Listed 13 sub titles with search on: Biographies for wider area of: "MEGARA Town ATTICA, WEST" .
TRIPODISKOS (Ancient settlement) MEGARA
Comoedia (komoidia).
1. GREEK.
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.
...
2. ROMAN.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Commentary:
(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
Receive our daily Newsletter with all the latest updates on the Greek Travel industry.
Subscribe now!
