ATHENA AND THE PAPHLAGONIAN IN ARISTOPHANES’ KNIGHTS. RE-CONSIDERING EQUITES 1090-5, 1172-81

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2006 Mnemosyne, Vol. LIX, Fasc. 1Also available online – www.brill.nl

1) C.A. Anderson specifically devoted a broad analysis to the prominence andthe characterization of Athena in Aristophanes’ plays, at first in his doctoral dis-sertation (1986), then in his book (1995). He (1995, 1-7) claims the relevance ofAthena in some of the most important Aristophanic plays (above all, Knights,

ATHENA AND THE PAPHLAGONIAN IN ARISTOPHANES’ KNIGHTS.

RE-CONSIDERING EQUITES 1090-5, 1172-81

ROSANNA LAURIOLA

A

This paper re-examines the treatment of Athena in some passages ofAristophanes’ Knights along the lines of a previous study by C.A. Anderson(1991 and 1995). Two topics will be considered: the dream-oracles ofAthena (Eq. 1090-5), and some epithets characterizing the goddess duringthe food-serving contest (Eq. 1172-81). The Paphlagonian’s and Sausage-Seller’s portraits of Athena are self-referential images in that they are ableboth to play a significant ‘dramatic’ role in the contest for the steward-ship of Dêmos, by preparing for the final fate of each character withinthe comic plot (Eq. 1090-5), and to mirror, respectively, the war-monger-ing, grasping and violent nature of Cleon (Eq. 1172-81), and the poet’sand Athenians’ political ideal. By focusing on the self-referential nature ofthe Paphlagonian’s portrait of Athena, I shall argue that Athena’s imagealso resonates with a particular trait of Cleon, which is a constant objectof Aristophanes’ denunciation concerning the manipulative politics of the demagogue, i.e. his tendency to make people believe that the polis’welfare is his main concern; in other words, his pretense to be a good leader,sincerely interested in the citizens’ well-being. This meaning of thePaphlagonian’s portrait of Athena is corroborated by the characterizationof the goddess through specific epithets in the food-serving contest.

1. Introduction

In several comedies Aristophanes devotes special attention to thegoddess Athena.1) Even though the goddess is not a stage character,nevertheless the poet makes her play a major role in the developmentof plots and characters, an accomplishment which Aristophanesachieves by characterizing the divinity through special epithets. It

Mnemosyne 59,1_1881_75-94 1/20/06 6:41 PM Page 75

76 ROSANNA LAURIOLA

Lysistrata, Thesmophoriazusae, and partly Clouds) despite what classical scholars havelong assumed with reference to the treatment of this goddess in Aristophanes. Seealso infra, nn. 3, 4.

2) Anderson 1995, 2-5.3) Besides Anderson 1995, 2, as to Aristophanes’ special attention to Athena

with reference to the current political situation of Athens, see also Habash 1997,26-8, 36-8.

4) For a complete analysis of Athena’s epithets in Knights, see Anderson 1995,9-38; for a synopsis of epithets of Athena and of other major deities in theAristophanic corpus, Anderson 1995, 79-83.

5) Anderson 1995, 6.6) Anderson 1995, 5-6.7) To unmask the deception of bad politicians and poets through comedy is the

basic task Aristophanes ascribes to his poetry, which means to unveil the real

has been observed that in Aristophanes’ plays other gods’ charac-terization by epithets is not significant in the same way as that ofAthena.2) The peculiar and unique association of Athena withAthenian politics is the reason why the poet singles Athena out fromother divinities by means of epithets capable both of alluding to thebroader context of Athenian politics, religion and society, and ofplaying a significant role in the portraying of speakers and in theadvancing of the comedy’s themes.3) This is peculiarly evident inKnights according to C.A. Anderson, who has devoted an accurateanalysis to Athena’s characterization in the Aristophanic corpus.4) InKnights, “Aristophanes fashions complex and contrasting portraits ofAthena to highlight the antagonists’ different conceptions of herand, by extension, of her city”.5) Each portrait is self-referential:while the Paphlagonian’s portrait of Athena would remind the audi-ence of the war-mongering, grasping and violent nature of Cleon,the Sausage-Seller’s portrait would resonate with the poet’s anddêmos’ political ideal, i.e. “the city at peace”.6)

On closer analysis, beside the well-known war-mongering, vio-lent, grasping attitude of Cleon, there is another behavioral detailof the demagogue that Aristophanes constantly denounces by directabuse and by allusion, and firmly contributes to the overall char-acterization of Cleon in Aristophanes’ comedy. It is Cleon’s pre-tense of doing everything—including the war—for the Atheniandêmos’ well-being what mostly characterizes Aristophanes’ portrait ofthe demagogue, a detail that has been neglected in the analysis ofthe Paphlagonian’s picture of Athena.7)


ATHENA AND THE PAPHLAGONIAN 77

essence of what the others, be it poets or politicians, keep on offering to the peo-ple, by showing how pretentious and false their actions are. As to poetry, forinstance, not accidentally Aristophanes insists on the lack of originality of the con-temporary comic playwrights who nevertheless pretend to offer new comedies andto cover their bad, trite jokes by cheap devices (cf. Nu. 534-59; Ra. 1-2, 13-4). Itis significant of Aristophanes’ claim that he ‘does not try to deceive’ his audience(Nu. 546) as the others do, which means Aristophanes is able both to offer freshand good plays, and to show the falseness of others’ production. To Aristophanesthis is to tell people the truth and, by doing so, to teach the people, i.e. to instructthem in their reception of both contemporary manipulative poetry and politics.This is the aim also characterizing Aristophanes’ criticism against Euripides (as toAristophanes’ reflection on Euripides’ tragedy the secondary literature is very wide-spread: see, e.g., Prato 1955; Rau 1967; and more recently Schwinge 2002). Asto the politics, what Aristophanes constantly tries to do through his comedy is toopen the mind and the eyes of the Athenian people by disclosing the truth aboutthe city’s situation, which means to show the pretentious claims of contemporarypoliticians to have the polis’ well-being at heart. It is not accidental that the poetoften criticized the audience for its ‘blindness’, ‘deafness’ and attitude to ‘beinggullible’, which symbolizes its stupidity (see, e.g., Ach. 372-4, 633b-5, 676; Eq.803-4; V. 695; Pax 618, 632-5; more specifically, the ‘deafness’, i.e. refusing tohear the truth, is well represented in Ach. 292-354; as to the citizens’ ‘mooning’,Aristophanes’ reproach is usually defined by the verb xãskv and derivatives: seeTaillardat 1965, 264-7). As to Aristophanes’ denunciation of the deception per-formed by politicians and poets at Athenians’ expense, see also Slater 1993; Sciarrotta1995.

