Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-lrvh5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-13T08:56:01.959Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Curbing the Comedians: Cleon Versus Aristophanes and Syracosius' Decree

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. E. Atkinson
J. E. Atkinson
Affiliation:
University of Cape Town
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is a tendency to prune the record of restrictions on the freedom of thought and expression in fifth-century Athens. K. J. Dover has demonstrated that many of the stories of attacks on intellectuals rest on little more than flimsy speculation. Similarly there has been a reluctance to accept the historicity of the several restrictions on comedy recorded by scholiasts. Thus, for example, H. B. Mattingly has expressed doubts about Morychides' decree, and S. Halliwell has rejected Antimachus' decree as a fiction and has adopted an agnostic attitude towards Syracosius' decree. But one cannot sweep all the references aside as fallacious inferences. This short paper looks first at the evidence that Cleon initiated a legal action against Aristophanes (or possibly Callistratus) after the production of the The Babylonians, in the light of what the Old Oligarch wrote about curbs on comedians. Secondly, the historicity of Syracosius' decree will be tested by an attempt to define its nature and purpose in its political context. This exercise will show that circumstantial evidence adduced against the historicity of the decree has no compelling force.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , May 1992 , pp. 56 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1992

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 ‘The Freedom of the Intellectual in Greek Society’, Talanta 7 (1975), 24–54.Google Scholar

2 ‘Poets and Politicians…’, in Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean…Studies Schachermeyr (Berlin, 1977), pp. 231–45, esp. p. 243.Google Scholar

3 CQ 34 (1984), 83–8, esp. p. 87.Google Scholar

4 Cf. the fragment of another scholion in Ox. Pap. vi.856, esp. 25–7, and the brief reference in the anon. vit. Ar. 4.

5 Recently stated, for example, by Carawan, E. M., ‘The Five Talents Cleon Coughed Up’, CQ 40 (1990), 137–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. p. 140.

6 Gilula, D., ‘A Case for Aristomenes (IG ii2.2325)’, CQ 39 (1989), 332–8, esp. p. 337CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Gilula also picks up K. J. Dover's point that in 377–8 (and 501–2) the first person singular must refer to the comic protagonist (Greek and the Greeks (Oxford, 1987), p. 296Google Scholar, originally in Maia 15 (1963)). But Dover was commenting on the literary interpretation of the two passages, and not arguing that Cleon's legal action was fictional.

7 A catalogue of victors at the Dionysia gives ‘Ari[–––––]’ for what is believed to be 427/6: IG ii2.2325, col. II. D. Gilula, art. cit. (n. 6, above), challenges E. Capps' case for restoring Ari[stophanes] (AJPh 28 (1907), 179–99), and argues that Ari[stomenes] has to be considered.

8 The Athenian Boule (Oxford, 1972), p. 4Google Scholar; Ostwald, M., From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of the Law (Berkeley, 1986), pp. 204–7.Google Scholar

9 The debate fell within Euthynos' archonship (Schol. Lucian, Tim. 30, p. 116,4 R = Jacoby, FGrHist 328 F 128b), and Wade-Gery, H. T. and Meritt, B. D., AJPh 57 (1936), 377–94, pp. 382–3Google Scholar, starting from the temporal indication in Thuc. 4.2.1, set the battle on 25 June 425.

10 Ostwald (n. 8, above), pp. 206–7.

11 Schol. RV Aristoph. Pax 665 (Jacoby, FGrHist 328 F 128a). The capture of Sphacteria fell 72 days after the naval battle (Thuc. 4.39.1).

12 Philochorus, Jacoby, FGrHist 328 F 128; Thuc. 4.21.3ff.; [Ar.] Ath. Pol. 28.3.

13 [Ar.] Ath. Pol. 62.3.

14 Thuc. 3.19.1.

15 The scholion on Ar. Acharn. 6 (Theopompus, Jacoby, FGrHist 115 F 94) is of no practical value in interpreting the history of eisphora in this period.

16 Thuc. 3.36.6 indicates that the original motion adopted was Cleon's.

17 ‘Aristophanes and Kallistratos’, CQ 32 (1982), 21–6, esp. p. 24Google Scholar. For further discussion and references see Carawan, , CQ 40 (1990), esp. p. 138 n. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Edmonds, J. M., The Fragments of Attic Comedy (hereafter FAC) (Leiden, 1957), i, esp. 592ff., frs 70, 81 and 95.Google Scholar

19 The defamation law was that attributed to Solon: Plut. Solon 21.2; Radin, M., AJPh 48 (1927), 215–30, esp. pp. 221–2Google Scholar. For a general treatment of Athenian law relating to slander see MacDowell, D. M., The Law in Classical Athens (London, 1978), pp. 126–8.Google Scholar

20 For references to works dating the Ath. Pol. earlier than 431 see M. Treu, RE 2.R. IX A (1967), cols. 1928–82, esp. 1947–59.

