Philologus

156

2012

195206

Andrew Hartwig COMIC RIVALRY AND THE NUMBER OF COMIC POETS AT THE LENAIA OF 405 B.C.*

In 1905 Alfred Krte, on the basis of the didascalic notes found in the hypotheses to the surviving plays of Aristophanes, argued that the number of comic competitors at the City Dionysia and Lenaia during the Peloponnesian War (431404) was reduced from five to three1. By and large this has remained the orthodox view of scholarship ever since. In his seminal Philologus article of 1972 Wolfgang Luppe mounted a strong challenge against this view with a number of compelling arguments2. The following article hopes to add to this growing evidence by arguing that during the Lenaia of 405, before the end of the Peloponnesian War, we have reasonable evidence to suggest that five comic poets competed instead of three. Before looking more closely at Aristophanes Frogs, it is worthwhile summarizing the major evidence that five poets competed both outside and during the Peloponnesian War years. Among the positive evidence for five comic poets in general we have (1) the hypothesis of Aristophanes Wealth3, (2) the comic didascalia found in Rome that mention fourth and fifth places4, (3) the observation of Aristotle that five choregoi were appointed for comedy5, and (4) an entry in the lexicon of Hesychios that mentions five comic poets receiving pay6. In contrast, apart from the Aristophanic hypotheses, there is no positive evidence whatsoever that this number was reduced at any time. Ancient commentators as well as the comic poets themselves are

* I would like to acknowledge the many helpful comments and suggestions of Zachary Biles, Eric Csapo, Sebastiana Nervegna, Peter Wilson, and the editors of Philologus, all of which have greatly improved this paper. 1 Krte (1905) 428; see also Krte (1921) 12281229. 2 Luppe (1972). More recently Storey (2002) has restated the case for reduction. 3 Ar. Plut. Hyp. III Wilson. 4 See the edition of Moretti (1968) nos. 215, 216 and 218. Kallias took fourth place in 440, 437 and 431 B.C. and a fifth place in 434 (IGUR 216. 2, 6 = test. *4 K.-A.); Anaxandrides took fourth place in 374 B.C. and fifth place in 364 B.C. and again in the following years (IGUR 218. 6, 11 = test. *5 K.-A.), while Telekleides took fourth place at an unknown date; however his floruit can be dated to the 430s and he was certainly active until at least 428 B.C. (IGUR 215.6 = test. 5 K.-A.). 5 [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 56. 3: epeita corhgov tragwdov aqsthsi trev, ex apntwn Aqhnawn tov plousiwttouv prteron d a wmw dov aqsth pnte, nn d totouv ai fula frousin. 6 Hsch. m 1456: misqv t e p aqlon tn wmin. a tn amfora. e m misqoi d pnte hsan.

196

Andrew Hartwig, Comic Rivalry

remarkably silent on this matter, despite the fact that such a reduction would have caused a significant disruption to the comic competitions over many years and potentially threatened the livelihood of many poets7. On the other hand we have various indications of five poets competing during the Peloponnesian War years. In the Roman didascalic inscription for Kallias (IGUR 216. 56) we are told that he won fourth place at the Lenaia in the archonship of Pythodoros (431). While this production falls outside the relevant period, there is enough room in the subsequent lacuna of the inscription to accommodate at least three more fourth places at the Lenaia in the following years8. Five comic poets, then, must still have been competing in 428 at the very least, although an even later date is far more likely. Luppe also notes the evidence of POxy. 2737, first published in 1968, which tells us that Plato the comic poet, who debuted in the 420s, took fourth place with his first play Rhabdouchoi 9. This new information prompted a revision to the reduction theory by supposing there was a temporary restoration of five poets during the Peace of Nikias (421415). Platos Rhabdouchoi is subsequently slotted into this period, with the provision that his first play must mean the first play he produced on his own, having previously had others produce on his behalf10. Other indirect evidence suggests five poets competed during these years. Luppe argues that the number of known comic productions during this period exceeds the amount of spots available if comedies were reduced to only three at this time 11. He also argues against the assumption that the three remaining comic plays were rearranged to be performed over the course of three days, each staged in the afternoon after one of the tragic tetralogies, since the evidence for this arrangement hinges on a dubious interpretation of Aristophanes Birds 78579612. Finally we might note here

