Personal humour in Aristophanes Poets, Politicians and Perverts Ian Storey

Aristophanes wrote 40 plays over a career of 40 years, of which we have 11 spaced over 37 years, with five plays bunched together from the 420s. On the larger scale we may ask questions about Aristophanes' use of this technique such as: is there a chronological evolution of personal humour? Do any plays stand out with much more (or much less) personal humour? Is there a `norm'? Do the late plays show signs of change? An examination of the plays in terms of personal jokes reveals:

(a) that the five plays of the 420s plus Birds and Frogs are very close in the number and style of personal jokes (one-liners, variations, songs, real characters etc.). Thus there is a `norm' represented by these seven plays.

(b) There is no evolution and development since the first play we have (Acharnians), Aristophanes' third comedy, is full of personal jokes of all sorts and shows Aristophanes at the top of his form - add whatever there was in his second play (Babylonians) that offended Kleon, probably jokes against Kleon, and we may assume that Aristophanes was working within in an established tradition of personal humour in Athenian comedy. This in my view was largely due to the influence of Kratinos. Aristophanes thus owes much to his predecessors in this respect.

(c) The two last plays (Ekkl., Ploutos) are not lacking in personal jokes; the former in fact ranks third in numbers, BUT no real characters appear among the dramatis personae, there are no songs of abuse and only one mild variation (on Athenian beards at Ekkl. 70ff.). The jokes are all one-liners and tend to be found in the first half of each play. There is no parabasis in either play. What humour there is is almost pro forma and both plays seem very tired as if the comic life were beginning to ebb.

(d) Two aberrations may be observed. First one play has substantially more personal jokes, two sequences in the prologue alone, two real politicians thinly disguised appearing in a scene, two main characters named after a politician, two imaginary parties with real people as the guests - that is Wasps. We may observe that is this eight months after the failure of Clouds, his first production since then; twice in the play (54-66,1043-5) he berates the audience for their rejection of his sophisticated comedy, promising them something that is good, but not beyond them. I would argue that the heavy use of personal jokes (especially in the prologue) is part of his response to that failure and an attempt to win the audience over.

Second, the two plays with the fewest jokes are not the late plays, but the two comedies of 411 (Lysistrate, Thesmophoriazousai). These have the fewest number of jokes, perhaps three political jokes in the two plays combined. Any songs are distinctly non-topical, and any real persons on stage are non-political (Agathon, Euripides, Kleisthenes, Lysimache). What was going on in 411? The right-wing coup that we know as the Revolution of 411, a dangerous time (a good account is given in Thuc. VIII). I conclude that the poet is aware of the background, is maintaining a low profile, and avoiding political jokes; remember that Aristophanes would survive two right-wing coups and two democratic restorations. Henderson argues that at the time of Lysistrate (411-L)[16] Aristophanes was not yet aware of the impending dangers, but I think that the evidence from personal jokes suggests otherwise, that he realised that this was not the time for a comedy such as Wasps or Birds.

(VI) Interpreting (very) old jokes:

When one comes to deal with a particular person and the comic joke, the technique of the comedian needs to be considered, as well as the other question of who (among possible candidates in late 5th-c. Athens) the komodoumenos might be. I would make the following observations can be made about how Aristophanes works.

First, he is direct and rarely uses nicknames or subtle disguises to mask a target so well that only ingenious scholars 2300 years later will get the reference (e.g that beneath Amphitheos in Acharnians lurked the figure of Hermogenes the brother of Kallias).[17] When he does use a disguise, the identity is obvious, e.g. Paphlagon (Kleon) in Knights is associated with tanning hides by v. 44, the "voracious sea-monster" speaking to the people on the Pnyx with the voice of a blazing pig likewise stinks like a tannery (Wasps 38), or the easy change from Lysimache to Lysistrate which when taken with the background of the Acropolis would make the identification sure.[18] These ingenious theories unfortunately still flourish today, e.g. Katz' identification of the three gods at the end of Birds (Poseidon, Herakles, the Triballian) with the three generals sent to Syracuse, or Vickers' fantasies about Alkibiades lurking beneath the text of just about every play (tragedy and comedy) of the late 5th c.[19]

Second, praise of a target is rare; after all, compliments do not get laughs. Where there are words of praise, it is sometimes lead-in to an insult at another. For example at Wasps 1275-83 Automenes is praised for his brilliant son the actor (Arignotos) and another equally accomplished son a lyre-player, but these are set up to contrast the arch-pervert Ariphrades "who has learned by himself how to get his tongue into every brothel". Aristophanes uses the same technique at Kn. 1274ff. again to set up Ariphrades in contrast to his brother.

But some people are usually well treated: certain artists and musicians, the politicians of an older generation (Kimon, Thoukydides), the knights (an elite group on the right of the Athenian political spectrum), the tragedian Sophokles - here I quote the encomium of Phrynichos in 405:

Sophokles was a truly blessed man; he lived a long life, and died a happy and accomplished person. He wrote many fine tragedies, and died happily, without experiencing anything bad. [Phrynichos fr. 32 (Muses) - 405]

Yet even Sophokles can be the object of a joke, as in Peace Aristophanes pokes fun at him for allegedly taking money to write poems -- "Sophokles has turned into Simonides " (695-9).

Thirdly, the dead are usually spared. In Acharnians and in Peace the general Lamachos (whose name appropriately means "battle") is presented as a war-loving young dandy, using the war to advance his career, the prototype of the later comic figure of the miles gloriosus . But after his death at Syracuse in 414, he becomes a hero even to comedy (see Thesm. 836ff. and Frogs 1039). Even after Kleon's death in 421, he is left alone by the comedian (although in Peace, only a few months after his death, Aristophanes does prod the corpse a few times, just wants to make sure he is dead).

