Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-r7xzm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T08:40:30.593Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Portrait of The Artist as a Young Woman*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Frances Muecke
Affiliation:
University of Sydney

Extract

As an example of Aristophanic literary criticism the portrayal of Agathon in the prologue of the Thesmophoriazusae has been rather overshadowed by the poetry contest of the Frogs. This is largely because more can be said about parody when something substantial of the author parodied has survived.1 Before many of the specific difficulties of the Agathon scenes we have no alternative but to confess our ⋯πορ⋯α.On the other hand, we need not despair of understanding the general point of these scenes, and in this the most helpful method is that of identifying those Aristophanic techniques which shaped them. This method has already taken us a good way forward, so that there is no need now to argue for the structural integrity of these scenes2 or their thematic relevance to the play.3 Accordingly, in this paper I will discuss the portrayal of Agathon in relation to typical Aristophanic techniques. My main concern, however, will be with the significance of the different conceptions of literature raised in the course of the parody, Agathon being satirized in turn as an inspired poet, a craftsman poet and an effeminate poet. I hope to show that, for Aristophanes, Agathon's effeminacy is as much a reflection of his art as of his personality.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This paper was read to seminars at Manchester University (November 1979) and the Istituto Universitario Orientale at Naples (February 1980). I am happy to thank Professors H. D. Jocelyn and Enrico Flores for inviting me to speak, and the participants for valuable suggestions made in the discussions. I am also most grateful for helpful criticism received from Miss M. E. Hubbard, Mr C. W. Macleod, Dr A. C. Cassio and Dr R. L. Hunter, and, at a later stage, the two CQ referees.

References

1 On parody of Agathon see Rau, P., Paratragodia (München, 1967)Google Scholar = Zetemata 45, pp. 98Google Scholar ff. and Roberts, W. Rhys, ‘Aristophanes and Agathon’, JHS 20 (1900), 44 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Agathon see êque, P. Lév, Agathon (Paris, 1955).Google Scholar For testimonia and fragments Snell TGF, 155 ff. The question of Agathon’s poetics has been treated by Stohn, G., Spuren voraristotelischer Poetik in der alien attischen Komödie (Diss. Berlin, 1955), pp. 82106Google Scholar (I owe this important reference to one of the CQ referees), and Cantarella, R., ‘Agatone e il prologo delle Tesmoforiazuse’ in KΩMΩIΔOTPAГHMATA (Amsterdam, 1967), pp. 7 ff.Google Scholar = Wege der Forschung 265 ed. Newiger, H. J. (Darmstadt, 1975), pp. 324 ff.Google Scholar For a recent study of the play as a whole see Hansen, H., ‘Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae: Theme, Structure and Production’, Philologus 120 (1976), 165 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 See Süss, W., ‘Inkongruenzen in den Dramen des Aristophanes’, RhM 97 (1954), 157 f.Google Scholar; Russo, C. F., Aristofane: autore di teatro (Firenze, 1962), p. 296.Google Scholar

3 Hansen, art. cit. 167 ff., 184–5.

4 See Handley, E. W. and Rea, J., The Telephus of Euripides, BICS Suppl. 5 (1957).Google Scholar

5 Miller, H. W., ‘EuripidesTelephus and the Thesmophoriazusae of Aristophanes’, CPh 43 (1948), 174 ff., believes that ‘the action and order of the scenes [of Thesm. to 1.765]…is extraordinarily similar to that of Euripides’ tragedy’ (175).Google Scholar

6 cf. the beginnings of Curculio and Pseudolus.

