-■. ; *•'''■ >•>;■■- ■ >! ix^ SyiH '■A',;, ■V- •>. '.■% THE PEACE OF ARISTOPHANES API2TO$ANOY2 EIPHNH THE PEACE OF ARISTOPHANES EDITED WITH INTRODUCTION CRITICAL NOTES AND COMMENTARY BY H. SHARPLEY, M.A. LATE SCHOLAR OF CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE, OXFORD WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS EDINBURGH AND LONDON lijoS I 90S' TO E. L. S. PREFACE The first draft of this edition of the Peace was begun and finished in 1896. I took Dr. Blaydes' edition and wrote a provisional commentary upon the play, trying to reach a more independent standpoint in matters of interpretation than it would have been possible to gain if I had then consulted a large number of special works. The later task of revision and research, which scantiness of leisure has extended somewhat unduly in time, was made more profitable and interesting by the publication of Mr. Starkie's Wasps (1897), Herr van Her- werden's Peace (1897), Herr Zacher's revision of Herr von Velsen's Knights (1897), Messrs. Hall and Geldart's Oxford Aristophanes (i 900-1 901), the late Mr. Neil's Knights (1901), and much good work in various classical periodicals. Of special editions of the play, I have used that of Blaydes continuously, and, like others who have gleaned after him, with constant admiration and gratitude. I have also freely consulted, at a later stage, the editions of Bothe (1828), Richter (i860), Paley (1873), Herwerden (1897), and Merry (1900). I much regret that I have been unable to obtain a copy of Mr. Rogers' famous work, and, in the few places where I have quoted him, it has been at second hand. Wherever 1 have consciously borrowed from the works of these or other writers, even to the extent of a reference, the obligation has, I believe, been acknowledged in its place ; but the most helpful and influential work is apt to defy local acknowledgment, and I should like to mention a few books to which I am particularly indebted : Cobct's Variae Lectiones, Rutherford's New f^hrytiichns, Bahrius and Scholia Arista- phanica (vols. \.—u.), Z\e\insk\'s G/ierierung der a/tallischen Kontoecfie, Zacher's Handschri/tcn und Classen der Aristophancsscholicn and his critiques in Bursians Jahresbericht, 1892 (pt. i ), Dorpfeld VIU PREFACE and Reisch's Das griechische Theater, Haigh's Attic Theatre (ed. 2), Jebb's Sophocles, Bachmann's Coniecturarum observationumque Aristophanearum specimen, Goodwin's Syntax of Greek Moods and Tenses, Meisterhans' Gramtnatik der attischen Inschriften (ed. 3, by E. Schwyzer), the recent works mentioned at the beginning of this preface, and, above all, Starkie's Wasps, to which I owe more than to any other book. I have admitted into the critical notes (i) most of those readings of the Ravcnnas and the Venctus which differ from my printed text, (2) the more important of the readings of the defective Laurentianus F, wherever I was satisfied as to the correctness of the collation, (3) the more important of the readings of the Aldina, as being the most ancient and most authoritative extant member of a different family, (4) important variants found in other MSS., (5) such conjectures as seemed to possess very fair probability, (6) such conjectures as have, in spite of (what I believe to be) their demerits, met with some acceptance or raised some discussion. In order not to over- burden this presentation of readings, I have given full lists from the inferior MSS. in Section IV. of the Introduction, which is designed (in part) as an appendix to the textual notes. As the Leyden facsimile of the Ravennas was not published until my work upon the text was done, I had access to no collation of that MS. in which full confidence could be placed. In cases where Bekker and Herwerden disagree, I have, if unable to find other evidence, been guided almost always by the Oxford editors, who, over and above the scrupulous care which they have bestowed upon their text, have used two collations which I have not seen. In regard to the Venetus, my faith in Messrs. Hall and Geldart's readings (and in Mr. Hall's citations bf less important passages in Class. Rev. xii. p. 165) has been greater still, since they carefully photographed the pages which contain the play ; but I have often quoted, side by side with these, the readings given by Bekker or Cobet. Owing to a personal dislike which I am not prepared to defend, the asterisk and the obelus have not been used in the text. References to tragedy have been verified in Dindorf's Poetae PREFACE ix Scenict (iSsi) ; to the extant plays of Aristophanes in Messrs. Hall and Geldart's Aristophanis Comoediae (2 vols. 1900-1901), contributed to the Bibliotheca Oxoniensis; to the fragments of Comedy in Kock's Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta (3 vols., 