Old Comedy Pherecrates' Way I?duard Urios Aparisi The view of Oki Comedy has generally been limited to the interpretation of the remaining plays of Aristophanes and to the opinions given by Ancient scholars and Scholiasts. Only now, the growing interest in this genre has been furthered by the appearance of books, studies and editions. However, the fragmentary situation of the works of most comic poets, except for Aris- tophanes, generally hinders any definitive conclusion about these plays and the real intent of their poets. In this paper, I will give a general overview of what we know of Pherecrates' plays and their plots to judge from a close study of the fragments. From the analysis of some fragments one can obser- ve that Pherecrates probably tried to give a character a role and a style of speaking apparently consistent throughout the whole play (see for instance in frr. 28, 75, 76, 155, and others). I will argue also that, if Pherecrates fo- llowed a single plotline and coherent characterization, he is creating style that would he prominent in later stages of this genre. This feature could be called ,continuity. and it would be in sharp opposition to the ,discontinuity. that according to M. Silk is typical of Aristophanic comedy'. It is generally stated that the evolution of Old Comedy into Middle Comedy conveys several progressive changes in the traditional structure of a come- dy. The main features may have been in the parabasis, also in the con- tents', and the characterization and language'. In general, this evolution is I must acknowledge many people for their suggestions and continous support. I hope that they feel alluded by my most heartful thanks. I. Cf. M. Su.h in C. Pratm^, (ed.) Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature, Oxford 1990, p. 159. 2. For instance the introduction of the Gods' Births according to NESSELRATH ,Myth, Parody and Comic Plots. pp. 1 ft. in G. DOBROv (ed.) Beyond lrisiopbanes: Transition and 1)1- rvrcity in Greek Conrudt. Atlanta 1995. 3. See G. DonRov ,The Poets Voice in the Evolution of Dramatic Dialogism» in Dohrov (ed.) Beyond.'lrictopbane.c cit., pp. 47ff. Eduard t rios Ap,,trisi viewed as a change from a highly dynamic and creative style to the hieratic and stereotyped form of New Comedy'. Middle Comedy, in its strict sense, begins aproximately in 380 B.C. according to H.-G. Nesselrath's analysis of the poets of the end of the 4th century', but R. Rosen suggests that some features of Middle comedy were already found in the plays of Plato comi- cus6. 5th century comedy has been normally divided according to two trends: the political satire of Cratinus and Hermippus from the 450s to the first years of the Peloponnesian War. According to Sommerstein it is a free and often vicious political invective of assembly and law-courts'". The other trend, initiated by Crates and followed by Pherecrates, would imitate trage- dy and improve plot construction. This conception echoes Norwood's chapter "the school of Crates,'. Pherecrates, Phrynichus and Plato comicus are also included in this group as the poets who do not follow the trend of political comedy. On the one hand, I regard this division to be too clearcut to ring true, and throughout this paper I will try to show connection points between Pherecrates and Aristophanes. Otherwise, if one accepts this divi- sion, I wonder whether it reflects not only a style of comedy, but also two audiences or attitudes to the comic performance. Especially if we take into account that the Dionysian and Lenaian festivals were also a contest, and the taste of the audience must have had a role in the decision of the win- ner'. One would expect that the presence of peasants and farmers from Attika taking refuge within Athens' walls from 431-404 could have influen- ced the kind of comedy preferred in the festivals. This suggestion is, no- 4. This view has prevailed until now in our appreciation of Middle Comedy as a transitory moment between two great peaks: Aristophanes and Menander. This opinion has been largely dismissed now above all after Nesselrath's detailed discussion in Die attiscbe Mittlere Komodie, Berlin - New York 1990. About stereotyping in New Comedy see R. L. HUNTER Eubulus: The Fragments, Cambridge 1985, pp. 59 if. 5. NESSELRATH, op. cit. p. 28. The article of W.G. ARNOTr "From Aristophanes to Menander,, G&R 19, 1972, pp. 65-80 can be consulted for a concise and clear study of the evolution from Old Comedy from the beginning until the end of the IV century. The most cony prehensive and seminal work about this period is H.-G. Nesselrath op. cit. I follow his conclusions on the evolution of the genre, although some of his points have been dis- puted, as for instance, P.G. Mc. BROWN ^Menander, Fragments 745 and 746 K. 