There is one major exception; four years and eight years after his death, Aristophanes makes two lengthy attacks on Perikles for his responsibility in starting the War. In Acharnians the War begins by some drunken young men kidnapping a whore from Megara, the Megarians stealing two of Aspasia's girls in return, and then "Olympian Perikles in rage thundered and lightened and stirred up all of Greece" (523ff.), while in Peace Perikles' friend Pheidias embezzles money and Perikles starts the War as a smoke-screen to cover this up (605ff.). The comment by de Ste Croix may be extreme, "For the dead Perikles there is no mercy", but these passages are interesting in that rancour seems to survive well after Perikles' death and that the usual picture of Perikles after his death was favourable, e.g. in Eupolis' Demoi (a lost play in which we know that Perikles and three other dead leaders returned to life) we hear:

Perikles was the very best of men at speaking; whenever he came forward, like a good athlete, he would outrace the others at speaking by ten feet. And in addition to his speed upon his lips persuasion sat; he was the only politician who could charm his audience and leave a sting as well. (fr. 102)

The usual comic technique is exaggeration (as opposed to pure nonsense or irony). After all, irony is dangerous in an audience of more than 17,000, as they would have to know that A is not A, but B. We may notice that when Aristophanes does use irony, he telegraphs the joke. An example is the description of Agathon at the start of Thesmophoriazousai - the truth (or at least the truth that the joke depends upon) is that Agathon was a young, clean-shaven, rather delicate and effeminate tragic poet (vv. 29-35, Barrett's translation):

EUR. This is where the famous Agathon lives, the tragic poet

For the most part then the comedian's technique is exaggeration, of something in the victim's life or personality that can make him a good target. In other words, beneath the comic smoke there is some bit of fire that sparks it all off, but the comedian can exaggerate this out of all proportion. For example on the subject of Kleonymos the "rhipsaspis", I have argued [Storey 1989] that he was not a coward or deserter, but had used influence to avoid military service. A passage at the end of Knights suggests this (vv. 1369-72):

S-S: And when a soldier's name is entered on the military list, there it stays and won't be removed through influence.
DEM: That stung Kleonymos, in the shield-band.

The point is that affixing the shield-band (porpax) readied the shield for action (cf. Kn. 849); Kleonymos, it would seem, had in some way got his name removed, and this Aristophanes has turned maliciously into cowardice.

We should thus look for the kernel of the joke that sets the comedian off: Amynias is called a "woman" because "she doesn't serve in the army" (Cl. 690f.); the truth seems to be that Amynias served on an embassy to Thessaly in 424/3 which was seen by his detractors as a way of avoiding military duty. Kleophon is said to be a Thracian alien with a distinct accent ("a swallow perched upon his lips" - Frogs 680ff.). The best explanation is that he was probably born in the late 450s of an Athenian father (Kleippides) and a Thracian mother, before the citizenship decree of Perikles in 451 which laid down two Athenian parents as requisite for citizenship, did have a Thracian mother and very likely a trace of an accent.[20]

We must also allow for stereotypes and running-jokes, for once a joke takes hold, it might as well be true as far as comedy and public opinion were concerned. Once comedy had branded Kleonymos as a "shield-thrower" or Kleisthenes as an effeminate, comedy could exploit that caricature whatever the truth may have been. One good example is the stereotype that intellectuals (e.g. Sokrates and his followers) are pale and wan because they don't go out by day in the sun, but stay inside and think and talk. In Clouds when Strepsiades sends his son to study with Sokrates, he is delighted at his pale complexion when he emerges (1171-7). An especial target of such jokes was Sokrates' friend Chairephon who is called "pale-yellow", "half-dead", and "the bat" (Gk. "night-bird").

Perhaps the best-known stereotype is that which comedy creates around the demagogues and which became a great staple of late 5th-c. comedy. Demagogues (literally "people-leaders") were a new force in Athenian politics in the 420s. The truth is that they came from the commercial middle class;[21] they had prospered and become wealthy since the Persian Wars; they made their money rather than inherited it. They were moving into politics with an expertise in finance, used flamboyant and populist tactics to sway the people, and tended to be chauvinistic and imperialistic in foreign policy, particularly in relation to the allies and toward Sparta. In short, they were "new men", not from the same stratum that had produced Athens' leaders up to Perikles.[22]

The comic fiction (found especially in Acharnians, Knights, Wasps, Frogs) is that these are tradesmen from the working-class (Kleon reeks of the tannery, Hyperbolos has his lamps) - it is worth pointing out that Kleon, at least, was anything but poor; his father, Kleainetos, was wealthy enough to have been a choregos in the 450s, and Kleon had a marriage-connection with the family of Harmodios the tyrannicide.[23] They are not even real Athenians: part of the presentation of Kleon as Paphlagon is to suggest a foreign slave, Hyperbolos is called "Marikas" in Eupolis' comedy of that name (the name is Persian, and suggests a young roguish slave), Kleophon has a Thracian mother and a distinctive accent, the unnamed demagogue of Eupolis fr. 99.23-34 can barely speak Attic at all.[24]

According to comedy demagogues were poorly educated; in Kn. a would-be demagogue is being interviewed [vv. 185-92 - tr. Sommerstein]:

SLAVE: You're not of good birth, by any chance?