1880-1888). My hearty thanks are due to Dr. Verrall, who, having had occasion to use my manuscript, enriched it with a codicil of searching criticisms and stimulating ideas ; to Mr. A. Sidgwick, Fellow and late Tutor of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and to Prebendary H. W. Moss, Headmaster of Shrewsbury School, both of whom, by reviewing portions of the first 300 lines, have added to the deep debt which I owe them for years of great teaching ; to Mr. J. C. Miles, Fellow of Merton College, Oxford, for much friendly encouragement and help ; and especially to Miss E. M. Sharpley, of Newnham College, Cambridge, who has read the whole commentary in proof, corrected several errors, and made many most helpful sugges- tions, I have also much pleasure in thanking Messrs. William Blackwood and Sons for their unfailing courtesy and considera- tion, and the press reader for his care and watchfulness. H. S. Hereford, March ird, 1905. CONTENTS l>ACK INTRODUCTION— I. THE PLAY I II. THE QUESTION OF A SECOND EDITION .... 7 III. THE SCENIC ARRANGEMENTS OF THE PEACE . i6 IV. THE MANUSCRIPTS 31 ANCIENT ARGUMENTS TO THE PEACE 53 DRAMATIS PERSONAE 5<> TEXT AND NOTES 57 INDICES— I. GREEK . 177 II. ENGLISH '85 INTRODUCTION I — The Play The Peace was acted at the Great Dionysia,^ at Athens, in the year 421 B.c.,^ being the fifth in order of time of the extant plays of Aristophanes. The moment is singularly interesting, since a few days only can have elapsed between the production of the play and the ratification of the Peace of Nicias.^ The battle of Amphipolis, in which Cleon and Brasidas fell, had taken place eight months before.* The play has never been a prime favourite. Of its popu- larity among the Athenians themselves we can tell nothing, except that it won the second prize ^ — as did the incomparable Birds seven years later. Certainly, since the revival of learn- ing, although three of the ten Aristophanic specimens of the Old Comedy have been studiously neglected, no one of the ten — except, perhaps, the late Ecclesiazusae — has failed to rouse interest and admiration to the same extent as the Peace. This neglect may be easily explained, and to a certain extent justified. The play has little of the surpassing bril- liancy of the Birds and Frogs; it lacks the verve of the Achaniians; it does not centre round one special idea of enduring interest — political, social, intellectual — as do the Knights, the Wasps, and the Ootids; it shows neither the burlesque cleverness of the Thesniophoriaztisae nor the ' Arg. I. /in., iv Aarei. ^ lb., ewl ApxaoToi 'AXKalov. Paulmicr's view, that the play was acted in 419 B.C., is discussed below, p. 7. * Thuc. V. 20, aurai ai ffirovSal iyivovro T(\tvTQ)vTOi tou x"M'*'»'or ^^M* Vph ^« Ai.ovv Whibley, op. cit., p. 91 sqq. and passim. ' Line 1082, ii;bv ;vap "TraXiv €^ apx^^ (piXiag )(i'X(5, /cat avyyvcofxi] Tin irpaoTepa KepacTov Tov vovv (996—999), — words which, in a different key, breathe the spirit of Panhel- lenism as nobly as does the Aeschylean battle - cry at Salamis. But the patriotism of Aristophanes is not all expended on this unattainable ideal. One who loved Attica so dearly could not but be a loyal Athenian, and the enemies of Athens come in for some hard blows. Yet even here the chief count against opposing cities is that they will not lend a hand to restore Peace. Except for their slackness in this respect (478-480), the Spartans escape with a passing hit at their greed and narrowness,^ and a single oath suffices for the Boeotians (466). But our poet has no patience with the temporising neutrality of the Argives (475-478, 491-493), and neither Solon nor Pericles could have been more bitter against Megara. Against her, too, the definite charge is that she has sinned against Peace (500-502), but the political antipathy is more deeply rooted. Taking these lines in conjunction with 246-249 and 481-483, we can see that Aristophanes has not forgotten the base betrayal of five- and-twenty years before. The plot of the play may be thus briefly analysed : — Prologue'^ (1-298). — Two slaves of the household of Trygaeus, an Attic vine-dresser, are busily supplying un- savoury food to a huge beetle, which is screened from the * Line 623, Et 6vr€% aiVxpo/cepSeiy Koi oieipuvo^evoi. 2 The principles of formal division laid down by Zielinski have not been adopted here, chiefly because the absence of an A^ok makes their application difficult. For Zielinski's own division of the Peace, see his Gliederung der altattischen Komoedie, pp. 137-140, 179-180, 188-189, 204-206. On the other hand it is clearly absurd to follow the old plan of grouping several scenes and odes (^e.g. 361-728) into a single iirfiaodiov. No formal division has therefore been attempted, but it is not to be supposed that the editor rejects the theory of epirrhematic composition as applied to a whole play. THE PLAY 5 spectators' sight. They soon give up the task in disgust, and, when one of them has retired after a Httle grumbhng and badinage, the other proceeds (1. 