Greek Travel Pages

Location information

Listed 25 sub titles with search on: Biographies for wider area of: "ATTICA, WEST Prefectural seat GREECE" .

Biographies (25)


VILIA (Small town) ATTIKI

Elli Lambeti

, , 13/4/1926 - 3/9/1983

Ancient comedy playwrites

TRIPODISKOS (Ancient settlement) MEGARA

Comoedia (Comedy)

Comoedia (komoidia).

The early stages of the history of comedy are involved in great indistinctness, as they never formed the subject of much inquiry even when information was extant. This was the case even among the Athenians, and to a still larger extent among the Dorians. The ancient Greeks seldom showed much aptitude for antiquarian research, and for a long time comedy was scarcely thought deserving of attention; for it was not, says Aristotle (Poet. 5), seriously cultivated from the beginning. And it was only quite recently that the archon gave a chorus of comedians; before that they were `volunteers' (ethelontai). It was only when comedy had attained something like form that comic poets are mentioned. Who fixed its masks or prologues or number of actors or the like, is not known. Aristotle does not give a formal definition of comedy; though in one passage (Poet. 5 init.) he seems to define it as mimesis tou geloiou: but perhaps we should suppose with Mahaffy that the formal definition is lost, and that it ran parallel to his definition of tragedy, describing comedy as a purification of certain affections of our nature by laughter and ridicule.
  That comedy took its rise at the vintage festivals of Dionysus is certain. It originated, as Aristotle says (Poet. 4), with those who led off the phallic songs (apo ton exarchonton ta phallika) of the band of revellers (komos), who at the vintage festivals of Dionysus gave expression to the feelings of exuberant joy and merriment which were regarded as appropriate to the occasion, by parading about, partly on foot, partly in wagons, with the symbol of the productive powers of nature, singing a wild, jovial song in honour of Dionysus and his companions. These songs were commonly interspersed with, or followed by petulant, extemporal (autoschediastike, Arist. Poet. 4) witticisms with which the revellers assailed the bystanders (see the description of the phallophori at Sicyon in Athen. xiv.), just as the chorus in the Frogs of Aristophanes, after their song to Iacchus, begin ridiculing Archedemus (417, &c.). This origin of comedy is indicated by the name komoidia, which undoubtedly means the song of the komos. This appears both from the testimony of Aristotle that it arose out of the phallic songs and from Demosthenes (c. Mid.), where we find mentioned together ho komos kai hoi komoidoi. Other derivations of the name were, however, given even in antiquity. The Megarians, conceiving it to be connected with the word kome, and to mean village-song, appealed to the name as an evidence of the superiority of their claim to be considered as the originators of comedy over that of the Athenians (Arist. Poet. 3). This derivation was also adopted by several of the old grammarians.
  Passing by the Homeric Margites, in which Aristotle sees the origin of comedy (Poet. 4), and which certainly does draw a character from a ridiculous point of view, we find that it was among the Dorians that comedy first assumed anything of a regular shape. The Megarians, both in the mother country and in Sicily, claimed to be considered as its originators (Arist. Poet. 3); and so far as the comedy of Athens is concerned, the claim of the former appears well founded. They were always noted for their coarse humour (Aristoph. Vesp. 57, with the Schol.; Anthol. Pal. xi. 440; Suidas, s. v. gelos); and their democratical constitution, which was established at an early period, favoured the development of comedy in the proper sense of the word. In the aristocratical states the mimetic impulse, as connected with the laughable or absurd, was obliged to content itself with a less unrestrained mode of manifestation. The Lacedaemonians, who had a great fondness for mimetic and orchestic amusements, had their deikeliktai, whose exhibitions appear to have been burlesques of characters of common life. The favourite personages were the fruit-stealer and the foreign quack, for the representation of which they had a peculiar mimetic dance (Athen. xiv.; Plut. Ages. 21). Among the forerunners of comedy must be mentioned the Phallophori and Ithyphalli at Sicyon, who, Athenaeus says (xiv.), are the same as the deikeliktai. It was here, where at an early period the dithyramb also was dramatised, that the komos first assumed a more dramatic form, and Dionysus was even said to have invented comedy at Sicyon (Anthol. Pal. xi. 32). The Phallophori had no masks, but covered their faces with chaplets of wild thyme, acanthus, ivy, and violets, and threw skins round them. After singing a hymn to Dionysus, they flouted and jeered at any one of the bystanders whom they selected. The Ithyphalli wore masks representing drunken persons, and were equipped in other respects in a manner which, if not very decent, was appropriate to the part they had to sustain. It was the iambic improvisations of the exarchi of such choruses which gave rise to the later comedy. Antheas of Lindus is spoken of as a poet who composed pieces for such comuses of phallus-bearers, which were called comedies (Athen. x.). Such pieces have been styled lyrical comedies by many scholars, to distinguish them from the comedy proper. Lobeck and Hermann, however, stoutly deny that there was any such thing as lyrical tragedy or comedy distinct from dramatical tragedy and comedy and yet not the same with dithyrambs or phallic songs, and affirm that the tragedies and comedies which we hear of before the rise of the regular drama were only a species of dithyramb and phallic song. The dispute is more about names than about things; and there seems no great objection to applying the term lyrical tragedy or comedy to pieces intended to be performed by choruses, without any actors distinct from the chorus, and having a more dramatic cast than other purely lyrical songs. This, apparently, was the point to which comedy attained among the Megarians before Susarion introduced it into Attica. It arose out of the union of the iambic lampoon with the phallic songs of the comus, just as tragedy arose out of the union of rhapsodical recitations with the dithyramb.
  Among the Athenians the first attempts at comedy, according to the almost unanimous accounts of antiquity, were made at Icaria by Susarion, a native of Tripodiscus in Megara. Icaria was the oldest seat of the worship of Dionysus in Attica (Athen. ii.), and comus processions must undoubtedly have been known there long before the time of Susarion. Iambistic raillery was also an amusement already known in the festivals of Bacchus and Demeter on the bridge between Athens and Eleusis. From the jests and banterings directed by the Bacchic comus, as it paraded about, against the bystanders, or any others whom they selected, arose the proverb ta ex hamaxes (Schol. Arist. Nub. 296; Suidas, s. v.; Ulpianus ad Demosth. de Cor.; Photius, Lex., s. v. ta ek ton hamaxon: cf. pompeia, meaning abuse). This scoffing, which was considered part of the festival, continued customary not only at the rural Dionysia, but on the second day of the Anthesteria. It was in the third year of the 50th Olympiad (B.C. 578) that Susarion introduced at Icaria comedy in that stage of development to which it had attained among the Megarians (Marm. Par.). It is not, however, easy to decide in what his improvements consisted. Of course there were no actors besides the chorus or comus; whatever there was of drama must have been performed by the latter. The introduction of an actor separate from the chorus was an improvement not yet made in the drama. According to one grammarian, Susarion was the first to give to the iambistic performances of the comus a regular metrical form. He no doubt substituted for the more ancient improvisations of the chorus and its leader premeditated compositions, though still of the same general kind; for, as Aristotle says (Poet. c. 5), Crates was the first who erxen aphemenos tes iambikes ideas katholou poiein logous e muthous. According to Schomann, the regularity introduced into the Icarian choruses consisted of a definite number of persons uniting to form a chorus and arranging some general plan of performance, leaving a considerable amount of details to improvisation. Such choruses became frequent, and, as was to be expected, there would seem also to have been some kind of poetical contest, for we learn that the prize for the successful poet was a basket of figs and a jar of wine (Marm. Par.). It was also the practice of those who took part in the comus to smear their faces with wine-lees, either to prevent their features from being recognised, or to give themselves a more grotesque appearance. Hence comedy came to be called trugoidia or lee-song. Others connected the name with the circumstance of a jar of new wine (trux) being the prize for the successful poet, or of the exhibition being held at the time of the vintage (truge). An important gloss in the Sangallensis MS. edited by Usener says of these early comedies: In fabulas primi eam contulerunt non [om. MS.] magnas ita ut non excederent in singulis versus trecenos [tricenos MS.]. Leo thinks that Magnes is concealed under magnas. It is to be remarked, however, that Wilamowitz in Hermes considers that the so-called Megarian comedy in Attica was not derived from Megara at all, but was a species of comedy invented by the Athenians, in which they satirised the vulgarity and stupidity of the Megarians, laying the scene at Megara just as the Romans did that of the Atellanae at Atella. He urges that the fragments we have purporting to be those of the ancient Attic comedians up to Cratinus (i. e. Chionides, Magnes, &c.) are not genuine, as may be perceived both from the style, which is more that of the age of Eupolis than that even of Cratinus, and also from the fact that Aristotle knew merely the names of these authors, but not their plays. Be that, however, as it may, there can be but little question that what are called Susarion's pieces were merely intended for the amusement of the hour, and were not committed to writing: a laugh was the sole object sought. They doubtless partook of that petulant, coarse, and unrestrained personality for which the Megarian comedy was noted. But for entertainments of such a character the Athenians were not yet prepared. They required the freedom of a democracy. Accordingly, comedy was discouraged, and for eighty years after the time of Susarion we hear nothing of it in Attica.
  It was, however, in Sicily that comedy was earliest brought to something like perfection. The Greeks in the Sicilian colonies always exhibited a lively temperament, and the gift of working up any occurrence into a spirited, fluent dialogue (Cic. Verr. iv. 4. 3, 95; Quintil. vi. 3, 41). This faculty finding its stimulus in the excitement produced by the political contests, which were so frequent in the different cities, and the opportunity for its exercise in the numerous agrarian festivals connected with the worship of Demeter and Bacchus, it was natural that comedy should early take its rise among them. Yet before the time of the Persian wars we only hear of iambic compositions, and of a single poet, Aristoxenus of Selinus, who first introduced the ancient fashion of reciting iambics, according to Epicharmus, and who ridiculed the soothsayers. The performers were called autokabdaloi, i.e. improvisatores (Athen. xiv.; Etym. Magn. s. v. autokabd.; Hesych. s. v.; Aristot. Rhet. iii. 7, 1), and subsequently iamboi. There is no evidence that they belonged exclusively to Sicily. The Italians called them phluakes: the Thebans, ethelontai: and some people apparently sophistai (Athen. xiv.). Their entertainments being of a choral character were, doubtless, accompanied by music and dancing. Athenaeus (xiv. p. 629) mentions a dance called the iambike, which was quieter than the purriche; but as he ranks it with the Molossike emmeleia, the sikinnis Persike, and the kordax, it was probably a generic term, like our fling. Afterwards, the comic element was developed partly into travesties of religious legends, partly into delineations of character and manners, in the comedy of Epicharmus, Phormis, and Dinolochus; and in the mimes of Sophron and Xenarchus. Epicharmus is very commonly called the inventor of comedy by the grammarians and others (Theocr. Epig. 17; Suidas, s. v. Epicharmos; Solinus, 5, 13); this, however, is true only of that more artistical shape which he gave to it. He was the first who recovered the disjecta membra of comedy, and effected many improvements (houtos protos ten komoidian dierrimmenen anektesato polla prosphilotechnesas, Anonym. de Com.). His comedy was that of character and travesty. Democopus built a theatre for him at Syracuse, and the entire management of the stage was reduced to system there long before it was at Athens. His plays had not very much plot, but clever dialogue and single comic scenes were elaborately worked out, in which the myths were travestied or philosophical notions aired and parodied. His sound practical wisdom was shown in the number of wise sayings collected from his writings. He wrote three kinds of plays: (1) travesties of the myths, e.g. the Marriage of Hebe, in which the gluttony of Heracles is represented. (2) Character comedies, e. g. Elpis e ploutos, Agrostinos, Thearoi. (3) Dialectical arguments, e. g. Ga kai thalassa. He is said to have first introduced the drunkard, though this is also attributed to Crates, and to have invented the character of the parasite (in the Elpis). see Athen. vi. He wrote in trochaic tetrameters and anapaests, and in the Doric dialect. His plays exhibit a close connexion, both with the Satyric drama and with such plays as the Helena, in which the heroes are somewhat vulgarized. Indeed, Epicharmus had probably much to say to the degradation of such characters as the Odysseus of the Philoctetes (Mahaffy, op. cit. i. 406; cf. Hermathena, i. 262 ff.). The titles of the plays by Phormis (e.g. Admetus, Alcinous, Perseus) and Dinolochus (Althea, Medea, Telephus) show that they were on mythological subjects, and were travesties of the heroes. The difference thought to subsist between these farces and the Satyric drama, is that in the former the gods and heroes were themselves ridiculed; whereas in the Satyric drama the nobler characters (e. g. Odysseus in the Cyclops) retain their dignity. O. Muller, however, says: Satyric poetry places by the lofty forms of the heroes, not human perverseness, but the want of real humanity, whereas comedy is conversant about the deterioration of civilised humanity. Sophron flourished about 450 B.C. His Mimes were written in rhythmical prose and in the broader Doric dialect, patois being often introduced. They were coarse in tone, but full of proverbs and of humour. We have no evidence of their being performed in public. Their titles show their nature: e.g. The Tunny Fishes, Paidika poiphuxeis (cf. erota pnein), Holieus (= ho halieus) ton agroiotan. Theocritus is said to have borrowed his Pharmakeutriai and Adoniazousai from the Akestriai and Isthmiazousai of Sophron.
  In Attica, the first comic poet of any importance whom we hear of after Susarion is Chionides, who is said to have brought out plays in B.C. 488 (Suidas, s. v. Chionides). Euetes, Euxenides, and Myllus, who heard everything, were probably contemporaries of Chionides; he was followed by Magnes and Ecphantides. Their compositions, however, seem to have been little but the reproduction of the old Megaric farce of Susarion, differing no doubt in form, by the introduction of an actor or actors separate from the chorus, in imitation of the improvements that had been made in tragedy. That branch of the Attic drama which was called the Old Comedy begins properly with Cratinus, who was to comedy very much what Aeschylus was to tragedy. Another says that, according to the proverb, gumnei tei kephalei tithesi tas blasphemias kata ton hamartanonton, but that he was careless in adhering to his plots. Under the vigorous and liberal administration of Pericles comedy found free scope, and rapidly reached its perfection. Cratinus is said to have been the first who introduced three actors in a comedy. But Crates is spoken of as the first who began katholou poiein logous e muthous (Arist. Poet. 5), i. e. raised comedy from being a mere lampooning of individuals, and gave it a character of universality, in which subjects drawn from reality or stories of his own invention received a free, poetic treatment, the characters introduced being rather generalisations than particular individuals (See Aristotle's distinction between ta kath' hekaston and ta katholou, Poet. 9). In what is known of his pieces no traces appear of anything of a personal or political kind. He was the first who introduced into his works the character of a drunken man. Though Crates was a younger contemporary of Cratinus, and at first an actor in his pieces, yet, except perhaps his earlier plays, the comedies of Cratinus were an improvement upon those of Crates, as they united with the universality of the latter the pungent personal satire and earnest political purpose which characterised the Old Comedy. Crates and his imitator Pherecrates seem in the character of their pieces to have had more affinity with the Middle than with the Old Comedy. The latter has been described as the comedy of caricature, and such indeed it was, but it was also a great deal more. As it appeared in the hands of its great masters Cratinus, Hermippus, Eupolis, and especially Aristophanes, its main characteristic was that it was throughout political. Everything that bore upon the political or social interests of the Athenians furnished materials for it. It assailed everything that threatened liberty, religion, and the old established principles of social morality and taste, or tended to detract from the true nobleness of the Greek character. It performed the functions of a public censorship, and the utmost freedom was allowed the comic poets (Isocr. de Pace, 14; Cic. de Rep. iv. 8; Hor. Sat. i. 4, 1; Dion. Chrys. ii. 4). But it must be remembered that they attacked as party men, not as perfectly disinterested lovers of what was right; just like the attacks of party newspapers of the present day. Though merely personal satire, having no higher object than the sport of the moment, was by no means excluded, yet commonly it is on political or general grounds that individuals are brought forward and satirised. A groundwork of reality usually lay at the base of the most imaginative forms which its wild licence adopted. All kinds of fantastic impersonations and mythological beings were mixed up with those of real life. With such unbounded stores of materials for the subject and form of comedies, complicated plots were of course unnecessary, and were not adopted. Though the Old Comedy could only subsist under a democracy, it deserves to be remarked that its poets were usually opposed to that democracy and its leaders. Some of the bitterest assailants even of Pericles were to be found among the comic poets, e. g. Teleclides and Hermippus.
  But what is generally known as the Old Comedy at Athens -that is, the political Old Comedy- was in reality only one of the forms of comedy, which has been brought into excessive prominence for us owing to the fact that the principal plays of Aristophanes which have come down to us have this political reference. But it is a mistake to suppose that politics was the sole subject treated of by Aristophanes and his contemporaries; they handled also the various other subjects of comedy which we find in preceding and succeeding ages. Thus, besides Crates and Pherecrates, whom we have seen to be virtually writers of the New Comedy, the latter attacking innovations in music in the Chiron, painting the delights of the golden age in the Agrios, and censuring the extravagances of the better classes in the Agathoi e argurou aphanismos, we find mythical subjects treated of by Cratinus in the Nemesis (e. g. the birth of Helen) and Busiris, and literary criticism in the Seriphii and Archilochi, in the latter of which Homer and Hesiod are introduced. Literature is also treated of in the Musae and Tragoedi of Phrynichus, and in the Frogs and Amphiaraus of Aristophanes. The guessing of riddles (griphoi), a note of the New Comedy, is found in the Cleobulinae of Cratinus; Teleclides represents the golden age in the Amphictyones, as did Eupolis in the Chrusoun genos; Hermippus wrote the Birth of Athena (and we know gonai were a favourite subject of the so-called Middle Comedy). Even in the Plutus of Aristophanes it is no longer on a political or literary subject, but on the unevenness and unjust division of wealth; it has all its characters general ones; and the slave, as in the later comedy, plays a principal part. But, above all, we actually hear of a play of Aristophanes, the Cocalus, which in its love-intrigue and recognition presents two of the most prominent features of the New Comedy plots.
  Mahaffy notices that the old comic writers could not be so prolific as the tragedians, because they had to invent their plots; but, as depending on the passing events of the day, were compelled to faster writing than the tragedians. In many points he notices analogies between the days of the Old Comedy and the Shakesperean era, such as that the authors often began as actors (Aristoph. Eq. 541 -thus Crates and Pherecrates, we are told, were actors); they had to work very fast, and brought out altered editions of their own plays to supply the place of new ones -thus we hear of two editions of the Nubes (Arg. v. to Nub.); they often collaborated, e. g. Eupolis is said to have helped Aristophanes in the Equites; and they brought out plays under other people's names, e. g. Aristophanes brought out the Nubes under the names of Philonides and Callistratus. In the year B.C. 440, a law was passed tou me komoidein, which remained in force for three years, when it was repealed. Some understand the law to have been a prohibition of comedy altogether; others a prohibition against bringing forward individuals in their proper historical personality and under their own name, in order to ridicule them (me komoidein onomasti). To the same period probably belongs the law that no Areopagite should write comedies (Plut. de Glor. Ath.). About B.C. 415, apparently at the instigation of Alcibiades, the law of 440, or at all events a law me komoidein onomasti, was again passed on the motion of one Syracosius. But the law only remained in force for a short time. The nature of the political events in the ensuing period would of itself act as a check upon the licence of the comic poets. A man named Antimachus got a law like that of Syracosius passed, but the date of it is not known.
