before
the beginning of 424 any reconstruction of the development
of his feud with Cleon is (at best) incomplete, and no two
1 This possibility is considered in the Conclusion of the
thesis.
INTRODUCTI ON
13
modern readers are likely to be in total agreement about
what he was trying to do in his extant works.
Because of these and other difficulties, certainty
here is often impossible and doubts have to be frankly
expressed. Yet it still seems important to try to uncover
the feud between Aristophanes and Cleon and to trace Its
development as fully as one can. It Is beyond the scope
of this Introduction to take up the arguments advanced by
Gomme when he urged that it was pointless to try to dis-
cover Aristophanes' political opinions and that only
Aristotelian canons of consistency and probability should
be invoked when analyzing the comedies. 1 Gomrne's vigorous-
ly argued viewpoint has had a considerable impact on the
course of Aristophanic criticism but in recent years there
have been growing signs of a healthy counter-reaction.2
I simply wish to say that I find Gonirne's position here
untenable. Any play can embody or contain, a serious
political 'message'. Particularly because of the intimate
connection between an Athenian audince and the stage and
the intentional 'violations of the /frariatic illusion', I
believe that Aristotelian criteria are of limited relevance
where Old Comedy is concerned. Goime may be nearer the
mark in arguing that it is impossibie to discover what
Aristophanes' political opinions 4zere. At least it seems
doubtful whether they will ever be established to
l93,
!EGHL 70-91.
1 CR lii 97-109 =
2 See especially de Ste. Croix, 355-7.
INTRODUCTION 14
everybody's s&tisfaction, but the attempt must surely be
made to determine what (if any) political purpose and
hopes he had when he wrote his plays.
It may appear a little curious to close this
Introduction by referring to an epigraphical controversy,
but the subject is important and it seems as well to make
my position clear at the outset. In a series of articles
which began in 1961, H.B. Mattingly has consistently argued
that a number of Athenian decrees which are usually dated
earlier belong to the 4205.1 He believes that they reflect
a strong imperialism which developed after the death of
Pericles with Cleon and his successors, but I am very far
from being convinced that certain letter forms (notably
the 3-bar sigma) are not reliable criteria of date.2
Consequently, I have not (e.g.) referred to the Coinage
Decree when discussing Cleon's attitude towards the
Empire.3 Essentially, I follow ?Ieiggs, Meritt and those
other scholars who uphold the 'orthodox' view that the
1 Hist. x 1961, 14-. Most of Mattingly's later
articles are listed by M.B. Walbank, Phoros: Tribute to
Benjamin Dean Meritt, N. York, 1974, 161 n. 1.
2 Walbank, supra cit. 161-9, has recently published lists
of dated fifth-century documents noting changes in all the
letters of the Attic and Ionic alphabets. As he observes,
they support the orthodox view that the disappearance of
the three-barred sigma and the tailed rho are reliable
indications of date.
3 The dating of the Coinage Decree involved peculiar
problems since only the Cos fragment uses the sigma with
three bars., but this seems decisive. For modern contro-
versy on the subject, see Meiggs, 167-72; B.D. Meritt,
PAPhS cxix 1975, 267-74.
INTRODUCTION 15
important steps in changing the Alliance into an Empire
were taken in the forties, and that Cleon had nothing to
do with them.