8) Anderson discussed the oracle-contest, and more precisely the dream-oraclesof Athena in Knights 1090-5, at first in a paper (1991), which is briefly summa-rized in his book (1995, 36-8).

9) The nature of the relationship between Aristophanes and Cleon is widely dis-cussed in the literature: for a recent discussion of this relationship, both on thepersonal and the political level with regard to the problem of freedom of speechin comedy, see Mann 2002, 105-24. With specific reference to Knights, see alsoEdmunds 1987; Rosen 1988, 59-82; Mastromarco 1989, 410-23; 1993, 341-57;2002, 216-23; Lind 1990. Aristophanes’ attacks against Cleon are generally assumedto depend on a specific event that aroused the bitter and lasting animosity of theplaywright, namely Cleon’s prosecution in court of Aristophanes for having deni-grated the people of Athens in a comedy performed in presence of foreigners (Ach.

It is the purpose of this paper to build on Anderson’s analysisand propose an additional interpretation that highlights the showy,pretentious attitude of Cleon with regard to Athenian people’s wel-fare as mirrored by the Paphlagonian’s portrait of Athena preciselyduring the oracle-contest (Eq. 960-1095)8) and the food-serving con-test (Eq. 1100-208). In both cases it will be possible to single outan ultimate, political significance conveying an ironically veiled attackby the playwright against the political leader that takes place withinthe context both of the quarrel between Aristophanes and Cleon,and of the didactic role the poet accords to his own plays.9)


78 ROSANNA LAURIOLA

377-82; 497-508). The historicity of the lawsuit, the beginning of the so called‘feud’ between the playwright and the demagogue, has been debated: some schol-ars, indeed most of them, believe in the historicity of the quarrel (see, e.g., Gelzer1970; Foley 1988, 33 n. 3; Mastromarco 1993, 343-4; a summarized survey is alsoin Rosen 1988, 2-3, 63); others consider it as a fictional invention (see Gilula 1989,337), and the attacks against Cleon as “literary conceit with direct antecedents inthe iambic cÒgow” (Rosen 1988, esp. 59-82; the quotation is on p. 3); and, finally,Heath (1987) considers it just a “joke at Cleon’s expense”. I agree with the argu-ments adduced by those who believe in the historicity of the quarrel, and I thinkthat the overall attacks against Cleon constitute more than a personal matter. Inmy opinion, they are a part of the ‘didactic mission’ that the poet, from the verybeginning of his career, intends to carry on through his poetic production. ‘Tomake people better members of their communities, by sage counsel’ (Ra. 1009b-10) is, in the end, the task of a good poet. Thus, it may be not accidental thatAristophanes’ attacks against Cleon occur also in the parabasis (precisely in V.1029-44; Pax 751-60), where, as all know, it is the poet’s voice that explicitlyemerges beyond the chorus’ mask and that, addressing the audience, establishes aprecise contact with the contemporary reality of Athens, comments on contempo-rary social and political issues, and directly talks about his poetic ‘mission’ (on theattacks by the poet against the demagogue in Wasps’ and Peace’s parabasis, seeMastromarco 1989, 1993; Lauriola 2004, 85-9). As to Aristophanes’ didactic pur-pose, from the very beginning of his career the poet actually posed as an educa-tor (didãskalow, Ach. 628) who promised pollå didãjein égãy(a) (Ach. 656),kvmƒd«n tå d¤kaia (see Ach. 655) and tå b°ltista didãskvn (Ach. 658). Concerningthe double meaning of didãskalow as ‘citizens’ teacher-adviser’ and ‘chorus-instruc-tor’, see Harriott 1986, 34; Arnott 1991, 18-9. As to other Aristophaneic refer-ences, both explicit and allusive, to the didactic power of his own theater and ofpoetry in general, see, e.g., Ach. 500; Eq. 507; V. 1029; Pax 737-8; Ra. 687 ff. (cf.Lys. 638-9, 647-8), 1026, 1054-6 (cf. Ec. 583), 1420-1 (about this subject see alsoLauriola 2002). With reference to this purpose which, in the last analysis, consistsof disclosing the truth to the people (see supra, n. 7), see also Slater 2002, whofocuses on Aristophanes’ use of metatheatrical devices to teach the spectatorsspecifically in their reception of contemporary demagogic politics.

10) The text cited is the Budé edition by Coulon (1923). The translations forKnights are here adapted from Sommerstein 1981 and Henderson 1998. However,with regard to the quoted lines, I have preferred to use the translation given byAnderson (1991).

2. The Oracle-Contest: Athena in the Paphlagonian’s Dream (Eq. 1090-5)

Paphl. ÉAllÉ §g∆ e‰don ˆnar, ka¤ moÈdÒkei ≤ yeÚw aÈtØtoË dÆmou kataxe›n éruta¤n˙ plouyug¤eian.

Sausag. NØ D¤a ka‹ går §g≈: ka¤ moÈdÒkei ≤ yeÚw aÈtØ§k pÒlevw §lye›n ka‹ glaËj aÈtª Épikay∞syai:e‰ta katasp°ndein katå t∞w kefal∞w érubãllƒémbros¤an katå soË, katå toÊtou d¢ skorodãlmhn. (Eq.1090-5)10)



11) This contest, and the two following as well, portrays a range of the politi-cal conduct that was familiar to contemporary demagogy, which underlies thecomic plot of Knights. With regard to the lovers-contest, Landfester (1967, 17)focused on the recurrent erotic lexicon as a topos specifically characterizing thecontemporary demagogues’ speeches (see Pl. Grg. 481d, Alc. 132a, R. 558c). Forfurther references, see also Sciarrotta 1995, 217 n. 17.