21 ‘Un nouvel essai d'interprétation de l'Athènaiôn Politeia Pseudo-Xénophontique’, REG 91 (1978), 77–95, pp. 83–4.Google Scholar

22 Cf. Forrest, W. G., ‘The Date of the Pseudo-Xenophontic Athenaion Politeia’, Klio 52 (1970), 107–16, pp. 108 and 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Leduc, C., La constitution d'Athènes attribuée à Xénophon (Paris, 1976), p. 30.Google Scholar

24 IG i3.71. The year is fixed as 425/4, but the prytany date is disputed (Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D., Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford, 1969), pp. 194–9)Google Scholar. This item is crucial to W. G. Forrest's case (n. 22, above), pp. 114–15.

25 Forrest (n. 22, above), pp. 107–8, Treu (n. 20, above), col. 1951, Bowersock, G. W., Xenophon: vol. 7, Scripta Minora (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), pp. 463–4.Google Scholar

26 Though this is central to E. Kalinka's discussion of the date of the Ath. Pol.: Die Pseudoxenophontische Ἀθηναιων πολιτεία… (Leipzig, 1913), pp. 5–15.Google Scholar

27 La Constitution d'Athènes attribuée à Xénophon (Paris, 1976)Google Scholar, to which Will, E. responded in REG 91 (1978), 77–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Leduc, C., ‘En marge de l'Athènaion Politeia attribuée à Xénophon’, Quademi di storia 7 (13) (1981), 281–334Google Scholar counters Will's attempt to dismiss her earlier study as an exercise in the misapplication of Marxist sociology.

28 κωμῳδεῖν κα κακς λέγειν might be taken as a form of hendiadys, ‘to abuse in comedy’ (whether verbally or representationally): the scholiast on Ar. Ach. 378 uses the expressions interchangeably, and in what follows in 2.18 the writer uses only the verb κωμῳδεῖν; but E. Kalinka (n. 26, above), p. 244 is, in my view, right to differentiate the two.

29 This translation is an adaptation of that of Frisch, H., The Constitution of the Athenians… (Copenhagen, 1942)Google Scholar; cf. the translation by Bowersock, G. W. in the Loeb edition, Xenophon, VII: Scripta minora (Cambridge, Mass., 1968).Google Scholar

30 Frisch (n. 29, above), p. 278 lists as examples Bergk, Kirchhoff, Stail and Gelzer.

31 Behr, C. A., Old Comedy and the Free State (Diss. Harvard, 1959Google Scholar, summarised in HSCP 65 (1961), 345–8Google Scholar) argues that it means democracy rather than the people. M. H. Hansen surveys the range of connotations in CetM 40 (1989), 101–6Google Scholar (reprinted in The Athenian Ecclesia II… (Copenhagen, 1989), pp. 213–18.Google Scholar

32 The translators of The Old Oligarch (Lactor, 2) (1968), p. 9Google Scholar commit themselves by rendering the phrase ‘the common people’, but that removes the ambiguity of the original.

33 Cf. Carawan, , CQ 40 (1990), 140 n. 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 Wolff, H., ZPE 36 (1979), 279–302Google Scholar; Xen. Hell. 1.7.20 and 34; Mem. 1.1.18; Ar. Eccles. 1089.

35 H. Wolff (n. 34, above), esp. p. 284 n. 6. M. Ostwald (n. 8 above), p. 207 likewise assumes that Cleon relied on Kannonos' decree.

36 Hypereides 4.7–8; 29; 39; Rhodes, P. J., Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford, 1981), pp. 317, 524–5Google Scholar, and JHS 99 (1979), 109–14.Google Scholar

37 The date of the bill depends on the date of Phrynichus' Hermit, and, although the text is corrupt, the scholiast on Birds 997 seems to date the Hermit to the archonship of Charias, viz. 415/14.

38 Phrynichus F 26, in Edmonds, FAC i.460; Kassel, R. and Austin, C., Poetae Comici Graeci (PCG), vii (Berlin, 1989), p. 407 F 27.Google Scholar

39 Edmonds, FAC i.458 F 22; Kassel and Austin, PCG vii.406 F 23.

40 Edmonds, FAC i.386 F 207.

41 Halliwell, S., CQ 34 (1984), 83–8, esp. pp. 86–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 Edmonds, FAC i.458–60, frs 20–2 and 26.

43 Sommerstein, A. H., ‘The Decree of Syrakosios’, CQ 36 (1986), 101–8, p. 102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44 CQ 36 (1986), 101–8.Google Scholar

45 RhM 4 (1836), 27–62, esp. pp. 59–60.Google Scholar

46 413: Schwarze, J., Die Beurteilung des Perikles (1971), 133–4Google Scholar; cf. Podlecki, A. J., Athenaeum 51 (1973), p. 432Google Scholar; 412: Körte, A., Hermes 47 (1912), esp. p. 296Google Scholar, followed by Jensen, Chr., Hermes 51 (1916), p. 338Google Scholar; 411: Edmonds, FAC i.360ff.

