Aristophanes: Knights / Ιππής του Αριστοφάνη 0856681776, 9780856681776

Citation preview

THE COMEDIES OF ARISTOPHANES: VOL 2

KNIGHTS

Edited with a translation and notes by

Alan H. Sommerstein

THE COMEDIES O F ARISTOPHANES VOL. 2

KNIGHTS

edited with translation and notes by

Alan H. Sommerstein

A

Aristophanes Knights. 1. Aristophanes - Comedies I. Title Ü. Sommerstein, Alan H. 882’.01 PA3877.A2

CONTENTS

ISBN 0-85668-177-6 Cloth ISBN 0-85668-178-4 Paperback

© Alan Sommerstein 1981. All rights reserved. No p a rt o f this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system , or transm itted in any form by any means w ithout the prior w ritten permission o f the publishers.

Printed and Published by ARIS & PHILLIPS LTD, Warminster, Wilts, England.

PREFACE REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS KNIGHTS Introductory Note Note on the Text Sigla Text and Translation Notes

PREFACE

This volume follows my edition of Acharnions (1980) as the second in a series which it is hoped will ultimately comprise all the eleven surviving comedies of Aristophanes. The Acharnions volume includes a general introduction to the whole series. 1 am happy to repeat in connection with the present volume my acknow­ ledgement of what 1 owe to those whose advice and assistance made this edition possible, and helped to give it such merit as it may possess. I should here take the opportunity of correcting an omission in the previous volume by making it clear that comprehensive indexes to the eleven comedies will be included in the final volume of the series. I have taken the opportunity of a repint to make such corrections and updatings as can be inserted without altering the pagination and lining. These corrections will be repeated, together with others which cannot be included here, in ihe Addenda and Corrigenda which will appear in the final volume (Wealth) of this soies. I must express my thanks to Jeffrey Henderson for having communicated to me a forthcoming paper concerning the attribution of some textual emendations in Knights, and to Mr P.T. Eden for having shown me the way to a new understanding of the text and meaning of lines 271-2.

REFEREN CES AND ABBREVIATIONS

Methods of reference generally follow those used in the liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon (LSJ) or its Supplement; references to collections of fragments, etc., published more recently are accompanied by the editor’s name or the abbreviated title of the collection. Note that (i) references to fragments of Sophocles are valid both for the edition of A.C. Pearson (Cambridge, 1917) and for that of S.L. Radt (Göttingen, 1977 = TrGF vol. iv); (ii) references to Menander by play and line are to the edition of F.H. Sandbach (Oxford, 1972). Abbreviations of the names of authors and works are generally as in LSJ, but in some cases less drastic abbreviations have been used, e.g. “Soph.” rather than “S.” for Sophocles, “Pyth. ” rather than “P.” for Pindar’s Pythian odes;and for Xenophon’s Hellenica the abbreviation “Hell. ” has been preferred to “HG” .

SELECT LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Agora XV, xvii

Alan H. Sommerstein Nottingham, June ly90. AJPh Allen A.R. At. Arist. BCH CGF CP

The Athenian Agora: Results o f Excavations conducted by the American School o f Classical Studies at Athens. Volume XV: Inscriptions: The Athenian Councillors ed. B.D. Meritt and J.S. Traill (Princeton, 1974). Volume xvii: Inscriptions: The Funerary Monuments ed. D.W. Bradeen (Princeton, 1974). American Journal o f Philology. Homeri Opera: fornus V ed. T.W. Allen (Oxford, 1912). Apollonius Rhodius. Aristophanes. Aristotle. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique. Comicorum Graecorum fragmenta in papyris reperta ed. C. Austin (Berlin, 1973). Classical Philology. vii

