PREFATORY NOTE Appendix D (The Age of Majority in Athens) has appeared as an article in somewhat different form in the October 1977 issue of Classical News and Views. Appendix F (Knights 230-3 and Cleon's_Eyebrows) has been accepted for publication in substantially the same form in Classical Quart erl. ABBREVIATIONS For the names of ancient authors and their works, I have tried to use customary and obvious abbreviations; so too for familiar works of reference such as CAH, OCD, , RE. For the titles of periodicals, I have been guided by the abbreviations used in L'Anne Philologique, while feeling free to employ a different abbreviation In common use or none at all. For the titles of modern works which I have cited frequently in the notes, the following abbreviations are used: AB P.J. Rhodes, The Athenian Boule, Oxford, 1972. - AC K.J. Dover, Aristophanic Comedy, Berkeley, 1972. APF J.K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families 600-300 B.C., Oxford, 1971. ATL The Athenian Tribute Lists, by B.D. Meritt, H.T. Wade-Gery, and M.F. McGregor, 4 vols., Cambridge (Mass.), I, Princeton, ii-iv, 1939-53. Beitrge G. Gilbert, Beitrge zur Innern geschichte Athens im zeltalter des peloponneslschen Krieges, Leipzig, 1877. DFA A.W. Pickrd-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens', revised by J. Gould and D.M. Lewis, Oxford, 196g. FGH F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechlschen Historiker, Berlin and Leiden, 1923- GdA E. Meyer, Geschlchte des Altertums5, Basel, 1956. GG G. Busolt, Griechische Geschichte, Gotha, l93-19O4.. ABBREVIATIONS HCT A.W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, 3 vols. (to v.24), Oxford, 1945-56. IG Inscriptiones Graecae, Berlin, 173-- MEGHL A.W. Gomme, More Essays in Greek History and 1962. Literature, Oxford, ML R. Meiggs and D.M. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the end of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford, 1969. NP W.R. Connor, The New Politicians of Fifth- Century Athens, Princeton, 1971. Reference to the following is made by author's name only: Croiset M. Croiset, Aristophanes and The Political Parties at Athens (tr. by J. Loeb), London, 1909. de Ste. Croix G.E.M. de Ste. Croix, The Origins of the Pe].oponnesian War, London, 1972. Dover K.J. Dover, Aristophanes Clouds, Oxford, l96. Dttbner F. Dilbner, Scholia Graeta in Aristopha- nem cum prolegomenis grammaticcrum, Paris, 1877. Edmond s J.M. Edmonds, The Fragments of Attic Comedy, Leiden, 1957. Ehrenberg V. Ehrenberg, The People of Aristophanes,, Oxford, 1951. Geissler P. Geissler, Chronologie der altatti- schen komödie, Berlin, 1925. Hignett C. Hignett, A History Of The AthenIan Constitution To The End Of The Fifth Century B.C., Oxford, 1958. Kagan D. Kagan, The Archidamian War, Cornell U.P., 1974. Kock T. Kock, Comicorurn Atticorum Fragmenta, Leipzig, 1880-8. ABBREVIAT IONS 9 Landfester M. Landfester, Die Ritter des Aristo-. panes, Amsterdam, 196?. ?a c Dow eli D.M. YacDowell, Aristophanes Wasps, Oxford, 1971. Neiggs R. Neiggs, The Athenian Erpire, Oxford, 1972. ?eineke A. Meineke, Fragmenta Comicorurn Graecoruni, Berlin, 183g-57. Muhier-Strilbing H. MtIiier-Strtlbing, Aristophanes und die historische Kritik, Leipzig, 1873. Neil R.A. Neil, The Knights of Aristophanes, Cambridge, 1901. Platnauer M. Platnauer, Aristophanes Peace, Oxford, 1964. Rennie W. Rennie, The Acharriians of Aristo-. phanes, London, 1909. Starki e W.J-.M. Starkie, The Acharnians of Aristophanes, Lodon, 1909. Van Leeuwen J. Van Leeuwen, Aristophanes Eguites, Leiden, 1900. - Except In a few instances the comic fragments are cited from Kock's edition, the scholia from Dflbner. INTRODUCTION main objectives in this thesis and the approach I1y which I have adopted need some definition and elaboration. The title itself perhaps requires a word of explanation. I have not attempted to cover the relationship of Aristo- phanes and Cleon down to the latter's death or to the production of the Peace in 422/1, because I do not think .that It would have been feasible to do so adequately in a work of this length. Reference is made to Cleon's later career and to passages in the Clouds, Wasps and Peace where this seems relevant, but I have taken 424, or rather the Lenaea of 424, as a 'cut-off point'.1 This is not an arbitrary terminus. It was at this festival that Aristo- phanes won first prize with his Knights, a comedy which embodied an extensive attack upon Cleon, and the politician was at the height of his influence In the city when the play was performed. Individual chapters of the thesis are devoted to Cleon's early career; to the Banqueters; the Babylonians; Clean's reaction to the Babylonians; the Acharnians; and the Knights. Detailed examination of several important questions is relegated to appendices in order to try to keep the main line of argument clear, but there Is inevi- tably considerable imbalance in the length of the chapters. 