7 Miller, art. cit. p. 176.

8 Gelzer, T., ‘Some aspects of Aristophanes’ dramatic art in the Birds’, BICS 23 (1976), 2 f.Google Scholar

9 Perhaps the specifically comic knocking on the door is deliberately avoided here. Cf.Taplin, O., The Stagecraft of Aeschylus (Oxford, 1977), pp. 340 f.Google Scholar

10 The passage has recently been cited as an instance of parody of tragic convention (Ussher, R. G., Aristophanes, G&R, New Surveys 13, p. 20).Google Scholar

11 Fraenkel, E., Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes (Roma, 1962), pp. 22 ff.Google Scholar τ ⋯σ σω most commonly means ‘cower in fear’. It is used of men crouching in ambush at Horn. Od. 14. 474, Eur. Andr. 753, Ar. Thesm. 36, Frogs 315. The obviously non-Attic forms in -α α- are found in tragedy (Soph. Fr. 659. 9 Pearson (= Radt), Eur. Bacch. 1035) but in Aristophanes only at Wasps 1490 as parody of Phrynichus (Fr. 17, potius adesp.] Snell, ἔτη*** ⋯ (λ⋯κτωρbut see Rau, op. cit. pp. 155 f. and Bain, D., Actors and Audience (Oxford, 1977), p. 92 n. 4).Google Scholar

12 Rau, op. cit. p. 100 n. 9.

3 Bain, loc. cit.

14 Fraenkel (op. cit. p. 23 n. 1) compares the way in which protagonists in New Comedy explain their withdrawal before the arrival of the chorus.

15 See Macleod, C. W., ‘Euripides’ Rags’, ZPE 15 (1974), 221 f. and ZPE 39 (1980), 6.Google Scholar

16 See Taplin, op. cit. pp. 12–13 on the wide range of meaning of.ποιε***ν.

17 op. cit. p. 199 n. 1.

18 cf. Wasps 860 ff., Frogs 871 ff. προ- combines the notions of ‘before’ and ‘on behalf of; cf. Casabona, J., Recherches sur le vocabulaire des sacrifices en grec (Aix-en-Provence, 1966), pp. 103–8.Google Scholar

19 See Rau, op. cit. pp. 100 f. and Kleinknecht, H., Die Gebetsparodie in der Antike (Stuttgart-Berlin, 1937), p. 151 n. 1Google Scholar; and on the epiphany in general, Die Epiphanie des Demos in Aristophanes Ritlern’, Hermes 77 (1939), 58 ff. = Wege der Forsch., pp. 144 ff.Google Scholar

20 cf. Call. Ap. 7, ⋯ γ⋯ρ θε⋯ς οὐκ⋯ι μαὐκρ⋯ν with F. Williams ad loc.

21 On ⋯πιδημ⋯αsee RLAC 1. 112 ff. s.v. Advent and Call. Ap. 13. το*** Фο⋯β ον…⋯πιδη⋯ασν τοςwith F. Williams ad loc. Cf. Pind. Pyth. 10. 37, Mο***σ α δ’ οὐκ⋯π οδ με ***Pyth. 4. 5. οἰκε***ν is also used of gods, e.g. Birds 836, Thesm. 318, cf. Knights 1323, Herod. Mint. 4. 1.Cf. Kleinknecht, Gebetsparodie, p. 211.

22 Kleinknecht, , Gebetsparodie, pp. 103–16.Google Scholar On the poet and the Muses see Kranz, W., NJb 53 (1924), 64 ff. Cf. Call. Fr. 227 Pf., Ovid Fast. 6. 5, ‘est deus in nobis’.Google Scholar

23 cf. Ar. Fr. 334 K, See also the story told by Aelian fr. 11 (Suda p. 328). the dream of Philemon.

24 E. R. Dodds on Eur. Bacch. 1084 f.

25 Penwill, J., ‘Men in love: aspects of Plato’s Symposium’, Ramus 7 (1978), 143 ff., esp. 152. Cf. Kleinknecht, Wege der Forsch., p. 149: ‘Schönheit ist nichl nur überhaupt ein Merkmal der Götter, sondern des θε⋯ς ⋯πιφαν⋯ς) insbesondere.’ For Agathon's beauty see T 14 and 16 Snell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 cf. Taplin, op. cit. p. 59: ‘the Greeks thought of art in terms of τ⋯χνη)’. See also Stohn, op. cit. pp. 82–3.