12) It is important to take into account that, during the Peloponnesian war, thediviners and the so called xrhsmolÒgoi gained a following, as Thucydides com-plained: xrhsmolÒgoi te ¬don xrhsmoÁw panto¤ouw, œn ékroçsyai …w ßkastowÀrmhto (2.21.3; see also 2.8.2, 54.2; 5.26.3-4; 7.50.4). Thucydides’ words conveya critical tone alluding to an incongruous use of a religious practice, more pre-cisely to its demagogic use. Actually, in Aristophanes’ comedies diviners and sooth-sayers are depicted as instruments of political power, i.e. as persons that letunscrupulous supporters of the war (in primis Cleon) use religious authority arbi-trarily and indiscriminately. It seems, in fact, that Cleon took advantage of theswarm of oracles by trying to find some oracles assuring the success of the deci-sions that he was in charge of making. In doing so, Cleon hoped to gain themasses’ following: see Sommerstein 1981, 148 ad 61; Smith 1989, and more recentlyMuecke 1998.

13) Focusing on the circumstance that Aristophanes’ Knights are also based onthe image of the demagogue that gave the dêmos something to eat (see, e.g., Eq.213-6), Zanetto (1999, 269-70 and n. 32) emphasized the contemporary tendencyto make demagogy and cookery equal arts: on the one hand, the demagogue isone who gains the masses’ approval, even by means of the most impudent flattery;on the other, the cook resembles the politician-flatterer that goes along with thedêmos’ wishes and inclinations by means of delicious dishes, and, in so doing, under-handedly gains popular following. This is just what the Paphlagonian tried to doduring the food-serving contest, as it is later denounced and uncovered by theSausage-Seller (see the baskets’ scene in Eq. 1211-38, which is discussed in the fol-lowing pages).

‘But I saw a dream: and the goddess herself appeared to me / pour-ing over Dêmos wealth-and-health with a bath-ladle.By Zeus, so did I: and the goddess herself appeared to me / com-ing out of the Acropolis and her owl settled on her; / then she poureddown on your head with an aryballos / a libation of ambrosia, anddown on his one of garlic-brine.’

In the second part of Knights, the Paphlagonian and the Sausage-Seller clash in several contests in order to gain the favor and thestewardship of Dêmos. They first perform a lovers-contest (727-948),11) then an oracle-contest (960-1095),12) and finally a food-serving contest (1100-208).13) As is well known, the Paphlagonian isdefeated in each contest, and each defeat, in a way, advances boththe final one, sealed by the Paphlagonian’s banishment from thecity (1395-407), and the victory of the Sausage-Seller (1227-8, 1250-1,1254a, 1259-60). With regard to this outcome of the comic plot,


80 ROSANNA LAURIOLA

14) Anderson 1991; 1995, 36-8. In the passage concerning the dream-oraclesof Athena, no peculiar epithets occur; however, the two visions of the goddesscomplement the overall interpretation of her characterization in this play.

15) Anderson 1991, 150.16) See Anderson 1991, 155.17) This is, at least, the translation that Anderson has given the word (1991,

151 and n. 8). Starting from this meaning, he has developed his own peculiarinterpretation of the passage. Sommerstein (1981, 111) translates similarly by “bath-man’s ladle”. Actually, according to LSJ the word means simply ‘ladle or cup’,without any involvement of bath water. Henderson (1998, I.365) keeps this sim-ple meaning adding only the adjective “big” (“with a big ladle”). I shall discussthe meaning of the word below.

18) See Anderson 1991, 151; 1995, 36-7.19) See Anderson 1991, 152-5; 1995, 37-8.

C.A. Anderson14) has observed that the dream-oracles of Athenarecited by each contestant at the end of the oracle-competition playa pivotal dramatic role: “they prepare for the final defeat and ban-ishment of the inept Paphlagonian and the triumphant rejuvena-tion of Demos—that is, of Athens—under the stewardship of theSausage-seller at the end of the play”.15) Anderson’s first intent isto demonstrate the structural significance of this passage in the playand how it is embedded in the larger themes of the comedy, whichcontradicts other scholars’ interpretation of those dreams as lesssignificant or merely as an insertion or interpolation into the textby Aristophanes himself. Focusing on the distinctive characteristicsof Athena’s appearance in each dream, Anderson’s analysis yieldedthe following conclusions: (a) The Paphlagonian’s vision reflects a‘self-serving’ and idiosyncratic view of the goddess by turning herinto a kind of bath-attendant.16) Athena is, in fact, portrayed asusing an érÊtaina (1090-1), a kind of jug, precisely a ‘bath-ladle’,17)by means of which she pours out riches and health over Dêmos:“The Paphlagonian’s vision of Athena should be recalled when wereflect on his final banishment at the end of the play. He will “sellsausages alone at the city gates”, “drink used bath-water” and holdshouting matches with “prostitutes and bathmen” . . . Thus, thePaphlagonian’s dream-oracle, in fact, prepares for his final fate, byassociating him with baths”.18) (b) The Sausage-Seller’s vision, onthe contrary (1092-5), reflects an established image of the goddess,i.e. a well-known and familiar image to the Athenian audience, inwhich she is characterized with more traditional traits:19) she descends



20) See also Mastromarco 1983, 298 n. 194.21) On a possible connection between the skorodãlmh and the Paphlagonian’s

defeat, see also Eq. 197-201 (esp. 199) and the related comment by Anderson(1991, 154 and n. 20; also, 1995, 38 n. 96). As to the role of the garlic in thetreatment of the Paphlagonian by the Sausage-Seller’s Athena to express the god-dess’ rejection of him, it is worth noting that garlic occurs in another symbolicrejection of a contemporary minor politician at the hands of a divinity in Pl. 716-25. Here, the god is Asclepius and the victim is Neoclides, a bribed politicianaccustomed to steal (see, e.g., Pl. 665-6). Having rendered Neoclides unable toparticipate in assemblies, i.e. in the community’s politics, by means of his garlic-poultice, the god is applauded, not accidentally, as filÒpoliw (Pl. 726). As to otherforeshadowing traits, the presence of the owl, a clear sign of the peculiar favor ofAthena toward the Sausage-Seller, is a harbinger of the Sausage-Seller’s sure vic-tory marked by Dêmos’ miraculous rejuvenation (1321-8; about the symbolic mean-ing of the owl, see Anderson 1991, 154 n. 21; more specifically, Thompson 1966,78; see also V. 1086). The rejuvenation is, in turn, adumbrated by the libation ofambrosia that Athena has given Dêmos as a gift (1094-5a; see Anderson 1991,152-3 and nn. 15-6; also 1995, 37-8).

