Los roles en cuestión en el encierro

£<*JC (ulv W O1C £<?»&OU T^C

This seems to make it very probable that Plato is indeed speaking of 14-0

himseLf,in spite of the similar Fr. 100, aimed at Aristophanes. The <

problem of whether or not Plato means himself in Fr.107 has been considered above. The only other relevant passage in Plato is Fr.133, where he may have attacked Archinus and Agyrihius for their reduct­ ion of the poets’ pay( cf. Ar.Ra. 3^7 snd Sannyrion 9). Phryiichus in Fr. 26( textual!y doubtful) makes a complaint about the limitations

\ „>/ i

imposed on him by Syraco sins’ avo^eTi law —although h tills does not prevent him from naming Syraoosius-.iust as in Aristoph-^ 1 anes’ ’ Birds’, performed while the decree was in force, some in di vid-

KX m ' £ hy uais from public life xvere named in passages of ridicule. n*)

ovoyncvo-r< is evidently a great simplification of the precise terms of th e 1 aw.

It is dear that there was much common ground in the sort cf

comments which the Old Comedians made upon themselves and upon ’their rivals. What is most obvious in surveying the evidence of our fragments

1

99

is firstly the unique position of Cratinus’ as a Vx>xk of liter­ ary cri tldLsra, and secondly the comparative abundance of passages ind- i eating comm ait on Comedy in Cratinus’ remaining work.

Referaices:

Other Comedians on Ar.:

Cratin. 200,3D 7,poss. 324c(or Phryni chus?) Eupoli s 54, 78,po ss. cf. 357

Plato: 81,100 |

Tate&i d. poss. 43 J Axi stonymus 4 ; Sannyiion 5 1

Other Comedians on Eachothere

Cratin. 335a, b, c, 324a, 334 ( all. Ecphan ti des}, 3'24c( Call! as— al so Ar. o r Phiyni chus), 230 (Eupoli s), 3D8 (more gaieral)

Eupoli s c f. 244( ’ M eg axi an ’ u s ed con t emp tuou si y), 357 (no t sp eci f± c, bu t may hint Ar.?}

Ecph an tides 2( contempt for 'Meg axi an’ Comedy) j Ly sippu s 4 (non-speo- ific charge of re-using material) J Ph erecrates 95(en earlier Comedy) X85( choruses of earlier days) ; Hexmippus 64( Phryni chus) , Strattls

20,54( Sannyiion), 37(Philyllius)

Other Comedians on Themselves and Their boric :

Cratin. passim,195 &■ 196 in particular. Also l8,poss. 36(?and

/ 14*

/i if£n gaieral?),poss. 73 ,l62Aad init. (Austin 731,169,222, 237,323,324b,pxob.329, cf.Pap.O:xy.l6ll.3L(p.73 ad fin. Edm.). cf.174? Eupoli s 78, 223, .244( ? ), 3D 6, 357

Plato 99,peril.107,133(?)

Ecph an tides cf. 2 ; Crates 24 ; Tel edict po ss. 4( rebuke to audience Lysippus 4, cf.Pap.0xy.l6ll. 3t(p« 203Edm) ; Ph erecrates 79,96 J

Phryni chug 26 5 Me tog axes 14 ; Sannyiion 9(?)

Possibly Cratin. 33? is an indication of comment on the theatre (?on Comedy?) n’L so. Cf. al so Cratin,.?3 and perhaps even 347•

100

Epic

Evaluative comm ait on ©pic poetry is rare,no doubt because of the absence of topical interest. Eupolis, Pl a to and Ph erecrates have nothing to say of it,uni ess Pherecr.152 and 153>sn apparent comment on the discrepancy betweai Hesiodic and later standards of conduct

towards guests,be considered relevant here( there is no criticism of artistic standards). There is also very little critical comment on ©pic poetry in Aristophanes hums el f. There may well have beai rather more in Cratinus and Tel edides. The latter'sSot has a suggest­ ive title, and we know from Ihog.Laert. Prppon.12 that Cratinus in his

in Homer and Hesiod and in other early poets in that play.Homer may be © tzt^Xos in Fr. 6. Fr. 332 shows that Cratinus treated the 'Ma.rgites

as Homer's,while in the context of the concocted line

Cratinus is said to have accused Homer of pi eon asm (Fr. 63 a). Of later Comic poets Theopompus has Odysseus comment anachionistically on the aptness of a Homeric simil e( Fr. 33), ^hil e Metagsies wrote a play with the title^O/uqpos Zj ’H=n<^-v|Z ,perhaps,if one compares Ra.l032ff, a. play treating Homer as a manual for military training.