50) to describe his master's mad attempts to climb heavenwards. But Trygaeus is already mounted on his beetle-Pegasus, and at line 80 he rises into sight, and reveals to his alarmed servant his in- tention of interviewing Zeus. The servant calls his master's daughters from the house, and a tragic dialogue ensues between them and their father, who at last continues his journey and reaches the house of Zeus (179). Hermes rushes out, indignant at the summons of a mortal, but is quickly pacified by a present, and acquaints Trygaeus with the absence of the other gods and its relation to the affairs of Greece. He has just spoken of the carte blanche given to War, and pointed out the pit in which Peace is buried, when War himself is heard approaching ; Hermes makes off, and Trygaeus stands well out of sight. War stalks in (236), and proceeds to throw into an enormous mortar ingredients representing various Greek states. The lack of a pestle makes him call for his assistant Kudoimos, who is despatched first to Athens, then to Sparta, to fetch one ; but both the Cleon-pestle and the Brasidas-pestle have been lost, and War is forced to go indoors to make one himself (288). Trygaeus seizes the opportunity to call all Greeks of every country and trade to the rescue of Peace. Parodos and Epeisodia (299-728). — The Chorus^ troop in with ropes and levers, and rapturously appoint Trygaeus their leader. With great difficulty he persuades them to give up dancing ; at last they quiet down in the course of a little ode on the hardships of war. Trygaeus is just preparing for his task, when Hermes, suddenly appearing (362), threatens him in stormy language with the doom decreed by Zeus. After some time the god yields to the entreaties of the Chorus, backed up by the promises and presents of Trygaeus, and is ready to direct the work n'ith enthusiasm. After a solemn service of libation, which includes a few blessings and more cursings, the work of pulling begins (458). Unfortunately, ' For the composition of the Chorus and other controversial points as to scenic arrangements, see infr. iii. 6 INTRODUCTION the various Greek states pull different ways, and little pro- gress is made until their representatives, whom Hermes and Trygaeus have been freely abusing, retire from the work, leaving it to the farmers alone. Peace is then soon raised, with Opora and Theoria in attendance (519). After a scene of general rejoicing, the Chorus march in procession, osten- sibly bound for the country, chanting the praises of Peace. At their request Hermes begins to explain in full the lengthy absence of the goddess, that is, the causes of the outbreak and continuance of the war (603), and to inform Peace her- self of a few political and literary events which have occurred during her exile (661). He then hands over Opora and Theoria to Trygaeus, the first to be his wife and the second to be restored to the Boule. The three descend to earth, leaving the beetle behind them for the service of Zeus. First Parahasis (729-818). — In the anapaests the poet sets forth his claims to greatness and victory. He has never descended to the vulgar and witless tricks of his rivals, but has built up a lofty art with the materials of eloquence and cleverness and wit and humour. In satire he has not been content with attacking safe mediocrities, but has boldly faced the mighty Cieon on behalf of Athens and her empire. He has not been puffed up by former victories, and all — espe- cially the bald — should join in helping him to win another. The Odes are crowded with abuse of certain dramatists whom Aristophanes disliked and despised. Epeisodia (81 9-1 126). — Trygaeus is welcomed by his servant, into whose care, after answering a few questions relating to heavenly matters, he entrusts his bride. The Chorus congratulate Trygaeus on his well-deserved happi- ness, and, on the servant's return, master and slave proceed to restore Theoria to the Boule. This short scene, which is followed by antistrophic congratulations, is frankly indecent to a degree perhaps unmatched even in the Old Attic Comedy. The installation of Peace (922) is then performed with full ceremonies, of which the climax is the sacrifice of a sheep. Attracted by the savoury smell of the roasting slices, Hierocles the soothsayer presents himself, to demand the cause and to claim his share from Trygaeus and the THE QUESTION OF A SECOND EDITION 7 servant (1043). He pours forth absurd oracles unfavourable to Peace, while Trygaeus spars with him in the oracular