Cf. Luppe (1972) 58. Note Aristophanes outspokenness at the prospect of reduced pay at Frogs 367368. See Dittmer (1923) 4142; Luppe (1972) 55. On the structure of the comic didascaliae found in Rome see Blum (1991) 138139. 9 POxy. 2737 fr. 1 col. ii, 1017 (= Plato Com. test. 7 K.-A.): f[hs d] a Eratosqnhv per Pltwnov oti ewv mn [al]loiv eddou tv wmwidav eudomei, di auto d prton didxav tov Rabdocouv a genmenov ttartov apesqh plin eiv tov Lhnaov. 10 So Mastromarco (1975). Cf. also Storey (2002) 154: Plato could have begun his career in the mid-420s and in the period 420416 have put on Rhabdouchoi in his own name with its resulting fourth-place finish. For the idea, however, that Platos Rhabdouchoi pre-dates the Peace of Nikias, see Hartwig (2010). 11 Luppe (1972) 5866. He calculates around 155 known comedies during the war years although one might naturally assume there were many more to judge from the chance survivals of play titles, such as Platos Rhabdouchoi or Eupolis Noumeniai, which we simply would not have known existed if not for their appearance in hypotheses and fragmentary sources. 12 Luppe (1972) 7173. See also Luppe (1999) 5759; and cf. Wilson and Hartwig (2009) 18, where it is suggested that the first morning of the tragic agon at the City Dionysia was probably already too full of other business to accommodate an additional comedy later in the day. Storey (2002) 163165 restates the argument for a comedy staged in the afternoon after tragedy citing Eupolis fr. 205 as a new piece of evidence in support of this. But apart from the interpretational difficulties of this fragment, the passage comes from the authors Marikas, performed at the Lenaia of 421. What we know of this festival in the late fifth century is that two tragedians competed with two tragedies each, so IG II2 2319. 7083 which covers the Lenaia of 419 and 418
7 8

Philologus 156 (2012) 2

197

Luppes argument that the hypotheses to the plays of Aristophanes only listed three poets, not because only three competed, but because these were the positions of honour. The only hypothesis to list five poets that of Aristophanes Wealth produced in 388 while it appears to suggest that five poets were restored after the war, happens to be different from the other hypotheses in that it does not list the order in which each poet placed13. It is therefore of little value for basing an argument for reduction. To this growing dossier of evidence against a reduction, we might consider an overlooked piece of evidence from Aristophanes Frogs. In the opening scene of this play, during a conversation between Dionysos and his slave Xanthias, Aristophanes takes the opportunity to disparage a selection of his fellow comic poets for their apparent overuse of hackneyed jokes featuring characters overburdened with heavy luggage14: Ar. Ran. 1215: Xan. t dt e d ei me tata t seh frein, ei p er poisw mhdn w nper Frnicov ei w qe poien a Liv ameiyav; seh frous estot en wmwda. One might be tempted to accept this statement at face value as historical fact. Aristophanes, one might think, mentions Phrynichos, Lykis and Ameipsias here precisely because they were well known exponents of the type of lowbrow humour he wishes to avoid. On the other hand one might take this with a grain of salt. Our increasing knowledge of the competitive context of the dramatic competitions and the strategies used by poets to gain competitive advantage over their rivals would suggest they were not necessarily singled out for any perceived faults in their comedy15. As active comic rivals of Aristophanes and therefore potential threats to his future dramatic success they were fair game for disparagement whether these claims were true or otherwise. We might suggest, on these grounds, that Lykis and Ameipsias are targeted by Aristophanes here precisely because they were a direct threat to his chances in the comic competition. In fact, we already know that the other target of abuse in these lines, the comic poet Phrynichos, was definitely competing at the same festival since

(cf. however Luppe 2009, who argues that both poets competed with three tragedies and a satyr play each). Distributing three comedies across the afternoon of these performances, therefore, would be numerically awkward and counter-intuitive to say the least. It would make better sense if a single day was devoted to tragedy, and another day for comedy. Afternoon performances of comedy at the Lenaia are very unlikely, regardless of how many plays the tragedians performed (two or four) or how many comedies (three or five) we think were performed. 13 Ar. Plut. Hyp. III Wilson. See Luppe (1972) 6669. 14 The text follows the punctuation in Dover (1993). On textual problems see Wilson (2007) 163164. 15 For a comprehensive survey of competitive strategies employed by the comic poets, see Biles (2011).

