The Glorification of Athens in Greek Drama

417 Pages·020.914 MB·English

by  Butts, Herman Robert, Jr

THE IK GKLEK DnA?'
by
erroair)
UTlU Butts
A dissertation submit ted in p artial fulfillm ent of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy,
in the Department of C lassical languages,
in the Graduate College of the
State University of Iowa
ti&y, 1942
ProQuest Number: 10831755
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
uest
ProQuest 10831755
Published by ProQuest LLC(2018). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
7~/j? * £
735>&
PREFACE
The subject of this dissertation was
suggested to me by Professor lioy C. Flicklnger,
Head of the Department of C lassical Languages of
the State University of Iowa* His suggestions
have aided me in completing this work; he, how­
ever, is in no way responsible for any opinions
or errors herein expressed*
To Professor Flicklnger, my teacher,
colleague, and personal friend, I should like to
express my h eartfelt appreciation for his a ssist­
ance, example, encouragement, and inspiration
throughout my graduate work and teaching career*
H. R* Butts
.
/
RTZ
HE
>942
Cl
0
4
1

s
s
a
l
C
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter I Introduction 4
Chapter II Aeschylus 17
Chapter III Sophocles 88
Chapter IV Euripides 164
Chapter V Aristophanes 300
Chapter VI Some Parallels 370
Chapter VII Conclusion 382
Bibliography 391
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The problems connected with the passages In the
extant Greek dram s which praise and g lo rlf y Athens are
well known and have been discussed by the editors, common-
•a;
tat or s, and students of the drama throughout the years of
scholarship* This study aims to assemble the passages from
the dramas themselves and the opinions of the critics on
these passages in order to form a definite idea of the
poets* motive in Introducing such passages*
The susceptibility of the Athenians to the praise
of th eir city may be Illu strated by their reaction to a
laudatory dithyramb composed by Pindar, of which only this
fragment has been preserved:*
Tat Xixopat xai ickn4f«vo$ xat dofdtpot,
‘EAXdeo* fpetapa, xleivat *A8av«i,
daipdviov ircoAteepov.
These words, although displeasing to the poet*s fellow -
citisens at Thebes, were so gratifying to the praise-loving
Athenians that they rewarded him substantially, as told in
*Cf * G* K* Bowra, Pindari Carmina: Oxford, Clarendon
Press (1935), Frag* 64*
4
several somewhat contradictory anecdotes* ^ fphe young comic
poet Aristophanes chided the Athenians for th eir responsive­
ness to fla tte ry of th eir city , using as examples the same
words of fla tte ry as Pindar had used in the dithyramb Just
cited, when the chorus of the Acharnians (vss* 636-40)®
thus ridicules its audiences
Updrepov 6* dp3* &%& xdXe&v ot xpSoSei* igmtsmhnt*
xptfcov t&lv tooveipdvoo* ixdAoov* xdxeidfj voo'td ti* efsot
ebetv did toOv orewdvoe* t* ' 5xp*>v tSv sertUtov fcxdfrooee
tl 6i dpi* dftetttnsdoas Xtxopd* xeOAoeiev 'Ae^va*,
U$pt*o iclv Iv dift *1* Xivopdv, d*dwv Tipf)v xepid^as*
It should be noted that Aristophanes points out that these
words resulted in m aterial rewards, T}t!fpeTQ xav Iv , "at any
price.1* A ristotle* represents Socrates as saying: 06 yaXexdv
2For example, F* Blass, Isocratls Oratlonea: Leipzig,
B* 0. Teubner (1895), Hepl 'kVTibooi&k 166, is the authority
for the information that the Athenians made him a sp<5£evo*
and gave him a g ift of money and Eustathius* De Vita Pindar 1
amid W* C hrist, Pindarl Carmines Leipzig, B7TT* Teubner
{1&96}, cvi, gives the additional information that when the
Thebans fined him for having referred to Athens as the
* bulwark of H ellas,11 the Athenians paid his fine for him as
a <piX&rrtx0«« There is also an account in Aeschines Socrati-
cus, which is not accessible to me here.