A very frequent charge is that they were personally dishonest and used their positions for their own gains. In Knights Paphlagon has given the People only the scraps and kept the best for himself; the same point is made in the agon of Wasps (666ff.), that most of Athens' income has gone into the pockets of those who pretend to protect the people. Kleon as Kyon ("the Dog") in Wasps (914-30) is angry with Labes (Laches) not for stealing the cheese, but for not sharing it with him, and concludes with the nice twist on the proverb "the same hedge cannot hold two robins" into "the same hedge cannot hold two robbers [klepta]". Finally they used the tactics of threats, intimidation, and slander; the passage quoted above (p. 104) from Acharnians of Kleon's attack on Aristophanes is a good example.

And there is one further stereotype: the best politicians are those who were homosexual prostitutes in their youth. I quote two passages here, the first from Knights:

PAPH: Didn't I put a stop to buggery when I had Grypos struck off the citizen rolls?

If one villain dies, two politicians spring up. For there is no Iolaos in our city to cauterise the politicians' heads. You've been buggered -- well then, you'll be a politician. [Platon fr. 202]

I suppose that if you want to enter politics and screw the public, it helps to have had first-hand experience. Again the joke has political overtones in that to discredit one's opponent in a forum where political status depended upon being a citizen male, the technique is to call both his citizenship and his masculinity into question.

The final piece in the comic caricature of the demagogue was the creation (probably by Aristophanes with his Knights in 424) of the demagogue-comedy, a play devoted in very large part to the portrayal in very unflattering terms of one particular demagogue. In Knights Kleon is slightly disguised as "Paphlagon" for reasons mentioned above; Eupolis followed in 421 with his Marikas, a thinly disguised Hyperbolos (the demagogue who came to prominence after Kleon's death in 421). Aristophanes would complain in the revised parabasis of Clouds (551ff. - c.417) that Eupolis with Marikas, then Hermippos (with Artopolides - "Bread-sellers"), and then "all the rest" had followed his lead. For the comedian Platon we know of demagogue-comedies called Hyperbolos, Peisandros, and Kleophon (the last produced with Frogs in 405). In the case of Hyperbolos, his mother was also included in the comic caricature - Aristophanes (Cl. 555f.) says of Eupolis that he added "a drunken old woman for the sake of a vulgar dance". I have developed this at length; my point is that once this stereotype is up and running, the comedians will exploit it whatever the actual circumstances surrounding a particular demagogue are.

I move on to these jokes about effeminates and homosexual behaviour. We have the insinuation that the best politicians are those who were formerly youthful rent-boys; we meet Agathon the delicate tragedian, Kleisthenes the only male allowed in the assembly of the women, Epigonos the sight of whom causes a speaker to slip into the feminine gender (Ekkl. 166-8). Kleisthenes in particular has a 20-year career in Old Comedy.

The best studies are those of Henderson [1991] and Dover [1978]. The conclusion that one draws is that the jokes are not sexual jokes (aimed at the sexual practice of what we call "homosexuality")[25] but are gender jokes based on turning a male into a female. They take the following line: X. looks like a woman or can in some way be regarded as a woman; therefore he takes the sexual role of a woman (the passive role). Dover has demonstrated that no-one is made fun of in comedy for taking the active role in a homosexual union; in fact, there are places where this sort of behaviour is a pleasure of life, e.g. Philokleon's delight at seeing youths in the nude or the end of Knights where the rejuvenated Demos receives two gifts [1384-7]:

S-S: Here for your comfort is a camp-stool to sit on, and to carry it, a very well-hung youth. And if the spirit moves you, just turn him upside-down and make him your camp-stool.
DEM: Dear me, I am back in the good-old-days.

Only for taking the passive (the female or that of the eromenos) is there a comic slur.

How does one "be like a woman"? One obvious way is the inability to grow a beard; this was how Dover explained Kleisthenes, who would surely have stuck out in a city where the bearded male was the norm. Not for a century until after the example of Alexander would shaving be common. The same would seem to be true also of Epigonos in Ekkl. for the passage turns on the women's acquisition of beards and on just the casual sight of his face. Another possibility would be shaving; this seems to work for the comic allusions to Agathon who is associated with razors at Thesm. 218-20 and fr. 341. Or there is unmanly behaviour of Amynias in allegedly avoiding military service - a revealing comparison is found in the alternative title for Eupolis' Astrateutoi ("Draft-dodgers"), the Androgynoi ("Men-women").

(VII) Comedy or satire?

In Aristophanic studies the great questions still remains: how serious is Aristophanes? This can be put in terms of the political 'message' detected by many in various comedies, or in terms of his claim to be a serious teacher of the city, or even in terms of his claim for sophia as a comic poet. In the matter of personal humour, is there any malice behind the comic caricature? Is what we see comic ridicule or personal satire? As Plutarch put it, is he just catering to the maliciously minded? Or as Horace maintained, is the comedian seeking to depict those worthy of being noted?

Lucian has Philosophy say that "no harm can come from a joke" (see above), but many critics (both ancient and modern) have seen more than mere jest ("no offence in the world") in the personal humour of Aristophanes. One ancient writer saw Clouds as part of the organised campaign against Sokrates by his detractors (despite the 24 years between play and trial), and one modern writer has wondered whether the oligarchs paid Aristophanes to write his Knights against Kleon.[26]

The last fifty years have seen a vast discussion and general lack of consensus on the serious nature of Aristophanic humour. Poles of the discussion have been Gomme (1938) who argued for no serious political purpose in Aristophanes (apart from a dislike of Kleon and a plea for peace in Lysistrate); for Gomme he is serious only about the excellence of his comedy, and that is how we should approach him, and de Ste Croix (1972) who admitted the comedian's priority to be funny, but added that he can still be serious, finding a consistent pattern in passages that he saw as the personal voice of the poet which marked Aristophanes as a right-of-centre conservative in Athenian politics (his phrase was a "Kimonian conservative"). Sommerstein (1996) has most recently re-stated this case by an exhaustive examination of the komodoumenoi themselves.