198

Andrew Hartwig, Comic Rivalry

the hypothesis of the Frogs tells us he came second with his comedy Muses, while Plato came third with Kleophon: (Ar. Ran. Hyp. I. 3 Wilson): prtov hn deterov Frnicov Mosaiv Pltwn trtov Kleofnti. The inclusion of Phrynichos among the targets of abuse in Frogs might therefore be explicable due to his direct participation in the competition. It is also reasonable to think that Lykis and Ameipsias may have been included in accordance with the same principle. If we include Plato, who is mentioned in the hypothesis as having won third place, we have a suggestive total of five comic poets who may all have been competing at the Lenaia that year. How immediate a threat each of these poets represented is indicated somewhat by the City Dionysia victory list (IG II2 2325, col. ii, 5866)16: Ari[stofnhv -] Eu[poliv -] 60 K[nqarov -] Fr[nicov -] Am[eiyav -] Pl[twn -] Fil[lliov -] 65 L[iv -] Le[wn -] vac. 427/6 423/2 415/4 ?

c. 405

Ameipsias and Lykis had each won their premier City Dionysia victories in the decade leading up to 40517 and were clearly still active in this time. Biles recent study on the poetics of comic competition rightly suggests that Ameipsias and Lykis are targeted in Frogs because they represented a general or potential threat to Aristophanes at future contests18. But we can take this principle of selective targeting of contemporary rivals one step further than Biles and suggest more specifically that rival poets were usually targeted in a comedy especially when they happened to be competing at the very same festival. In fact, apart from the example of Ameipsias and Lykis in Frogs, in every other case we know where a poet attacks a rival and we can reconstruct the production details (that is: date, festival, and which poets were co16 The text and dates of the inscription reproduced here are generally accepted by scholars today, although they are by no means absolute. Wilhelm (1906), for example, restored the name Aristomenes in place of Aristophanes, Kallistratos in place of Kantharos, and Philonides in place of Philyllios; see also Gilula (1989). For a more recent text see Mette (1977). For a recent useful discussion of the text and its problems see Olson (2007) 382386; and cf. Hartwig (2010) 20 n. 9 and 28 with n. 49 on Kantharos and Plato. Also Millis-Olson (2012). 17 Assuming that Ameipsias first City victory was in 414 when he defeated Aristophanes Birds (Ar. Av. Hyp. I. 9 Wilson). 18 On Aristophanes rivals in the 410s in general, see Biles (2011) 181187.

Philologus 156 (2012) 2

199

competing), it always happens that the target of the attack was also competing at the same festival. This is not surprising. It is, after all, economically more prudent for a comic poet to reserve barbs for his rivals when they happen to be an immediate threat to his chances of success in a dramatic contest. Cases where we have an attack on an immediate rival are as follows: at the Lenaia of 425 Aristophanes attacked Kratinos in his Acharnians lines 849 and 11691173. Kratinos competed at the same festival with his Cheimazomenoi (Ar. Ach. Hyp. I. 3740 Wilson). The following year Aristophanes attacks Kratinos as a washed-up, senile, incontinent drunk in his Knights (Lenaia 424) lines 400 and 526536. Kratinos again was competing at the same festival with his Satyrs (Ar. Eq. Hyp. II. 2022 Wilson). One year later Kratinos attacks Aristophanes for plagiarising Eupolis in his Pytine (City Dionysia 423) fr. 213. Aristophanes happened to be competing at the same festival with Clouds (Ar. Nub. Hyp. V. 12 Wilson). To this evidence we also have Aristophanes attack on Phrynichos in Frogs (Lenaia 405) line 13, who, as we have already seen, was competing at the same festival with his Muses (Ar. Ran. Hyp. I. 3739 Wilson). These are all the extant examples where we have secure production information for the rival poets involved. The arrangement and administration of the dramatic festivals would certainly have ensured that each poet knew well in advance who his rivals were going to be. The respective archons who administered the dramatic festivals chose choregoi at the beginning of each year19, and most likely awarded choruses to the poets soon after to allow enough time to recruit, train, and prepare for each production20. During these months the comic poets could easily tailor their comedies accordingly knowing full well who they would be up against in the competition. Other possible examples can also be found. According to a scholiast, Aristophanes apparently attacks Eupolis in his Peace (City Dionysia 421) lines 762763 for letting success go to his head21. Eupolis was competing at the very same festival, which he eventually won, with his Kolakes (Ar. Pax Hyp. III. 4850 Wilson) 22. Storey has argued that we have a similar attack on a direct rival in Wasps. He interprets Aristophanes comment at line 60 that his play will not have any jokes about Herakles being cheated of his dinner as a swipe at Leukon who was competing at the same festival with his Presbeis (Ar. Vesp. Hyp. I. 3436 Wilson)23. Here Storey also notes that Aristophanes makes a similar comment about removing starving Herakleses from comedy at Peace 741743. Leukon also happened to be competing at that festival with Phrateres (Ar. Pax Hyp. III. 49 Wilson).