27 See Radermacher ad loc. and Denniston, J. D., ‘Technical Terms in Aristophanes’, CQ 21 (1927), 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Harriott, R., Poetry and Criticism before Plato (London, 1969), p. 96, n. 3. No doubt they were the first to exploit its funny side.Google Scholar

29 Taillardat, J., Les images d’Aristophane (Paris, 1962), pp. 442–3. For social prejudice against manual workers see Xen. Mem. 4. 2. 22, Oec. 4. 2–3.Google Scholar

30 Taillardat, op. cit. pp. 438–9.

31 Rogers ad loc. The poet as shipwright can be discerned at Frogs 824–5 (Harriott, op. cit. p. 104). With lines 56–7 compare Ar. Fr. 699 K. (adduced by Taillardat, op. cit. p. 443) and Knights 461–71.

32 cf. Page, D., Folktales in Homer’s Odyssey (Cambridge, Mass., 1973), pp. 130–2,CrossRefGoogle Scholar Taillardat, op. cit. p. 442 n. 1, Müller, D., Handwerk und Sprache (Meisenheim am Glan, 1974), pp. 69 f.Google Scholar

33 See Müller, D., ‘Die Verspottung der metaphorischen Ausdrucksweise durch Aristophanes’, in Musa locosa ed. Reinhardt, U. and Sallmann, K. (Hildesheim/New York, 1974), pp. 29 ff., esp.pp.35ff.Google Scholar

34 I owe this reference to Miss M. E. Hubbard.

35 On the antiquity of certain technical metaphors, with illuminating reference to our passage, see Durante, M., Sulla preistoria delta tradizione poetica greca 2 (Roma, 1976), pp. 172 f.Google Scholar

36 op. cit. p. 443 n. 2.

37 The adjective γνωμοτ⋯πος is more common (Frogs 877, Clouds 952, Arist. Rh. 1395a 7. Cf. γνμοτνπτ⋯ςKnights 1379, μλοτπε***ιTimtiv Aesch. Ag. 1153 with Fraenkel ad loc). See D. Müller, Handwerk, p. 181 n. 846.

38 Rau, op. cit. pp. 103 ff., Lèvêque, op. cit. pp. 142–51, Taillardat, op. cit. pp. 456 ff., Henderson, I. in New Oxford History of Music i. (London, 1957), 387–95. On Pherecrates Fr.Google Scholar 145 K see Borthwick, E. K., ‘Notes on the Plutarch de Musica and the Cheiron of Pherecrates’, Hermes 96 (1968), 6073.Google Scholar

39 cf. Pherecr. Fr. 26 K. and A.P. 11.78 with E. K. Borthwick, art. cit. pp. 69 f. and A. C. Cassio, RFIC 103 (1975), 141 f.

40 Webster, T. B. L., The Tragedies of Euripides (London, 1967). p. 18 n. 25.Google Scholar

41 Kleinknecht, Gebetsparodie, p. 101.

42 Aristophanis Comoediae, 3 (Lipsiae, 1845), ad 1.101.Google Scholar

43 Taplin (op. cit. p. 236 n. 2), comparing the song to Eur. Hipp. 54–71 etc., ‘the parody of a lyric dialogue by Agathon at Ar. Thesm. 101 ff. might have one of these personal secondary choruses behind it, as Agathon apparently takes the parts of both the actor and the chorus’.

44 op. cit. p. 112 n. 1.

45 Mazon, P., Essai sur la composition des comédies d’Aristophane (Paris, 1904), pp. 127 f.Google Scholar See also Russo, op. cit. p. 71 and Newiger, H. J., Gymnasium 72 (1965), 252 ff. in a review of Fraenkel.Google Scholar

46 At this period the ‘poet’ was often the ‘producer ’ (see n. 16 above), and the correspondingly less rigid distinction between ‘writing’ and ‘performing’ is exploited in this scene.