®Cf * F* W* Hall and W* M» C eldart, Arietophanls Coraoe-
diae: Oxford, Clarendon Press (1906). H i references to
the "text of Aristophanes w ill be taken from this edition*
*Cf. Adolph Roomer, A rlstotelis Are Rhetorical: Leip­
zig, B* 0. Teubner (1898)718575;-----------------------------
6
*A8T}vafot>* tv 'AGrjvafois feicaiveTv.®
The ancient scholiasts frequently call attention
to the passages which praise and glorify Athens and explain
the allusions. Some of the plays, as w ill be seen, were
branded by them or the w riter of the ancient hypotheses as
ifH&yLia 'A87)validV« Prom the time of those firs t scholars,
to whom we owe the preservation of many of the plays, u n til
the present, the commentators and editors have continued
to note and annotate these passages. The opinions of these
men w ill be discussed in connection with the consideration
of the passages from the plays themselves. It is sufficient
for this prelim inary survey to mention only the larger works
and articles connected with a general discussion of Greek
drama.
It is interesting to note, In passing, Haupt*s
theory, although our present knowledge of the regulations
at the ancient dramatic festivals show that it was impos-
/*
sible, Kaupt wrote ;
Consent&neum est ig itu r, poefcas laudes urbis exit
gent Is celebraturos hos decs maxime celebrasse.
Aeschylus autem, qui Argivos laudibus extollere In
Suppllcibus volebat, non potuit quin Ionem deam sum-
mopere venerandam et a love dilectam praedicaret•
Of* John Burnet, Platonls Opera: Oxf oid, Clarendon
Press (5 vols,, 1902-06), Menexenus 235D, wnich may be the
source of A risto tle^ remarlcZ
^Cf, C, G, Haupt, Aeschyli Suppllces: Leipzig, H, F,
Hartmann (1829), vl f , dfrei't.ce) •
7
Et fecit id eo Quiaem tempore, quo Xerxes auctor©
Gnomacrlto, Argivos eibi conciliaturus, Andromeda© et
Persei affinitatisque eos nonnullos ante anros com-
monefecerat. Iri a ll is dram&tibus poetae eos maxim©
decs celebraverant, quos tribus ea, quae xop'Hyfav
praest&bafc, prae eceteris insigni veneration© colebat.
Hetinuerant enim singula© tribus propria^sibi sacra,
numina divina, religionesqu© patrum, aliae Bacehi,
aliae C ererls, aliae Diana©, aliae Iteptuni, et sic
porro; quonquam Minerva©, quipp© tu telar! totius civi-
ta tis numlni, universa© sacra faciebant; ©t secundum
has tribuum religiones fabulasque poetae ipsum dra-
mafcum crgumentum videntur elegiss© ©t tractasse*
Certe Aeschyli Prometheus xepapSv et <poXp
#Axai*avrf6o*£rat€l aeceptaquex'uit* cf • ftelek.1 Pro-
meth. 121# 219*; Sophoclis Oedipus Colonlatls;
Euripidis Ion lonidie, et sic aliae a liis . D iffi-
cilius quid era est, ©x coiamemo rat lone deorum eolligere,
©x quanam fcribu aut gent© xodtwM fu e rit, qui sumturs
ad apparatus scenicum auppealtarit. Tamen saepe vel
in v iti ad id investigandum ducimur. Ut in^ Sophoclis
Ajace aentio Diana© Tauric&e et Martls v. 172 sq. ©t
Panis v* 695 sq. injecta omnino satis expllcari non
potest n isi hac via. Iiarn Diana© et Partis sacra
coloni e Thracia oriundi (Herod* V, 7.) Atnenas, ubi
sedes fix©runt, olim afctulerant, neque unquam eorum
in tribu ea exoleverunt. Quae tribus sic ad cpuXf)v
k\av%t&a pertinebat: et ex argument© ex ©t deorum
mentione collegeris, earn, cum Ajax doceretur,
Xopr)ylav p raestitisse.