References: Cratin.: 68a, 332? ( of. Diog.Laert.loc. dt.&Frs. 2. & 6) ; TeLedid. ;c /-/ir/oSo< ;M etag cues : cf. ’^e-KkjT-^ ; Theop.: 33

0 th er hi terary an d Mu si cal Criticism

Cratinus has several references to early poets,but most of then were evidently no more than minor allusions. Thus, although Fr.

speaks of Polymnestus of Colophon, the dtharode, Fr. 2L7 of the infer— io r lyric poet Tdaliens, end Fr..243 of the "Lesbian bard" (about whose idoitity the ancients did not agree, al though many d aimed tliat the

102

|?O

allusion wa.s to Terpander), Cra.tinus does not seem to have said any­ thing of substance of any of thou in context. N ever th el ess, the occurr­ ence of their names suggests that there was some literary or musical interest in context, even if not in th on. All three phrases have some­

thing of the proverbial in them.'Whether the ’’mention” of the "very early dithyramhic poet” Geddes or Cedides in n^vo-i-riv* (156) was trivial or not we cannot tell,but the name occurs in a context in Mu. 985 which suggests that the man was a type of all that was out-dated:

<3f p 1 =■< y£ /<®rl MITTOAtWOq K^l T£ T T« y * °r V 1 .

K°r» kh-j feciSoV K4?* &oVy3ovi/fcjv\

It may in fact be ’that the man’s name was used similarly in Crat-

inus, and that it was only a guess of the scholiast that Ceeides or lETt

Cedides was of such early date, for an inscription of the later part of the Fifth Century records a victory of a Cedides( with the ’ d’) at

the ThargeLia. This could be the same men,perhaps a laughing-stock for an archai.c styl e( ? ). Even if these references were all relatively tri vial,it is dear thet at least one of the older,non-qric poets figured prominently in .Ibis is,of course, Archilochus him­ self, to Thom Fr. 6 refers as the "Thasian brine”, with reference to his part in the colonisation of Thasos and to hi s mordant invective.*04' Archilochus was a strong influence on Cratinus: cf. on ’Parody and Borrowings’ below. Frs. 229 and 2jp( X£if>b->w $ ) and Fr. 70(E.uvi?^i )

also suggest comment, on (lyric)poetry in context. Cf. 67 also, and the significance of the title ,hy which were meant lyrists, dth- arodes who, according to Harpooration and Pollux,performed at reLig-

15 6

ious services at Athens. Athoaaeus( 15-698c=Fr. 68b Edm) attests the use of parody in the play, such as we see for ourselves in Frs. 69 end ?0-

cf. on ’Parody and Borrowings’ bdow.

Eupolis in Fr.l’J? deplores toe view that it is out-dated to sing: the works of Stesi chorus, Ainu an and Simonides, whereas one can hear •.

102

^o»z\o» singing the verses of Gnesippus( who wrote lyric verse as well as Tragedy)to call out their paramours.In Fr.l3?A Edm(366K) Eupolis similarly bewails the fact that Pindar* s poetry was neglect­

ed because of the general disregard for beauty among his fellow cit-

i zens("Arro t^s tmv ttoWwv °i <j> i/\oK«y\.i=vs : Athon.i. 3a). Fr. 3&1 again mentions Stesichorus in connection with a reca.tai to the lyre(not a

cri ti cal p assag e, ho wever). X t i s d ear th at som e so phi s ti c mu si ci an appeared, in ( cf. 3, 4,11,17) and that the play showed some rustic ( the \ypoiKos of Pap.Oxy. 27^.ii= Austin 237, and hence the chorus of go a.ts^ attempting to acquire an education( cf. Strep si ades in Arist­ ophanes’ * Clouds*: whetber /5’yi'S or Nu.*/ dates first is uncertain)1^ Austin Fr. 237 shows that the rustic attempted a shield-dance at some stage in AtyxS and was instructed in how to perform the movonents properly by his ” ”.Fr. 4 shows that the teacher took a fee

for such instruction. Fr. 17 names the sophist-musician as ’Prodamus’, a name not otherwise known in this connection.If the name is correct­ ly reported by Quintilian,!t may be that of a character’ invented by Eupolis, similar to those of Prodicus and Pronomus. It is possible

that it is a mi stalee for one of these names, but the fact that in Austin Fr. 237 the character is simply designated o

Sis£<rK«rX©s

suggests that he was not identified as a celebrated sophist in the pi ay. Perhaps the name Prodamus was a deliberate compromise between Prodicus and Pronomus. The name do es, ho wever, o ecu; in an inscription

from Melos(I.G. A. 435^*97 Fick). Cf. fhrther on ’Philosophy and SdaitifLC Theories’ below. Whether Fr.77 describes some musician

from real, life is not apparent,but,in view of Eupolis’ taste for topical comm or t, on e would suspect that it did so. The description of the man,.in double entendre, uses homo sexually suggestive language to 7