47 For an analysis of this song see Haldane, J. A., Philologus 109 (1965), 39 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48 Horn, W., Gebet und Gebetsparodie in den Komödien des Aristophanes (Nürnberg, 1970), p. 105.Google Scholar

49 Dearden, C. W., The Stage of Aristophanes (London, 1976), pp. 103 ff.Google Scholar One of our few ‘hard facts’ about Agathon is that he ‘began’ the practice of inserting ⋯μβ⋯λιμα in tragedy (Arist. Poet. 1456a25 = T 18 Snell). Cf. Else, G. F., Aristotle's Poetics: The Argument (Cambridge, Mass., 1957), p. 555: ‘Aristotle's remark gives a valuable, if tantalizing, glimpse into the musical practice of the fourth century; a practice which the poets perhaps did not actually carry on themselves, but for which they made themselves indirectly responsible by composing odes which were so neutral in content that they could easily be lifted from one play to another.’ Cf. now Taplin, LCM 1 (1976), 47 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50 cf. Hansen, art. cit. p. 168. But it would be more appropriate to see it as a result of the overlap of plot, festival and occasion of performance typical of Old Comedy.

51 Horn, op. cit. pp. 100–6. See Fraenkel, (Kleine Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie, 1 (Roma, 1964), p. 361) on the ‘stereotype Form der Anreihung’ with τε.Google Scholar

52 e.g. Ol. 8.1, M***τερ *** χρνσοστεφάνων ⋯⋯α ’Oλνμπ⋯α. Haldane (art. cit. p. 43) makes a similar suggestion about theχ ρνσ⋯οα φ⋯ ⋯ ρ ν μ ι γ ξof line 327. There, however, it is not so much ‘burlesque reminiscence’ of Pindar as a serious part of the prayer (Rogers ad loc. and U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Aristoteles und Athen (Berlin, 1893), ii. 353 f., arguing for the reading Se (Blaydes)).Google Scholar

53 cf. Ol. 2.1, Nem. 4.44, Hor. Carm. 1.32 with Nisbet and Hubbard ad loc.

54 cf. Borthwick, art. cit. p. 67. The text is uncertain here. δλνεὐματα of the MSS fits the metre better than δινεὐματα (Bentley) and is supported by Luc. Salt. 64 (LSJ Suppl.).

55 Rau, op. cit. pp. 104 f.

56 cf. Horn, op. cit. p. 104.

57 I owe this argument in support of δοκ⋯μων(Schöne, G., RhM 5 (1847), 627 f. adducing Pind. Nem. 3. 11) to one of the CQ referees.Google Scholar

58 cf. Eccl. 877 ff. The Old Woman, dressed in a κροκωτ⋯ς, hums a tune to herself (cf. Thesm.100) in preparation for singing μελὐριον…τι τ***ν’ Iωνικ***ν.

59 Dale, A. M., The Lyric Metres of Greek Drama 2 (Cambridge, 1968), p. 124.Google Scholar

60 Rau, op. cit. p. 106. It is relevant here to mention Toup's emendation of v. 163, διεκλ***ντ’ (cf. Luc. Demon. 18, Dion. Hal. Dem. 43). But as the contribution to poetry of the poets in question has already been mentioned in v. 162,1 would prefer v. 163 to refer only to their style of life.

