Myth-Making in Aristophanes Innovation and Evolution in Attic Comedy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Myth-making in Aristophanes Innovation and evolution in Attic comedy A thesis presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Classics Effie Zagari May 2018 Abstract The present study focuses on the development of Attic comedy as it is evidenced in four fragmentary plays by Aristophanes. The plays that are discussed and analysed are parodies of tragedies and present characteristics that are not prominent in the extant plays. The aim of this study is twofold: to demonstrate how Aristophanes composed plays as parodies, heavily relying on a tragic model, and, through these plays, to show how he contributed to the development of Attic comedy after the 5th c. BC. The fragmentary corpus of Aristophanes contains elements such as the use and re-use of myths, which are already exploited by other authors, as well as the production of a large-scale burlesque, that is whole plays which appear to have been composed as parodies of tragedies. Polyidus, Daedalus, Aeolosicon, and Cocalus belong to this branch of the Aristophanic oeuvre and are excellent case-studies that evidence the inner development and evolution of Aristophanic comedy. This study thus revisits Old Comedy and enriches the scholarship with new insights and new discoveries regarding Aristophanes, his literary interactions, as well as his innovating and influential work. Declaration I confirm that this is my own work and the use of all material from other sources has been properly and fully acknowledged. Acknowledgements This thesis would have not been possible without the constant support of my supervisor, Prof. Peter Kruschwitz. His intelligent and much needed feedback was essential for the realization of this thesis. He has been an invaluable supervisor as well as a friend, always happy to go the extra mile, in very many instances. The final version of the thesis was the result of my examiners’, Prof. Barbara Goff and Dr. Ian Ruffell, invaluable contributions and extremely useful comments. I would like to thank my former teachers and friends Dr. Athina Papachrysostomou, who was of great help when I was composing my PhD proposal, and Dr. Christina Manolea, for whose constant encouragement and support throughout my PhD studies I am immensely grateful. Special thanks goes to Akash Puranik for his constant psychological support the past three years and to Till Spanke for always offering his services as a translator and believing in me and my potential. Finally, I would like to express my vast gratitude and love to my parents, who have very generously supported me throughout my studies in the UK. This thesis is dedicated to them, as I would have never made it so far without their constant psychological and financial support. Table of Contents Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..3 1. Disiecti membra poetae: The fragments of Aristophanes between tradition and innovation ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Working with fragments: methodological issues, risks, and problems .................. 4 1.2 The fragments of Aristophanes’ comedies: The status quaestionis ..................... 11 1.3 Parody in Aristophanes ........................................................................................ 17 1.4 Generic development and Aristophanes ............................................................... 25 1.5 Aristophanes’ four character plays ....................................................................... 30 2. A different kind of Aristophanic comedy .................................................................. 34 2.1 Polyidus: The seer, the resurrection and the fraud ............................................... 38 2.1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 38 2.1.2 The fragments ................................................................................................ 41 2.1.3 The characters ................................................................................................ 53 2.1.4 The plot of Polyidus: Lingering between truth and deceit ............................ 56 2.1.5 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 63 2.2. Daedalus: The corrupting appeal of godlike power ............................................ 65 2.2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 65 2.2.2 The fragments ................................................................................................ 74 2.2.3 The characters ................................................................................................ 89 2.2.4 The plot of Daedalus: Impregnated by the wind ........................................... 98 2.2.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 101 2.3 Aeolosicon: Messing with the gods (and the genre!) ......................................... 102 1 2.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 102 2.3.2 The fragments .............................................................................................. 117 2.3.3 The characters .............................................................................................. 132 2.3.4 The plot of Aeolosicon: An incestuous love and the ingredients for a new type of comedy ..................................................................................................... 145 2.3.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 150 2.4 Cocalus: Moving geographical and generic boundaries .................................... 152 2.4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 152 2.4.2 The fragments .............................................................................................. 159 2.4.3 The characters .............................................................................................. 169 2.4.4 The plot of Cocalus: Minos versus Daedalus – the final confrontation ...... 180 2.4.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 183 3. Conclusion: Aristophanes, Attic Comedy and the re-invention of a political genre 185 3.1 Aristophanes and Araros .................................................................................... 186 3.2 The beginning of a transition between sub-genres ............................................. 190 3.3 Aristophanes and Middle Comedy ..................................................................... 197 3.4 Aristophanes and New Comedy ......................................................................... 200 4. Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 205 2 Introduction 1. Disiecti membra poetae: The fragments of Aristophanes between tradition and innovation Aristophanes is a towering figure in the history of ancient drama. The extant plays seem to transmit a coherent picture of the comic genius drawing up to a more or less monolithic image of the poet. The poet Aristophanes, as we may infer from the content of the plays, appeared as a defender of the polis and the demos, and the caustic commentator on the Athenians’ daily pressing problems, and the social and political life of his city is the main focus within extant comedies.1 This impression is well-justified and supported until one decides to look within the fragments. The fragments reveal that the nature of the Aristophanic corpus is much more complex than the picture that emerges from the complete comedies. The fragmentary plays of this thesis belong to a very different type of Aristophanic creation (and creativity), revealing the dynamics of an ever-evolving genre within a rapidly changing political order. Aristophanes experiments and engages with tragedy and parody more extensively than the instances found incorporated in his extant plays. That said, one could not but recognise the significant chunks of parody that exist in the extant plays such as Acharnians, Peace, Thesmophoriazusae, and Frogs, in which case the whole scenario is still original despite the clear presence of parodic scenes. This practice is more frequently adopted in Middle Comedy, rather than Old Comedy.2 Another interesting feature of these plays is the non-Athenian setting as well as the apparent domestic issues that these plays might have been built around, elements which are also found more commonly in Middle as well as New Comedy. The mechanics of this Aristophanic achievement will be the main topic of this thesis; in other words, one of the main issues in this study will be the ways in which Aristophanes managed to turn a tragedy into a comedy, adopting a non-Athenian, 1 Heath (1987). 2 There are, of course, other interesting examples such as Strattis, but for the purpose of this study focus will remain on Aristophanes. Further on Strattis and his parodies see ch. 2 in Farmer (2017). 3 domestic setting, and the ramifications of such a practice within the larger context of the dramatic tradition. The thesis focuses on the analysis of four plays in a way that has not been seen in any of the existing editions of the comic fragments. The achievement of