161

convey his versatility as a musician and dancer. From tie same play ( )oome two other fragments suggesting that di thy ram bi c( and 7 perhaps other) performances figured in Vie play. .76A bids some giii Jg

’‘-w

103

play a cyclic prelude, while 76B complains that someone is intoler­ able in that he is in conflict with the tune(4vr»rrp4rru

All this suggests some el on exit o f literary and must cal cri t±cism( end paiody?)in Bin-nyi . Fr. 3^3 shows another 'red tai’,of both old-style ant

oontemporary song(lyric: ). Someone declares that he will listen to^ bo th, examin e thon(}gnd choose which seems light to him. Parody and critical comment seem to be indicated in con text. Ko ck sees

a ’ gmeration gap' si tuation, recalling the conflict over the merits of old and new-style poetry in Nu.93bsq. > whm Strepsiades wanted his *

son to recite for him. This is a possible view,but it may be a teacher/ pupil relationship(or some oilier}.Vaguer indications of literary crit­ icism may be found in Fr.245 (or predominantly parody in context?}and perhaps in Fr. 200. Edmonds’ suggestion that in Fr.127 someone is idea t­

V ifying with Orpheus is one of his more feLicitous conj ecti,ires. The obvious reason for someone to wish to impersonate Orpheus (or to im­ itate him) in a play in which mm returned from the dead is to bring 3

J

back persons from the Underworld, as Orpheus tried to bring back Eur— ydice( cf. Edmonds p.359jnote ’ e’}. Whether it is actually a lyrist who takes on the role of Orpheus is not apparmt, as some other person^ may have thought himself equal to the part. Edmonds’ guess that Cin— -{

s

edas in particular is involved is risky,but it is a possibility. Evm?

• f

if someone does think of trying to bring back the dead by playing the? role of Orpheus,it does not necessarily follow,cf course, that tha.t s

method was evmtually adopted in the play. The method may have been a *7

• I

’ false start’, as it were. In Fr.8l Dauocritus of Chios is mentioned J under a nickname.

The most important passage of comment upon lyric poets and music in the Old. Comic fragments is unquestionably Ph erecrates Fr. 145(with 144B Edm,i. e. Iff/K). There Hovc’iKfj makes her complaints to Zukoioc?—7;

/

Vvn of the gross mistreatment which she has suffered, at the hands i

........ " ....

of certain lyric poets,using language not only appropriate to the musical context,but also to sexual assault. Nou<fii<^ traces her suce-

I

essive ravishings by Melanippides,Cinesias,Phrynis and Timotheus, each worse than the last in the outrages which he perpetrated upon 4 her. She claims that her woes began with Melanippides, whose innovat-

I bi i

ions made her ’’slacker by a dozen notes”(1.5 Edm),Dhring understands • this to mean that the compositions of Melanippides were pitched low in comparison with the old. music,which seems to agree with what is said of tiie older-style Dorian mode in Nu.9^9 aid the scholium there-;- to. The Dorian haimonia was higher in pitch than the harmoniai which

t / >/ tiie innovators favoured: cf. Schol.Nu.loc. cit.: truvrovoi/ otrswjS

/ > > / t z

UV|S TTa-X^v^-S cr , ©l/K Ot V£ifA£.v>|S oi V£oi <£VT£V0»y6'csV .

AcuStk-Y is taken by lining %o mean ”a great mass of notes”, < taking as a round number as in Ra. 1129. He understands the J allusion to be to the wider compass of the new music. What is said of'^ Cinesias,’’the accursed Attic”,is more obscure, as the simile in 11. 16-17 Edm is problematic.He is described as having beoi the aid of <

with hi s” extra-harmonious beidings(modulations) ”, which both

uf Ibb < . <j

During and Borthwick refer to ’’frguo.it modulations from mode to mode’’, even,it may be, within the same strophe. Dionysius of Halicarnassus,in the passage cited by During on p.l83f of his artl cl e, sp eak s of such departures from the basic mode by later dithyrambic poets(naming Phil?- oxoius,Timotheus and Telestes in particular) and records also how the 7 music could be at times enharmonic, at times chromatic and at times *

•

diatonic. The simile (”so that in his di thyrambic po etry, as among the p shields,his right seemed his left”)has been variously interpreted. i

i(>~i it? >"