More recently the debate has continued with a vengeance: Halliwell (1984, 1991, 1993) pursues the approach of Bakhtin and Carrière that comedy is predominantly part of the tradition of festival or carnival, where one stepped outside the normal life of the polis, and argues that comedy did not (in fact could not) affect political life, that no-one was ever hurt by comedy. Heath (1987, 1990) maintains that what evidence we have suggests that comedy had no effect on politics (e.g. Knights won first prize but Kleon was elected general a few weeks later), and that no-one would have believed a comic poet about anything he said on whatever subject. Goldhill (1991) pursues a different line, namely that the comedian in the context of the licence of the festival is "testing the limits of society" and that he adopts so many "voices" in a comedy such as Acharnians that one cannot say for certain that any one passage represents the 'real' Aristophanes.[27] Finally Bowie (1993) asserts as a general principle that we cannot find (and thus should not seek) "authorial intent" in the works of Aristophanes; too often, he complains, the critic re-makes Aristophanes in his own image.

On the other side, there are those who do restate the case for a seriousness (even a satirical side) in Aristophanes. In particular, Edmunds (1987) assumes throughout that Knights is deliberate and bloody war on Kleon. Henderson (1990, 1993) suggests first that comedy was a sort of "official opposition" within the democracy, and later that comedy stood for the average Athenian against those who could be seen as the "elite". MacDowell (1983) argues a strong case for Acharnians as having a real political meaning, although in his more recent study (1995, 22-6) argues against any "sweeping statements about the purpose of personal ridicule". Finally Bremmer (1993) maintains that we can find a serious level in comedy, that Aristophanes is not simply the clown exploiting whatever will gain a laugh, that he takes seriously the role of the dramatist as "teacher". A reasonable middle ground is to be had in Carey (1994), that the best approach is one that involves "diversity", that comedy might have all sorts of functions, that one must not rule out the role of the poet as teacher that Aristophanes so often claims, and that there are certain places where we can detect this 'teaching'.

So what did Aristophanes really feel about Kleon (personally and politically) and is he using his comedies as political (or satirical) vehicles of any kind? Is Knights the serious piece that Norwood and Edmunds imagine? What did Aristophanes feel in 399 during and after the trial of Sokrates - sympathy for the attackers, solidarity with the defendant, or regret that a joke had got out of hand? When the news of Euripides' death arrived in 407, was his reaction "good riddance" to the man who had cheapened tragedy, regret over the loss of a good comic target, or genuine distress of the loss of a fellow dramatist whom he saw as both sophos and dexios? In this next section, I shall concentrate on these three large caricatures, although clearly the same questions can be asked of the minor characters as well (e.g. Kleonymos or Kleisthenes).

Sokrates: Much (too much in fact) has been done with the Sokrates-problem, the discrepancy between the 'real' Sokrates (the Sokrates of Plato and Xenophon) and that of comedy. Briefly put, the problem is that Aristophanes gives us a comic Sokrates who seems to be a combination of a typical sophist and the physically distinctive Athenian. The comic Sokrates teaches in a school, teaches for money, has expertise in natural science and in rhetoric, grammar, and metre, and professes (for a fee) to teach how to make the worse argument appear the stronger - all of which are contrary to the Sokrates that we know. In fact the only points in common are the physical, his going barefoot, wearing few clothes, distinctive walk, and large rolling eyes.[28]

The critics usually take one of three approaches to resolve this inconsistency:

(1) pure and deliberate malice on the part of an arch-conservative for whom the intellectual movement is something new and therefore dangerous,

(2) that the comic picture is more humorous than serious; Sokrates was Athenian and personally distinctive, and the comedian's dream as the caricature of an intellectual,

(3) Aristophanes didn't know the difference between Sokrates and a sophist and wouldn't have cared if you had pointed it out to him - he is the spokesman of Us against Them. I prefer the second interpretation; I find the evidence of Plato's Symposium, where Aristophanes is a member of the gathering strong evidence that Aristophanes was no anti-intellectual, rather one who would be comfortable in the philosophic and intellectual circles. Note that at Symp. 221b Alkibiades can comment offhandedly and without rancour about Aristophanes' portrait of Sokrates in Clouds; by the late 380s at any rate, Plato bore no malice at Aristophanes' depiction of Sokrates.

My conclusion is that the picture of Sokrates is a deliberate mixture of his distinctive personal appearance and the typical stance of a sophist, done with no satirical or malicious intent. Sophists were a new and distinctive feature of Athens in the 420s, which the comic poets go after in other plays;[29] Sokrates and his circle were too good to pass up.

(1) that the traditionalist Aristophanes hated Euripides for what he had done to tragedy,

(2) that Aristophanes was fascinated by Euripides and that the comic portrait is nothing less than an enormous compliment,

(3) that he was genuinely impressed by and attracted to Euripides, but in the end had Dionysos choose Aeschylus, a poet whom Aristophanes never knew personally, but who carried the aura of the good old days and whose work was "good" for the city.