61 Dearden, op. cit. pp. 114 ff.

62 Pickard-Cambridge, A., The Dramatic Festivals of Athens 2 (Oxford, 1968), p. 222. Tragic dress had some similarity to contemporary female dress.Google Scholar

63 Kassel, R., RhM 109 (1966), 1012. Cf. Rau, op. cit. pp. 109 ff.Google Scholar

64 Dubious sexuality is a characteristic of effeminacy (see Nisbet and Hubbard on Hor. Carm. 2. 5. 24).

65 The immediate context (cf. πώγων’ ἔχω, line 190). as will as the shaving shaving of the Old Man, shows that the traditional interpretation of ⋯ξνρημ⋯νος (cf. Ar. Fr. 326 K. = T 16 Snell) as ‘with the beard shaved off’ is right, in spite of Dover's theory that it refers to shaving of the body (Greek Homosexuality (London, 1978), p. 144).Google Scholar Cf. RLAC 4. 633 ff. s.v. effeminatus, Ach. 119, πρωκτρημ⋯νε and Bramble, J. C., Persius and the Programmatic Satire (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 124–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

66 Russo, op. cit. p. 81 (cf. p. 89) points out the appositeness of the κλι⋯ς: ‘il suo lettucio da lavoro (la scrivania, in pratica, del tempo)’.

67 Aristophanes’ Agathon as Anacreon’, Hermes 102 (1974), 244 ff.Google Scholar Cf. Brandenburg, H., Studien zur Mitra (Mönster, 1966), pp. 57, 86–8Google Scholar and Tölle-Kastenbein, R., ‘Zur Mitra in klassischer Zeit’, RA (1977), 23 ff.Google Scholar

68 Beazley-Caskey, , Attic Vase Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, part 2 (London Boston, 1954), pp. 55 ff.Google Scholar See now Slater, W. J., ‘Artemon and Anacreon’, Phoenix 32 (1978), 185 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69 cf. Slater's interpretation of Anacreon 54 D as ψ⋯γος of a fellow symposiast for effeminacy. On the ‘effeminacy’ of old-fashioned dress see Bowra, C. M., ‘Asius and the old-fashioned Samians’, Hermes 85 (1957), 391 ff.Google Scholar = On Greek Margins (Oxford, 1970), pp. 122 ff;Google Scholar and Boardman, J., Athenian Red Figure Vases: The Archaic Period (London, 1975), p. 219.Google Scholar

70 cf. Slater, art. cit. pp. 188–9 on our passage: ‘these poets were above all associated with sympotic songs and Aristophanes’ audience, who knew Anacreon from his poetry and such vases as survived, associated him with the wearing of a mitra: that is they associated sympotic song with what would be for them transvestite garb’; and Brandenburg, op. cit. p. 57.

71 Cic. Tusc. Disp. 4.33 groups them together as famous for libidinosos…amores. Cf. Schol. Pind. Isthm. 2. l b:

72 Phrynichus T 10 (c) (d) (g) (e) Snell.

73 Dover, K. J., Greek Popular Morality in the time of Plato and Aristotle (Oxford, 1974), p. 118: ‘Aristophanes himself was concerned to over-simplify, exaggerate and parody both the new intellectual fashion and the traditionalist reaction to it.’Google Scholar

74 Kassel, art. cit. p. 8; Stohn, op. cit. pp. 9 f., 82 ff. Sutton, D. F., ‘The Apology of Euripides’, Hermes 104 (1976), 241 ff. suggests that the debate on life-styles in the Antiope is an answer to accusations levelled against the artist in Thesm.Google Scholar

75 The Poet as Hero: Fifth-century Autobiography and Subsequent Biographical Fiction’, CQ n.s. 28 (1978), 459 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

76 Lefkowitz, art. cit. p. 466.

77 Ar. Fr. 59 Austin (P. Oxy. 1176):

78 John Shearman, TLS (18 March 1977), 302.

78 See Kiessling-Heinze on Hor. Serm. 1. 10. 36, Kassel, loc. cit., Bain, LCM 2 (1977), 87.

80 Dover, Greek Homosexuality, p. 163. F o r similar reactions to poetry see Cat. 16. 9–11 with T. P. Wiseman, LCM 1 (1976), 14 ff, and Pers. 1. 19 with Bramble, op. cit. pp. 78 ff.