Mein dee folio wed Hanow in talcing -the” boa dings” in context to refer to physical movements of the chorus and in concluding that in 'onseq- uoiceof the ’’extra-harmonious bendings”(or ” turnings”) the chorus was

at times in idle wrong place according to the strict requiranoits of * /

105

the music.Meineke adduces Schoi.Ra. 153 in support of this,which says

of Cinesias that n Toh X°P°''S TTo^X^ /<ivvjr£i .He

interprets 4«-tt»2^s in the simile as ’’ordines mill turn” and concludes that for Cinesias’ light to seem his left in such a setting he must be facing the wrong way, which Mein dee takes to be a reflection on Cinesias’ cowardice,of which Lysia.s may give a hint in XXl.fO(he speaks of Cinesias’ success in avoiding military service, at any rate) Ko ck an d Edmon ds folio w 14 ein ek e an d H ano w in th ei r g en eral in teip rot­

ation. The f^p^iovicx are more convincingly in teipreted by Ddiing and Borthwick as I have described above,but it is dear

from the simile itself, as Mein eke observed, that, the physical movo- maits made by the chorus in accordance with the musical innovations in question must also be in point in the passage, as Borthwick acknow^ ledges on p. 66. The viev that Mein dee takes of the simile was also ray t

14A

own natural reaction to the words. Bdiing seens misguided in understand ing °icnTitf,v of the reflection in shields, as in minors, for,

as Borthwick very reasonably observes, "the gratuitous introduction

here of shidLds is curiously unmotivated.’"The artide in the phrase 4V n-cvVy AeTri&tv seems to me f ar mo re un com fo rtabl e with' During’s interpretation than with M ein ek e’s, al though During himself regards the presence of the artide as fatal to the ’’battle-line” view. The

„ C z > ' ’7l

pun that During thinks he sees on and 'Hp'6-7Tpor does not seem con­ vincing to me.Borthwick argues that there is an allusion to the

(cf.Ra.153 for its association with Cinesias)with its shidd x > I

movements,but I find it too difficult to believe that sv

means ’’ ’in his shields’,i.e. in the shield movements of the Pyrrhici dance”, as Borthwick daims. The in teip r station is linguistically very'| I1 uh easy in my opinion, and I shoul 1 ton aider neither During’s view of ?

the simile nor Borthwick’s an improvement. on Mein eke’s. If Cinesias was a notoriously cowardly or bungling soldier, and if sv

106

can legitimately be taken to refer to battle-lines even with the

article( and it seons less difficult to suppose so than to follow either of the other tvo suggestions), thoa we msy believe Meineke, but none of the interpretations offered is without at least some difficulty.

Phrynis, bi outf ik claims, ” threw in (introduced) some personal twist '1 ‘i and completely finished me with holding and turning,with his twelve harmonies on five strings.” Aristophanes too(Mu.970}associates Phryni: with kym-H , and Timo theus called him ’ItovokC^rrT^s, (Fr.8 Eiehl). Du ring7’takes ^Tpof&iXos to be a tuning mechanism, but Borthwick’7 well £ rejects this view and understands it of a violent whirling, an irreg->J ular rotatory motion( cf. the imagery o f Pax 864, where we hear o f ot

Korpkivou o-rpopiAoi ).Both During and. Borthwick accept the trans- »<;

l A

mitted rrevrs as the number of the strings, and the foime/: offers

‘75 J

detailed remarks on the tuning involved,but is perhaps inclined to accredit Ph erecrates with a more precise impression of the meaning j

I7*V

he intended than he need have had himself. Eorthwick well supposes that ScoatK’v is a round number, chosen perhaps for its sexual assoo- .'j i a.tion s( Cyrea e the prostitute can offer twelve varieties in Ra. 1527*

and Paxamus in the first Century B. C. called his work on sexual pos­ itions ScudjKvo>/ jcf.Plato 134 also).Yet, for all his faults, '

/ •'/) Phrynis was not too bad. Timotheus,however, Movekrj na.rre.tes, surpass-- ‘ 1 ed all in his passion for ”o ff-route, extra—harmonious ant-runs and »a unholy overshoo tings and high-pitched trills.” The "ant-run” image i

J is used in Ar. The an. 100 of th© lorries of Agathon:

/ -> / , A / o. Zy , i

^U/pyLAFjkoS ^Tp'vrToi/S^ T i vvpi

The same image must explain Philoxenus’ nickname Mu .Mein eke took the reference of the image ‘to be to the scurrying of ants to and fro,which is for us a more natural image,but Borthwick adduces the phrase °!V<y?*p^7-o5 c VpoTro'S ouroS 1 ’/ t / “iijS \ f \on Eur­IP

ipides’ rfoXi/vopSA )from the Byzantine Treatise on Tragedy publish^

In document Presos: un nuevo individuo bajo el encierro estudio sobre las condiciones de vida de los internos de la cárcel Villahermosa, Cali Colombia [Recurso electrónico] (página 136-142)