  With the overthrow of the democracy in 411, comedy would of course be silenced; but on the restoration of the democracy, comedy again revived. It was doubtless again restrained by the Thirty Tyrants. During the latter part of the Peloponnesian war also it became a matter of difficulty to get choregi; and hindrances were sometimes thrown in the way of the comic poets by those who had been attacked by them: e. g. the dithyrambic poet Cinesias, who had been attacked by the comic poets, introduced a law whereby the public expenditure on the comic drama was so much curtailed, that it had to renounce the chorus altogether. On this account, Strattis wrote a play against him called Cinesias, in which he styled him choroktonos. Agyrrhius, though when is not known, got the pay of the poets lessened. Yet even in the ruin of Athens the old Attic comedy was not quite dead. Cleophon was attacked by Aristophanes and Plato in 405 B.C. The old Attic comedy lasted from Ol. 80 to Ol. 94 (B.C. 458-404). From Cratinus to Theopompus there were forty-one poets, fourteen of whom preceded Aristophanes. The number of pieces attributed to them amounted altogether to 365... The later pieces of Aristophanes belong to the Middle rather than to the Old Comedy. The old Megaric comedy, which was improved by Maeson by the introduction of standing characters (he is said to have invented the masks for the servant and the cook; and hence the kind of jokes made by these characters were called maisonika: cf. Ath. xiv.), continued for some time to subsist by the side of the more artistically developed Attic comedy, as did the ancient Iambistic entertainments both in Syracuse and in the Dorian states of Greece (Arist. Poet. 4), and the Oscum ludicrum at Rome.
  It was not usual for comic poets to bring forward more than one or two comedies at a time; and there was a regulation according to which a poet could not bring forward comedies before he was of a certain age, which is variously stated at thirty or forty years. But this is all a fiction. To decide on the merits of the comedies exhibited, five judges were appointed, which was half the number of those who adjudged the prize for tragedy. For details concerning the appointment of judges and the course of procedure in the production of plays, see Theatrum; and for the chorus of comedy, see Chorus and Saltatio.
  As the old Attic comedy was the offspring of the political and social vigour and freedom of the age during which it flourished, it naturally declined and ceased with the decline and overthrow of the freedom and vigour which were necessary for its development. It was replaced by a comedy of a somewhat different style, which was known as the Middle Comedy, the age of which lasted from the end of the Peloponnesian war to the overthrow of liberty by Philip of Macedon (Ol. 94-110). During this period, the Athenian state had the form but none of the spirit of its earlier democratical constitution, and the energy and public spirit of earlier years had departed. The comedy of this period accordingly found its materials in satirising classes of people instead of individuals, in criticising the systems and merits of philosophers and literary men, especially the Platonists and Pythagoreans (see the Epicrates of Alexis), and in parodies of the compositions of living and earlier poets, and travesties of mythological subjects. It formed a transition from the Old to the New Comedy, and approximated to the latter in the greater attention to the construction of plots, which seem frequently to have been founded on amorous intrigue, and in the absence of that wild grotesqueness which marked the Old Comedy. The excellences now are mainly those of expression; there is little inventive genius in the characters (logikas echousi tas aretas, hoste spanion poietikon einai charaktera par' autois, Anonym.). Aristotle notices (Eth. N. iv. 8, 6) that in the Old Comedy the laugh was at coarse language (aischrologia), but in the later comedy at innuendo (huponoia).
  As regards its external form, the plays of the Middle Comedy, generally speaking, had neither parabasis nor chorus; and such was the case with the Odysseis of Cratinus, the Aeolosicon and Plutus of Aristophanes, and very many of the dramas of the Old Comedy. The word choros is indeed found at the end of the acts in the Plutus, but the gap was doubtless filled up by a musical interlude. The absence of the chorus was occasioned, partly by the change in the spirit of comedy itself, partly by the increasing difficulty of finding persons capable of undertaking the duties of choregus. As the change in comedy itself was gradual, so it is most likely that the alterations in form were brought about by degrees. At first showing the want of proper musical and orchestic training, the chorus was at last dropped altogether. Some of the fragments of pieces of the Middle Comedy which have reached us are of a lyrical kind, indicating the presence of a chorus. The poets of this school of comedy seem to have been extraordinarily prolific. Athenaeus (viii.) says that he had read above 800 dramas of the Middle Comedy. Only a few fragments are now extant. Meineke gives a list of thirty-nine poets of the Middle Comedy. The most celebrated were Antiphanes and Alexis. Anaxandrides is said to have invented that kind of play so common in later comedy, in which (as in the Adelphi of Terence) a girl is seduced and afterwards married to the hero (Suidas, s. v. Anaxandrides), though we have found such a play in the Cocalus of Aristophanes. Alexis or Ararus first brought on the Attic stage the parasite under that name; the character, however, was invented by Epicharmus. Mahaffy thinks that the vast number of plays of the later comedy, the few victories recorded as having been won by their authors, and the slight effect their works had, show that they were meant to be read rather than acted, and that they filled the place of our novels and magazine articles.
  The New Comedy was a further development of the last-mentioned kind. It answered in a certain measure to the modern comedy of manners or character. The subjects were virtually meat, drink, and love -but in moderation: hence the detailed accounts of cookery and feasting, and the prominence of cooks, parasites, and courtesans. But we also find mythological parody in the New Comedy, especially by Diphilus, ridicule of the poets, aye, and even vigorous political attacks. Dropping for the most part personal allusions, caricature, ridicule, and parody, which in a more general form than in the Old Comedy had maintained their ground in the Middle Comedy, the poets of the New Comedy made it their business to reproduce in a generalised form a picture of the every-day life of those by whom they were surrounded. Hence the grammarian Aristophanes asked: (o Menandre kai bie, poteros ar' humon poteron apemimesato). The New Comedy might be described in the words of Cicero (de Rep. iv. 11), as imitationem vitae, speculum consuetudinis, imaginem veritatis. The frequent introduction of sententious maxims was a point of resemblance with the later tragic poets. There was no rhetoric in the writers of the New Comedy: they aimed at saying everything plainly and neatly. There were various standing characters which found a place in most plays, such as we find in the plays of Plautus and Terence, the leno perjurus, amator fervidus, servulus callidus, amica illudens, sodalis opitulator, miles proeliator, parasitus edax, parentes tenaces, meretrices procaces (Apul. Flor. 16; Ovid, Amor. i. 15, 17). In the New Comedy there was no chorus, and the dramas were commonly introduced by prologues, spoken by allegorical personages, such as Elenchos, Phobos, Aer. The New Comedy flourished from about B.C. 340 to B.C. 260. The poets of the New Comedy amounted to 64 in number. The most distinguished was Menander. Next to him in merit came Philemon, Diphilus, Philippides, Posidippus, and Apollodorus of Carystus.
  This division into Old, Middle, and New Comedy is the traditional one, and on that account it has been retained here. But the prevailing opinion now held on the point is that the division is faulty in making the Middle Comedy a special class. Kock, in his edition of the Fragments of the Attic Comedians, divides his subject into the Old and the New Comedy, and assigns the following reasons for rejecting the Middle. (1) The latter is not recognised till the age of Hadrian: for Aristotle (Eth. N. iv. 8, 6), the Alexandrine critics, Quintilian (x. 1, 65-72), Velleius (i. 16, 3), Plutarch (Symp. vii. 712 a), even the anonymous writer de Comoedia, only recognise the Old and the New Comedy. (2) The Old Comedy had been originally divided (e. g. by Diomedes, 488-9; and Tzetzes, de divers. Poet. 81, 29) into two classes, that before and that after Cratinus. But the grammarians of Hadrian's time thought, as the New Comedy was so vastly more extensive both in time and writings than the Old, that it was the New Comedy which should be divided. (3) And again, there is no really decided distinction between the so-called Middle and New Comedy as there is between the Old and the later comedy, in the fact that the parabasis and the choral odes are wanting in the latter. (4) It can be shown that in point of subjects the line cannot be drawn: all subjects which are considered notes of the Middle and New Comedy are exhibited in writings of the Old, and what is considered as belonging peculiarly to the Old (viz. political attack) is found occasionally in the New.
  As to the occasions on which comedies were produced:
(1) the original festival at which dramas were exhibited was the Lesser Dionysia, or the Dionusia ta kat' agrous, held from the 8th to 12th of Poseideon (Nov.-Dec.). This was held principally in the Piraeus, but also in the country parts of Attica, e. g. Collytus (Aeschin. Tim. 157), Aixone, Eleusis, Thoricus. After the establishment of the Lenaea and the Greater Dionysia, the plays produced at the Lesser Dionysia were in all likelihood ones which had been previously performed. They were produced without a chorus.
(2) At the Lenaea (8-12 Gamelion=Dec.-Jan.), which was probably established by Pisistratus, tragedies were originally acted, but after the establishment of the Greater Dionysia it became the festival at which comedies especially were performed. The Acharnenses, Equites, Vespae, and Ranae were all produced at it, and comedies continued to be acted at the Lenaea down to the second century (C. I. A. ii. 977, fr. i. m-n). Tragedies began to be acted again at this festival in 464 B.C. It is not known for how many days the contest at the Lenaea lasted -in the third century probably two days, as that would suffice for two tragic trilogies (cf. C. I. A. ii. 972) and the preceding comic agon. Only new pieces were produced in early times. Strangers were not allowed to be present at the dramatic performances of the Lenaea (Ar. Ach. 504). The administration was in the hands of the Archon Basileus (Poll. viii. 90).
(3) At the Greater Dionysia or Dionusia ta en astei (8-14 Elaphebolion=Feb.-Mar.) established after the Persian Wars, both comedies and tragedies were acted, but the latter were certainly the principal feature (Law of Evagoras in Dem. Mid. 517, 10). It is disputed whether dramatic performances were held on three of the days, viz. 11, 12, 13, as Sauppe, A. Mommsen, and A. Muller hold; on two (Schneider); or on six (Geppert). That comedies were acted is quite certain, as may be proved from the famous inscription, C. I. A. ii. 971, frag. a: Xenokleides echoregei Magnes edidasken Tragoidon Perikles Cholargeus echoregei Aischulos edidasken (467 B.C.), where the mention of tragedies points to the Greater Dionysia: cf. also Arg. v. to Nubes (424 B.C.), Arg. i. to Pax (422), Arg. i. to Aves (415 B.C.), Schol. to Ran. 404, C. I. A. ii. 977, frag. d-h, which extend over the whole of the Old and New Comedy. For Roman times see Lucian, Piscat. 14. In the comic agon there were mostly three competitors (Arg. v. Nubes; Arg. i. Pax; Arg. i. Aves). In the fourth century and afterwards the number was increased to five (Arg. iv. to Plutus (389 B.C.); cf C. I. A. ii. 972 (354 B.C.), 975 (second century), for the number could be increased as the chorus had disappeared. The administration was in the hands of the archon eponumos (Poll. viii. 89).
  There were no comedies performed at the Anthesteria (11-13 Anthesterion=Jan.-Feb.): for the law of the orator Lycurgus, ton peri ton komoidon agona tois Chutrois epitelein ephamillon en toi theatroi (Plut. Vit. X. Or. vii. 1, 10 =ii. 841 e), refers to the agon of comic actors, not to the performance of comedies. At all the festivals at which there were dramatic contests the comedies came on before the tragedies (Law of Evagoras, ap. Dem. Mid. 517, 10; C. I. A. ii. 971). Some refer to Aves, 785, 789, to prove that tragedies were played in the morning and comedies in the evening; but perhaps eph' hemas only means to us in the theatre, for tragedy and comedy formed one single and connected entertainment.
  After the age of the great tragedians it became customary to act one of their dramas at each tragic agon. Such is noted in the didascaliae as palaia (opp. to kaine). In the comic agon of 354 four new comedies are mentioned (C. I. A. ii. 972, l. 16); in 352 there is a tragedy of Euripides: but not till the second century (C. i. A. ii. 975) do we find produced a comedy by an old master (Menander, Posidippus or Philemon, but of course not Aristophanes, whose works would have little point if acted in a different age to that of the individuals they satirised). We may thus perhaps infer that the custom of producing a play by an old master was later in the department of comedy than in that of tragedy.
  The question has been often raised whether women were allowed to be present at comedies, as they certainly were at tragedies (Plat. Gorg. 502 D; Legg. ii. 658 C, vii. 817 C). The literature on both sides of the question is collected by A. Muller. The answer to be given is that they were allowed as far as the law was concerned. That they were present is expressly stated for the Old Comedy in Pax, 964 foll.; for the New Comedy in Alciphr. ii. 3, 10; and for Roman times by certain seats in the Dionysiac theatre being marked as belonging to priestesses (C. I. A. iii. 313, 315, &c.). Further, tragedy and comedy formed a single connected entertainment, so that permission to attend at tragedies would naturally imply permission to attend at comedies. Yet though all women were allowed to be present, as far as the law was concerned, yet we may well conceive that many especially of the young women of respectability did not attend. That all women did not attend may in a measure be inferred from Aves, 793-796. Boys were certainly present (Nub. 537, 765; Pax, 56; Eupolis, frag. 244; cf. Aristot. Pol, iv. 17, 9, tous de neoterous oute iambon oute komoidias theatas theteon, prin e ten helikian labosin en hei katakliseos ( seat at table ) huparxei koinonein ede, where it is no doubt intended to censure a prevailing custom. For details as to the public at dramatic performances, see Theatrum
  The costume worn in the Old Comedy can in a great measure be ascertained as well from indications in the plays as from pictures found on vases of Southern Italy representing scenes from the phluakes or comedies of that country, which were in many ways similar to the comedy at Athens: for undoubtedly one represents the first scene of the Ranae. When we remember that comedy started from phallic songs (Aristot. Poet. 4), we are not surprised to find the phallus as the most prominent feature of comic costume. It was made of leather, red at the top, and was sometimes hung round the neck (Suidas, s. v. phalloi). The somation was a kind of tights, generally drawn over padding for the chest and stomach (prosternidion, progastridion), and so often confused with the latter. This somation appears to have been nearly always worn, and often in the pictures it gives the figures the appearance of being naked. We find it at one time with holes pierced in it like eyes; at another with embroidery or horizontal stripes. Sometimes it does not fit the skin tightly, but falls in folds. Rarely we find the actor wearing a loose kind of trousers. The somation was made sometimes of leather, sometimes of woven stuffs. Dividing the rest of the dress of the body into endumata and emblemata, the former consisted of a tunic either with two sleeves (amphimaschalos, Hesych. s. v.), worn only by freemen, or else the exomis (see Exomis), which was the same as the heteromaschalos (Phot. s. v.), which left the right arm and shoulder bare, and was worn by slaves and the working classes; the latter also wore a diphthera or leather jerkin (Vesp. 444), which appears to have been similar to the spolas (Av. 933; Poll. vii. 70). The chiton is seldom mentioned by Aristophanes; but at times we find certain kinds of it, the hemidiploision (Eccl. 318), the krokotidion (ib. 332), and the krokotos (ib. 879) worn by women (see Crocota). The principal emblema for men was the himation; a poorer kind was the leidarion and the tribonion (Plut. 882). The chlaina was a comfortable cloak for old men (Vesp. 738, 1132; Poll. x. 123); and the sisura was a sheepskin blanket, also used for a thick cloak. Women, too, wore the himation (Thesm. 250), a special kind of which was the enkuklon (ib. 261 and Schol.), which appears to have been of a round cut. Compare generally the instructive scene in Thesm. 253 ff., where the parts of the woman's dress are put on in this order: somation, krokotos, strophion ( girdle ), enkuklon. As to what was worn on the head, there is mention of kune (Nub. 269), and all sorts of hats appear in pictures: e. g. the petasos on Hermes. Crowns, too, were worn on certain occasions (Pax, 1044, &c.). We find women wearing nets (kekruphaloi), snoods (mitrai), and wigs (kephalai perithetoi, Thesm. 257-8). In pictures the feet appear for the most part naked, though that is no doubt due to the carelessness of the artist. We hear of embades (Eq. 872), Lakonikai (Vesp. 1157) worn by men, and Persikai (Thesm. 734) worn by women (see Calceus =shoe). The kothornos, which was a woman's shoe (Eccl. 346; cf. 319), was probably similar to the latter. Besides this ordinary dress, the dramatis personae had their special attributes: e. g. Dionysus when personating Heracles had the club and lion's skin (Ran. 44), and so Zeus appears in pictures with the thunderbolt. Of course grotesque characters appeared in grotesque costume: e. g. Pseud-artabas in the Acharnenses and Iris in the Aves. For the dress of the chorus, see Chorus.
  The costume worn in the New Comedy is still more the dress of ordinary life than that of the Old Comedy, being much less of the nature of caricature. The somation is often found, but without the excessive padding of the Old Comedy. With men the chiton is generally found long on freemen of all ages, the parasite, and some slaves: with soldiers and the majority of slaves it is short. The imation was worn by men of all ranks, the lower part of it being thrown over the left shoulder. The chlamus was worn by soldiers (Plaut. Pseud. iv. 7, 40). The mysterious kosumbe (Suid., Hesych. s. v.) appears to have been a sort of shawl wound round the body or thrown over the shoulders; and the enkomboma (Poll. iv. 119) or epirrema a white pallium worn by slaves, so fastened that it no doubt left both hands free. The legs were generally covered with tights, seldom loose trousers. The diple of cooks (Poll. iv. 119) was an apron. A covering for the head is rarely found in representations. The soldier has a round flat hat. As covering for the feet the actors wore the Embas or else shoes which left the toes bare: stockings also are sometimes found. Women wore the chiton reaching to the feet, which was often called summetria (Poll. vii. 54), and as an over-covering the himation. Heiresses used to wear himatia with fringes (Poll. iv. 120). On their feet women wore either socci or sandals with thongs. As to the additional accessories of certain characters, we are told that old men carried a curved walking stick (kampule, Poll. iv. 119); rustics (ib.) a straight staff (lagobolon), wallet (pera), and leathern tunic (diphthera); procurers a straight stick called areskos (ib. 120); the parasite a strigil (stlengis) and an oil-pot (lekuthos, ib.; cf. Plaut. Stich. 1. 3, 75); and the soldier a sword (Plaut. Mil. i. 1, 5).
  The different colours of the dress of the different stock-characters are much insisted on both by Pollux and Donatus (de Comoedia et Tragoedia). Thus old men wore white, younger men (neoteroi) red or dark purple (phoinikis e melamporphuron himation, Poll. iv. 119), youths (Weaniskoi purple (ib.), though Donatus (11, 21) says it was party-coloured (discolor). Parasites had black or grey (phaios) cloaks (cf. hoi melanes hemeis, Ath. vi.; Cic. Caec. 10, 27). The soldier has a chlamys purpurea (Donatus, 11, 24), slaves and artisans white himatia (Artemid. Oneir. ii. 3). Old women wore apple-green (meling) or dark blue (aering) dresses, except priestesses, who wore white. Young women had white dresses. Procuresses had a purple band round their heads (Poll. iv. 119). There was a law at Athens that hetaerae should wear bright-coloured costume (anthina phorein, Suidas, s. v.), and pictures show them with red and yellow chitons and white and yellow himatia. The soubrette (habra perikouros) wore a white chiton, and the hetaera's servant (parapseston therapainidion) a saffron-coloured chiton (Poll. iv. 154). For the masks of comedy, see Persona. ...