CQ CR Dem. D-K

D.S. Edmonds Et. Mag FGrH GHÏ1

Gomme (-AndrewesDover) JHS Lys. Lys. Merkelbach-West Nauck-Snell

M / (Pliny) OED Suppl. PA Page

PCPS PI. Hut. RE

Classical Quarterly. Classical Review. Demosthenes. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. griechisch und deutsch von H. Diels, hrsg. W. Kranz (6. Auflage, Berlin, 1951-2). Diodorus Siculus. The Fragments o f Attic Comedy ed. J.M. Edmonds (Leiden, 1957-61). Etymologicum Magnum. Fragmente der griechischen Historiker ed. F. Jacoby (Berlin and Leiden, 1923-58). A Selection o f Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End o f the Fifth Century B.C. ed. R. Meiggs and D.M. Lewis (Oxford, 1969). A.W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides (completed by A. Andrewes and K J. Dover) (Oxford, 1945-81). Journal o f Hellenic Studies. Lysias. Lysistrata. Fragmenta Hesiodea ed. R, Merkelbach et M.L. West (Oxford, 1967). Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta ed. A. Nauck, supple­ mentum -----adiecit B. Snell (Hildesheim, 1964). This form of reference is used for fragments appearing in Snell’s supplement. Naturalis Historia. A Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary ed. R.W. Burchfield (Oxford, 1972- ). J. Kirchner,Prosopographia Attica (Berlin, 1901-3). Poetae melici Graeci ed. D.L. Page (Oxford, 1962); references are to fragment numbers for individual poets, not (except in the case of anonymous poems) to the continuous numbering. Proceedings o f the Cambridge Philological Society. Hato. Plutarch. Paulys Realencyclopädie der klassischen A ltertums­ wissenschaft. viü

REG SEG

TrGF

West

Revue des Études Grecques. Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum ed. J.J.E. Hondius et al. (Leiden, 1923-71; Alphen aan den Rijn, 1979- ). Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta (Göttingen, 1971- ); “TrGF 29” means that the person in question is author no. 29 in TrGF vol. I (ed. B. Snell, 1971). Iambi et elegi Graeci ed. M.L. West (Oxford, 1971-2).

In notes on metre, —denotes a heavy (long) syllable; v a light (short) syllable; and Xa syllable which may be of either kind (anceps).

KNIGHTS

INTRODUCTORY NOTE Knights was the first play that Aristophanes produced on his own behalf. It was performed at the Lenaea of 424 B.C., and won first prize, defeating the Satyrs of Cratinus and the Porters (Hülophoroi) of Aristomenes. The situation in the Peloponnesian War had been transformed the previous summer by the Athenian victory at Pylos in the western Peloponnese. This suc­ cess had damaged the Spartans’ reputation for invincibility on land; it had pro­ vided the Messenians, kinsmen to many of Sparta’s helots, with a base for infil­ tration and subversion in Spartan territory ; and among the prisoners taken were about 120 of the Spartan ruling class, whose presence in Athens as hostages pre­ vented any further Peloponnesian invasions of Attica. Both during and after the Pylos operations, Spartan offers of peace had been refused, largely on the advice of Cleon (cf. 794-6); instead the Athenians planned and tried to execute increas­ ingly ambitious offensive operations, the first of which (Nicias’ expedition against Corinth) is humorously described in Knights 595-610. By the mass of the Athenian public the entire credit for the victory at Pylos was given to Cleon, who became a national hero. He was given the right to state maintenance in the Prytaneum (cf. on 281) and privileged seating at the public spectacles (cf. 575,702-4), and in the early weeks of 424 he could safely regard himself as virtually certain to be elected as one of the ten generals for 424/3. At this juncture Knights was produced. It is a violent attack on Cleon, but also on the whole style of political leadership of which he was the foremost rep­ resentative. Nine-tenths of the play is deeply pessimistic: the Athenian people, represented by the old man Demos, is shown as being so stupid and gullible that the only way for a Cleon to be overthrown is by a man who outdoes him in those very qualities that make Cleon such a menace. The claim of Demos (1111-50) that he is not really being gullible but rather acting on a crude calculation of selfinterest is one that offers little comfort even if we believe it. In the concluding scene everything is turned topsy-turvy. At the moment of the Sausage-seller’s rise to power we are encouraged to believe that he will rule in the same way as his predecessor, by deception and robbery of the “Openmouthenian” people (1263), and by malicious prosecution of his political rivals (in which Demosthenes begs to be allowed to assist: 1255-6). Nothing of the kind happens. Instead, Demos is magically rejuvenated, and the Sausage-seller, magically too, it might almost seem, is converted into Demos’ honest adviser and