22) Anderson 1991, 151; 1995, 36-7.23) See Theophr. Char. 9.8; also Neil 1966, 148 ad 1090-1.24) See Anderson 1991, 151 and n. 8. He also discussed a specific association

from the Acropolis (1093a),20) with the bird sacred to her perchedupon her helmet (1093b), for a libation of ambrosia in favor ofDêmos (1094-5a), and a libation of garlic brine over the Paphlagonian’shead (1095b). Like those of the Paphlagonian’s Athena, all of theSausage-Seller’s goddess’ traits are significantly allusive to the out-come of the comic plot. In particular, the libation of garlic brinesymbolizes and foreshadows the Paphlagonian’s defeat, specificallyat the hands of the Sausage-Seller assisted by ‘his own’ Athena.21)

Anderson’s interpretation of the Paphlagonian’s view of Athenaas a self-serving image that foreshadows his final dramatic fate22) isbased on a specific word: érÊtaina. So far as I can ascertain, theobject named érÊtaina has been identified as a ladle, apparentlyso capacious that it could contain enough water to douse bathers.23)Giving the meaning of ‘bathman’s ladle’, érÊtaina reduces the god-dess to a bath attendant’s status, and thus to a patron worthy ofthe Paphlagonian who is destined to drink dirty bath water (1401).In other words, it is the association of érÊtaina with bath waterthat, according to Anderson’s interpretation, seems both to justifythe mention of this object in Eq. 1090-1, and to prefigure thePaphlagonian’s dramatic destiny through the picture of Athena asa bath-attendant.24)


82 ROSANNA LAURIOLA

between the Sausage-Seller’s Athena’s érÊballow and bath water (1991, 152 andn. 13; 1995, 37). I shall later discuss this topic.

25) Despite both the fact that Cleon is, actually, mentioned only once (Eq. 976,on which see Mastromarco 2002, 218-21), and the unlikeness between the maskand the real face of the demagogue (Eq. 230-3, on which see Dover 1987, 267-78), not only does Aristophanes seem sure that Cleon will nevertheless be recog-nized by his audience under the Paphlagonian mask (Eq. 233), but also there areseveral hints at the historicity of the character throughout the comedy: for exam-ple, reminders of the events related to Sphacteria (see, e.g., Eq. 54-7, 280-1, 393-4, 709, 766, 794-6, 844-6, 1052-3, 1404-5; other probable hints at historical eventsinvolving Cleon concern ll. 437-8, 830-5, 923-33); allusions to the tyrannical treat-ment of the allied cities by Cleon as a slave-dealer (éndrapodistÆw, Eq. 1030,1034; concerning the vision of Athens as tyrant, due to the imperialistic politicsof Cleon, see also Ach. 642; Eq. 1114; Th. 3.37.2; on the problematic relationshipbetween Athens and the allies with regard to Cleon’s imperialistic politics, see Frey1946, 131-8; Cassio 1985, 15-7, 100); and allusions to other political traits of thecontemporary demagogue, like the use of the diabolÆ that Thucydides (3.42.3,4.27.4) shows as being characteristic of Cleonian politics (see Woodhead 1960,292-3; Welsh 1978, 340-1). The noun diabolÆ is attested only in Knights and alwaysin connection with Cleon (see Engle 1983, 71-2; Imperio 2004, 122-3). Perhapsnot accidentally, Aristophanes-Dicaeopolis qualifies the action of Cleon against himby the verb diabãllv (see Ach. 380, 502, and 630).

26) See supra, n. 17.27) “érÊtaina ab érÊv derivatum”: this is the meaning found in TLG (II, 2091);

érÊv is explained by the verb “haurio” (ibid., II, 2092). See also Frisk 1960, 157-8,

I would suggest another interpretation in order to show how,because of the mention of an érÊtaina, the Paphlagonian’s imageof Athena could be a ‘self-referential’ image, and so play a significantrole not simply in the development of the comic plot, but withinthe framework of the playwright’s denunciation of Cleon.25)

To test this idea, I propose to re-analyze the word érÊtaina froman etymological perspective, and thus pay attention not just to what,or how much, an érÊtaina could contain (i.e. bath water), but towhat its original function was according to the proper meaning ofthe word.

Let us consider the following specifics:(a) érÊtaina actually means ‘cup, jug or container’, be it capa-

cious or not, originally without any connection with baths or bathwater;26)

(b) it is noteworthy that Aristophanes selected a word whose mean-ing, according to its etymology, would actually represent the oppo-site of the use ascribed to the object in the lines mentioned. ÉArÊtainacomes from the verb érÊv which literally means ‘to draw, draw off(from)’, and, in the middle voice, ‘to draw . . . for oneself ’,27) or gen-

Mnemosyne 59,1_1881_75-94 1/20/06 6:41 PM 2


s.v. érÊv, and Chantraine 1966, 118, s.v. érÊtaina. Cf. LSJ s.v. érÊv: “draw”and middle “draw (water) for oneself ”.

28) Translation adapted from Henderson 1998. These lines belong to the ora-cle-contest and concern one of the oracles related to the Paphlagonian, whose realmeaning is explained by the Sausage-Seller. The specific oracle described in 1079-83 is based on a word-play pivoting on the local name, KullÆnh, that is under-stood and explained as an allusion to a crooked hand (kullØ xe¤r), which is typicalof a person who begs and wants to get. As it has been observed (Mastromarco1983, 296 n. 190), it is an allusion to the several requests of money that Cleoncontinuously demanded by taking advantage of his political power: see, e.g., Eq.326, 801-2 (here, èrpãzein and dvrodoke›n significantly occur together), 834, 996,1033-4, 1070-2, 1210-26.

29) The emphasis on the hands (hands accustomed to get, of course!) is verysignificant since it occurs elsewhere in Aristophanes’ production to symbolize thebribe’s practice of people involved in the public administration: precisely in Pax907-8 (see Platnauer 1964, 144 ad 907-8; Mastromarco 1983, 629 n. 93; Paduano2002, 135 n. 234) and in Th. 936-7 (see Paduano 1996, 175 n. 137). In both pas-sages the playwright picks up on the prytaneis.