metre, until, the feast being now ready, the impostor can restrain his appetite no longer, and lays forcible hands on the viands. For this he is soundly thrashed, stripped of his fine clothes, and chased off with contumely. Second Parabasis (ii 27-1 190). — The Chorus draw a graphic picture of country merriment in time of peace. The war is over 1 Now for an abundant feast of wholesome country fare and simple hospitality ! How much better than enduring the tyranny of a magnificent taxiarch, who is an utter coward in war and shows gross partiality in making out the service-lists at home ! Exodos (1191-1357). — With the crowd which flocks to the wedding come two makers of agricultural implements, laden with presents, and two armourers, whom Trygaeus ridicules and teases unmercifully. Then the son of Lama- chus sings warlike tags from Homer (1270), under a running fire of comment from Trygaeus, and the son of Cleonymus gives a line or two from the discreet Archilochus (1298). Trygaeus urges the guests to show themselves brave trencher- men, and the play ends with dance and revel and bridal songs. II — The Question of a Second Edition At the beginning of the last section the production of our play was confidently assigned to the year 421 B.C. The correctness of this date is now so generally recognised that a divergent view, which once found some favour, may be briefly dismissed. It was Paulmier ^ who first seriously argued in favour of the year 419 B.C., basing his theory almost entirely on lines 989—990, o7 crov TpvyofxeB' ijSt] I rput koj. SeK ert] : and he actually converted Brunck and Fynes Clinton to his view. The words quoted (which are fully discussed below, pp. 12-14) are indeed very difficult to explain ; but the doubt attaching to them cannot for a moment outweigh the strong evidence, ' Exerc. Cril., p. 742. 8 INTRODUCTION external and internal, which goes to show that the play ac (or at least almost as) we have it was produced in the year 421. The reference to the deaths of Cleon and Brasidas (11. 269, 281) would be pointless, and the almost certain reference to the Spartan prisoners (11. 479-480) would be impossible, at any later date ; the attitude of the Greek cities, as sketched in lines 464-507, harmonises very well with what we know of them at the time of the Peace of Nicias,^ and in no way with their relative positions two years later ; ^ and the exuberant rejoicings over the prospect of peace, which are scattered throughout the play, could never have been composed for any audience which had in some measure enjoyed those blessings for two years. But, however certain we may be that our date is correct, the vexed question as to a second edition is not affected, and that question demands a brief discussion here. The Third Argument runs as follows (but see variants ad loc.) '. — (pepeTai ev Taig SioacTKaXlaig ^oh^ SeSiSa-^it)^ ^Iptjvrjv 6fxolu>9 o ' A.pi(TTO(pdvr}'i. aSr]\ov ouv, (prjalv 'EipaTOcrdeptjg, iroTepov Trjv avTrjv aveSiSa^ev rj krepav KaOtJKev, iJTig ov crwl^eTai. J^parrjg /nevTOi Suo otSe SpdjUiaTa ypdcpuiv ouTcog' dXX ovv ye ev TOig ' A^yapvevaiv r] i5apvK(avL0L]v cnraTi\r]v eaOiei. The present eadlei, says Zielinski, shows that Cleon was alive at the time of the first edition (placed by Zielinski in 422 B.C.), but lines 269, 313, 649 prove him dead at the time of the Siaa-Kevrj of 421 B.C. (2) In line 480 o )(aX/ceJ? is Cleon, and the present ia shows that he was alive. (3) Lines 406 sqq. refer to the eclipses mentioned in Nub. 581 sqq., where the heavens themselves protested against Cleon's election to the uTparrjyla : therefore the lines in the Pax cannot have been written as late as 421 B.C. (4) Between verses 48 and 50 the spectators ought to make guesses about the raison d'etre of the beetle, as they do about Philocleon's disease in Vesp. 74 sqq. Such a passage has been cut out of the edition of 421 B.C., because after the death of Cleon it was inappropriate. (5) In line 371 Hermes asks Trygaeus : — ap OLcrua vavuTOV on Trpoeicp o Zjevg o? av TavTrjv avopvTTuiv evpeQij ; " Natiirlich weiss er es nicht, und wir ebensowenig," for from line 195 sqq. he learned that Zeus had left Heaven. ^ Die Gliederung der altattischen Komoedie (1885), pp. 65-70. THE QUESTION OF A SECOND EDITION ii Again, in line 376 Hermes cries tS Zei; Kepawo^povTa. These lines, taken in conjunction with the scholion on 1. 236, Tive? ^e (haa-L rov Ala ravra Xeyeiu, show that in the first edition Zeus played the part which in the following year was assigned to lloXejuog. Now I am far from accusing Dr. Zielinski of wresting the words of Aristophanes to his pre-conceived theory ; but in regard to all the passages, and especially (2) and (3), which are fully discussed in the commentary, I submit that an impartial view will invalidate his arguments. In 1. 