The account which is given by Livy (vii. 2) of the introduction of comedy at Rome is to the following effect. In the year B.C. 363, on the occasion of a severe pestilence, among other ceremonies for averting the anger of the deities, scenic entertainments were introduced from Etruria, where it would seem they were a familiar amusement. Tuscan players (ludiones), who were fetched from Etruria, exhibited a sort of pantomimic dance to the music of a flute, without any song accompanying their dance, and without regular dramatic gesticulation. The amusement became popular, and was imitated by the young Romans, who improved upon the original entertainment by uniting with it extemporaneous mutual raillery, composed in a rude irregular measure--a species of diversion which had been long known among the Romans at their agrarian festivals under the name of Fescennina. They regulated their dances so as to express the sense of the words. This amusement became popular, and those who had an aptitude for this sort of representation set themselves to improve its form, supplanting the old Fescennine verses by compositions called saturae, which were written in a more regular measure (impletae modis) and set to the music of the flute (descripto jam ad tibicinem cantu), and delivered with appropriate gestures. Those who took part in these exhibitions were called histriones, ister being the Etruscan word which answered to the Latin ludio (see Histrio). After some years Livius introduced dramas with a regular plot, in which he acted himself. When acting had thus developed from mere amusement to a recognised profession, the young citizens, leaving the representation of plays to actors, began to bandy jests thrown into verse, which afterwards got the name of exodia, and were introduced into the Atellan plays. In this account Livy seems unquestionably mistaken in describing the saturae as due to the imitation of Etruscan actors: there is no reason to doubt that they were, as Virgil (Georg. ii. 385) and Horace (Epist. ii. 1, 139 ff.) represent them, connected in the earliest times with the rustic festivals in honour of the deities presiding over agriculture. But under the influence of the foreign histriones they doubtless took a more formal shape. Nor can he be right in suggesting a connexion between the Atellan farces and the satura with the drama thence developed. The drama arose from the combination of the text of the saturae with the music and dancing of the histriones.
  Livius Andronicus, a native of Magna Graecia, in B.C. 240 introduced both tragedies and comedies, which were merely adaptations of Greek dramas. His popularity increasing, a building on the Aventine hill was assigned to him for his use, which served partly as a theatre, partly as a residence for a troop of players, for whom Livius wrote his pieces. Livius, as was common at that time, was himself an actor in his own pieces. His Latin adaptations of Greek plays, though they had no chorus, were interspersed with cantica, which were more lyrical in their metrical form, and more impassioned in their tone than the ordinary dialogue. In the musical recitation of these Livius seems to have been very successful, and was frequently encored. The exertion being too much for his voice, he introduced in these cantica the practice of placing a slave beside the flute-player to recite or chant the words, while he himself went through the appropriate gesticulation. This became the usual practice from that time, so that in the cantica the histriones did nothing but gesticulate, the only parts where they used their voice being the diverbia.
  The first imitator of the dramatic works of Livius Andronicus was Cn. Naevius, a native of Campania. He composed both tragedies and comedies, which were either translations or imitations of those of Greek writers. In comedy his models seem to have been the writers of the Old Comedy. The most distinguished successors of Naevius were Plautus and Terence, whose materials were drawn chiefly from Menander, Diphilus, Philemon, and Apollodorus. The comedy of the Romans was throughout but an imitation of that of the Greeks, and chiefly of the New Comedy. Where the characters were ostensibly Greek, and the scene laid in Athens or some other Greek town, the comedies were termed palliatae. All the comedies of Terence and Plautus belong to this class. When the story and characters were Roman, the plays were called togatae, because the costume was the toga. These fabulae togatae represented the life of the lower classes in Rome, and were coarser in tone than the palliatae. One kind of these, called trabeatae, representing the knights, was of late introduction and little importance. In the comoediae palliatae, the costume of the ordinary actors was the Greek pallium. There was a species of burlesque travesty of tragic subjects, named from the poet who introduced that style Rhinthonica. The mimes are sometimes classed with the Latin comedies. Respecting them, the reader is referred to the article Mimus. The mimes differed from the comedies in little more than the predominance of the mimic representation over the dialogue, which was only interspersed in various parts of the representation.
  Latin comedies had no chorus, any more than the dramas of the New Comedy, of which they were for the most part imitations. Like them, too, they were introduced by a prologue, which answered some of the purposes of the parabasis of the Old Comedy, bespeaking the good will of the spectators, and defending the poet against his rivals and enemies. It also communicated so much information as was necessary to understand the story of the play. The prologue was commonly spoken by one of the players (who did not appear in the first act), or by the manager of the troop. Occasionally the speaker of it assumed a separate mask and costume for the occasion (Plaut, Poen, prol. 126; Terent. Hecyr. prol. ii. 1). Sometimes the prologue is spoken by one of the dramatis personae (Plaut. Amph.; Mil. Glor.; Merc.), or by some supernatural or personified being, as the Lar familiaris in the Aulularia of Plautus, Arcturus in the Rudens, Auxilium in the Cistellaria, Luxuria and Inopia in the Trinummus. Pliny (H. N. xxxvi. 204) says that Servius Tullius first instituted the Compitalia in honour of the Lares, in commemoration of the miraculous circumstances of his own birth; for he was said to have been the son of a Lar familiaris. Respecting the use of masks, see the article Persona The characters introduced were much the same as in the New Comedy, and their costume was not very different. Donatus gives the following account of it: comicis senibus candidus vestis inducitur, quod is antiquissimus fuisse memoratur, adolescentibus discolor attribuitur. Servi comici amictu exiguo conteguntur paupertatis antiquae gratia, vel quo expeditiores agant. Parasiti cum intortis palliis veniunt. Laeto vestitus candidus, aerumnoso obsoletus, purpureus diviti, pauperi phoeniceus datur. Militi chlamys purpurea, puellae habitus peregrinus inducitur, leno pallio varii coloris utitur, meretrici ob avaritiam luteum datur.
  A word remains to be said on the Atellanae fabulae. These were of very early origin; the Latins having been accustomed, probably before the foundation of Rome, to improvise songs and jests in masks which represented certain standing characters. It has been commonly supposed, on the strength of our Greek authorities (e. g. Strabo, v.), that the name of ludi Osci or ludicrum Oscum points to their origin in Campania, and it has even been asserted that they were performed at Rome in the Oscan language. This statement, which is quite incredible in itself, when we consider how unintelligible the dialect must have been to actors and audience alike, is now universally rejected. Mommsen's view is far preferable, that the Latin farce with its fixed characters and standing jests needed a permanent scenery, which was fixed at the ruined town of Atella in order not to give offence to any existing community. We need not attempt to find any other connexion with the Oscan nation. Nor did they form any part of dramatic literature: the text was never written, or at any rate not published. Apparently it was only in the generation preceding Cicero that the Atellan farces were taken up by professional actors (cf. Cic. ad Fam. ix. 1. 6), who continued to play them under the empire (Tac. Ann. iv. 14) as after-pieces (exodia) to more serious dramas. Among the standing characters were Pappus or Casnar, Bucco, Maccus, and Dossennus (Mommsen, Unterital. Dial. p. 118). The first is an old man, vain and very stupid; the second, a fat-faced chattering glutton; the third, a filthy, amorous fool; the fourth, a cunning sharper. The earlier writers who composed complete texts for these plays were L. Pomponius of Bononia and Novius (about 100-80 B.C.).