30) It is well known that, although the plan to besiege Sphacteria and the con-sequent victory on the Spartans in Pylos (425 BC) were the result of a strategydevised by Demosthenes (see Th. 4.3-41), Cleon—becoming the army’s comman-der (strathgÒw) only after Nicias—claimed merit for those successes (see, also,Anderson 1995, 24).

erally, ‘to take up/get/gain (from)’. Thus, the object that thePaphlagonian’s Athena would use to pour health and wealth overDêmos is an object foremost and specifically employed in order toget and draw (from). It seems to be an object that well suits sucha person like the one who is accustomed to taking ‘with crookedhands’ (Eq. 205), and to making his hand ‘crooked’, as to say: ‘putsomething in my crooked hand’, i.e. ‘fill it’ (Eq. 1079-83),28) a per-son who, nevertheless, pretends to be a giver. This is the image ofCleon that Aristophanes specifically portrays through the Paphlagonianin Knights, i.e. as a venal politician whose hands are accustomedboth to get, instead of giving generously to his people,29) and tograb for his own selfish ends, which are dissembled as interest inthe Athenians’ success and well-being. It is not accidental that, atthe beginning of the comedy, the very first description of thePaphlagonian focuses on Cleon’s political tendency to take or drawoff pretending to want to benefit the city. So the audience is remindedof the events of Pylos (Eq. 52b-7):30) ‘. . . and then Paphlagonianswipes whatever any of the rest of us has prepared and gives it themaster (sc. Dêmos). Just the other day I whipped up a Spartan cakeat Pylos, and by some very dirty tricks he outmaneuvered me,


84 ROSANNA LAURIOLA

31) Translation adapted from Henderson 1998; the italics are mine. By thesewords, at the very beginning of Knights, the Slave-character, whom most scholarsidentify with the historical general, Demosthenes (see Sommerstein 1980, 46-7),complains about Cleon and his actions. Actually, in the whole comedy polemicalreferences to Cleon’s misappropriation of the victory on Pylos are frequent: seesupra nn. 25, 30, and also Ruppel 1913, 14; Henderson 1998, I.221. Anderson(1991, 151 n. 11; 1995, 23 and n. 47), too, points out the Paphlagonian’s manyboasts concerning his victory at Pylos. However, he considers them like thePaphlagonian’s dream-oracle, i.e. as looking forward to the character’s final fate(banishment to the city’s pÊlai). As I argued above, even though Anderson doesnot exclude a political significance, he mainly focuses on the dramatic issues.

32) Translation by Henderson (1998). The image of Cleon as corrupt taker hasbeen recently emphasized by Bravi (1999, 235-41), in relation to his interpretationof Eq. 402-6, which focuses on the presence of the verb dvrodoke›n and the imageof bees as animals that are generally accustomed to take from rather than to giveto flowers. Regarding the blindness of the Athenian dêmos and its attitude to moon-ing, see supra n. 7. Here is also a hint at another peculiar popularity-seeking maneu-ver of Cleon: the ‘misyÒw strategy’, i.e. the deceptive expedient used by Cleon inorder to enslave the institutions held by the dêmos—like the army, the tribunal, theCouncil—by dazzling the poor masses by the mirage of remuneration that, obvi-ously, could do nothing in hard times but gain the people’s affection. Cuttingremarks against Cleon’s ‘misyÒw strategy’ are, also, in Ach. 65-8, 137, 159, 595-7,608-9; Eq. 804, 807, 905, 1017-9; V. 683, 1118; Ra. 140, Ec. 205-8. About thissubject, see also De Oliveira 1997, 491-4.

snatched the cake, and served up himself the one I had whippedup.’31) Aristophanes’ specific intent is to make his audience awareof Cleon’s popularity-seeking maneuvers among which are actionsapparently consisting of assuring and giving wealth and well-beinggenerously to the Athenian dêmos. What Cleon usually does is ‘totake and snatch’, thinking only of himself: ‘You [Paphlagonian] cer-tainly aren’t figuring how he [Dêmos] can rule Arcadia—the Sausage-Seller states—, but how you can steal and take bribes from the alliedcities, and how Demos can be made blind to your crimes amid the fogof war, while mooning at you from necessity, deprivation, and jurypay’ (Eq. 801-4).32)

These passages, among others, make it clear that it is on thesecharacteristics of Cleon, as a taker instead of a giver, the poet seemsto form the Paphlagonian’s vision of Athena undertaking, by meansof an érÊtaina, a profusion that would actually hide its true pur-pose, since she handles a ‘cup for drawing’ rather than ‘for giving’.This image of Cleon, mirrored by Athena, seems to me to have itsmost explicit representation in another scene from Knights that cansupport the present interpretation of the Paphlagonian’s dream-



33) See ll. 1218b-26 (translation adapted from Henderson 1998; the italics aremine).

34) In Aristophanes’ comedies the antiphrasis is a device often employed tocommunicate serious polemics and denunciations. For example, the antiphrasticuse of the adjective éste›ow in relation to Aristophanes’ reflection on his so calledrivals: see, e.g., Eq. 539b; Ra. 5-10 (about which see Lauriola 2002, 70-4; 2005).As to the comic power of witty remarks, ironically already named éste›a byAristophanes and later studied by Aristotle from a rhetorical perspective (e.g. Rh.3.1452a), see Bonanno 1987, 222-5.