81 cf. Dem. 18. 287,On the opposite tradition see Rudd, N., Lines of Enquiry (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 170 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

82 Trans. Jowett, B., The Dialogues of Plato 4 (Oxford, 1953), i. 109.Google Scholar

83 Trans.Hubbardin, M. E. Ancient Literary Criticism, ed.Russell, D. A. and Winterbottom, M. (Oxford, 1972), p. 113. Seen. 5.Google Scholar

84 Argued at greater length in Stohn, op. cit. pp. 88 ff.

85 With lines 167 and 171–2 cf. Dover, Greek Popular Morality, p. 90: ‘a person's nature is regarded as a disposition which can be, up to a point, forced or suppressed, for better or worse’ (e.g. Wasps 1557 ff., Eupolis Fr. 91 K).

86 PCPhS 20 (1974), 1 f.

87 For an interesting contrast of γνώμωη and σ***μα) see Dover (Greek Popular Morality, pp. 123 f.) on And. 2.24, where ‘the body…is the instrument by which the mind effects its intentions’.

88 cf. Plut. Cleom. 39. 1, 17 The image is used for events in which first men and then women are the main protagonists.

89 Stohn, op. cit. p. 86.

90 Forster, R., RhM 30 (1875), 316 (Adam ad loc.).Google Scholar

91 Sörbom, G., Mimesis and Art (Uppsala, 1966), p. 76 n. 84.Google Scholar

92 Wege der Forsch., p. 336.

93 cf. A. P. 11. 20. 5 (Antip. Thess.), ἄρσνος… ‘Oμ⋯ρον, Dion. Hal. Dem. 43, τοὺς (Cobet) δικλωμ⋯νονς, Comp. 17, Borthwick, art. cit. p. 71 n. 1 on κεκλασμ⋯⋯νς.

94 Trans. Jowett, op. cit. iv. 236.

95 e.g. Seneca the Elder, Contr. 1 praef. 9–10 and the other passages collected by Bramble, op. cit. pp. 44 f. Cf. Cratin. Fr. 256 K, λνδιστ⋯ τιλ λονσ***ν μ⋯λη.

96 Stohn (op. cit. p. 89 n. 1) argues that, in this context, μ⋯μισιςmust be a technical term.

97 cf. Handley, E. W., ‘-sis Nouns in Aristophanes’, Eranos 51 (1953), 133Google Scholar: ‘The intellectualization of New Tragedy is satirised by making its poets talk in intellectual language of varying degrees of technicality…’ υ ω θηρ ε⋯εται is prominent as Agathon's only metaphor in this stretch of dialogue. Hunting metaphors are rare in comedy (Classen, C. J., Untersuchungen zu Platons Jagdbildern (Berlin, 1960), pp. 20 ff.). Lines 155–6 have been connected with Eur. Fr. 21. 6 f.: θηρώμεθμθα there was conjectured by Bergler with reference to our passage. It is tempting to see a literary reference in this metaphor. See C. W. Macleod, CQ n.s. 23 (1973), 304 f. and 305 n. 3 on Cat. 116. 1–2, ‘animo uenante requirens/carmina’.Google Scholar

98 op. cit. p. 78.

99 op. cit. pp. 27 ff.

100 As has already been said by Else, G. F., “ ‘Imitation ” in the Fifth Century’, CPh 53 (1958), 73 ff. esp. p. 81. Sorbom (pp. 75–7) does not focus clearly on our passage.Google Scholar

101 op. cit. p. 31.

102 See Lucas on Poet. 1448,a 1448d23. Cf. 1448a23f.: (Kassel). is defensible as ‘people engaged in the mimesis’ (M. E. Hubbard, op. cit. p. 93).

103 See P. Rau, ‘Das Tragödienspiel in den “Thesmophoriazusen” ’, Wege der Forsch., pp. 343 f.

104 Sörbom, op. cit. p. 77.