This text is from: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890) (eds. William Smith, LLD, William Wayte, G. E. Marindin). Cited Aug 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


, , 610 - 550

Comic poet native of the Megarian village Tripodiskos. He introduced the Megarian comedy in Attica during the first half of the 6th century b.C. According to the Chronicle of Paros, between 580 & 560 b.C. the citizens of Ikaria performed choruses the comical verse of which had been taught to them by Sousarion. Of his pieces only few lyrics have been saved

Susarion (Sousarion), to whom the origin of the Attic Comedy is ascribed, is said to have been the son of Philinus, and a native of Tripodiscus, a village in the Megaric territory, whence he removed into Attica, to the village of Icaria, a place celebrated as a seat of the worship of Dionysus (Ath. ii. p. 40, b.; Schol. Il. xxii. 29). This account agrees with the claim which the Megarians asserted to the invention of comedy, and which was generally admitted (Aristot. Poet. iii. 5; Aspasius, ad Aristot. Eth. Nic. iv. 2). Before the time of Susarion there was, no doubt, practised, at Icaria and the other Attic villages, that extempore jesting and buffoonery which formed a marked feature of the festivals of Dionysus; but Susarion was the first who so regulated this species of amusement, as to lay the foundation of Comedy, properly so called. The time at which this important step was taken can be determined within pretty close limits. The Megaric comedy appears to have flourished, in its full developement, about Ol. 45 or 46, B. C. 600 and onwards; and it was introduced by Susarion into Attica between Ol. 50 and 54, B. C. 580--564 (Plut. Sol. 10; Marm. Par. Ep. 39)
  The Megaric comedy appears to have consisted chiefly in coarse and bitter personal jests, and broad buffoonery, and this character it retained long after its offspring, the Attic comedy, had be come more refined. That the comedy of Susarion partook of a like rudeness and buffoonery might reasonably be supposed, even if it were not expressly asserted by ancient writers (Anon. de Com.; Diomed. Grammat. iii.); but there can be no doubt that in his hands, a great and decided advance was made in the character of the composition, which now in fact, for the first time, deserved that name. One change, which he introduced, is alone sufficient to mark the difference between an unregulated exercise of wit and an orderly composition; he was the first who adopted the metrical form of language for comedy (tes emmetrou komoidias archegos egeneto, Schol. Dion. Thrac.; Tzetzes, ap. Cramer). It is not, however, to be inferred that the comedies of Susarion were written; Bentley has shown that the contrary is probably true. They were brought forward solely through the medium of the chorus, which Susarion, doubtless, subjected to certain rules (Marm. Par. vv. 54, 55). It seems most probable that his plays were not acted upon waggons. Of the nature of his subjects we know nothing for certain; but it can hardly be conceived that his comedies were made up entirely of the mere jests which formed the staple of the Megaric comedy; although there could only have been a very imperfect approach to anything like connected argument or plots, for Aristotle expressly tells us that Crates was the first who made logous e muthous (Poet. v. 6). The improvements of Susarion, then, on the Megaric comedy, which he introduced into Attica, may be said to have consisted in the substitution of premeditated metrical compositions for irregular extemporaneous effusions. and the regulation of the chorus to some extent. It was long before this new species of composition took firm root in Attica ; for we hear nothing more of it until eight years after the time of Susarion, where the art revived in the hands of Euetes, Euxenides, and Myllus, at the very time when the Dorian comedy was developed by Epicharmus in Sicily.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Aug 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks


MEGARA (Ancient city) GREECE


, , 560 - 500

Architect, son of Nafstrofos, known for his famous aqueduct "Efpalinos tunnel" at Samos (530 b.C.) The tunnel, as it was admired and described by Herodotus, was constructed to supply water from a spring to the capital city of Samos. For this purpose, Efpalinos, had to "pierce" the mountain Kastro. The tunnel is 1000m. long (7 stadia) and its walls have been lined with small-size polygonal stones in order to prevent earth from falling. Now architects admire Efpalinos for his advanced knowledge in hydraulics.

Historic figures

Byzas (687 BC - circa 650 BC)

Founder of Byzantium, named after him, which was ihabited by the citizens of Megara in 658 b.C. Coins of the ancient city-state bear his head. He was a daring navigator, son of Poseidon (Neptune) the mythical god of the seas. His mother was Kreoussa and he was born circa 687 b.C. When the citizens sent for instructions to the oracle of Delfi as to where they should establish a new settlement they were given the obscure reply: "across the blind people". However none knew a city with this name.
During that summer, quite a few citizens of Megara led by Byzas boarded their vessels setting for a journey to the unknown. They had faith in their leader though. Thus, after much wandering the Megarian fleet reaches the port of Chalcedon in safety. Chalkedon was a settlement of Megarians which had been inhabited 17 years before, in 674 b.C. Soon Byzas realised that the "land of the blind" was Chalcedon as they had failed to understand that the shore across their city was of much greater strategic importance. Moreover, according to Stravon, fishing was an easy matter across the sea. (see Geographika). Having this vision, Byzas led the Megarians to the coast across Chalcedon where they founded the new city and named it BYZANTIUM in 657 b.C.. This city was destined to play a historically significant role in the following years.


ERYTHRES (Ancient city) ATTIKI


Lamprus, of Erythrae, a Peripatetic philosopher, who is mentioned by Suidas as the teacher of Aristoxenus. (Suid. s. v. Aristoxenos.)

MEGARA (Ancient city) GREECE

Eucleides, Euclides, Euclid

, , 430 - 360

Euclid, student of the eleatic school initially, and then of Socrates school, is considered the founder of the Megarian school. During the Peloponesian war, because the state of Megara belonged to the Spartan alliance, Euclid would sneak into Socrates's classes - in Athens - in a woman's disguise, putting his life in danger. After Socrates's execution Plato makes honorary reference to Euclid in his writings. Being a student both of the eleatic school and of Socrates, Euclid has been influenced by both schools thus giving him fatherhood of the Megarian school which supported a mixture of the two philosophies. He combined the Socratic philosophy that virtue is knowledge with the Eleatic concept of the universe as a changeless unity that can be understood only by philosophical reflection None of the six Euclid's philosophical dialogues, reported by Laertius, has been retained. Reported as distinguished successors of Euclid are Euvoulides and Diodoros Cronus who developed this sophism excessively.

Euclides, (Eukleides). A native of Megara, founder of the Megaric, or Eristic sect. Endowed by nature with a subtle and penetrating genius, he early applied himself to the study of philosophy. The writings of Parmenides first taught him the art of disputation. Hearing of the fame of Socrates, Euclid determined to attend upon his instructions, and for this purpose removed from Megara to Athens. Here he long remained a constant hearer and zealous disciple of the moral philosopher; and when, in consequence of the enmity which subsisted between the Athenians and Megareans, a decree was passed by the former that any inhabitant of Megara who should be seen in Athens should forfeit his life, he frequently came to Athens by night, from the distance of about twenty miles, concealed in a long female cloak and veil, to visit his master. Not finding his propensity to disputation sufficiently gratified in the tranquil method of philosophizing adopted by Socrates, he frequently engaged in the business and the disputes of the civil courts. Socrates, who despised forensic contests, expressed some dissatisfaction with his pupil for indulging a fondness for controversy. This cir cumstance probably proved the occasion of a separation between Euclid and his master; for we find him, after this time, at the head of a school in Megara, in which his chief employment was to teach the art of disputation. Debates were conducted with so much vehemence among his pupils that Timon said of Euclid that he had carried the madness of contention from Athens to Megara. That he was, however, capable of commanding his temper appears from his reply to his brother, who, in a quarrel, had said, "Let me perish if I be not revenged on you.""And let me perish," returned Euclid, "if I do not subdue your resentment by forbearance and make you love me as much as ever."
    In argument Euclid was averse to the analogical method of reasoning, and judged that legitimate argument consists in deducing fair conclusions from acknowledged premises. He held that there is one supreme good, which he called by the different names of Intelligence, Providence, God; and that evil, considered as an opposite principle to the sovereign good, has no existence. The supreme good, according to Cicero, he defined to be that which is always the same. In this doctrine, in which he followed the subtlety of Parmenides rather than the simplicity of Socrates, he seems to have considered good abstractly as residing in the Deity, and to have maintained that all things which exist are good by their participation of the first good, and, consequently, that there is, in the nature of things, no real evil. It is said that when Euclid was asked his opinion concerning the gods, he replied, "I know nothing more of them than this: that they hate inquisitive persons."

This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks

Eucleides (Eukleides), a native of Megara, or, according to some less probable accounts, of Gela. He was one of the chief of the disciples of Socrates, but before becoming such, he had studied the doctrines, and especially the dialectics, of the Eleatics. Socrates on one occasion reproved him for his fondness for subtle and captious disputes. (Diog. Laert. ii. 30.) On the death of Socrates (B. C. 399), Eucleides, with most of the other pupils of that philosopher, took refuge in Megara, and there established a school which distinguished itself chiefly by the cultivation of dialectics. The doctrines of the Eleatics formed the basis of his philosophical system. With these he blended the ethical and dialectical principles of Socrates. The Eleatic dogma, that there is one universal, unchangeable existence, he viewed in a moral aspect, calling this one existence the Good, but giving it also other names (as Reason, Intelligence, &c.), perhaps for the purpose of explaining how the real. though one, appeared to be many. He rejected demonstration, attacking not so much the premises assumed as the conclusions drawn, and also reasoning from analogy. He is said to have been a main of a somewhat indolent and procrastinating disposition. He was the author of six dialogues, none of which, however, have come down to us. He has frequently been erroneously confounded with the mathematician of the same name. The school which lie founded was called sometimes the Megaric, sometimes the Dialectic or Eristic. (Diog. Laert. ii. 106-108; Cic. Aead. ii. 42; Plut. de Fratr. Am. 18.)