2

the restorer of the glories of the Persian War period. Perhaps this may be meant to suggest that the Athenian people gets the political leaders it deserves. If it is stupid and selfish, its politicians will likewise be selfish and will prey on its stupidity. If it recovers its wits, its understanding of what are its true interests (1350-3), and the habit of honest dealing (1366-71), its politicians will have no choice but to be honest and to seek the public good. Typically, however, Aristophanes takes pains to avoid any imputation of denigrating the ordinary man: the stupidity and selfishness of Demos are not inherent in his nature, but are the result of senility, of which politicians make calculating use. Cleon is named only once in the play (976): on stage he is represented in the transparent disguise of the slave Paphlagon. Paphlagon is a possible slavename; it means “man from Paphlagonia” in northern Asia Minor, and is thus of the same type as names like Lydus “ Lydian”, Thratta “girl from Thrace”, etc., carrying the implication (extremely frequent in Athenian political abuse) that Cleon was of barbarian descent; it is also capable of being etymologized as “Bubbler” (919). No consistent attempt is made to keep up the disguise, and many statements are made by and about Paphlagon which are true, if at all, only of Cleon1. The other two slaves of Demos, who open the play, are not named at all in the text; but it is clear that the more important of them represents Demosthenes, who was regarded by Cleon’s opponents as the real architect of victory at Pylos (cf. 54-57), and the characterization of the other (unusually vivid, for a minor personage in Aristophanes) guarantees, in its timidity (16-18), its strong religios­ ity (30-33), its pessimism (34, 111-2), its dislike of over-indulgence (87-88, 97), that it is intended for Nicias, the third major figure in the Pylos drama2. It may be added that it is probable that the actors playing the two slaves wore portraitmasks, since Aristophanes thinks it necessary to apologize (230-4) for not bring­ ing on Cleon in such a mask. For these reasons I have retained the traditional designation of these two characters as “Demosthenes” and “Nicias”. The “Knights”, the rich young men who formed the Athenian cavalry, are chosen as the chorus of the play for several reasons. The most important reason is their hostility as a class to Cleon, already twice alluded to in Acharnions (6-8, 299-302). The Knights by their birth, wealth and vigour represent, in the tra1. The portrait drawn of Cleon in Knights is discussed in detail by D. Welsh, The Develop­ ment o f the Relationship between Aristophanes end Cleon to 424 B.C. (Diss. King's College, London, 1978). 2. There is contemporary comment on Nicias’ timidity in Birds 640 and Phryn. com. ft. 59, and on his religiosity in Thuc. 7. SO. 4; both are leading themes in Plutarch’s life of him. On his pessimism, cf. Thuc. 7. 11-1S: Plut.rJVfc. 18. 6, commenting on an occasion when Nicias was more optimistic than the facts warranted, says that this was “contrary to his nature”. For his abstemiousness see on 89; 1 have discussed the matter further in CQ 30 (1980)46-47.

3

ditional value-system, the “best” element in society, and their participation thus gives weight and respectability to the opposition to Cleon, which otherwise would consist merely of a slave and a street vendor. The Knights can claim, too, that they and their fathers have performed services to Athens, some of them very re­ cent, that are at least as meritorious as those of Cleon even supposing the latter were’ genuine (565-580,595-610). For much of the play the chorus constitute out only ground for hope that there is anything healthy in the Athenian body politic. The arrival of the Knights on the scene is heralded in language appropriate to the approach of actual cavalry (242-6) and later they praise at length the val­ our of their horses (595-610). This had led to a widespread belief that the chorus in this {day are actually mounted on “horses” of some sort, either human “panto­ mime horses” or wooden hobby-horses; support has been found for this view in a black-figure vase of the mid-sixth century1 showing a chorus of horsemen whose “steeds” are men with horse masks and horse tails. If, however, the chorus is mounted, it is very surprising that so little is said about their mounts; and even the one direct reference to them (595) uses no demonstrative pronoun and falls far short of proving their physical presence. In other plays where the appearance or appurtenances of the chorus are unusual (Clouds, Wasps, Birds, Frogs) it excites comment from other characters: there is none here. Certainty is un­ attainable, but I incline to the view that the chorus of Knights do not appear mounted. In the rewritten parabasis of the second edition of Clouds (553-4) Aristo­ phanes accused Eupolis of having plagiarized Knights in his play Maricas, pro­ duced in 421. Eupolis countered (fr. 78) by asserting that he himself had “shared the composition of Knights with that baldhead, and made a gift of it to him” ; ancient scholarship took this statement seriously, and eventually came to the con­ clusion, on the basis of a coincidence of phrase (see on 1288-9), that Eupolis had written the second parabasis of Knights (1264-1315). In fact, however, it is likely that if Eupolis lad any share in the composition of Knights it was as minute and involuntary on his part as was Aristophanes’ share in the composition of Maricas: see on 1225. There is an edition with commmentary of Knights by R.A. Neil (Cambridge, 1909), The scholia have been edited by D.M. Jones and N.G. Wilson (Groningen and Amsterdam, 1969) in Koster’s edition of the Aristophanic scholia (Pars I, Fasciculus IT). A valuable discussion of various aspects of the play is provided by M. Landfester, Die Ritter des Aristophanes (Amsterdam, 1967); see now also L. Edmunds, Cleon, Knights and Aristophanes’ Politics (Lanham, Md„ 1987). 1. Berlin F 1697. Reproduced and briefly discussed, with bibliography, by A.D. Trendall and T.B.L. Webster, Illustrations o f Greek Drama (London, 1971) 20-21.