480 it is now generally admitted that 6 j^aXKev'? is not Cleon, or any other individual who figures in history, but the jailer ; in 11. 406 sqq. it is highly improbable that there is any reference to eclipses, and, even if there were, it is not impossible to mention a noticeable eclipse a year or eighteen months after its occurrence. A weaker argument than that of (4) cannot well be conceived ; because Aristo- phanes has condescended to a wretchedly poor trick in the Wasps, he must forsooth repeat it in the following year. Nor is the treatment of 11. 371 and 376 much more fortunate. In 1. 371 the words a^o' olada, though grammatically a question, logically introduce a statement of fact, as in 1. 479 ; and the irpopptjari^ of Zeus was of course pronounced before his departure, when he installed IloXe/xo? in his place. As to 1. 376, the words w Zev Kepuuvo(3p6uTa, which Trygaeus understands as an appeal for help, are perhaps rather a cry of horror ; or, if not, Hermes may surely invoke the lord of the thunderbolt, though far away. The only passages, then, on which Zielinski can seriously rely are 11. 47-48 and the scholion on 1. 236. The pre- sent ecrOUi in 1. 48 would certainly be most naturally taken to refer to a living person, and any other view may there- fore seem to be an explaining away ; but as nothing else in the play favours the idea that a single line of the Pioce was written before Cleon's death, it is surely more reason- able to look a little further for a solution, and to embrace it if satisfactory (see Comm.), than to build up a dizzy superstructure on the foundation of a doubtful line. The 12 INTRODUCTION scholion on 1. 236 is a distinct piece of evidence, to be carefully considered in conjunction with other indica- tions of revision ; but as these, such as they are, favour the view that the second edition was subsequent to the year 421, the scholion in no way supports the contention of ZieHnski.^ Though the much-quoted rpla kul Sck €t>] of 1. 990 is adverse to the theory which we are considering, yet two separate schoHa on the passage seem at first sight to support that theory. In Schol. I. are found the words — QovKvSlSrjg, KaTa Ta^ twv -^ei/LLuivcou Kai Oepecou eia-(3oXa? tov iroXeixov yeyevrjcr- 6ai \eywu . . . aTroXeiTrerai irapa ra 6' ertj^ and in Schol. II. — airo 0€ T^9 Twu ^ A.-^apvi(X)V SiSaa-KoXla^ n' t>;i' Qeov " ad fabulae argumentum non quadrant," and should be changed to -Trap' avTu) to) Oew. ' Quaesl. de Ar. re scaen. (l868), pp. 48-54. ^ Cf. Gcppcrt, Die allj^riechische Biihne {\?>^-i), pp. 166-167. ' " Nusfjuam enim apud Aristophancm chorum scacnnm intrantcm vidcmus," op. tit., p. 1 1 . B 1 8 INTRODUCTION Nieiahr^ follows Droysen in all essential points, except that (i) he denies the change of scene, and maintains that the house of Trygaeus does duty also for the palace of Zeus, the beetle-pen only being removed ; (2) he explains the descent of Trygaeus from his heavenward course as a parody of the fall of Bellerophon ; (3) he brings the Chorus upon the stage for the pulling. He apparently sees no difficulty in the words irap avr^v Trjv Oeov, Reisch makes the house of Zeus rise from behind that of Trygaeus ; the latter is represented by the TrpocrK^viou, the former by an upper storey, lying back, which rises over the back scene.^ The heavenly place, in which Hermes and Trygaeus confer, is in front of this upper storey, but whether it is the roof of Trygaeus's house or a special platform raised above it, is not certain.^ Reisch inclines to the latter view, thinking that a house-roof was too closely associated with human characters to produce the required illusion. He holds that the use of a OeoXoyelov, as described by Pollux,* may be fairly assumed for several appearances of the gods. The ascent of Trygaeus is as problematic as that of his prototype Bellerophon ; as to his descent at the words ti]Si Trap' aurrjv rhv Oeov (726), Hermes probably points to a ladder, by which Opora and Theoria had before climbed to heaven, and by means of which Trygaeus now descends into his own house.^ The Chorus alone extricate Peace from the cavern, which Reisch presumably places in front of the house of Trygaeus (" die einen Theil der Dekoration bildet").^ Herwerden "^ pictures a large and spacious episcenium, from the back part of which, but on still higher ground, rises the house of Zeus. The cavern lies between the steps of this house and the front of the episcenium. The humble ^ Quaestiones Aristophaneae Scaenicae (1877), pp. 20-26. ^ Dorpfeld and Reisch, Das griechische Tkeaiet- {iZ()6), p. 208. ^ Op. «■/., p. 225. ■* Pollux iv. 130, dird 5^ toO OeoKo'f dov Sptos vir^p ttjv a-KTivrju iv C^£ti ivitpalvovTai 6eol, tl)j Z£i>j Kal oi jrepi avrbv iv 'ifvxo(TTa