[Arist.] Ath. Pol. 56. 3. The entire process leading up to the dramatic festivals is discussed at length in Wilson (2000) 5089. 21 SRVG Ar. Pax 763: ainttetai eiv Eupolin. 22 Similar comments, however, can be found in Wasps 10231025, and it is not certain whether he has a specific comic rival in mind or is making a general comment. 23 Storey (2003b) 287. Storey identifies the Herakles scene depicted on an Apulian Bell Krater, c. 375350, (Nicholson Museum 88. 2) as a scene from Leukons Presbeis.
19 20

200

Andrew Hartwig, Comic Rivalry

Luppe makes a strong case that Plato, Aristophanes, Phrynichos, Eupolis and Pherekrates were the poets who competed at the Lenaia of 420 24. The basis for this reconstruction derives from chronological information on Plato the comic poet found in the Suda which very likely came from a didascalic source25. More specifically it seems to derive from the didascalic information recording Platos first victory which would be an obvious and easy choice for a scholar who wanted to compile the names of contemporary poets active when Plato first flourished26. Luppe observes that Eupolis Autolykos which we know was produced in 420 although the festival is not stated27 and Platos Nikai were probably produced at that festival. Both plays attack Aristophanes for eccentric stage practice in his Peace which was produced at the immediately preceding City Dionysia in 421 (Eupolis fr. 62 and Plato fr. 86). The Lenaia of 420, then, was the first available opportunity to bring up this matter while it was still topical. Furthermore we know Pherekrates competed at the Lenaia of 420 with his Agrioi 28. The correspondences are striking and suggest that the Suda entry on Plato records the poets competing at that festival. In that case we have two more examples where comic poets, Eupolis and Plato, utter their barbs when a rival poet in this case Aristophanes was in direct competition against them. Another possible example may be found in the revised parabasis of Clouds II. At lines 553560 Aristophanes explicitly and implicitly mentions the rival poets Eupolis, Phrynichos, Hermippos and Plato29. This version, apparently written sometime c. 42041730, was ultimately not produced 31, and therefore throws some doubt on the idea that direct rivals in a competition were always in mind when selecting targets32. Consequently they might have been mentioned here as potential rather than as direct rivals. But the fact that Clouds II was never performed does not rule out the possibility that Aristophanes wrote these lines with a specific festival and with specific rivals in mind33. An observation by Olson apud Biles (2011) draws attention to the sug24 Luppe (1988). This is further evidence for five poets during the Peloponnesian War. Although reductionists would argue that it falls during the Peace of Nikias when they concede that five poets were temporarily restored. 25 Suda p 1708 (= Plat. Com. test. 1 K.-A.): Pltwn, Aqhnaov, wmiv, gegonv tov crnoiv at Aristofnhn a Frnicon, Eupolin, Fererthn. 26 On Platos first victory at the Lenaia of 420 see Luppe (1970). 27 Ath. 5. 216D. 28 Ath. 5. 218D. 29 Plato Comicus is not named directly but certainly implied at line 558 since he wrote an eponymous play against the demagogue Hyperbolos. See Pirrotta (2009) 320321. 30 So Dover (1968) lxxx. See also the detailed discussion of the date of Clouds II in Henderson (1993). 31 SE Ar. Nub. 553. Henderson (1993) 601 canvasses some of the possible reasons it was abandoned. 32 Cf. Biles (2011) 184 who notes that they are chosen for their agonistic currency as potential rivals in the 410s. 33 Aristophanes may indeed have had a City Dionysia setting in mind by specifically addressing the audience as those whom he thought worthy of giving the first taste of Clouds (line 523); as well as referring to the success of his first play Daitales as taking place here (528: enqd). This may indicate not only their location in the theatre of Dionysos, but also the festival setting at the City Dionysia.