Aeschylus, (Aischulos). The son of Euphorion, born in the Attic deme of Eleusis in the year B.C. [p. 36] 525. The period of his youth and early manhood coincides with the great national struggle which both Asiatic and European Hellas were forced to wage against the barbarians in the first twenty years of the fifth century. In this conflict he played the part of a brave soldier at the battles of Marathon, Salamis, and Plataea, and his works abound in traces of the warlike and patriotic feeling of those stirring days. His brother Cynegirus met an heroic death at Marathon, and another distinguished soldier of Salamis, Aminias, is said to have been of the same family, but this is probably an error. We know little of the youth and education of Aeschylus, but it is certain that he began his career as a tragic poet before the age of thirty years, though his first victory was not gained till 485. About the year 470 he went to Sicily at the invitation of King Hiero of Syracuse. Here he composed his Aetnaean Women (Aitnaiai), in honour of the newly founded city of Aetna. His departure from Athens has been ascribed to an indictment by the Athenians for profanation of the mysteries. But it was the policy of Hiero to attract literary men to his brilliant court, and the presence of Aeschylus there needs no more explanation than that of Simonides and Pindar during the same period. Later in his life he visited Sicily a second time, where he met his death in 456. Among the many mythical details with which tradition has surrounded the life of Aeschylus, it is said that he was killed by an eagle letting fall a tortoise upon his bald head, supposing it to be a stone. The high honour in which he was held by the Athenians after his death is shown by the fact that in later times it was made lawful to reproduce his plays in competition for the prize against new tragedies.
   Aeschylus is said to have produced seventy-two, or even ninety dramas, and to have gained the first prize thirteen times. As each poet competed with four plays (three tragedies and a satyric drama), it appears that Aeschylus was successful in more than half of all his contests. Only seven of his tragedies have come down to us. They will be described in what seems to have been their chronological order.
    (1) The Suppliants (Hiketides) takes its name from the chorus representing the fifty daughters of Danaus fleeing to Argos for protection from the sons of Aegyptus. The prominence of the chorus, the small number of characters, and the absence of a prologue mark this play as the earliest of those of Aeschylus which we have, and consequently the oldest Greek drama extant. Its undeniable merits are much obscured by the very corrupt state of the text.
    (2) The Persians (Persai) is unique among the Greek tragedies which we possess in drawing its theme from history rather than from myth. The central point of interest is found in a splendid narrative of the battle of Salamis, but by an artifice of the poet the scene of the play is laid in Susa, and the laments of Atossa and the Persian nobles supply the tragic elements. The Persians was produced in B.C. 472, as part of a tetralogy consisting of the Phineus, Persians, Glaucus potnieus, and Prometheus the Fire-kindler (purkaeus).
    (3) The Seven against Thebes (Hepta epi Thebas) was produced in B.C. 467, as the third play in a tetralogy of which the remaining pieces were the Laius, Oedipus, and the satyric drama called The Sphinx. It includes a magnificent description of the seven Argive champions and their Theban opponents, with the final victory of Thebes, and a hint, at the close, of the Antigone-motive, afterwards so finely worked out by Sophocles. In this play, as in the Persians, the martial spirit of Aeschylus finds ample room for manifestation. Both dramas are "full of war," to quote the words of Aristophanes (Frogs, 1021).
    (4) The Prometheus Bound (Prometheus desmotes), with its companion pieces the Prometheus Loosed (luomenos) and the Prometheus the Fire-bearer (purphoros), treated the history of the rebellious Titan who steadfastly suffered the wrath of Zeus for his benefactions to mankind. The Prometheus Bound, the only play of the trilogy which has come down to us, depicts the hero, fettered to a rock in Scythia, and threatened by Hermes with a penalty still more severe. But he proudly refuses to submit to the will of the new ruler of Olympus, and at the close of the play he is struck by the thunderbolt, and, with the rock to which he is fastened, sinks out of sight. The second play described the final reconciliation and the liberation of Prometheus; while the third (see Westphal's Proleg. to Aeschylus, p. 207 foll.) probably celebrated the establishment of Prometheus in Attica as a benignant deity. No Greek tragedy has been more admired than the Prometheus Bound. In the grandeur of its action and the sublimity of character displayed, as well as in the exquisite pathos of some of its scenes, it stands almost unequalled. The Prometheus trilogy was probably produced either in B.C. 468 or 466 (Christ), or about ten years earlier (Wecklein).
    (5) The trilogy composed of the Agamemnon (Agamemnon), Choephori (Choephoroi), and Eumenides (Eumenides), comes last in the list, and is of special interest from the fact that it is the only complete trilogy which is extant from any of the Greek tragedians. In the Agamemnon the poet describes the return of the victorious king from Troy, and his murder by Clytaemnestra and her paramour Aegisthus. In the Choephori, Orestes, son of Agamemnon, now grown to manhood, returns, and with the help of his friend Pylades avenges the murder of his father by putting to death the guilty pair, and is himself, in turn, driven frantic by the Erinyes. In the Eumenides he flees to Athens, where he is tried, and by the advocacy of Apollo and the casting vote of Athene he is acquitted, and the family curse comes to an end. This great trilogy shows the genius of Aeschylus in its loftiest form. Each play is complete in itself, and yet each is but a single act in the [p. 37] mighty drama of crime, vengeance, and expiation. The Agamemnon is the most powerful of the three plays, and probably the greatest work of Aeschylus, if indeed it is not the most impressive tragedy in existence. The trilogy is usually known as the Oresteia (Oresteia), and, with the satyric play Proteus (Proteus), was produced in B.C. 458.
    The extant works of Aeschylus show a constant progress in dramatic art. He is said to have added a second actor to the one employed by his predecessors, and in his later plays he adopts, and uses with full mastery, the third actor first introduced by his younger rival, Sophocles. The choral parts, at first the most prominent feature both in extent and importance, gradually give way before the growth of the dialogue. In the scenic effects, too, Aeschylus made many improvements, using extraordinary means to excite wonder or awe. Like Wagner, he was both poet and musician, and, besides training his own choruses, he is said to have taken part as actor in the performances themselves.
    The most characteristic feature of his poetry is its grandeur, both of thought and style, though he is none the less master of lyric beauty and tender pathos. His theology is stern and lofty, and pervaded by the idea of a destiny which controls all things, human and divine. But the hereditary curse that brooded over the families of Labdacus and Pelops was always aided in its destrnctive work by the folly and wickedness of the victims themselves. No poet, in fact, has stated more impressively than Aeschylus the inevitable connection between guilt and punishment. His style, it must be confessed, is sometimes so elevated as to seem almost bombastic, but this apparent fault is the natural result of the poet's mighty current of thought, which could not find vent in the ordinary channels of expression.
    All the existing MSS. of Aeschylus are said by W. Dindorf to be derived from the Codex Mediceus (Laurentianus), which dates back to the eleventh century, and contains many valuable scholia taken from the ancient grammarians. It is the chief authority for the Choephori, of which, however, the text is in a bad condition. The Prometheus, Seven against Thebes, and Persians are more fully represented by MSS. than the other plays. Two codices of the fourteenth century (Florentinus and Farnesianus) supply that portion of the Agamemnon (lines 295- 1026) which is missing from the Codex Mediceus.

This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks

Aeschylus (Aischulos) was born at Eleusis in Attica in B. C. 525, so that he was thirty-five years of age at the time of the battle of Marathon, and contemporary with Simonides and Pindar. His father Euphorion was probably connected with the worship of Demeter, from which Aeschylus may naturally be supposed to have received his first religious impressions. He was himself, according to some authorities, initiated in the mysteries, with reference to which, and to his birthplace Eleusis, Aristophanes (Ran. 884) makes him pray to the Elensinian goddess. Pausanias (i. 21.2) relates an anecdote of him, which, if true, shews that lie was struck in very early youth with the exhibitions of the drama. According to this story, " When he was a boy he was set to watch grapes in the country, and there fell asleep. In his slumbers Dionysus appeared to him, and ordered him to apply himself to tragedy. At daybreak he made the attempt, and succeeded very easily." Such a dream as this could hardly have resulted from anything but the impression produced by tragic exhibitions upon a warm imagination.
  At the age of 25 (B. C. 499), he made his first appearance as a competitor for the prize of tragedy, against Choerilus and Pratinas, without however being successful. Sixteen years afterward (B. C. 484), Aeschylus pained his first victory. The titles of the pieces which he then brought out are not known, but his competitors were most probably Pratinas and Phrynichus or Choerilus. Eight years afterwards he gained the prize with the trilogy of which the Persae, the earliest of his extant dramas, was one piece. The whole number of victories attributed to Aeschylus amounted to thirteen, most of which were gained by him in the interval of sixteen years, between B. C. 484, the year of his first tragic victory, and the close of the Persian war by Cimon's double victory at the Eurymedon, B. C. 470. The year B. C. 468 was the date of a remarkable event in the poet's life. In that year lie was defeated in a tragic contest by his younger rival Sophocles, and if we may believe Plutarch (Cim. 8), his mortification at this indignity, as he conceived it, was so great, that lie quitted Athens in disgust the very same year, and went to the court of Hiero (Paus. i. 2.3), king of Syracuse, where he found Simonides the lyric poet, who as well as himself was by that prince most hospitably received Of the fact of his having visited Sicily at the time alluded to, there can be no doubt; but whether the motive alleged by Plutarch for his doing so was the only one, or a real one, is a question of considerable difficulty, though of little practical moment. It may be, as has been plausibly maintained by some authors, that Aeschylus, whose family and personal honours were connected with the glories of Marathon, and the heroes of the Persian war, did not symipathise with the spirit of aggrandisement by which the councils of his country were then actuated, nor approve of its policy in the struggle for the supremacy over Greece. The contemporaries of his earlier years, Miltiades, Aristeides, and Themistocles, whose achievements in the service of their country were identified with those of himself and his family, had been succeeded by Cimon: and the aristocratical principles which Aeschylus supported were gradually being supplanted and overborne by the advance of democracy. From all this, Aeschylus might have felt that he was outliving his principles, and have felt it the more keenly, from Cimon, the hero of the day, having been one of the judges who awarded the tragic prize to Sophocles in preference to himself. (Plut. l. c.) On this supposition, Athens could not have been an agreeable residence to a person like Aeschylus, and therefore he might have been disposed to leave it; but still it is more than probable that his defeat by Sophocles materially influenced his determinations, and was at any rate the proximate cause of his removing to Sicily. It has been further conjectured that the charge of asebeia or impiety which was brought against Aeschylus for an alleged publication of the mysteries of Ceres (Aristot. Eth. iii. 1), but possibly from political motives, was in some measure connected with his retirement from iris native country. If this were really the case, it follows, that the play or plays which gave the supposed offence to the Athenians, must have been published before B. C. 468, and therefore that the trilogy of the Oresteia could have had no connexion with it. Shortly before the arrival of Aeschylus at the court of Hiero, that prince had built the town of Aetna, at the bottom of the mountain of that name, and on the site of the ancient Catana : in connexion with this event, Aeschylus is said to have composed his play of the Women of Aetna (B. C. 471, or 472), in which he predicted and prayed for the prosperity of the new city. At the request of Hiero, he also reproduced the play of the Persae, with the trilogy of which he had been victorious in the dramatic contests at Athens (B. C. 472). Now we know that the trilogy of the Seven against Thebes was represented soon after the " Persians:" it follows therefore that the former trilogy must have been first represented not later than B. C. 470. Aristeides, who died in B. C. 468, was living at the time (Plut. Arist. 3). Besides "The Women of Aetna," Aeschylus also composed other pieces in Sicily, in which are said to have occurred Sicilian words and expressions not intelligible to the Athenians (Athen. ix.). From the number of such words and expressions, which have been noticed in the later extant plays of Aeschylus, it has been inferred that he spent a considerable time in Sicily, on this his first visit. We must not however omit to mention, that, according to some accounts, Aeschylus also visited Sicily about B. C. 488, previous to what we have considered his first visit. The occasion of this retirement is said to have been the victory gained over him by Simonides, to whom the Athenians adjudged the prize for the best elegy on those who fell at Maarathon. This tradition, however, is not supported by strong independent testimony, and accordingly its truth has been much questionned. Suidas indeed states that Aeschylus had visited Sicily even before this, when he was only twenty-five years of age (B. C. 499), immediately after his first contest with Pratinas, on which occasion the crowd of spectators was so great as to cause the fall of the wooden planks (ikria) or temporary scaffolding, on which they were accommodated with seats.
  In B. C. 467, his friend and patron king Hiero died; and in B. C. 458, it appears that Aeschylus was again at Athens from the fact that the trilogy of the Oresteia was produced in that year. The conjecture of Bockh, that this might have been a second representation in the absence of the poet, is not supported by any probable reasons, for we have no intimation that the Oresteia ever had been acted before. In the same or the following year (B. C. 457), Aeschylus again visited Sicily for the last time, and the reason assigned for this his second or as others conceive his fourth visit to this island, is both probable and sufficient. The fact is, that in his play of the Eumenides, the third and last of the three plays which made up the Orestean trilogy, Aeschylus proved himself a decided supporter of the ancient dignities and power of that " watchful guardian " of Athens, the aristocratical court of the Areiopagus, in opposition to Pericles and his democratical coadjutors. With this trilogy Aeschylus was indeed successful as a poet, but not as a politician : it did not produce the effects he had wished and intended, and he found that he had striven in vain against the opinions and views of a generation to which he did not belong. Accordingly it has been conjectured that either from disappointment or fear of the consequences, or perhaps from both these causes, he again quitted Athens, and retired once more to Sicily. But another reason, which if founded on truth, perhaps operated in conjunction with the former, has been assigned for his last sojourn in Sicily. This rests on a statement made more or less distinctly by various authors, to the effect that Aeschylus was accused of impiety before the court of the Areiopagus, and that he would have been condemned but for the interposition of his brother Ameinias, who had distinguished himself at the battle of Salamis. (Aelian, V. H. v. 19.) According to some authors this accusation was preferred against him, for having in some of his plays either divulged or profanely spoken of the mysteries of Ceres. According to others, the charge originated from his having introduced on the stage the dread goddesses, the Eumenides, which he had done in such a way as not only to do violence to popular prejudice, but also to excite the greatest alarm among the spectators. Now, the Eumenides contains nothing which can be considered as a publication of the mysteries of Ceres, and therefore we are inclined to think that his political enemies availed themselves of the unpopularity he had incurred by his " Chorus of Furies," to get up against him a charge of impiety, which they supported not only by what was objectionable in the Eumenides, but also in other plays not now extant. At any rate, from the number of authorities all confirming this conclusion, there can be no doubt that towards the end of his life Aeschylus incurred the serious displeasure of a strong party at Athens, and that after the exhibition of the Orestean trilogy he retired to Gela in Sicily, where he died B. C. 456, in the 69th year of his age, and three years after the representation of the Eumenides. On the manner of his death the ancient writers are unanimous (Suidas, s. v. Chelonemion). An eagle, say they, mistaking the poet's bald head for a stone, let a tortoise fall upon it to break the shell, and so fulfilled an oracle, according to which Aeschylus was fated to die by a blow from heavenly. The inhabitants of Gela shewed their regard for his character, by public solemnities in his honour, by erecting a noble monument to him, and inscribing it with an epitaph written by himself (Paus. i. 14.4; Athen. xiv.). In it Gela is mentioned as the place of his burial, and the field of Marathon as the place of his most glorious achievements; but no mention is made of his poetry, the only subject of commemoration in the later epigrams written in his honour. At Athens also his name and memory were holden in especial reverence, and the prophecy in which he (Athen. viii.) is said to have predicted his own posthumous fame, when lie was first defeated by Sophocles, was amply fulfilled. His pieces were frequently reproduced on the stage; and by a special decree of the people, a chorus was provided at the expense of the state for any one who night wish to exhibit his tragedies a second time (Aristoph. Achar. 102; Aeschyl. vita). Hence Aristophanes (Ran. 892) makes Aeschylus say of himself, that his poetry did not die with him; and even after his death, he may be said to have gained many victories over his successors in Attic tragedy. The plays thus exhibited for the first time may either have been those which Aeschylus had not produced himself, or such as had been represented in Sicily, and not at Athens, during his lifetime. The individuals who exhibited his dramatic remains on the Attic stage were his sons Euphorion and Bion : the former of whom was, in B. C. 431, victorious with a tetralogy over Sophocles and Euripides (Argum. Eurip. Med.), and in addition to this is said to have gained four victories with dramatic pieces of his father's never before represented. Philocles also, the son of a sister of Aeschylus, was victorious over the King Oedipus of Sophocles, probably with a tragedy of his uncle's (Argum. Soph. Oed. Tyr.). From and by means of these persons arose what was called the Tragic School of Aeschylus, which continued for the space of 125 years.
  We have hitherto spoken of Aeschylus as a poet only; but it must not be forgotten that he was also highly renowned as a warrior. His first achievements as a soldier were in the battle of Marathon, in which his brother Cynaegeirus and himself so highly distinguished themselves, that their exploits were commemorated with a descriptive painting in the theatre of Athens, which was thought to be much older than the statue there erected in honour of Aeschylus (Paus. i. 21.2). The epitaph which he wrote on himself, proves that he considered his share in that battle as the most glorious achievement of his life, though he was also engaged at Artemisium, Salamis, and Plataea (Paus. i. 14.4). All his family, indeed, were distinguished for bravery. His younger brother Ameinias (Herod. viii. 84; Diod. xi. 25) was noted as having commenced the attack on the Persian ships at Salamis, and at Marathon no one was so perseveringly brave as Cynaegeirus (Herod. vi. 114). Hence we may not unreasonably suppose, that the gratitude of the Athenians for such services contributed somewhat to a due appreciation of the poet's merits, and to the tragic victory which he gained soon after the battle of Marathon (B. C. 484) and before that of Salamis. Nor can we wonder at the peculiar vividness and spirit with which he portrays the " pomp and circumstance" of war, as in the Persae, and the " Seven against Thebes," describing its incidents and actions as one who had really been an actor in scenes such as he paints.
  The style of Aeschylus is bold, energetic, and sublime, full of gorgeous imagery, and magnificent expressions such as became the elevated characters of his dramas, and the ideas he wished to express (Aristoph. Ran. 934). This sublimity of diction was however sometimes carried to an extreme, which made his language turgid and inflated, so that as Quintilian (x. 1) says of him, " he is grandiloquent to a fault." In the turn of his expressions, the poetical predominates over the syntactical. He was peculiarly fond of metaphorical phrases and strange compounds, and obsolete language, so that he was much more epic in his language than either Sophocles or Euripides, and excelled in displaying strong feelings and impulses, and describing the awful and the terrible, rather than in exhibiting the workings of the human mind under the influence of complicated and various motives. But notwithstanding the general elevation of his style, the subordinate characters in his plays, as the watchman in the Agamemnon, and the nurse of Orestes in the Choephoroe, are made to use language fitting their station, and less removed from that of common life.
  The characters of Aeschylus, like his diction, are sublime and majestic, -they were gods and heroes of colossal magnitude, whose imposing aspect could be endured by the heroes of Marathon and Salamis, but was too awful for the contemplation of the next generation, who complained that Aeschylus' language was not human (Aristoph. Ran. 1056). Hence the general impressions produced by the poetry of Aeschylus were rather of a religious than of a moral nature : his personages being both in action and suffering, superhuman, and therefore not always fitted to teach practical lessons. He produces indeed a sort of religious awe, and dread of the irresistible power of the gods, to which man is represented as being entirely subject; but on the other hand humanity often appears as the sport of an irrevocable destiny, or the victim of a struggle between superior beings. Still Aeschylus sometimes discloses a providential order of compensation and retribution, while he always teaches the duty of resignation and submission to the will of the gods, and the futility and fatal consequences of all opposition to it.
  With respect to the construction of his plays, it has been often remarked, that they have little or no plot, and are therefore wanting in dramatic interest: this deficiency however may strike us more than it otherwise would in consequence of most of his extant plays being only parts, or acts of a more complicated drama. Still we cannot help being impressed with the belief, that he was more capable of sketching a vast outline, than of filling up its parts, however bold and vigorous are the sketches by which he portrays and groups his characters. His object, indeed, according to Aristophanes, in such plays as the Persae, and the Seven against Thebes, which are more epical than dramatical, was rather to animate his countrymen to deeds of glory and warlike achievement, and to inspire then with generous and elevated sentiments, by a vivid exhibition of noble deeds and characters, than to charm or startle by the incidents of an elaborate plot. (Ran. 1000.) The religious views and tenets of Aeschylus, so far as they appear in his writings, were Homeric. Like Homer, he represents Zeus as the supreme Ruler of the Universe, the source and centre of all things. To him all the other divinities are subject, and from him all their powers and authority are derived. Even Fate itself is sometimes identical with his will, and the result of his decrees. He only of all the beings in heaven and earth is free to act as he pleases. (Prom. 40)
  In Philosophical sentiments, there was a tradition that Aeschylus was a Pythagorean (Cic. Tus. Disp. ii. 10); but of this his writings do not furnish any conclusive proof, though there certainly was some similarity between him and Pythagoras in the purity and elevation of their sentiments. The most correct and lively description of the character and dramatic merits of Aeschylus, and of the estimation in which he was held by his contemporaries and immediate successors, is given by Aristophanes in his "Frogs." He is there depicted as proud and impatient, and his style and genius such as we have described it. Aristophanes was evidently a very great admirer of him, and sympathised in no common degree with his political and moral sentiments. He considered Aeschylus as without a rival and utterly unapproachable as a tragic poet; and represents even Sophocles himself as readily yielding to and admitting his superior claims to the tragic throne. But few if any of the ancient critics seem to have altogether coincided with Aristophanes in his estimation of Aeschylus, though they give him credit for his excellences. Thus Dionysius (De Poet. Vet. ii. 9) praises the originality of his ideas and of his expressions, and the beauty of his imagery, and the propriety and dignity of his characters. Longinus (15) speaks of his elevated creations and imagery, but condemns some of his expressions as harsh and overstrained; and Quintilian (x. 1) expresses himself much to the same effect. The expression attributed to Sophocles, that Aeschylus did what was right without knowing it (Athen. x.), in other words, that he was an unconscious genius, working without any knowledge of or regard to the artistical laws of his profession, is worthy of note. So also is the observation of Schlegel (Lecture iv.), that " Generally considered, the tragedies of Aeschylus are an example amongst many, that in art, as in nature, gigantic productions precede those of regulated symmetry, which then dwindle away into delicacy and insignificance; and that poetry in her first manifestation always approaches nearest to the awfulness of religion, whatever shape the latter may assume among the various races of men." Aeschylus himself used to say of his dramas, that they were fragments of the great banquet of Homer's table. (Athen. viii.) The alterations, made by Aeschylus in the composition and dramatic representation of Tragedy were so great, that he was considered by the Athenians as the father of it, just as Homer was of Epic poetry and Herodotus of History (Philostr. Vit. Apoll. vi. 11). As the ancients themselves remarked, it was a greater advance from the elementary productions of Thespis, Choerilus, and Phrynichus, to the stately tragedy, of Aeschylus, than from the latter to the perfect and refined forms of Sophocles. It was the advance from infancy if not to maturity, at least to a youthful and vigorous manhood. Even the improvements and alterations introduced by his successors were the natural results and suggestions of those of Aeschylus. The first and principal alteration which he made was the introduction of a second actor deuteragonistes (Aristot. Poet. 4.16), and the consequent formation of the dialogue properly so called, and the limitation of the choral parts. So great was the effect of this change that Aristotle denotes it by saying, that he made the dialogue, the principal part of the play (ton logon protagonisten pareskeuasen), instead of the choral part, which was now become subsidiary and secondary. This innovation was of course. adopted by his contemporaries, just as Aeschylus himself (e. g. in the Choephoroi 665-716) followed the example of Sophocles, in subsequently introducing a third actor. The characters in his plays were sometimes represented by Aeschylus himself (Athen. i.). In the early part of his career he was supported by an actor named Cleandrus, and afterwards by Myniscus of Chalchis. The dialogue between the two principal characters in the plays of Aeschylus was generally kept up in a strictly symmetrical form, each thought or sentiment of the two speakers being expressed in one or two unbroken lines: e. g. as the dialogue between. Kratos and Hephaestus at the beginning of the Prometheus. In the same way, in the Seven against Thebes, Eteocles always expresses himself in three lines between the reflections of the chorus. This arrangement, differing as it does from the forms of ordinary conversation, gives to the dialogue of Aeschylus an elevated and stately character, which bespeaks the conversation of gods and heroes. But the improvements of Aeschylus were not limited to the composition of tragedy: he added the resources of art in its exhibition. Thus, he is said to have availed himself of the skill of Agatharcus, who painted for him the first scenes which had ever been drawn according to the principles of linear perspective (Vitruv. Praef lib. vii.). He also furnished his actors with more suitable and magnificent dresses, with significant and various masks, and with the thick-soled cothurnus, to raise their statue to the height of heroes. He moreover bestowed so much attention on the choral dances, that he is said to have invented various figures himself, and to have instructed the choristers in them without the aid of the regular ballet-masters. So great was Aeschylus' skill as a teacher in this respect, that Telestes, one of his choristers, was able to express by dance alone the various incidents of the play of the Seven against Thebes.The removal of all deeds of bloodshed and murder from the public view, in conformity with the rule of Horace (A. P. 185), is also said to have been a practice introduced by Aeschylus, (Philos. Vit. Apol. vi. 11). With him also arose the usage of representing at the same time a triogy of plays connected in subject, so that each formed one act, as it were, of a great whole, which might be compared with some of Shakespeare's historical plays. Even before the time of Aeschylus, it had been customary to contend for the prize of tragedy with three plays exhibited at the same time, but it was reserved for him to shew how each of three tragedies might be complete in itself, and independent of the rest, and nevertheless form a part of a harmonious and connected whole. The only example still extant of such a trilogy is the Oresteia, as it was called. A Satyrical play commonly followed each tragic trilogy, and it is recorded that Aeschylus was no less a master of the ludicrous than of the serious drama (Paus. ii. 13.5).
  Aeschylus is said to have written seventy tragedies. Of these only seven are extant, namely, the " Persians," the " Seven against Thebes," the "Suppliants," the "Prometheus," the " Agamemnon," the " Choephoroe," and " Eumenides ;" the last three forming, as already remarked, the trilogy of the " Oresteia." The " Persians" was acted in B. C. 472, and the " Seven against Thebes" a year afterwards. The "Oresteia" was represented in B. C. 458; the "Suppliants" and the "Prometheus" were brought out some time between the "Seven against Thebes" and the " Oresteia." It has been supposed from some allusions in the "Suppliants," that this play was acted in B. C. 461, when Athens was allied with Argos.
  The first edition of Aeschylus was printed at Venice, 1518, 8vo.; but parts of the Agamemnon and the Choephoroe are not printed in this edition, and those which are given, are made up into one play. Of the subsequent editions the best was by Stanley, Lond. 1663, fo. with the Scholia and a commentary, reedited by Butler. The best recent editions are by Wellauer, Lips. 1823, W. Dindorf, Lips. 1827, and Scholefield, Camb. 1830. There are numerous editions of various plays, of which those most worthy of mention are by Blomfield, Muller, Klausen, and Peile. The principal English translations are by Potter, Harford, and Medwin. (Petersen, De Aeschyli Vita et Fabulis, Havniae, 1814; Welcker, Die Aeschyl. Trilogie Prtomethcus, Darmstadt, 1824, Nachtrag zur Trilogie, Frankf. 1826, and Die Griech. Tragodien, Bonn, 1840; Klausen, Thcologumena Aeschyli Tragiei, Berol. 1829.)