oracle. The scene concerns the last and decisive evidence, shownto make Dêmos finally choose his leader between the Paphlagonianand the Sausage-Seller: the ‘basket’ evidence (1211-26). The Sausage-Seller’s basket is completely empty; he really gave Dêmos every-thing; therefore, as Dêmos comments: ‘This is a basket with Dêmos’interests at heart’ (1214-6). On the contrary, the Paphlagonian’sbasket is completely full of every goody; so that, after having takena look, Dêmos complains: ‘My goodness, it’s crammed; look at allthe goodies! What a big cheesecake he has put aside for himself ! Andhe cut me off a slice no bigger than this!’ In return, the Sausage-Seller denounces him: ‘That is what he did to you all along, toss-ing you a petty piece of his profits and putting away the lion’s share forhimself ’. Then Dêmos rebukes the Paphlagonian: ‘You scum, is thathow you robbed and deceived me . . .’. Finally, the Paphlagonian can donothing more than to justify himself by declaring: ‘But I stole forthe good of the city!’33) This image of the Paphlagonian at the endof the comedy may further induce us to be suspicious of the real,sincere care of the Dêmos’ well-being by the Athena who appearsin the Paphlagonian’s dream proffering a profusion of goodies. Inlight of the overall behavior of Athena’s dreamer, i.e. as a taker,and assuming the point of view of that peculiar dreamer, i.e. thePaphlagonian, one would be tempted to consider the goddess’ pro-fusion as an apparent one, just as is typical of the corrupt politi-cian to whom she appeared; a profusion made, not accidentally, bymeans of an object used to get rather than to give, i.e. the érÊtaina.The antiphrastic usage of the word in this context might be anintentional comic device to communicate, by subtle irony, the author’spolemics against the real Cleon’s politics.34)

Anderson puts more emphasis on the dramatic significance of thePaphlagonian’s dream of Athena, focusing on the common content


86 ROSANNA LAURIOLA

35) Anderson 1995, 5-6. It must however be specified that, generally speaking,the involvement of the political context in Aristophanes’ representation of Athena,as meant by Anderson, mostly consists (a) of reminding the audience of more orless contemporary events, including above all those related to the worship of Athenaat Athens (see, e.g., 12-4, 17-9, 45, 61-2, etc.), and (b) of recognizing “the civicand political ideals to which Aristophanic comedy appeals” as “reinforcing valuesand perspectives of the Athenian demos” (1995, 5). Given that the Athenian dêmos’perspectives, in Anderson’s opinion, should be understood as “a consistent politi-cal ideal, that of the city at peace, the happy city, in which . . . devotion to fam-ily, and piety, especially in the form of public feasting and festivals, are the wayof life” (1995, 5-6), the poet’s representation of Athena would be consistent withthis dêmos’ political ideal, i.e. “the city at peace”. This seems to be the core-mean-ing of the political interpretation that Anderson gave Aristophanes’ characteriza-tion of Athena.

36) See Anderson 1991, 151 and n. 9.37) See also infra, section 3.38) See Anderson 1995, 6.

of the vessel (i.e. bath water). As a result, he does not clearly explainhow the Paphlagonian’s dream of Athena may also represent a self-referential image of Cleon, given that he does not altogether excludethe political dimension from his study.35) Anderson’s interpretationimplies an allusion to the corrupt and venal nature of Cleon byhinting at an expectation “of a great profusion of gifts” due to thesize of the ladle and to the remarkable meaning of the last termof the dream oracle, i.e. plouyug¤eia, describing the range of benefitswhich the politicians, more precisely the corrupt ones, enjoyed.36)These arguments of Anderson are not enough to make Athena thedemagogue’s reflection in the same way as elsewhere in Knights.37)If—as he states—“for the Paphlagonian-Cleon, she [Athena] is areflection of himself, war-mongering, grasping, and violent”,38) theAthena of the Paphlagonian’s dream cannot be considered sincerelyinterested in giving richness to Dêmos. She can indeed be a reflectionof someone who pretends to benefit the city, but deceives it, graspsand takes everything for himself, just as Cleon did. Moreover, Athenapours plouyug¤eia over Dêmos, not over the Paphlagonian as onewould expect considering her a self-referential image of Cleon merelybecause of the size of the vessel and the meaning of plouyug¤eia,respectively alluding to the plenty and the variety of expected gifts.Ad litteram Athena should rather be supposed to benefit the wholecity, and this is not exactly the way by which the Paphlagonian-Cleon behaves toward the city, but apparently. On the other hand,



39) One of the strongest examples of Aristophanes’ verbal play is his joke builton the term kãnyarow, the ‘dung-beetle’ in the prologue of Peace and, at the sametime, the proper name of a contemporary comic playwright (see Oellacher 1916,116; Olson 1998, 68 ad 1), probably one of the rivals of Aristophanes, and thusa representative of a kind of comedy that was a constant target of Aristophanicpolemics. On kãnyarow see Lanza 1989, 307-11; Mastromarco 1996, 20; Lauriola2002, 82-6.

40) According to Ath. 11.783 f. See also Frisk 1960, 157, and Chantraine 1966,118 (s.v. érÊballow).

the contrast between appearance and reality, precisely with refer-ence to the deceptive behavior of the contemporary politicians (inprimis Cleon) toward the city, has a clear counterpart in V. 656-79.In these lines, through Bdelycleon’s refutation concerning the powerand political importance that popular judges—like Philocleon—believe they have, Aristophanes focuses on an economic argumentto demonstrate how the judges and the dêmos receive nothing buta sop, whereas the biggest part is taken by politicians, like Cleon.What allows us to establish a significant parallel with the Knights’passage under discussion is the fact that, in the polemical descrip-tion by Bdelycleon, the poet uses plouyug¤eia (V. 677) to indicatean abundance of every kind of goodies, only seemingly given to thedêmos, but actually taken by the bribed politicians. The same wordin Eq. 1091 designates what the Paphlagonian’s goddess gives gen-erously by her ambiguous érÊtaina. Thus the use of plouyug¤eia,in Eq. 1090-1, might be considered as being ironic, in that by meansof the word plouyug¤eia the playwright intensifies the idea of thebounty of goods actually ‘drawn off ’—and only seemingly ‘pouredout’—over Dêmos from the big bath-ladle.

In sum, in accordance with the poet’s aim at instructing the audi-ence concerning contemporary demagogy and political tricky,Aristophanes seems to have exploited another chance to attack Cleonby playing on meaning of words, namely érÊtaina, but alsoplouyug¤eia.39) Specifically, as to érÊtaina, the function of this toolseems to be for getting more than for giving. It might be not bychance that the object handled by the Sausage-seller’s Athena is anérÊballow (1094), i.e. a tool which, according to its etymology (épÚtoË érÊtein ka‹ bãllein),40) would function as a vessel that both‘draws’ (= érÊtein) and ‘pours’ (= bãllein). Considering the importanceof the Sausage-seller’s role as a person unmasking and denouncing


88 ROSANNA LAURIOLA

41) Anderson (1991, 152) discusses the role of the érÊballow in comparisonwith érÊtaina, in the context of Eq. 1090-5, as well. Again, he focused on whatthe tool could contain (i.e. “perfumed water applied after the bath [here ambrosiafor Dêmos]”) in such a way as to point out a specific link between the Sausage-seller and ‘his own’ Athena by showing how the mention of érÊballow contributesto foreshadowing the victory of the Sausage-seller. In this case, too, I have pre-ferred to switch the focus from what the tool could contain to how it could beused (i.e. ‘to draw and pour’) according to its etymology, in order to emphasizetwo opposite images of Athena not only as referring to the final outcome of thecomic plot, but also as vehicle of the poet’s didactic-political message.