Philologus 156 (2012) 2

201

gestive number of four rival poets. This may indicate that Aristophanes wrote the new parabasis after he was awarded a chorus by the archon and with full knowledge of who his rivals would be34. Ultimately, however, he did not produce this comedy and must have abandoned it in favour of another play fairly early in the process. Whether or not any part of the parabasis of Clouds II was retained for use at that same festival is not known. It is quite possible Aristophanes at least retained the relevant lines directed against his rivals and recycled them in the comedy he eventually settled upon that year35. There are, of course, a large number of fragments where a comic poet attacks a named rival where we cannot verify the production details. I list here, for the sake of convenience, all the examples known to me in roughly chronological order: Kratinos frgs. *361, 462 and 502 all attack his early contemporary Ekphantides; Kratinos fr. *361. 3 may also attack Kallias (cf. Suda 213 = Kallias test. 1 K.-A.)36; an unknown poet in the comica adespota fr. 952 attacks Kratinos; Kratinos fr. 342 attacks Aristophanes; Hermippos in Phormophoroi fr. 64 attacks Phrynichos; Eupolis in Chrysoun genos fr. 298. 5 may attack Aristophanes37; Aristophanes in Anagyros fr. 58 attacks Eupolis; while Eupolis in Baptai fr. 89 has a similar joke against Aristophanes, possibly a riposte; an unnamed poet appears to have attacked Archippos (SVG Ar. Vesp. 481a = Archipp. test. 5 K.-A.); Sannyrion in Gelos fr. 5, Ameipsias fr. 27 and Aristonymos in Helios Rhigon fr. 3 all attack Aristophanes; Aristophanes targets Sannyrion in Gerytades fr. 156, making him a character in that play; Strattis in Kinesias fr. 21 and Psychastai fr. 57 attacks Sannyrion; and in Potamioi fr. 38 he attacks Philyllios; an unknown poet in the comica adespota fr. 72 attacks Sannyrion; Alexis in Parasitos fr. 184 attacks Araros. To these we might also add apparent attacks on comic poets by unknown rivals in the form of nicknames preserved in lexica and biographies38. One would assume that in many of the examples listed above, with few exceptions, the attack took place at a festival in which the named rival was also competing39.
See Biles (2011) 185186 with n. 74. Compare the recycled and slightly adapted lines from the parabasis of Ar. Vesp. 10291037 at Pax 751760. Cf. also Biles (2011) 197 who suggests that some of the central features of the Clouds parabasis were eventually put to use in Birds. 36 SVEGM Ar. Eq. 528b (= Kallias test. 2 K.-A.) points to a hotly contested rivalry between Kratinos and Kallias. 37 On the rivalry between Eupolis and Aristophanes, see especially Kyriakidi (2007) and Storey (2003a) 278303. Eupolis Chrysoun genos may date to 426: so Storey (2003a) in which case it might have been in competition with Aristophanes Babylonians at the City Dionysia. 38 See e.g. an apparent attack on the early fifth century comic poet Myllos (Hsch. l 1405 = test. 4 K.-A.); Myrtilos (Ath. 13.566E = test. 2 K.-A.); Ekphantides (Hsch. 716 = test. 5 K.-A.; cf. Kratinos fr. 462); Aristomenes (Hsch. q 949 = test. 2 K.-A.); the patronymic Sosipolis in the Suda entry for Eupolis is possibly the corruption of a nickname given to the poet by a rival (Suda e 3657 = test. 1 K.-A.); Hegemon (Ath. 1. 5A and 9. 406E = test. 1 and 4 K.-A.); and Alexis (Suda a 1138 = test. 1 K.-A.). Most of these very likely originated in the works of comic rivals and were subsequently picked up and transmitted by the biographical tradition. 39 Other examples possibly occur. Aristophanes may attack Hermippos at Clouds 541 (SEM Ar. Nub. 541b = Hermipp. test. 6 K.-A.). He may attack Kantharos at Peace 1, although there is some doubt if such a joke
34 35

202

Andrew Hartwig, Comic Rivalry

In contrast with the usually hostile attitude towards active rivals, it is worth noting the more benign treatment given to comic poets who were no longer active. The honorific mention of Kratinos at Frogs 357 by now retired, possibly dead marks a significant change from Aristophanes abuse of him in earlier comedies. A similar tone may be discernible at Peace 700703, although Aristophanes attitude is difficult to read here, and Kratinos may not yet have retired40. Aristophanes also happens to praise Kratinos at Knights 526536 while Kratinos was still an active rival. But his praise is deliberately reserved for Kratinos earlier comedies41. Aristophanes then goes on to contrast these with his more recent comedies, dramas that Aristophanes himself had to compete against, which he predictably denigrates. Aristophanes also appears to mention Pherekrates in a positive spirit at Lysistrata 158, perhaps because the older poet was now retired or possibly dead. His account of the tumultuous careers of Magnes and Krates at Knights 520525 and 537540, both retired by that time, also contains praise of their inventiveness and wit, which was not always appreciated by Athenian audiences. Aristophanes also praises Krates in glowing terms several years later in his second Thesmophoriazusai fr. 347. The less a comic poet posed a direct competitive threat, it seems, the more likely he would receive praise. Returning to our Frogs passage, there is ample evidence that Aristophanes had direct rivalry in mind in selecting these poets for abuse. Abuse against rival comic poets, or indeed abuse against any comic target, usually tends towards exaggeration 42. The present case appears to be no different. In the case of Phrynichos the claim that he introduced stale jokes of this kind had no apparent basis in fact. One ancient scholar had taken it upon himself to test Aristophanes claims but failed to find any example of such jokes among his surviving plays (SV Ran. 13): Frnicov o wmiv oudn totwn epohsen en tov swzomnoiv auto, eiv d en tov apolwlsin einai auto toiot ti. For Lykis and Ameipsias the scholia are silent, understandably so in the case of Lykis since none of his comedies survived so that ancient scholars could test the claim43. Both of these men were not bad or unsuccessful poets. Each had won at