47 Edmonds, FAC i.360ff., and 979ff.

48 Andocides 1.15; perhaps the brother of Nicias: Lysias 18.9.

49 Cf. Austin, C., Comicorum graecorum fragmenta… (Berlin, 1973), p. 92.Google Scholar

50 Andocides 1.66; cf. Lysias 25.27.

51 Plut. Alcib. 20.6–7 = Edmonds, FAC i.466–9 F 58.

52 Andocides 1.66.

53 Andocides 1.36; Thuc. 6.27.3.

54 For other attempts to stop recriminations after a political crisis had been resolved cf. Thuc. 4.74.2, Andocides 1.79 (Patrocleides' decree) and 81 (the settlement of 403), Xen. Hell. 2.4.43, and [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 40.2.

55 The key phrase in the settlement of 403/2 was μ μνησικακεῖν: Andocides 1.90; other references in Loening, T. C., The Reconciliation Agreement of 403/402 B.C. in Athens (Wiesbaden, 1987), esp. p. 21 and n. 6Google Scholar. On specific terms banned by the law on defamation see Lysias 10 and works cited in n. 19, above.

56 SEG xiii. 12–22 and xix.23–5; Pritchett, W. K., ‘The Attic Stelai…’, Hesperia 22 (1953), 225–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Stele VII refers to those guilty of blasphemy in the matter of the Mysteries (SEG xiii. 18, line 1).

57 Lewis, D. M., ‘After the Profanation of the Mysteries’, in Ancient Society and Institutions: Studies… V. Ehrenberg (Oxford, 1966), pp. 177–91, esp. pp. 181–4Google Scholar; cf. Walbank, M., Hesperia 51 (1982), esp. p. 95.Google Scholar

58 Two demotics and a filiation plus demotic, listed by Pritchett, W. K., Hesperia 22 (1953), p. 298CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Gomme, A. W., Andrewes, A., and Dover, K. J., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, vol. 4, Books V 25–VII (Oxford, 1970), p. 280.Google Scholar

59 Pherecrates: Edmonds, FAC i.228–9 F 58; Kassel, R. and Austin, C., PCG, vii (Berlin, 1989), p. 132 F 64Google Scholar. Photius took ὑπώβολον, to be the equivalent of ὑπβολον, and thus to mean ‘mortgaged’, which is how the translators of this fragment generally take it (including Sommerstein (n. 43, above), pp. 105–6); but Fine, J. V., Horoi… (Baltimore, 1951), pp. 171–6Google Scholar plausibly argues that the reference in -ωβολον was to the tax imposed on the sale price of confiscated goods, and thus renders the adjective ‘sold for a song’ (p. 175).

60 Andocides 1.12 and 14; Plut. Alcib. 19.1–2; Paus. 1.2.5. It has been argued that the reference to a mortgage puts the play earlier than the confiscation (so A. H. Sommerstein (n. 43, above), pp. 105–6), but that is not a necessary conclusion, and depends on a questionable interpretation of the term ύπώβολον. The simple point is that Pulytion's house was marked as being no longer at his free disposal.

61 The Truth-tellers, in Edmonds, FAC i.192–3 F 41.

62 Andocides 1.36.

63 In A. W. Gomme, A. Andrewes and K. J. Dover (n. 58, above), p. 276.

64 Telecleides was not one of the three prize winners at the Dionysia in 414: Hypothesis, Ar. Birds. Telecleides was thus not a contestant, if the common view is correct that during the Peloponnesian War the number of comedies presented at this festival was limited to three, whereas before and after the war (e.g. Hypothesis IV Ar. Plutus) the number was five. Against the common view note Luppe, W., ‘Die Zahlder Konkurrenten…’, Philologus 116 (1972), 53–75Google Scholar, followed by Podlecki, A. J., Athenaeum 51 (1973), esp. p. 432Google Scholar. The victors in the Lenaia of 414 are not known.

65 Edmonds, FAC i.521 F 95 = Athen. 9.385d–e; Andocides 1.36.

66 Plato included a reference to t he Herms apparently in the Daedalus (FAC i.550–1 F 188). Edmonds puts it after 415, but concludes that the only vacant date for the Daedalus is 399. The list is so tentative that a date before 399 remains an option.

67 MacDowell, D. M., Andokides, On the Mysteries (Oxford, 1962), esp. p. 211Google Scholar. I gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments of Dr M. R. Mezzabotta on an earlier draft of this paper, and I am indebted to the anonymous referee, whose influence may now be traced in the line taken with regard to the dates of Cleon's term as bouleutes and of the composition of the ‘Old Oligarch's’ Athenaion Politeia.