Up until Frogs it is easy and attractive to support the second view. Euripides has a hilarious "cameo" role in Acharnians, and dominates Thesmophoriazousai in a brilliant depiction; the audience will be clearly in his camp. The latter is in Murray's words "a tremendous compliment". But in Frogs we get a comic literary critique, an exploration of the clever/exciting poet (Euripides) v. the truly good poet (Aeschylus), with the latter triumphing narrowly in the end.[30] Supporters of (2) will argue that Euripides does give as good as he gets and that the contest proceeds through several encounters (including the agon which solves nothing) without any firm decision. The issue is finally settled by a personal decision by Dionysos ("I shall choose the one in whom my soul delights"), based on the political advice given by each.

But I am bothered by the chorus that follows the victory of Aeschylus (1482-99):

A man with keen intelligence is a blessed man; one can learn this in many ways. For this man [Aeschylus] having shown himself to have good sense is going back home again, for the benefit of his fellow-citizens, for the benefit of his friends and family, because his mind is keen.

The elegant thing, then, is not to sit beside Sokrates and chatter, abandoning art and jettisoning all that's best in the creation of tragedy. To spend one's time lazily on lofty phrases and splintering words is the sign of a man gone mad.

Here we get serious criticism, I feel, rather than just humour, and it reveals an attitude at odds with the light-hearted frolic in Thesmophoriazousai One might just see this as the expression of the chorus, rather than Aristophanes, but it does come at the point in a comedy where we often do hear from the poet. Thus position (3) has much to commend it, but in defence of (2) it is worth noting that the adjectives that Aristophanes uses of Euripides (sophos, dexios - "smart", "clever") are those that he uses of himself - see Cl. 518ff., Wasps 1040ff.[31]

Kleon: Demagogues were a novelty in the 420s. Before Kleon the leaders of Athens came from the good families, the traditional rich and those of high birth - a possible exception might be Themistokles, a radical leader of the 490s and 480s, called "Pyrrhias" ("Red-head") on one ostrakon. But in the 420s a whole new force appeared in politics, the "new politicians" that we have described above. A comedian would have been crazy to pass up such a rich source for humour. But is this all? Is the comic picture of Kleon merely comedy following the popular stereotype? Look at the parabasis of Frogs (esp. 718-37) where the chorus in a serious mood calls for a return to the well-born leaders and the rejection of the demagogues. This passage is frequently seen by several critics as the poet himself speaking.[32] Add to the fact that the traditional politicians (e.g. Nikias) are not made fun of for their politics; even Alkibiades is made fun of for his omnivorous sexuality or his speech defect rather than for any political reasons. The traditional rich are not made fun of for their money, only the nouveaux riches; the knights (the very conservative and right-wing group) are treated with respect. Older political leaders such as Kimon or Thoukydides, son of Melesias, come off well at Aristophanes' hands. One other minor piece of evidence might be the identification of the poet with his character, Bdelykleon ("Loathe-Kleon"), at Wasps 651f. Some critics rush to consider Philokleon as the only character worthy of note in the comedy, dismissing the traditional son as pedantic or uninteresting;[33] for me "Loathe-Kleon" is Aristophanes.

Thus I conclude that he did have a genuine personal and political hatred of Kleon. He had a snobbish view of these nouveaux arrivés (despite what Reckford says, Aristophanes is a snob). There may have been personal reasons - they came from the same deme - and Cartledge points out that on the traditional birth-date of Aristophanes of 444, Aristophanes would have come of age in 426. Did Kleon raise objections to Aristophanes' paternity or citizenship? At least two ancient sources speak of an action by Kleon against Aristophanes "for alien birth" (Aristoph. Bios 19; S Ach. 378). There would have been concerns about style and about policies; add the action taken by Kleon in 426 after Babylonians and there is more than pure comedy here. Once the comic picture of Kleon as demagogue was established (especially the demagogue-comedy - Knights), it could be extended to the other demagogues as well.

Critics often observe that the comedians focus more on the personal style of Kleon and the other demagogues (e.g. appearance, sexual behaviour, foreign accent, mother etc.), but there are places where the comedian turns to matters of policy, in particular the war. In Knights Kleon-Paphlagon is attacked for his role in continuing the War; in Peace Kleon is the "pestle of war", whose death has enabled peace to be made, and in Frogs Kleophon is made fun of for his rejection of the Spartan peace-offer. The very last line of the play is striking in a play supposedly about poets and poetry:

And if Kleophon, or anyone like him, wants to make war

Thus there is policy here as well as personality, and I am content with de Ste Croix' and Sommerstein's reading of Aristophanes as a "Kimonian conservative", who was neither a radical democrat nor an extreme oligarch (although one must note that Lysistrate concludes with the detente with Sparta which the leaders of the coup of 411 were trying to achieve, and that the very people for whom Aristophanes pleads in Frogs would next year become or support the Thirty). We must notice also that he did survive two right-wing coups and two democratic reprisals. Most likely he was not seen as politically prominent.

There was no law, as Horace asserts, that brought personal humour (and thus Old Comedy) to an end. Yet look at a play by Aristophanes (say, Wasps) and a play by Menander, 100 years later (say, Dyskolos) and there is a vast difference, one obvious aspect of which is the disappearance of personal jokes. It was this that stood out so clearly to the minds of the ancient critics. However, the absence of personal humour is not as sudden or abrupt as the ancients would have us believe, the fragments of Middle Comedy contain many personal jokes; there are even two personal jokes in Menander's Samia - almost all one-liners, but there is at least one extended scene involving Plato, his students, and a pumpkin (Epikrates fr. 10). Interestingly enough, from the remains we have of Middle Comedy,[34] the most common komodoumenos is Plato.