takes place (see Olson 1998, on Pax 1). Later there may be an allusion to Plato Comicus at Peace 734735 (see Rossi 1981, 8485, and Hartwig 2010, 28). Aristophanes also makes jokes against Ariphrades at Wasps 12801283 and Peace 883885, who may be the same person as the tragic parodist (perhaps comic poet?) of this name mentioned at Arist. Poet. 1458b31 (cf. Sommerstein 1977, 276 on Wasps 12801283). A fragment in the comica adespota (fr. 244) may have involved an attack on Ameipsias. 40 See OSullivan (2006) 168169 who argues that Kratinos fr. 342 may be a response to Ar. Pax 4247. 41 See Biles (2001) 197. 42 Heath (1990) 152 speaks of the ritualized nature of comic abuse and therefore the tendency of many of these claims to be exaggerated or false. Aristophanes abuse of Kratinos as a washed-up drunkard is just one example. Other claims are typically exaggerated, such as the frequent accusation that ones comic rivals are foreigners, as in the case of Phrynichos (SRVMEQBarb Ar. Ran. 13 = Phryn. test. 8 K.-A. Cf. the comments of Harvey 2000, 108114, esp. 113, on the negative portrait of Phrynichos by other comic poets). Biles (2011) 186 makes the apposite comparison with politicians and the lies and distortion often used to gain electoral advantage. 43 SRV Ran. 14: Liv wmw dav poihtv ou oudn fretai.

Philologus 156 (2012) 2

203

least one City Dionysia victory each in the decade leading up to the Lenaia of 405. Both were at their peak and represented a real challenge to Aristophanes competitive chances. Aristophanes is not playing the genuine literary critic here, but wilfully misrepresenting his rivals for his own short term gain. Aristophanes, on the other hand, is himself guilty of presenting such jokes. We are told that he introduced jokes of this kind in his second Thesmophoriazusae, dated roughly between 41440644, in which we find a slave trying to excuse himself from carrying luggage45. In Frogs too, although Aristophanes is ostensibly criticising and distancing himself from this brand of humour, he also slyly engages in it at the same time46. There is even an element of novelty and one-upmanship in Aristophanes use of a standard complaining porter by placing him on top of a donkey, allowing jokes about who is really carrying the baggage47. Aristophanes is clearly being disingenuous throughout this passage, both in the claims he makes against others, and in his own actions. Porter jokes, in general, seem to have been popular among the comic poets. Apart from the literary evidence there are numerous comic terracottas, as well as the comic vases from South Italy probably based on Athenian comedy which feature slaves and other characters overburdened with baggage or other utensils48. Aristophanes, then, could presumably fling the charge at any comic poet, whether they engaged in these jokes or not, and make it stick. His choice of specific targets here, then, was not necessarily due to them being exemplary exponents of such humour. Aristophanes may even have taken a blind swipe on the off chance that one of them might have used such a joke in their own comedies at the Lenaia that year49.

44 See Austin and Olson (2004) lxxxvii who argue it most likely came after the first Thesmophoriazusae in 411. Geissler (1969) 63 dates it more specifically to 407406 B. C. Butrica (2001) argues for an earlier date, as does Karachalios (2006). In any case it seems to have been produced before Frogs. 45 Ar. fr. 323: (qerpwn fhsn) w v di ge toto toupov ou dnamai frein / skeh tosata ka tn w mon qlbomai. 46 This technique appears common in comedy. A possible example is Wasps 5859 where the criticism of other comic poets using slave characters to throw snacks to the audience may be pointedly ironic, especially given the reference to two slaves in particular. Cf. also the disavowal of certain styles of comedy at Clouds 538548, most of which Aristophanes is guilty of at various phases throughout his career, including Clouds itself: cf. Nub. 545 (baldness joke); 546547 (always introducing new material, despite the fact Clouds II was a revised version of an earlier comedy), 734735 (clear use of stage phallos), 14761511 (use of torches and uttering io io). Cf. also S Ar. Nub. 543a. 47 For a depiction, see the (now lost) Apulian red figure bell-krater, formerly Berlin F3046, in Taplin (1993) fig. 13. 7 (between pages 3637) and 46. 48 See Biers and Green (1998) 8990. For related terracottas from this period, see the index in Webster (1978) 207. 49 It is also possible Aristophanes might have had inside information on what his rivals were planning to do, but this is perhaps unlikely given the broad nature of the attack. In any case, scholars failed to find such jokes in the surviving plays of Phrynichos, among which we must include his Muses which was produced at the same festival (= Phrynichos frgs. 3236).