'I'., Me- nander's Kolax and Parasites and flaterers in Greek Comedy" ZPE 92, 1992, pp. 91-107, esp. 98-107 about the difference between napaoitos and xoX x in Middle Comedy. 6. R. ROSEN Old Comedy and the lambographic Tradition, Atlanta 1988, pp. 1 ff. 7. Cf. SOMMERSTEIN in Aristophantes' Achar;iians (Warmister - New York 1986), p. 19. M. HEATH CQ 39, 1989, p. 351 reaches a similar conclusion about the network of influences of Crates and Cratinus. M. Heath on interpreting Arist. Poet. 5 p. 1449h 5 suggests that the stress in plot-construction led Crates to the poetry of non-iambic style, and ultima- tely the model of Crates would have influenced Cratinus (see also M. HEATH G&R 37, 1990, p. 144). 8. G. NoRW000 Greek Comedy, London 1931, p. 145. 9. About the audience's expectations see D.M. MACDOWErt Aristopbaiies and Athens, Ox- ford 1994, pp. 16 ff. Old Comedy Pherecrates' Way 77 netheless, very difficult to prove, and it seems clear that the ultimate source of this division is Arist. Poet. 5 p. 1449b 5: To 8e i nOovs roIEfv {'Eni,x apµoc xai. (PopµUgl To tEV e^ ap)(11S Ex ItxEklas riWE , ccw SE 'A671v71oty KpalcriS JTpwlcoS 71p EV a tE trvoS iris tcq.t 3LxfS'fleas xaOo2 ov 7toIEiv Xoyoug xai, ti Oovg. Aristotle is clearly looking for connexions between the Athenian and Doric comedy, where he believed comedy originated"). According to him, Crates would be the first to stress the importance of plots and dialogues, avoiding the ^4amhic form),. Although it is a difficult expression to define precisely, Aristotle likely intends by i(t[tPtxri i6hi to connect both iambic poetry and comedy, presumably by their focus on negative characters, use of fantastic arguments and, particularly, invective and obscene language". Aristotle is, certainly, simplifying in order to make a taxonomic classification of the genres based on formal and moral elements'. Aristotle's distinction between invective and non-invective poetry seems to have influenced the thought of other ancient scholars as Anon. De corn. (Proleg. de Com. III) 26 p. 8 Kost. (cf. Crat. test. 2a and Pherecr. test. 2a). The text runs as follows: KQ6T11; 'A6riva1os, TUOTOV IJTOxptT1 V ^aotv'EyOVIVat To TWTOV, oS £ttt(3E{3Xrixr Kpaiww, 'avv yeXoios xal Wapog yEvoµEvo;, xal atpwio; .trOvovi(Xs £V wgti) la 1Tp01j7(tyEV. TO1)TOV SpaµaTa EGTtV EJtra. 1EQrxpaTris 'Aorivato;. vtxa ejri, OEOBwpov• yEvo trvos 8E {6} uJToxptTric ^oor KQ6TgT0[, xaL au TOU tEV Xot80QE1V 67tEGTE, Ttpayµaza 8E Ei,oriyov lrVOc xatva riv8ox4.tEt yEvoltEvog EuQE7txoc µvfltuv. 10. Cf. Arist. Poet. I,+-i8a5. 11. Cf. the distinction between ttiµrlats nQa^ews wtovbaias for tragedy (Poet. 1449b24) and ttiniot^ (PauXoTeewv for comedy (Poet. 1449a32); the way of composing a comedy with that of a iambic poem in ibid. 1451b13. ROSEN O. C. and the Iamb. Trad. cit, p. 1 ff. seems to stress the last point in particular, but I think that Aristotle draws further connexions between both genres. Nonetheless, the main distinction must have been between invective and non-invective comedy as we can see in Aristotle EN 1128a6 where lie rejects the humour of comic poets of the past who ribot b' Clv tts xai ex Twv xwµwi)Iwv Twv 1tUXatwv xai Ttuv xatvwv• Tots f V yaQ >1v yEXotov f] ULOXQOXOyI,a, to-t5 & tt& Xov t`1 ultovota• bta0ert b' ov ttxeov tauTa nQ6g rvoxrlµoovvrly (found their fun in obscenity, the moderns prefer innuendo, which marks a great advance in deco- rum) [Translation by H. RACKMAN in Loeb, Cambridge Mass. 193421. See also EN 1128a9). 12. About the common features of iambic poetry and Attic comedy, see WEST .Studies in Greek Elegy and Iambus, Berlin - New York 1974, p. 37, J. HENDERSON The Maculate Muse, Oxford 19902, pp. 17, 19 and R.M. ROSEN O.C. and the Iamb. Trad. cit., pp. 9-35. This classification may have led Aristotle to dismiss Cratinus' plots and thus give most of the credit to Crates. 78 Eduard tlrios Aparisi This text, one of the most reliable and useful ancient sources on comedy", also provides information about the life and works of Pherecrates. ])here- crates, just as his master Crates, was an actor before becoming a play- wright. In 438-7 he won his first victory and probably lived until the end of the V century'". He composed between 17 and 19 plays'. Poets contempo- rary to him were Callias, Teleclides, Phrynichus and Hermippus''. It also coincides in the appreciation of two types of comedies in the 5th century and the differences are based in similar features: Pherecrates' avoidance of abusive personal attacks and his invention of new plots. It is, naturally, difficult to assess to what extent this statement is truth or exa- ggeration, but to judge by the title of his plays, Pherecrates shows a great degree of originality, unparalled among his contemporary poets.