42) Anderson (1995, 22-35) also discusses Athena’s epithets employed by theSausage-Seller during the food-serving contest, showing how more traditional andfamiliar his Athena’s portrait is in contrast with that of the Paphlagonian.

43) See Anderson 1995, 22-5; also, supra nn. 25, 30.

the Paphlagonian’s trickeries, one might also infer that Aristophanesintended to point out the difference between the Paphlagonian’sattitude towards the city and that of the Sausage-seller by meansof the two different tools handled by their respective goddesses. TheSausage-seller talks about a tool that would be used to draw andgive—in fact his basket was empty since he really gave everythingto Dêmos—, whereas the Paphlagonian’s tool was employed mostlyto draw off, and thus his basket could be full of plouyug¤eia.41)

3. The Food-Serving Contest: Athena’s Epithets and Cleon (Eq. 1172-81)

According to the interpretation I have proposed, in Knights1090-1 the idiosyncratic nature of the Paphlagonian’s Athena depends,in the end, on the pretense of acting in favor of Dêmos, by givinghim (apparently!) a profusion of richness and health, exactly as wasthe pretense of the real Cleon in the poet’s eyes. In my opinion,Cleon’s characteristic pretense of doing everything for the Athenianswell-being, partly involves the characterization of the Paphlagonian’sAthena elsewhere in Knights, precisely in the food-serving contest(1100-208). Here, as it has been observed, Athena, when evokedby the Paphlagonian, is qualified by epithets coined ad hoc in orderto develop an image of warlike goddess: the image of Athena asgoddess of terror and war to the bitter end.42) These epithets arePulaimãxow (1172), Fobesistrãth (1177) and GorgolÒfa (1181). Theyemphasize the goddess’ martial aspect in relation to specific events(i.e. the military campaign at Pylos),43) and, more generally, her bel-



44) See Anderson 1995, 26-7.45) This is more or less the conclusion of Anderson, as well. Since Anderson’s

first aim is to elucidate the dramatic and structural significance of Athena’s char-acterization, he mostly focuses on the connection between the goddess’ epithetsand the food that each character brings to Dêmos during the stage contest. Withrespect to the Paphlagonian, Anderson argues that his foods are regarded as partof the spoils from the campaign at Pylos, and thus they mirror the idiosyncraticimage of Athena as goddess of terror and war.

46) As instrument of terror is intended by Anderson (1995, 27): “the plumes ofthe helmet, waving dreadfully in the air, here replace the shield and Gorgo as thegoddess’s newest instrument of terror”.

licosity and ability to inspire terror and panic by means both ofher fob°straton aegis showing a gorgoneion, and of her helmet’s fear-some plumes.44) Once again, this is the Paphlagonian-Cleon per-sonal and self-referential image of Athena, since it resembles thebellicosity and war-mongering attitude of the real demagogue.45)

There is no doubt that a war to the bitter end was, in fact, theone that Cleon earnestly desired, but for egotistic reasons ratherthan for sincere concern for the polis. Not only. In the playwright’seyes, it was also a war that the demagogue supported with the falsecourage and the false heroism typical of those who embezzle oth-ers’ merits and make these stolen merits an instrument to gain pop-ular approval. And this is exactly what Cleon did in the eventsconcerning Pylos. In Aristophanes’ comedy false courage and falseheroism also characterize those who pretend to be able to frightenthe hosts. From Aristophanes’ critical point of view, in fact, thisresult seems to be accomplished more by a flaunting conduct whichaims at inspiring fear in the form of outward display of militaryequipment (like, fearsome shield and helmet’s plumes), than by areal, brave effort to defeat the enemy for the citizens’ well-being.Thus, once again pretense and deceptive appearance characterizethe demagogue’s faction and, to some degree, his divine patron,Athena. In fact, among Athena’s bizarre epithets GorgolÒfa seemsto allude critically to the falseness and the ostentatious behavior ofCleon in the management of the war, while it emphasizes and exag-gerates his bellicosity. By way of subtle irony, GorgolÒfa evokes amotif that appears repeatedly in Aristophanes’ comedies: the hel-met’s crest (lÒfow). This recurrent motif implies more than a sim-ple piece of military equipment or an instrument of terror.46) It


90 ROSANNA LAURIOLA

47) This motif emerges in the antepirrheme of Peace’s second parabasis. In Pax1172-90, Aristophanes’ polemical targets are the Athenian officers (the taxiarches)that show off a solemn dress consisting of crests and of a glittery crimson uniform,‘though—as the poet mocked—if he (sc. the taxiarch) ever has to fight in that uni-form, he dyes it and himself becoming as pallid as the palest Cyzicene; he is thefirst to take to his heels, running like a zooming horsecock and fluttering hisplumes . . .’ (1174-8a, translation adapted from Henderson 1998). The contrastbetween the solemn costume and the conduct in war is significant. In Peace’s pas-sage the solemnity itself of the dress is emphasized in a comic way by the motifof the helmet’s crest, specifically a helmet equipped with three crests (Pax 1176-8a). Furthermore, the denunciation concerning the cowardice, which actually hidesbehind a semblance of heroic, patriotic strength, is embellished with an Aeschyleaniunctura, the ‘horsecock’ (see Bergler 1760, 904; Totaro 2000, 132-4; also Av. 798-800). In Peace 395, the lÒfow-motif also characterizes a specific personage oftenmocked by Aristophanes because of his cowardice: Pisander (see also Av. 1554-64).

48) Not accidentally, the character is called misyarx¤dhw: about the misyÒw-motif,see supra, n. 32.