But it is now known^ that the choregi were appointed by the
separate tribes only for the dithyramb!c contests, arid that
for the dramatic contests the charegi were nominated in­
discrim inately from the general mass of citizens. Accord­
ingly, Ilaupt’s theory falls to the ground, at least in the
form in which he stated it.
v
'Cf. Adolf fcilhelm, Urkunden Dramatischer Auffuehrungen
in A then: Vienna, A. Ho e ld e r1(1306), 13-15, and to 53
passim.
8
Guglielmino^ devoted & chapter of his Arte £
A rtifiz io neX Dra«»»& Greco to the dram atists* flatte ry of
the p atrio tic sentiments of th eir public ("Lusinghe al
sentlm enti p a trio ttic i del pubblico*)# A fter discussing
the tragedies which are more chauvinistic in sentim ent, he
Interpreted these appeals to patriotism as an a rtific e of
the poets in making the success of th eir plays more certain*
The following statement (p. 201) from the conclusion of this
chapter is in point for this study: *• * . a me premeva
dimostrare semp 11 cemente che la rlcerca d e ll’eff etfco,
soliecitando il sentimento patrlo ttico e l*amor proprio
degli A toniesi, detenainava per non piceola parte l* arti-
fisio nella composizione delle fcragedie.0 He summarized
(p. 205) th is chapter in his introduction to the following
chapter, which deals with the usual and favorite methods
of producing popular emotions. In these words:
* » • le tendenze politiehe o morall del poets, 1
suoi sentlm enti od anche I suoi preeoncettl patrlo t-
tic i, 11 deslderio di ingrazl& rsi il pubblico, lu-
singandone l forgoglio patrio o secondandone i gustl
8
Cf* Francesco Guglielmlno, Arte e A rtlfiaio nel Dramma
Greco: Catania, Francesco Battiafco TX51S), 165-S®. fils1""
remarks (p. 149) on the desire of playwrights to gain the
approval and applause of their audience Are also worthy of
note. Mention should be made of the review of th is book by
T. D. Goodell in Class* Phil* IX (1914), 96-98, especially
97, who did not believe that: I t was "flattery of his audi­
ence, or an a rtific e for effect, even though the words were
sure to call out rapturous applause,” when an Athenian
dram atist made a character express a common p atrio tic emotion
or belief*
9
© le predilezioni* avevano* come gik si h visto nel
cap* pree** notevole influenza nella composlzlone
della tragedia © detorminavano l* a rtific io , eh©
talvolta arrivava sino a ll1 Indus lone di tra tii non
g iu stific a tl nh rieh lesti dal^azlone* aa addirittura
in castratl a bella posta © sovr&pposti per conseguire
an partieolare intento* « • «
FlickingerS in his Greek Theater and its Drama
considers * the m aterialistic and external factors in the
development of the Greek drama11 and shows Rthe mastermind
of the dram atist adapting himself to the situation1* which
develops therefrom* From his study of the motives of the
dram atists he goes farther than other c ritic s and maintains
that the winning of the prize was th eir ultim ate object*
*The comic poets at least** he says (p. 213)* *made no
attempt to conceal the fact that there was a prise and that
they were *outf for it#* After citing passages from Old
Comedy to substantiate this point he continues (p* 215);
In tragedy we naturally could not expect anything
so frank and undisguised as the firs t three passages
just cited* but for the la st two an adequate parallel
is found in the tag which Euripides employed at the
conclusion of his Iphi^enla among the TaurIans,
Orestes* and Phoenician Saids * * .w hich the' ancient
scholiast and modern editors rightly interpret as a
prayer for victory in the contest*
Later in the same chapter* discussing the influence of
festival arrangements* he makes a more revolutionary
o
Of* Roy C* Fllckinger, The Greek Theater and its
Drama^s Chicago* University of Chicago Press (1S36; firs t
edition* 1918)* xvl f. (Introduction)*