4

NOTE ON THE TEXT Fragments of Knights, from two to twenty lines in extent, are preserved in seven papyri1, a figure matched only by Clouds among the other extant plays of Aristophanes. In the Middle Ages the play came next in popularity after the “Byzantine triad” of Wealth, Clouds and Frogs, and the medieval mss. number at least thirty. The older medieval mss. (setting aside M for the present) and the Suda are related as shown in the following stemma:

The text of M is of a mixed character, agreeing now with r, now with y. The picture presented by M’s scholia is riot dissimilar, and Jones and Wilson con­ clude (in their edition of the scholia, p. xvi) that they represent the recension of a medieval editor; the most economical hypothesis is to suppose that this editor worked also on the text of the play. His main sources for the text were a ms. of the y family, independent of both v and a', and one of the r family, more closely related to the Suda than to R. The editor appears also to have introduced some conjectures of his own (e.g. at 277, 805-6, 878, 1007, 1225). The only correcting hand which makes a significant contribution to the text of Knights is Γ2. Its readings are derived from a ms. which had suffered mutilation (Γ2 is not in evidence between 392 and 655) and which was itself based, partly on the recension that lies behind M, partly on a ms. of the v family; in Knights there is no sign that it preserves any inherited readings otherwise un­ attested, but it offers a good conjecture at 742. 1. Three of these happen not to be cited in the apparatus; they are: Bodleian us gr. f. 72 (P), published in Mélanges Nicole (Geneva, 190S) 212-7; Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1402; and a two-line citation in Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1803.

5

As in Acharnions, most of the descendants o f/ reflect the editorial activity of Triclinius (and probably of unknown successors in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries); at least three successive stages of emendation can be distinguished, which I have designated q, r, and & The witnesses regularly cited in the apparatus are RMVEAP©/, and the papyri where they are available. A ful] report of the readings of RMVAr© Vp3 may be found in the edition of K. Zacher (Leipzig, 1897); an account of the readings of E is given, and the relationships of the medieval mss. discussed, by D.M. Jones in CQ 2 (1952) 168185 and 5 (1955) 39-48. See also the introduction to Jones and Wilson’s edition of the scholia. I should draw attention to two passages (1250 and 1325) where I have departed from the orthography that has hitherto been conventional in order to conform with Attic usage as demonstrated by L. Threatte, The Grammar o f Artie Inscriptions i (Berlin and New York, 1980), writing όκων and Ά ριονήδτ). I have not, however, felt bold enough to write πόλτ? as dative singular of πόλις.

L Vv5 Vvl7

(Oxoniensis Bodleianus) Holkhamensis 88 Vaticanus Graecus 1294 (contains only 1-270) Vaticanus Graecus 2181

B X

Parisinus Regius 2715 Laurentianus XXXI 13

15th 15th

Aid. G

the Aldine editio princeps (A.D. 1498) Venetus Marcianus 475 (a copy of V)

15th

b t