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks

Editor's Information
The e-texts of the works by Aeschylus can be found in Greece (ancient country) under the category Ancient Greek Writings.

MEGARA (Ancient city) GREECE


A noble aristocrat who lived an unsettled life as in his time a number of political changes occured in Megara and throughout Greece. Because he was a member of the defeated aristocratic party ge was exiled and moved to Sicilly, Euboea, Viotia and Sparta. Even though he was welcome in all these states he always longed to return home. Indeed he returned home, sided with the new order of things but deeply inside him he remained an aristocrat and never changed his political beliefs. In his elegies, of which only 1389 verses have survived, the reader can see the poet's prejudice for the aristocrats against the democrats.

   Theognis. Of Megara, an ancient elegiac and gnomic poet, said to have flourished B.C. 548 or 544. He may have been born about 570, and would therefore have been eighty at the commencement of the Persian Wars, 490, at which time we know from his own writings that he was alive. Theognis belonged to the oligarchical party in his native city, and in its fates he shared. He was a noble by birth, and all his sympathies were with the nobles. They are, in his poems, the agathoi and esthloi, and the commons the kakoi and deiloi, terms which, in fact, at that period, were regularly used in this political signification, and not in their later ethical meaning. He was banished with the leaders of the oligarchical party, having previously been deprived of all his property; and most of his poems were composed while he was an exile. Most of his political verses are addressed to a certain Cyrnus, the son of Polypas. The other fragments of his poetry are of a social, most of them of a festive, character. They place us in the midst of a circle of friends who formed a kind of convivial society; all the members of this society belonged to the class whom the poet calls "the good." The collection of gnomic poetry which has come down to us under the name of Theognis contains, however, many additions from later poets. The genuine fragments of Theognis, with some passages which are poetical in thought, have much that helps us to understand his times.