204

Andrew Hartwig, Comic Rivalry

We might also note another interesting phenomenon here that suggests the immediacy of Lykis and Ameipsias in the present competition. Given the lengths Aristophanes goes to in this passage to slander his rivals, we might ask why he did not target Plato instead of Ameipsias and Lykis especially if Plato, as we have seen, and Phrynichos were the only other poets competing. The inclusion here of Lykis and Ameipsias at the expense of Plato would seem a wasted opportunity to denigrate a more immediate threat. This, after all, is undoubtedly the reason why Phrynichos is singled out in this passage. From a competitive standpoint it would make better sense to include them here only if they were considered an equal or perhaps greater threat to Aristophanes chances than Plato on this occasion. For whatever reason, Plato was happily spared this time50. In summary, Phrynichos appears to have been chosen here as a target of abuse precisely because of the direct obstacle he presented to Aristophanes in the comic competition. In the case of Phrynichos the claim that he makes stale comic jokes is obviously exaggerated, as is typical when abusing comic rivals. The fact, also, that comic poets usually reserve their abuse for poets who are in direct competition against them would suggest that Ameipsias and Lykis are included here for precisely the same reason as Phrynichos. We should also not forget that Aristophanes makes Dionysos the mouthpiece of these complaints against his fellow comic poets. As the god of the theatre, the patron deity of the Lenaia itself, and furthermore a keen theatrical spectator and critic who judges the contest between Aeschylus and Euripides later in the play51, one might suspect that Aristophanes is cheekily hinting to his audience that they can make Dionysos happy on this occasion too by awarding Aristophanes the prize ahead of his rivals. Bibliography
C. Austin and S. D. Olson, Aristophanes: Thesmophoriazusae, Oxford 2004. W. R. Biers and J. R. Green, Carrying Baggage, AntK 41, 1998, 8793. Z. P. Biles, Aristophanes Victory Dance: Old Poets in the Parabasis of Knights, ZPE 136, 2001, 195200. Z. P. Biles, Aristophanes and the Poetics of Competition, Cambridge 2011. R. Blum, Kallimachos: The Alexandrian Library and the Origins of Bibliography, trans. H. H. Wellisch, Wisconsin 1991. J. Butrica, The Lost Thesmophoriazusae of Aristophanes, Phoenix 55, 2001, 4476. W. A. Dittmer, The Fragments of Athenian Comic Didascaliae Found in Rome, Leiden 1923. K. J. Dover, Aristophanes: Clouds, Oxford 1968. K. J. Dover, Aristophanes: Frogs, Oxford 1993. P. Geissler, Chronologie der altattischen Komdie, Dublin and Zrich 21969. D. Gilula, A Case for Aristomenes (IG II2 2325), CQ 39, 1989, 332338.

Evidence elsewhere for the competitive rivalry between Plato and Aristophanes is gathered in Pirrotta (2009) 2732. Cf. also Sommerstein (2000) 439. 51 A good discussion of the role of Dionysos here can be found in Biles (2011) 212219. See also the comment of Dover (1993) on Ran. 16: the gods are considered to be present at their festivals, and there was a statue of Dionysos in the theatre.
50