1 The possibility that Clean attacked Aristophañes follow- ing the production of the Knights is briefly discussed in connection with Cleon's action after the Babylonians. INTRODUCTION 11 Almost every line in the Knights Is concerned with Cleon, and the chapter in which I analyze the play is far longer than any other. There does not seem to be any way of avoiding this, and to facilitate examination of the comedy I have considered Cleon's 'activities' here in nine dif- ferent sections. In the third of these, a section dealing with the politician's use of oracles and religion, I argue that there is some reason to think that Cleon had recently been involved in the Athenian decision to start work upon the Nike temple and that Aristophanes pokes fun at this In his play. For clarity and completeness, the inscriptions connected with the temple as well as modern controversy about the date and context of its building have to be discussed, and this 'expository material' makes the section somewhat unwieldy. !et it is difficult to see how the material could have been treated separately In an appendix, and I decided that here too I should simpLy have to tolerate a certain lack of proportion. When I first began work on this subject my main interest lay In Aristophanes rather than in Cleon. By this I mean that I wanted to concentrate on analyzing the various ways in which he attacks the politician in his comedies. I soon realized, however, that in order to do this It was necessary to try to 'unearth the real Cleon', and the thesis in its final form is at least as much about Cleon as about Aristophanes. Although my aim is not primarily historical, It is suggested throughout that in various ways (some apparently not noted before) the INTRODUCTION 12 comedies do shed considerable light upon the politician's career. My main purpose is to examine in as comprehensive a manner as possible the evidence for the relationship between Aristophanes and Cleon (chronologically viewed) from 427 to (early) 424. This, I think, requires no justification. The validity of trying to trace the course of the feud between the two men and (particularly) of attempting to make any estimate of the seriousness of Aristophanes' attacks upon Cleon is perhaps slightly more controversial. These objectives certainly involve con- siderable difficulties. It is impossible to reconstruct the plot of either the-Banqueters or the Babylonians, and another of the poet's lost plays may have been performed in 427, 426, or 425)- Moreover, any judgment which one makes about Aristophanes' intentions when he wrote the Acharnians and the Knights (not to mention-the lost comedies) is necessarily subjective. The problems should not be minimized. The best evidence for Aristophanes' political viewpoint would un- doubtedly be the miraculous emergence of one of his comedies which was performed prior to Cleon's attack upon him in 426. If he wrote a fifth (or sixth?) play before the beginning of 424 any reconstruction of the development of his feud with Cleon is (at best) incomplete, and no two 1 This possibility is considered in the Conclusion of the thesis. INTRODUCTI ON 13 modern readers are likely to be in total agreement about what he was trying to do in his extant works. Because of these and other difficulties, certainty here is often impossible and doubts have to be frankly expressed. Yet it still seems important to try to uncover the feud between Aristophanes and Cleon and to trace Its development as fully as one can. It Is beyond the scope of this Introduction to take up the arguments advanced by Gomme when he urged that it was pointless to try to dis- cover Aristophanes' political opinions and that only Aristotelian canons of consistency and probability should be invoked when analyzing the comedies. 1 Gomrne's vigorous- ly argued viewpoint has had a considerable impact on the course of Aristophanic criticism but in recent years there have been growing signs of a healthy counter-reaction.2 I simply wish to say that I find Gonirne's position here untenable. Any play can embody or contain, a serious political 'message'. Particularly because of the intimate connection between an Athenian audince and the stage and the intentional 'violations of the /frariatic illusion', I believe that Aristotelian criteria are of limited relevance where Old Comedy is concerned. Goime may be nearer the mark in arguing that it is impossibie to discover what Aristophanes' political opinions 4zere. At least it seems doubtful whether they will ever be established to l93, !EGHL 70-91. 1 CR lii 97-109 = 2 See especially de Ste. Croix, 355-7. INTRODUCTION 14 everybody's s&tisfaction, but the attempt must surely be made to determine what (if any) political purpose and hopes he had when he wrote his plays. It may appear a little curious to close this Introduction by referring to an epigraphical controversy, but the subject is important and it seems as well to make my position clear at the outset. In a series of articles which began in 1961, H.B. Mattingly has consistently argued that a number of Athenian decrees which are usually dated earlier belong to the 4205.1 He believes that they reflect a strong imperialism which developed after the death of Pericles with Cleon and his successors, but I am very far from being convinced that certain letter forms (notably the 3-bar sigma) are not reliable criteria of date.2 Consequently, I have not (e.g.) referred to the Coinage Decree when discussing Cleon's attitude towards the Empire.3 Essentially, I follow ?Ieiggs, Meritt and those other scholars who uphold the 'orthodox' view that the 1 Hist. x 1961, 14-. Most of Mattingly's later articles are listed by M.B. Walbank, Phoros: Tribute to Benjamin Dean Meritt, N. York, 1974, 161 n. 1. 2 Walbank, supra cit. 161-9, has recently published lists of dated fifth-century documents noting changes in all the letters of the Attic and Ionic alphabets. As he observes, they support the orthodox view that the disappearance of the three-barred sigma and the tailed rho are reliable indications of date. 3 The dating of the Coinage Decree involved peculiar problems since only the Cos fragment uses the sigma with three bars., but this seems decisive. For modern contro- versy on the subject, see Meiggs, 167-72; B.D. Meritt, PAPhS cxix 1975, 267-74. INTRODUCTION 15 important steps in changing the Alliance into an Empire were taken in the forties, and that Cleon had nothing to do with them.