This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks

Theognis. Of Megara, an ancient elegiac and gnomic poet, whose reputed works form the most extensive collection of gnomic poetry, that has come down to us under any one name; but, unfortunately, the form in which these remains exist is altogether unsatisfactory. Most of our information respecting the poet's life is derived from his writings.
  He was a native of Megara, the capital of Megaris, not of Megara Hyblaea, in Sicily; as Harpocration justly argues from a line of his poetry (v. 783), in which he speaks of his going to Sicily, evidently as to a country which was not his native land, and as appears also from other passages of his writings. Harpocration is, however, in error, when he charges Plato with having fallen into a mistake, in making Theognis a citizen of Megara in Sicily (Leg. i.); for we can have no hesitation in accepting the explanation of the Scholiast on Plato, that Theognis was a native of Megara in Greece, but received also the citizenship as an honour from the people of Megara Hyblaea, whom he is known to have visited, and for whom one of his elegies was composed, as is proved by internal evidence. From his own poems also we learn that, besides Sicily, he visited Euboea and Lacedaemon, and that in all these places he was hospitably received. The circumstances which led him to wander from his native city will presently appear.
  The time at which Theognis flourished is expressly stated by several writers as the 58th or 59th Olympiad, B. C. 548 or 544. It is evident, from passages in his poems, that he lived till after the commencement of the Persian wars, B. C. 490. These statements may be reconciled, by supposing that he was about eighty at the latter date, and that he was born about B. C. 570. Cyril and Suidas make him contemporary with Phocylides of Miletus.
  Both the life and writings of Theognis, like those of Alcaeus, are inseparably connected with the political events of his time and city. The little state of Megara had been for some time before the poet's birth the scene of great political convulsions. After shaking off the yoke of Corinth, it had remained for a time under the nobles, until about the year B. C. 630, when Theagenes, placing himself at the head of the popular party, acquired the tyranny of the state, from which he was again driven by a counter revolution, about B. C. 600. The popular party, into whose hands the power soon fell again, governed temperately for a time, but afterwards they oppressed the noble and rich, entering their houses, and demanding to eat and drink luxuriously, and enforcing their demand when it was refused; and at last passing a decree that the interest paid on money lent should be refunded (palintokia, Plut. Quaest. Graec. 18). They alto banished many of the chief men of the city; but the exiles returned, and restored the oligarchy (Arist. Polit. v. 4.3). Several such revolutions and counter-revolutions appear to have followed one another; but we are not informed of their dates.
  Theognis was born and spent his life in the midst of these convulsions, to which a large portion of his poetry relates, most of that portion having evidently been composed at a time when the oligarchical party was oppressed and in exile. To this party Theognis himself belonged, and in its fates he shared. He was a noble by birth; and all his sympathies were with the nobles. They are, in his poems, the agathoi and esthloi, and the commons the kakoi and deiloi, terms which, in fact, at that period, were regularly used in this political signification, and not in their later ethical meaning.(1)
  It would seem that, in that particular revolution, from which Theognis suffered, there had been a division of the property of the nobles, in which he lost his all, and was cast out as an exile, barely escaping with his life, " like a dog who throws every thing away in order to cross a torrent"; and that he had also to complain of treachery on the part of certain friends in whom he had trusted. In his verses he pours out his indignation upon his enemies, " whose black blood he would even drink". He laments the folly of the bad pilots by whom the vessel of the state had been often wrecked, and speaks of the common people with unmeasured contumely. Amidst all these outbursts of passion, we find some very interesting descriptions of the social change which the revolution had effected. It had rescued the country population from a condition of abject poverty and serfdom, and given them a share in the government. "Cyrnus" he exclaims, " this city is still a city, but the people are others, who formerly knew nothing of courts of justice or of laws, but wore goat-skins about their ribs, and dwelt without this city, like timid deer. And now they are the good (agathoi); and those who were formerly noble (esthloi) are now the mean (deiloi): who can endure to see these things? " The intercourse of common life, and the new distribution of property, were rapidly breaking down the old aristocracy of birth, and raising up in its place an aristocracy of wealth. "They honour riches. and the good marries the daughter of the bad, and the bad the daughter of the good, wealth confounds the race (emixe genos). Thus, wonder not that the race of citizens loses its brightness, for good things are confounded with bad". These complaints of the debasement of the nobles by their intermixture with the commons are embittered by a personal feeling; for he had been rejected by the parents of the girl he loved, and she had been given in marriage to a person of far inferior rank (pollon emou kakion); but Theognis believes that her affections are still fixed on him. He distrusts the stability of the new order of things, and points to a new despotism as either established or just at hand.
  Most of these political verses are addressed to a certain Cyrnus, the son of Polypas; for it is now generally admitted that the same Polupaides, which has been sometimes supposed to refer to a different person, is to be understood as a patronymic, and as applying to Cyrnus. From the verses themselves, as well as from the statements of the ancient writers, it appears that Cyrnus was a young man towards whom Theognis cherished a firm friendship, and even that tender regard, that pure and honourable paidepastia, which often bound together men of different ages in the Dorian states. From one passage it appears that Cyrnus was old enough, and of sufficient standing in the city, to be sent to Delphi as a sacred envoy (theoros) to bring back an oracle, which the poet exhorts him to preserve faithfully. There is another fragment, also of a political character, but in a different tone, addressed to a certain Simonides; in which the revolution itself is described in guarded language, which indicates the sense of present danger; while in the verses addressed to Cyrnus the change is presupposed, and the poet speaks out his feelings, as one who has nothing more to fear or hope for.
  The other fragments of the poetry of Theognis are of a social, most of them of a festive character. They "place us in the midst of a circle of friends. who formed a kind of eating society, like the philislia of Sparta, and like the ancient public tables of Megara itself". All the members of this society belong to the class whom the poet calls "the good". He addresses them, like Cyrnus and Simonides, by their names, Onomacritus, Clearistus, Democles. Demonax, and Timagoras, in passages which are probably fragments of distinct elegies, and in which allusion is made to their various characters and adventures; and he refers, as also in his verses addressed to Cyrnus, to the fame conferred upon them by the introduction of their names in his poems, both at other places, where already in his own time his elegies were sung at banquets, and in future ages. A good account of these festive elegies is given in the following passage from Muller: "The poetry of Theognis is full of allusions to symposia: so that from it a clear conception of the outward accompaniments of the elegy may be formed. When the guests were satisfied with eating, the cups were filled for the solemn libation; and at this ceremony a prayer was offered to the gods, especially to Apollo, which in many districts of Greece was expanded into a paean. Here began the more joyous and noisy part of the banquet, which Theognis (as well as Pindar) calls in general komos, although this word in a narrower sense also signified the tumultuous throng of the guests departing from the feast. Now the Comos was usually accompanied with the flute : hence Theognis speaks in so many places of the accompaniment of the flute-player to the poems sung in the intervals of drinking; while the lyre and cithara (or phorminx) are rarely mentioned, and then chiefly in reference to the song at the libation. And this was the appropriate occasion for the elegy, which was sung by one of the guests to the sound of a flute, being either addressed to the company at large, or (as is always the case in Theognis) to a single guest". Schneidewin traces a marked distinction in the style and spirit of those portions of the poems of Theognis, which he composed in his youth and prosperity, and those which he wrote in his mature age, and when misfortunes had come upon him.
  As to the form in which the poems of Theognis were originally composed, and that in which the fragments of them have come down to us, there is a wide field for speculation. The ancients had a collection of elegiac poetry, under his name, which they sometimes mention as elegeia, and sometimes as epe, and which they regarded as chiefly, if not entirely, of a gnomic character (Plat. Menon.). Xenophon says that "this poet discourses of nothing else but respecting the virtue and vice of men, and his poetry is a treatise (sungramma) concerning men, just as if any one skilled in horsemanship were to write a treatise about horsemanship" (Xenoph. ap. Slob. Florileg. lxxxviii). To the same effect Isocrates mentions Hesiod, Theognis, and Phocylides, as confessedly those who have given the best advice respecting human life (kai gar toutous phasi men aristous gegenesthai sumboulous toi bioi toi ton anthropon); and, from the context, it may it inferred that the works of these poets were used in Greek education (Isocrat. ad Nicoel. 42). Suidas enumerates, as his works, an Elegy eis tous sothentas ton Supakousion en tei poliorkiai; Gnomic Elegies, to the amount of 2800 verses (Gnomai di elegeias eis epe bo); a Gnomology in elegiac verse, and other hortatory counsels, addressed to Cyrnus (kai pros Kurnon, ton autou epomenon, Gnomologian di edegeion kai heteras hupothekas parainetikas). Suidas adds, that these poems were all of the epic form (ta panta epikos), a phrase which can only be explained by taking the word epic in that wide sense, of which we have several other instances, one of which (Plat. Men.) has been noticed above, as including poems in the elegiac verse; for all the remains of Theognis which we possess are elegiac, and there is no sufficient reason to suppose that he wrote any epic poems, properly so called, or even any gnomic poems in hexameter verse. Had he done so, the fact would surely have been indicated by the occasional appearance of consecutive hexameters in the gnomic extracts from his poems. The passage of Plato, sometimes quoted to show that he wrote epic poetry, seems to us to prove, if anything, the very opposite.
  The poems, which have come down to us, consist of 1389 elegiac verses, consisting of gnomic sentences and paragraphs, of one or more couplets; which vary greatly in their style and subjects, and which are evidently extracted from a number of separate poems. Even in the confused account of Suidas we trace indications of the fact, that the poetry of Theognis consisted of several distinct elegies. In what state the collection was in the time of Suidas, we have not sufficient evidence to determine; but, comparing his article with his well-known method of putting together the information which he gathered from various sources, we suspect that the work which he calls Gnomai di elegeias eis epe bo, was a collection similar to that which has come down to us, though more extensive, and with which Suidas himself was probably acquainted, and that he copied the other titles from various writers, without caring to inquire whether the poems to which they referred were included in the great collection. Xenophon, in the passage above cited, refers to a collection of the poetry of Theognis; though not, as some have supposed, to a continuous gnomic poem; and it is evident that the collection referred to by Xenophon was different from that which has come down to us, as the lines quoted by him as its commencement are now found in the MSS. as vv. 183--190.
  The manner in which the original collection was formed, and the changes by which it has come into its present state, can be explained by a very simple theory, perfectly consistent with all the facts of the case, in the following manner.
  Theognis wrote numerous elegies, political, convivial, affectionate, and occasional, addressed to Cyrnus, and to his other friends. In a very short time these poems would naturally be collected, and arranged according to their subjects, and according to the persons to whom they were addressed; but at what precise period this was done we are unable to determine: the collection may have been partly made during the poet's life, and even by himself; but we may be sure that it would not be left undone long after his death.
  In this collection, the distinction of the separate poems in each great division would naturally be less and less regarded, on account of the uniformity of tile metre, the similarity of the subjects, and -in the case especially of those addressed to Cyrnus- the perpetual recurrence of the same name in the different poems. Thus the collection would gradually be fused into one body, and, first each division of it, and then perhaps the whole, would assume a form but little different from that of a continuous poem. Even before this had happened, however, the decidedly gnomic spirit of the poems, and their popularity on that account, would give rise to the practice of extracting from them couplets and paragraphs, containing gnomic sentiments; and these, being chosen simply for the sake of the sentiment contained in each individual passage, would be arranged in any order that accident might determine, without reference to the original place and connection of each extract, and without any pains being taken to keep the passages distinct. Thus was formed a single and quasi-continuous body of gnomic poetry, which of course has been subjected to the common fates of such collections; interpolations from the works of other gnomic poets, and omissions of passages which really belonged to Theognis; besides the ordinary corruptions of critics and transcribers. Whatever questions may be raised as to matters of detail, there can be very little doubt that the socalled poems of Theognis have been brought into their present state by some such process as that which has been now described.
  In applying this theory to the restoration of the extant fragments of Theognis to something like their ancient arrangement, Welcker, to whom we are indebted for the whole discovery, proceeds in the following manner. First, he rejects all those verses which we have the positive authority of ancient writers for assigning to other poets, such as Tyrtaeus, Mimniermus, Solon, and others; provided, of course, that the evidence in favour of those poets preponderates over that on the ground of which the verses have been assigned to Theognis. Secondly, he rejects all passages which can be proved to be merely parodies of the genuine gnomes of Theognis, a species of corruption which he discusses with great skill. Thirdly, he collects those passages which refer to certain definite persons, places, seasons, and events, like the epigrams of later times; of these he considers some to be the productions of Theognis, but others manifest additions. His next class is formed of the convivial portions of the poetry; in which the discrimination of what is genuine from what is spurious is a matter of extreme difficulty. Fifthly, he separates all those paragraphs which are addressed to Polypaides; and here there can be no doubt that he has fallen into an error, through not perceiving the fact above referred to, as clearly established by other writers, that that word is a patronymic, and only another name for Cyrnus. Lastly, he removes from the collection the verses which fall under the denomination of paidika, for which Suidas censures the poet; but, if we understand these passages as referring to the sort of intercourse which prevailed among the Dorians, many of them admit of the best interpretation and may safely be assigned to Theognis, though there are others, of a less innocent character, which we must regard as the productions of later and more corrupt ages. The couplets which remain are fragments from the elegies of Theognis, mostly addressed to Cyrnus, and referring to the events of the poet's life and times, and the genuineness of which may, for the most part, be assumed; though, even among these, interpolations may very probably have taken place, and passages actually occur of a meaning so nearly identical, that they can hardly be supposed to have been different passages in the works of the same poet, but they seem rather to have been derived from different authors by some compiler who was struck by their resemblance.
  The poetical character of Theognis may be judged of to a great extent, from what has already been said, and it is only necessary to add that his genuine fragments contain much that is highly poetical in thought, and elegant as well as forcible in expression.
(1) For a full illustration of the meanings of these words, see Welcker's Prolegomena ad Theogn., and an excellent note in Grote's History of Greece: "The ethical meaning of these words is not absolutely unknown, yet rare, in Theognis: it gradually grew up at Athens, and became popularized by the Socratic school of philosophers as well as by the orators. But the early or political meaning always remained, and the fluctuation between the two has been productive of frequent misunderstanding. Constant attention is necessary, when we read the expressions hoi agathoi, esthloi, beltistoi, kalokagathoi, chpestoi, &c., or on the other hand, hoi kakoi, deiloi, &c., to examine whether the context is such as to give to them the ethical or the political meaning".

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Sep 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks




   One of the most celebrated Greek artists of Eleutherae, in Attica, an older contemporary of Phidias and Polyclitus, and, like them, a pupil of Ageladas. His works, chiefly in bronze, were numerous and very varied in subject--gods, heroes, and especially athletes and representations of animals, which were admired by the ancients for their life-like truth to nature. Most famous among these were his statue of the Argive runner Ladas; of Marsyas, of which a marble copy is now in the Lateran at Rome; his "Discobolus," or quoit-thrower, which we are enabled to appreciate in several copies in marble, the best being that in the Palazzo Massimi and one in bronze in the Palazzo Lancelotti in Rome; and his "Cow on the Market-place at Athens," which received the very highest praise among the ancients, was celebrated in thirty-six extant epigrams in the Greek anthology, all quoted in Overbeck's Schriftquellen. 550-588, and may be regarded as his masterpiece. He was also the first to represent what is really a genre portrait in his "Drunken Old Woman"; but this is now attributed to another artist, one Socrates.

This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Dec 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks

Myron of Eleutherai
  Eleutherai was just inside Attica on the Boeotian border, which is why Pausanias (6.8.4, etc.) calls him an Athenian. Once again the only synoptic account of his oeuvre is Pliny's:
Myron was born at Eleutherae and was a pupil of Hageladas. He was particularly famous for his statue of a heifer, celebrated in well-known epigrams -- for most people owe their reputations more to someone else's talent than their own. He also made a dog, a discobolus, a Perseus and the sea-monsters (?), a satyr marveling at the flutes and a Minerva, pentathletes at Delphi, pancratiasts, and a Hercules now in the shrine dedicated by Pompey the Great at the Circus Maximus. Erinna also mentions in her poems that he made a cicada and a locust. He also made an Apollo which Antony the triumvir took from the Ephesians, but the deified Augustus restored it again after being warned in a dream. He seems to have been the first to extend the representation of natural truth, being more rhythmical in his art than Polykleitos and more careful over proportion (symmetria); yet though he was very attentive to the bodies of his figures he does not seem to have expressed the feelings of the mind, and also did not treat the hair and the pubes any more correctly than did the rude art of old.(Pliny, N.H. 34.57-8)
  Pliny places him third in the "Xenokratic" sequence of bronze-workers, between Polykleitos (Pliny, N.H. 34.55-6) and Pythagoras (Pliny, N.H. 34.59), and consequently the late Hellenistic source (Pliny, N.H. 35.49-52) gave him a floruit of 420-417; for an explanation as to why, see the commentary (Pliny, N.H. 34.59), above. Contradicted by (a) his supposed apprenticeship to Hageladas (Pausanias 10.10.6); (b) the "histories" of Cicero and Quintilian; (c) his Aeginetan commission (no. 1), presumably pre-dating the Athenian conquest of 457/6; and (d) the activities of his son Lykios in the 440s and 430s (Jeffery 1980b), this erroneous chronology also suggests that his allegedly greater attentiveness to symmetria than -- of all people! -- Polykleitos (Pliny, N.H. 34.57-8) could simply be a rationalization introduced by Xenokrates or Varro (Pliny, N.H. 34.55-6) to save this evolutionary scheme, rigidly formalistic as it apparently was.