Philologus 156 (2012) 2

205

A. Hartwig, The Date of the Rhabdouchoi and the Early Career of Plato Comicus, ZPE 174, 2010, 1931. D. Harvey, Phrynichos and his Muses, in: D. Harvey and J. Wilkins (eds.), The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy, London 2000, 91134. M. Heath, Aristophanes and his Rivals, G & R 37, 1990, 143158. J. Henderson, Problems in Greek Literary History: the Case of Aristophanes Clouds, in: J. Farrell and R. M. Rosen (eds.), Nomodeiktes: Greek Studies in Honor of Martin Ostwald, Michigan 1993, 591601. F. S. Karachalios, Aristophanes Lost Thesmophoriazusae Revisited: On the Date and Plot, LICS 5. 2, 2006, 123. A. Krte, Inschriftliches zur Geschichte der attischen Komdie, RhM 60, 1905, 425447. A. Krte, Komdie, RE XI 1, 1921, 12071275. N. Kyriakidi, Aristophanes und Eupolis: Zur Geschichte einer dichterischen Rivalitt, Berlin and New York 2007. W. Luppe, Zur Datierung einiger Dramatiker in der Eusebios/Hieronymus-Chronik, Philologus 114, 1970, 18. W. Luppe, Die Zahl der Konkurrenten an den komischen Agonen zur Zeit des Peloponnesischen Krieges, Philologus 116, 1972, 5375. W. Luppe, Ein bersehener Hinweis auf die Fnf-Zahl der Konkurrenten bei den Komiker-Agonen zur Zeit des peloponnesischen Krieges?, Nikephoros 1, 1988, 185189. W. Luppe, Zur angeblichen Nachmittags-Auffhrung der Vgel des Aristophanes, Eikasmos 10, 1999, 5759. W. Luppe, Zur Anzahl der an Lenen von den Tragikern aufgefhrten Dramen, APF 55, 2009, 3639. G. Mastromarco, Guerra Peloponnesiaca e agoni comici in Atene, Belfagor 30, 1975, 469473. H. J. Mette, Urkunden dramatischer Auffhrungen in Griechenland, Berlin 1977. B. W. Millis and S. D. Olson, Inscriptional Records for the Dramatic Festivals in Athens, Leiden 2012. L. Moretti, Inscriptiones Graecae urbis Romae, Roma 1968. S. D. Olson, Aristophanes: Peace, Oxford 1998. S. D. Olson, Broken Laughter: Select Fragments of Greek Comedy, Oxford 2007. N. OSullivan, Aristophanes First Critic: Cratinus fr. 342 K-A, in: J. Davidson, F. Muecke and P. Wilson (eds.), Greek Drama III: Essays in Honour of Kevin Lee, London 2006, 163169. S. Pirrotta, Plato Comicus: Die fragmentarischen Komdien, Berlin 2009. A. H. Sommerstein, Notes on Aristophanes Wasps, CQ 27, 1977, 261277. A. H. Sommerstein, Platon, Eupolis and the Demagogue-Comedy, in: D. Harvey and J. Wilkins (eds.), The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy, London 2000, 437451. I. C. Storey, Cutting Comedies, Drama 12, 2002, 146167. I. C. Storey, Eupolis: Poet of Old Comedy, Oxford 2003a. I. C. Storey, The Curious Matter of the Lenaia Festival of 422 BC, in: D. Phillips and D. Pritchard (eds.), Sport and Festival in the Ancient Greek World, Swansea 2003b, 281292. O. Taplin, Comic Angels and Other Approaches to Greek Drama Through Vase-Painting, Oxford 1993. T. B. L. Webster, Monuments Illustrating Old and Middle Comedy, revised and enlarged by J. R. Green (BICS Suppl. 39), London 31978. A. Wilhelm, Urkunden dramatischer Auffhrungen in Athen, Vienna 1906. N. G. Wilson, Aristophanea: Studies on the Text of Aristophanes, Oxford 2007. P. Wilson, The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia: The Chorus, the City and the Stage, Cambridge 2000. P. Wilson and A. Hartwig, IG I3 102 and the Tradition of Proclaiming Honours at the Tragic Agon of the Athenian City Dionysia, ZPE 169, 2009, 1727.

Department of Classics and Ancient History The University of Sydney Camperdown NSW 2006 Australia andrew.hartwig@sydney.edu.au

206

Andrew Hartwig, Comic Rivalry

Abstract
This paper considers further evidence that five comic poets as opposed to three competed at the Lenaia and City Dionysia festivals in Athens during the Peloponnesian War. Aristophanes abuse of his comic rivals Phrynichos, Ameipsias and Lykis in the opening scene of Frogs, produced at the Lenaia of 405, is interpreted as a response to his immediate competitors at the dramatic contest that year. A survey of the evidence elsewhere in comedy suggests that comic poets usually reserved such attacks on rival poets for occasions when all were in direct competition at the same festival. Further analysis of Aristophanes competitive strategies also suggests these poets immediate participation in the festival and therefore that five poets competed at the Lenaia that year. Keywords: comic rivalry, Aristophanes Frogs, Lenaia, reduction of comedy