But one casualty (and an early one) is political humour; politicians are still made fun of, for their size, appetite, appearance, or sexual preference, but not for their being politicians or for a particular political stance. There is no stereotype of the demagogue in Middle Comedy. This continues the trend begun in Ploutos which does have some personal/political jokes, but which for the most part is universal rather than especially Athenian.

I would suggest the following causes or at least contributing influences to the great sea-change that came over comedy in the 4th c., especially in the realm of personal humour.

(1) loss of the chorus - by the time of Ploutos the chorus is all but invisible; they have one scene at the beginning and one song (a parody of the poet Philoxenos) and then choral interludes are marked chorou ("of the chorus")]. In Old Comedy at its height the chorus carries the power of the parabasis (e.g. the violent picture of Kleon as monster at Wasps 1029-35) as well as the songs of abuse (the Kleonymos-tree, Automenes and his sons, "when Kleon is destroyed"). Remove the chorus and you remove much of the life of Old Comedy. The actors really have the one-liners only, and with the emphasis in the 4th c. on the actors comes a stress on the plot-line; personal jokes just get in the way.

(2) the internationalisation of comedy - More and more comedians in the 4th c. are foreigners come to Athens. Topical humour dates quickly and does not travel well;[35] read a copy of Punch from a past decade or a strip from Doonesbury from the 1970s, and one seems to have entered a different world. As comedy became international, specifically local humour was bound to lose out. More general comedy with universal themes would appeal to such foreign poets. An interesting observation can be made about the poet Timokles (active in the 330s) in whose fragments we find vigorous language, parodies of tragedy, suggestive titles (such as Dionysiazousai, Demosatyroi, Philodikastes), as well as jokes against politicians such as Demosthenes and Hypereides - in particular look at frr. 4, 7, 9-11, 14, 17-20, 23, 29, 32. We are nearly back in the world of Old Comedy, and one notes with interest the fact that Timokles was an Athenian in a genre now dominated by foreigners.

(3) influence of "Romantic Tragedy" - by this I mean such plays as Ion, Helen, IT, Andromeda which had happy endings, an emphasis on exciting plots, recognitions, escapes and rescues, and a love interest. Euripides seems to have used such themes in plays of his late career, and they were to have a considerable impact on New Comedy and Roman Comedy.[36] As the emphasis on the actor grew in 4th-c. comedy, the plot assumed more and more importance and would respond better to such themes of romance and intrigue from Romantic Tragedy. Topical and personal humour would be out of place in such comedy.

(4) a new generation: - modern critics and students find Old Comedy a very engaging and appealing form of drama, and cannot understand easily how it could have given way to the more bland (boring) and less vigorous New Comedy. But tastes change, and we can detect c.400 a new generation of comic poets with new ideas and new approach to comedy. We should expect this; look at 100 years in Classical Music (from Viennese Classicism c.1780 to the Romantics of 1880), or 100 years in English poetry (from the formal and classical Augustans of the early 1700s to the self-indulgent Romantics), or even the change in popular music from 1955 to that of the mid-1990s). Perhaps we must simply accept that in the 4th c. the Athenians' taste in comedy changed.

(5) the Athenian Zeitgeist of the 4th c.: - much has been written about the connection between Old Comedy and the life of the polis. We have seen Platonios' explanation of the freedom of personal humour as the expression of the radical democracy, and there is much in what he says. The 4th c. was a different world from the 5th. After casualties in war and plague, the horrors of defeat and tyranny, the loss of empire and of confidence, it has been argued that the spiritual mood of Athens in the 390s was one that would hardly welcome a comedy that pushed the limits of the democracy. The analogy of Germany in the 1920s is often advanced. After all, the Athenian right was gone in the 4th c., the idea of a Kimonian conservative would be lost in the world following the War, a demagogue was nothing new in the 4th c. (they were the rule) - it was perhaps no longer funny, or even safe, to insult the Demos, as Aristophanes had done in Knights, as a crotchety, not too bright, gullible old man. I think that Norwood overstates the case: "Thalia's heart was broken", but we can see that the times had changed and comedy with them had also to change.

What were Aristophanes' feelings on the matter? His last play, Ploutos, is not really Old Comedy at all, and we know that with his son, Araros, he subsequently produced two mythological burlesques, one of which (Aiolosikon) Platonios calls "the archetype of Middle Comedy". Did he lead the way into this new sort of comedy or follow reluctantly, yearning yet again for the good old days?

[1] I would agree with those who see Kratinos (career: 454-423) as the important person in the development of political and personal humour. Platonios (II.1) calls him an "emulator of Archilochos", and the fragments show some vigorous, and at times quite crude, sallies at Perikles. We need also observe that some comic poets were less given to this sort of humour, e.g. Krates and Pherekrates, who were so descibed by ancient sources and whose fragments (numerous enough in the case of Pherekrates to make a judgement) bear this out.

[2] The story told by Plutarch about Sokrates' reaction to Clouds (10c-d; see below) can be interpreted in that sense.

[3] Here you need to know that "centaur" was slang for a sexually aggressive male.

[4] Kleon's vocal and oratorical style was well remembered; he shouted rather than orated, and at Wasps 36 has "the voice of a blazing pig".

[5] It is less likely that Lysistrate is a closely modelled portrait of Lysimache. All that Aristophanes wanted was the name (Lysistrate = "she who breaks armies"; Lysimache = "she who breaks battles") and her associations with the cults on the acropolis, where the comedy is set. See Henderson [1987] xxxvi-xli.