The full list of his works, all bronzes except possibly no. 1 (a xoanon , Paus. 2.30.2) is as follows:
Divinities and mythological groups
- Hekate (single-bodied) in Aegina
- Colossal Zeus, Athena, and Herakles in the Heraion at Samos; removed by Mark Antony; the Athena and Herakles returned by Augustus
- Apollo at Ephesos, removed by Antony but returned by Augustus (Pliny, N.H. 34.57-8)
- Apollo at Akragas, stolen by Verres in 73-70
- Dionysos at Orchomenos, later re-dedicated on Mt. Helikon by Sulla
- Nike killing a bull
- Athena and Marsyas
- Erechtheus at Athens
- Herakles at Messana, stolen by Verres
- Herakles, later in Rome (Pliny, N.H. 34.57-8)
- Perseus, on the Akropolis
Victor statues
- The runner Ladas, perhaps at Argos (Anthologia Palatina 16.54)
- A diskobolos (Pliny, N.H. 34.57-8) & (Lucian, Philopseudes 18)
- The horse breeder Lykinos of Sparta, at Olympia (twice)
- The pankratiast Timanthes of Kleonai, at Olympia
- The boy-boxer Philippos of Pellana, at Olympia
- The hoplite-runner Chionis of Sparta, at Olympia
- Pentathletes and pankratiasts, at Delphi (Pliny, N.H. 34.57-8)
- A dog (Pliny, N.H. 34.57-8)
- A cow, on the Akropolis (Pliny, N.H. 34.57-8), later taken to Rome
- Four oxen, later in Rome
- A sea-monster
- Embossed vessels in silver

The Diskobolos (no. 13; Rome, Terme 126371; Stewart 1990, fig. 300) is the only work identified beyond doubt in the copies, owing to a rare detailed description of one allegedly displayed with the Tyrannicides, Polykleitos's Diadoumenos, and Demetrios' Pellichos (Stewart 1990, figs. 227-31; 383-85; Lucian, Philopseudes 18, with commentary) in a house in Athens:
"When you came in the hall," he said, "didn't you notice a totally gorgeous statue up there, by Demetrios the portraitist?" "Surely you don't mean the discus-thrower," said I, "the one bent over into the throwing-position, with his head turned back to the hand that holds the discus, and the opposite knee slightly flexed, like one who will spring up again after the throw?" "Not that one, he said, that's one of Myron's works, that Diskobolos you speak of..." (Lucian, Philopseudes 18)
  On the Athena and Marsyas, often identified as a group after Paus. 1.24.1, see Stewart 1990, 147, figs. 290-91, and the copy Louvre 2208; as for the others, optimists have recognized nos. 2, 8, 10, and 11 in Roman copies (though the Perseus is just as regularly given to Pythagoras), while Mingazzini 1972-3 and others attribute nos. 12 and 16 to namesakes of the Hellenistic period (contra e.g. Moretti 1957, nos. 260, 319, 529, 535). These individuals are shadowy figures at best: one, the Myron "of Thebes" whose signatures graced a dedication at Pergamon (along with Praxiteles' and Xenokrates': Pergamon, 8.1, nos. 135-140) and another found in Rome may well be a Hellenistic fiction perpetuated by locals charged with furnishing new bases for war-booty, for Eleutherai was disputed between Athens and Boeotia. Certainly, the epigrams describing the Ladas are by no means incompatible with early classical experimentation:
Just as you were in life, Ladas, flying before wind-footed Thymos, touching the ground with the tips of your toes, So did Myron cast you in bronze, on all of your body Stamping your expectation of an Olympian crown.(Anthologia Palatina 16.54)
  On the other hand, Pliny's attribution of a marble "Drunken old Woman" at Smyrna (N.H. 36.32) has been universally rejected, not least because its most unclassical theme recurs in a copy of a work of advanced Hellenistic date, in Rome (Munich 437; Bieber 1961b, 81; Laubscher 1982, 118-21; Stewart 1990, figs. 753-54). To connect this with the Myron of Athens who worked on Delos ca. 140 (Marcade 1957, 57) is tempting but purely arbitrary.
Many have pondered over Myron's signal contribution to Greek sculpture; yet one must remember that in antiquity, though his statues of men were justly renowned (Laterculi Alexandrini 7.3-9), his most famous work was not the Diskobolos but his cow (no. 20), whose realism inspired countless epigrams (Overbeck 1868/1959, nos. 550-591, etc.), mostly vacuous in the extreme. His son Lykios carried on his work, also gaining major commissions at Olympia and Athens.
(Select bibliography: in the URL below)

This extract is from: Andrew Stewart, One Hundred Greek Sculptors: Their Careers and Extant Works. Cited August 2004 from Perseus Project URL below, which contains extracts from the ancient literature, bibliography & interesting hyperlinks.

The strength and malleability of bronze allowed innovative sculptors like the Athenian Myron and Polyclitus of Argos to push the development of the free-standing statue to its physical limits. Myron, for example, sculpted a discus thrower crouched at the top of his backswing, a pose far from the relaxed and serene symmetry of early archaic statuary. The figure not only assumes an asymmetrical pose but also seems to burst with the tension of the athlete's effort. Polyclitus' renowned statue of a walking man carrying a spear is posed to give a different impression from every angle of viewing. The feeling of motion it conveys is palpable. The same is true of the famous statue by an unknown sculptor of a female (perhaps the goddess of love Aphrodite) adjusting her diaphanous robe with one upraised arm. The message these statues conveyed to their ancient audience was one of energy, motion, and asymmetry in delicate balance. Archaic statues impressed a viewer with their appearance of stability; not even a hard shove looked likely to budge them. Free-standing statues of the classical period, by contrast, showed greater range in a variety of poses and impressions. The spirited movement of some of these statues suggests the energy of the times but also the possibility of change and instability.

  Myron was a Greek sculptor of the middle of the 5th century BC. He was born at Eleutherae on the borders of Boeotia and Attica.
  He worked almost exclusively in bronze: and though he made some statues of gods and heroes, his fame rested principally upon his representations of athletes, in which he made a revolution, by introducing greater boldness of pose and a more perfect rhythm. His most famous works according to Pliny were a cow, Ladas the runner, who fell dead at the moment of victory, and a discus thrower. We are fortunate in possessing several copies of the discobolus, of which the best is in the Massimi palace at Rome. The athlete is represented at the moment when he has swung back the discus with the full stretch of his arm, and is about to hurl it with the full weight of his body.
  The ancient critics say of Myron that, while he succeeded admirably in giving life and motion to his figures, he did not succeed in rendering the emotions of the mind. This agrees with the extant evidence, in a certain degree, though not perfectly. The bodies of his men are of far greater excellence than the heads. The face of the Marsyas is almost a mask; but from the attitude we gain a vivid impression of the passions which sway him. The face of the discus-thrower is calm and unruffled; but all the muscles of his body are concentrated in an effort.
  A recently discovered papyrus from Egypt informs us that Myron made statues of the athlete Timanthes, victorious at Olympia in 456 BC, and of Lycinus, victorious in 448 and 444. This helps us to fix his date. He was a somewhat older contemporary of Pheidias and Polyclitus.

This extract is cited July 2003 from the Malaspina Great Books URL below, which contains image.

Myron (Muron), one of the most celebrated of the Greek statuaries, and also a sculptor and engraver, was born at Eleutherae, in Boeotia, about B. C. 480. (Plin. H. N. xxxiv. 8. s. 19.3) Pausanias calls him an Athenian, because Eleutherae had been admitted to the Athenian franchise. He was the disciple of Ageladas, the fellow-disciple of Polycleitus, and a younger contemporary of Phi dias. Pliny gives for the time when he flourished the 87th Olympiad, or B. C. 431, the time of the beginning of the Peloponnesian war. (H. N. xxxiv. 8. s. 19.)
  The chief characteristic of Myron seems to have been his power of expressing a great variety of forms. Not content with the human figure in its most difficult and momentary attitudes, he directed his art towards various other animals, and he seems to have been the first great artist who did so. To this characteristic Pliny no doubt refers, when he says, Primus hic nmultiplicasse veritatem videtur, numerosior quam Polycletus (l. c.3). To this love of variety he seems in some degree to have sacrificed accuracy of proportion and intellectual expression. (Plin. l. c.; comp. Cic. Brut. 18.) Neither did he pay much attention to minute details, distinct from the general effect, such as the hair, in which he seems to have followed, almost closely, the ancient conventional forms.
  Quinctilian (xii. 10) speaks of his works as softer than those of Callon, Hegesias, and Calamis. The author of the Rhetorica ad Herennium (iv. 6) speaks of his heads as especially admirable.
  Myron's great works were nearly all in bronze, of which he used the variety called Delian, while Polycleitus preferred the Aeginetan. (Plin. H. N. xxxiv. 2. s. 5; Dict. of Antiq. s. v. ues.)
  The most celebrated of his statues were his Discobolus and his Cow. The encomiums lavished by various ancient writers on the latter work might surprise us if we did not remember how much more admiration is excited in a certain stage of taste by the accurate imitation of an object out of the usual range of high art, than by the most beautiful ideal representation of men or gods; and there can be no doubt that it was almost a perfect work of its kind. Still the novelty of the subject was undoubtedly its great charm, which caused it to be placed at the head of Myron's works, and celebrated in many popular verses. Pliny says of it: " Myronem bucula maxime nobilitavit, celebratis versibus laudata." The Greek Anthology contains no less than thirty-six epigrams upon it, which, with other passages in its praise, are collected by Sontag in the Unterhaltungen fur Freunde der alten Literatur, pp. 100-119. Perhaps the best, at least the most expressive of the kind of admiration it excited, is the following epigram, which is one out of several epigrams on Myron's Cow by Ausonius (Epig. 58.):--
     "Bucula sum, caelo gentoris facta Myronis Aerea; nec factam me puto, sed genitam.
     Sic me taurus init: sic proxinma bucula mugit : Sic vitulus sitiens ubera nostra petit.
     Miraris, quod fallo gregem? Greis ipse magister
     Inter pascentes me numerare solet.'
These epigrams give us some of the details of the figure. The cow was represented as lowing and the statue was placed on a marble base, in the centre of the largest open place in Athens, where it still stood in the time of Cicero (Cic. in Verr. iv. 60). In the time of Pausanias it was no longer there; it must have been removed to Rome, where it was still to be seen in the temple of Peace, in the time of Procopius (Bell. Goth. iv. 21).
  A work of higher art, and far more interesting to us, was his Discobolus, of which there are several marble copies in existence. It is true that we cannot prove by testimony that any of these alleged copies were really taken from Myron's work, or from imitations of it; but the resemblance between them, the fame of the original, and the well-known frequency of the practice of making such marble copies of celebrated bronzes, all concur to put the question beyond reasonable doubt. Of these copies we have the good fortune to possess one, in the Townley Gallery of the British Museum, which was found in the grounds of Hadrian's Tiburtine Villa, in 1791: another, found on the Esquiline in 1782, is in the Villa Massimi at Rome: a third, found in Hadrian's Villa, in 1793, is in the Vatican Museum; a fourth, restored as a gladiator, is in the Capitoline Museum. To these may, in all probability, be added (5) a torso, restored as one of the sons of Niobe, in the gallery at Florence; (6) the torso of an Endymion in the same gallery; (7) a figure restored as a Diomed, and (8) a bronze in the gallery at Munich (Muller, in the Amalthea, vol. iii. p. 243). The original statue is mentioned by Quinctilian and Lucian. The former dilates upon the novelty and difficulty of its attitude, and the triumph of the artist in representing such an attitude, even though the work may not be in all respects accurate (ii. 13). Lucian gives a much more exact description: -Mon ton diskeuonta, en d ego, pheis, ton epikeknphota kata to chema tes apheseos, apestrammenon eis to diskophoron, erema oklazonta doi heteroi, eoikota xunastesomenoi meta tes boles ; ouk ekeinon, n d hos, epei kai Muronos ergon en kai touto estin, ho diskthbolos dn legeis. We have given the passage at length in order to make manifest the absurdity of supposing that the figure was not in the action of throwing the quoit, but merely stretching back the hand to receive the quoit from some imaginary attendant who held it (ton diskophoron). The real meaning is that the head was turned round backwards towards the hand which held the quoit. The two most perfect copies, the Townley and the Massimi, agree with Lucian's description, except that the former has the head in quite a different position, bending down forwards. Barry preferred this position; but the attitude described by Lucian, and seen in the Massimi statue, gives a better balance to the figure. There is, also, great reason to doubt whether the head of the Townley statue really belongs to it. On the whole, the Massimi copy is the best of all, and probably the most faithful to the original.
  Of Myron's other works Pliny (xxxiv. 8. s. 19.3) enumerates the following : a dog; Perseus, which Pausanias saw in the Acropolis at Athens (i. 23.8); sea-monsters (pristas, see Bottiger, inf. cit.); a satyr admiring a double flute and Minerva, probably a group descriptive of the story of Marsyas; Delphic pentathletes; pancratiasts; a Hercules, which, in Pliny's time, was in the temple of Pompey, by the Circus Maximus; and an Apollo, which was taken away from the Ephesians by M. Antonius, and restored to them by Augustus, in obedience to an admonition in a dream. The words in the passage of Pliny, fecisse et cicadae monumentum ac locustae carminibus suis Erinna siynifieat, are a gross blunder, which Pliny made by mistaking the name of the poetess Myro in an epigram by Anyte (or Erinna, Anth. Pal. vii. 190) for that of the sculptor Myron.
  In addition to Pliny's account, the following works of Myron are mentioned by other writers: Colossal statues of Zeus, Hera, and Heracles, at Samos, the three statues on one base. They were removed by M. Antonius, but restored by Augustus, except the Zeus, which he placed on the Capitol and built a shrine for it (Strab. xiv.). A Dionysius in Helicon, dedicated by Sulla (Paus. ix. 30.1). A Hercules, which Verres took from Heius the Mamertine (Cic. Verr. iv. 3). A bronze Apollo, with the name of the artist worked into the thigh, in minute silver letters, dedicated in the shrine of Aesculapius at Agrigentum by P. Scipio, and taken away by Verres (Cic. Verr. iv. 43). A wooden statue of Hecate, in Aegina. (Paus. ii. 20.2). Several statues of athletes (See Sillig, s. v.). Lastly, a striking indication how far Myron's love of variety led him beyond the true limits of art, a drunken old woman, in marble, at Smyrna, which of course, according to Pliny, was inprimis inclyta (Plin. H. N. xxxvi. 5. s. 4). His Cow was not his only celebrated work of the kind: there were four oxen, which Augustus dedicated in the portico of the temple of Apollo on the Palatine, B. C. 28 (Propert. ii. 23. 7); and a calf carrying Victory, derided by Tatian.
  He was also an engraver in metals: a celebrated patera of his is mentioned by Martial (vi. 92).
Nothing is known of Myron's life except that, according to Petronius (88), he died in great poverty. He had a son, Lyclus, who was a distinguished artist.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks

You are able to search for more information in greater and/or surrounding areas by choosing one of the titles below and clicking on "more".

Ferry Departures

Copyright 1999-2019 International Publications Ltd.