[6] Amphitheos, Theoros, Euripides, Lamachos, Nikarchos, and possibly Derketes (for whom see MacDowell's [1983] discussion).

[7] Perhaps the earliest critic to observe and comment on the difference in comedies will be Aristotle (Eth. 1128a22) who distinguishes "former" comedy from "modern" comedy, the one characterised by aischrologia ("obscenity") and the latter by hyponoia ("subtlety").

[8] Persius will do exactly the same thing in his first satire (123ff.) -- those who like "bold Kratinos" and "angry Eupolis" and "the grand old man" [Aristophanes] will find his satire to their taste.

[9] On this term and its implications see O. Taplin, JHS 106 (1986) 163-74.

[10] [Plutarch] Moralia 854d (the translation is that of Fowler [Loeb vol. 10]). Two other passages which also tackle the intent of personal humour in comedy are Dion of Prusa 33.1.9 and Lucian Anach. 22.

[11] There were laws forbidding insults against the tyrannicides or magistrates or against engaging in slanging-matches in certain formal public gatherings, but we want a law on what was said, i.e. slander.

[12] At Cl. 1321ff. we do see Phedippides hit his father (both off-stage and on); at Birds 1337ff. we meet a father-beater (patraloias) who wants wings, but in neither case is a specific person meant.

[13] Admittedly one scholiast says that "all the comedians" went after Kleonymos, and Eupolis fr. 350 does mention "the shield-casting hand of Kleonymos". But no scholiast ever quotes anyone else for a joke at Kleonymos. See now P.Oxy. 4301 which seems to be comic in origin and mentions a Kleonymos (v. 5). Similarities with PSI 1213 (from Eupolis' Prospaltioi) suggest to the editors that this too is Eupolis.

[14] For what it is worth, my own assessment of the decree of 440/39 is that it indicates that personal humour in comedy was something new, at least on a grand and political scale. The decree may have been someone's reaction to a new and exciting element in popular entertainment. Another possibility is afforded by Plut. Per. 24 which records that Aspasia was blamed for bringing Athens into the dispute that led to the Samian War; if comedy (probably Kratinos) was picking this up, then a decree on personal humour might have been a reaction by Perikles or his supporters.

[15] For a fuller discussion of this passage and its implication see Storey [1995].

[16] The exact production-dates for the two plays of 411 are not known, but the opinio communis is that Lysist. belongs to the Lenaia and Thesm. to the Dionysia. The best study is that of Sommerstein [1977].

[17] This was argued by Müller-Strübing (1873) and supported by J.G. Griffith, Hermes 102 (1974) 367-9. The most recent studies of Amphitheos are Lind 136-8 and MacDowell (1995) 52.

[18] In fact the women at Lysist. 554 state that the success of their venture will let them be called "Lysimaches".

[19] B. Katz, Athenaeum 54 (1976) 353-81; M. Vickers, Historia 38 (1989) 267-99.

[20] See E. Vanderpool, Hesperia 37 (1968) 120.

[21] The ones we know best are Kleon and Hyperbolos (a tanner and a lamp-maker respectively); Kn. 128-35 mentions also a rope-seller (Eukrates according to the scholiast) and a sheep-merchant (Lysikles?). It can be seen easily how these sorts of professions would prosper in the expanding sea-based economy of Athens in the 5th c.

[22] The literature on this subject is huge. Of ancient texts read [Arist.] Ath.Pol. 28; the most thorough modern study is that of Connor.

[23] The evidence is collected by J.K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families, (Oxford 1971) 318-20

[24] There are some useful comments on the parallels with discrediting one's political rivals in 4th-c. oratory by Dover [1974] 30-3.

[25] Required reading on this point is Halperin.

[26] For the ancient sources on Aristophanes and Sokrates see Kassel-Austin III.2, pp. 11-15. The charge of collusion with Anytos et al. is found in nr. 31. For Knights and the oligarchs see Norwood 210.

[27] Acharnians tends to be a major battlefield for the critics in view of the identification between poet and actor at vv. 376ff., 500ff. and the appeal for peace in the first half of the play which many have taken to be Aristophanes' own ideas in the play. On this see Reckford and Bowie who pursue the line of comic fantasy, and MacDowell who argues for a serious reading.

[28] A good summary of the problem, with various solutions, is provided by Dover (Cl) xxxii-lxii.

[29] We can cite Eupolis' Aiges ("Goats" - 424?) with a sophist called "Prodamos", his Kolakes ("Spongers" - 421) with Protagoras, and Ameipsias' Konnos (423) with a chorus of "thinkers".

[30] Dover (Frogs) argues that Aeschylus qualifies on both criteria, but I tend to see an antithesis of technical skill (dexiotes) and 'teaching', and suspect that Aristophanes would claim both for his comedy.

[31] A variant on either view (1) or (3) is that Aristophanes sees Euripides as "too comic", that he has crossed the line between tragedy and comedy, in effect "poaching" on Aristophanes' own turf. See Cartledge 20, Bowie 217-25, and E. Segal, in Stage Directions (BICS Supplement 66) 46.

[32] See, for example, de Ste Croix and Carey.

[33] See, for example, Whitman, Reckford, and Bowie.

[34] The term "Middle Comedy" seems to be as early as the Alexandrian commentators, but whether it denotes anything more than "between Aristophanes and Menander" (380-320) is unclear. I use it in the chronological sense. Two recent studies of this enigmatic creature can be noted: H.-G. Nesselrath, Die attische Mittlere Komödie, (Berlin/New York 1990) and G. Dobrov (ed.), Beyond Aristophanes, (Atlanta 1995).

[35] It has often been maintained that Old Comedy never travelled beyond Attica, but Taplin has argued vigorously that certain 4th-c. Italian vases, usually thought to represent local Italian comedy (phlyakes), in fact represent scenes from Old Comedy.

[36] A provocative statement that still surfaces in basic courses on ancient drama is whether Menander owes more to Euripides than to Aristophanes.[Return to text]

Bibliography:

J.E. Atkinson, "Curbing the Comedians", CQ 42 (1992) 56-64

A. Bowie, "The parabasis in Aristophanes' Acharnians", CQ 32 (1982) 27-40

A. Bowie, Aristophanes: myth, ritual and comedy, (Cambridge 1993)

J. Bremmer, "Aristophanes on his own Poetry", in E. Handley et al. (edd), Aristophane (Entretiens sur l'antiquité classique 38, Vandoeuvres 1993) 125-72

C. Carey, "Comic Ridicule and Democracy", in R. Osborne & S. Hornblower (edd.), Ritual, Finance and Politics, (Oxford 1994) 69-83

P. Cartledge, Aristophanes and his Theatre of the Absurd, (Bristol 1990)

W. Connor, The New Politicians of Fifth-century Athens, (Princeton 1971)

E. Csapo & W.J. Slater, The Context of Ancient Drama, (Ann Arbor 1995) 165-85

G.E.M. de Ste Croix, "The Political Outlook of Aristophanes", in The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, (Ithaca 1972) App. XXIX, pp. 355-76

K.J. Dover, Aristophanes Clouds, (Oxford 1968)

K.J. Dover, Greek Popular Morality, (Oxford 1974)

K.J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality, (London 1978)

K.J. Dover, Aristophanes Frogs, (Oxford 1993)

N.V. Dunbar, Aristophanes Birds, (Oxford 1995)

L. Edmunds, Cleon, Knights and Aristophanes' politics", (Lanham 1987)

S. Goldhill, The Poet's Voice, (Cambridge 1991) 167-223

A.W. Gomme, "Aristophanes and Politics", CR 52 (1938) 97-109

S. Halliwell, "Aristophanic Satire", Yearbook of English Studies 14 (1984) 6-20

S. Halliwell, "Comic satire and freedom of speech in classical Athens", JHS 111 (1991) 48-70

S. Halliwell, "Comedy and publicity in the society of the polis", in A.H. Sommerstein et al. (edd.) Tragedy, Comedy and the Polis, (Bari 1993) 321-40

D. Halperin, One hundred years of homosexuality, (London 1990)

M. Heath, Political Comedy in Aristophanes, (Göttingen 1987)

M. Heath, "Aristophanes and his rivals", G&R 37 (1990) 143-58

M. Heath, "Some Deceptions in Aristophanes", in F.Cairns & M. Heath (edd.), Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 6 (1990) 229-40

J. Henderson, Aristophanes Lysistrata, (Oxford 1987)

J. Henderson, The Maculate Muse, 2nd ed., (Oxford 1991)

J. Henderson, "The Demos and Comic Competition", in J. Winkler & F. Zeitlin (edd.), Nothing to do with Dionysos?, (Princeton 1990) 271-314

J. Henderson, "Comic Hero v. Political Elite", in A.H. Sommerstein et al. (edd.), Tragedy, Comedy and the Polis, (Bari 1993) 307-19

R. Kassel & C. Austin, Poetae Comici Graeci, (Berlin/New York 1983 -->)

D.M. Lewis, "Who was Lysistrata?", ABSA 50 (1955) 1-10

H. Lind, Der Gerber Kleon in den "Rittern" des Aristophanes, (Frankfurt 1991)

D.M. MacDowell, Aristophanes Wasps, (Oxford 1971)

D.M. MacDowell, "The Nature of Aristophanes' Akharnians", G&R 30 (1983) 143-62

D.M. MacDowell, Aristophanes and Athens, (Oxford 1995)

G. Murray, Aristophanes, (Oxford 1933)

G. Norwood, Greek Comedy, (London 1931)

M. Radin, "Freedom of Speech in Ancient Athens", AJPh 48 (1927) 215-30

K.J. Reckford, Aristophanes' Old-and-New Comedy, (Chapel Hill 1987)

R. Rosen, Old Comedy and the Iambographic Tradition, (Atlanta 1988)

A.H. Sommerstein, "Aristophanes and the events of 411", JHS 97 (1977) 112-26

A.H. Sommerstein, The Comedies of Aristophanes, (Warminster 1980 -->), 9 vol. to date

A.H. Sommerstein, "The Decree of Syrakosios", CQ 36 (1986) 101-8

A.H. Sommerstein, "How to avoid being a komodoumenos", CQ 46 (1996) 327-56

I.C. Storey, "The 'blameless shield' of Kleonymos", Rh.Mus. 132 (1989) 247-61

I.C. Storey, "Wasps 1284-91 and the portrait of Kleon in Wasps", Scholia 4 (1995) 3-22

O. Taplin, Comic Angels, (Oxford 1993)

R.G. Ussher, Aristophanes Ecclesiazusae, (Oxford 1973)

R.G. Ussher, Aristophanes, (Oxford 1977)

C. Whitman, Aristophanes and the Comic Hero, (Cambridge MA 1964)

R. Wycherley, "Aristophanes and Euripides", G&R 15 (1946) 98-107

COPYRIGHT: all material published in Classics Ireland is copyright. Responsibility for, and ownership of, copyright remains with the author of each article.

ISSN 0791-9417

http://www.ucd.ie/~classics/ClassicsIreland.html