49) For Lamachus’ image in Acharnians see also Lauriola 2002, 188-90; 199-201.Cf. Anderson 1995, 27, whose conclusions are different: see infra, n. 56.

50) See Ach. 586, 965, 967, 1074, 1082, 1109, 1111; also infra n. 56.51) Among more recent studies, see Mastromarco 2002, 212-3 and n. 16.52) Cf. Olson 2002, 236 ad 588-9.53) Especially that kind of imposture involving a skillful and deceptive art of

speaking, i.e. what Aristophanes usually calls élazone¤a: see MacDowell 1990.

seems to rather signify an outward garment that hides boast andcowardice.47) Not accidentally, I think, the helmet’s crest motif dis-tinguishes an Aristophanic character that, in Acharnians, symbolizesthe soldier that pretends to be a hero, while he fights for the pay(Ach. 597)48) rather than for the sake of homeland. He is in fact dis-posed to retreat because of an insignificant wound (Ach. 1174-97),rather than to fight in the lead, as real heroic soldiers usually do(Ach. 599-606). It is Lamachus in Acharnians,49) ad hoc stigmatized as‘hero of crests’ (¥rvw t«n lÒfvn, Ach. 575),50) and also chosen becauseof his §p≈numon name.51) He represents the faction supporting thewar to the bitter end, one fought for selfish goals that are maskedas ‘political’ service (see Ach. 598a, 606a). In other words, Lamachusrepresents the faction of Cleon, or, better still, his way of manag-ing the war with false heroism and the pretense of fighting it withAthenian people’s interests at heart. The falsity and mere appear-ance of helmet plumes of Lamachus seem also to be emphasizedby the fact that the plumes belong to a very peculiar bird, the kom-polãkuyow, a big-mouthed boaster-bird.52) In Aristophanes, boast-fulness usually implies false pretension and imposture;53) and here



With reference to a possible connection between élaz≈n and kÒmpow (which char-acterizes the bird’s name associated with Lamachus), see Sciarrotta 1995, 227-30.

54) For the representation of the Gorgon on shields in Homer (e.g. Il. 11.36-7), see Mastromarco 1983, 156 n. 89.

55) Regarding the association between the Gorgon’s motif and Lamachus, see,e.g., Ach. 964, 1095, 1124, 1131, 1181; also Olson 2002, 221 ad 566-7, 222-3 ad572-4.

56) Anderson (1995, 27) points this parallel out, as well. However, his obser-vations are quite different. Considering the Gorgon emblem and the plumes onLamachus’ helmet as symbolizing the excessive bellicosity of the Athenian general,Anderson recalls his characterization in order to support the interpretation he givesabout the Paphlagonian’s gorgolÒfa Athena as symbolizing the extreme bellicos-ity and war-mongering nature of Cleon. Anderson never discusses a possibly implieddimension of pretension and falseness as typical of Cleon’s attitude.

57) That both the helmet’s crest and the shield became a characteristic symbolof war in Aristophanes’ plays can be also deduced from Pax 561 where, after

it implies the denunciation of the falsity and showy heroism thatcharacterize, in the poet’s opinion, the war management by theCleonian faction and, as a result, by Cleon himself.

In Acharnians’ characterization of Lamachus, the shield’s motif,too, seems to assume a peculiar meaning. The first element of thecompound epithet GorgolÒfaw, the Gorgon is, in fact, the effigydepicted on Lamachus’ shield, whose sight alone is able to frightenthe enemy (see Ach. 574-82).54) More than once Lamachus’ Gorgonis mocked by Dicaeopolis as a symbol of empty belligerence and,above all, of false courage characterizing contemporary Atheniangenerals that are ‘more numerous than capable and brave’ (see Ach.1078).55) More importantly for the subject under discussion, boththe helmet’s crest and the Gorgon motifs, considering the impliedmeaning of ostentatious courage and pretense of being brave forthe sake of homeland, are connected with Lamachus—par excellencethe symbol of Cleon’s concept of the war in Acharnians—in such apeculiar way that one can single out a significant parallel betweenthis characterization of Lamachus and the characterization of thedemagogue’s personal Athena in the passages of Knights mentionedabove (1172-81).56) Both Lamachus and Athena are characterizedby the epithet GorgolÒfaw that properly means ‘gorgon-crested’, anepithet not attested elsewhere in Aristophanes. It qualifies onlyLamachus and Athena, and both in relation to Cleon. Therefore,it seems that, through an attractive coinage, not just two war-sym-bols (i.e. the helmet and the shield)57) are joined in the epithet, but


92 ROSANNA LAURIOLA

releasing the goddess Peace, Trygaeus urges the peasants to pray to the goddess‘who has freed us (sc. the Athenians) from the fear-inspiring crests (toÁw lÒfouw)and from the Gorgons (tåw GorgÒnaw)’ (translation adapted from Henderson 1998).

two terms that become a metaphor for what Aristophanes thoughtabout Cleon’s and his faction’s management of the war. InAristophanes’ eyes, it was a war to the bitter end only apparentlyfought for the Athenians’ well-being, a war fought with pretentiouscourage.

To conclude, the Paphlagonian-Cleon’s GorgolÒfa Athena ofKnights seems to be the divine equivalent to Cleonian GorgolÒfawLamachus of Acharnians. Both are Cleon’s self-referent image con-cerning the war. As a mirror of Cleon’s behavior, Athena GorgolÒfarepresents not only the war-mongering and terrifying attitude of thereal demagogue, but also his ostentatious courage and his pretenseof bravely fighting for patriotic purposes.

Again, the Athena of the Paphlagonian-Cleon only seems to haveDêmos’ interest at heart.

University of Texas at San AntonioDept. of English, Classics and Philosophy6900 N. Loop 1604 WestS A, TX [email protected]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, C.A. 1986. The Epithets of Athena in Aristophanes (Diss., University ofMichigan)

Anderson, C.A. 1991. The Dream-Oracles of Athena, Knights 1090-1095, TAPA 121,149-55

Anderson, C.A. 1995. Athena’s Epithets: Their Structural Significance in the Plays ofAristophanes (Stuttgart/Leipzig)

Arnott, W.G. 1991. A Lesson from the Frogs, G&R 38, 18-23Bergler, S. 1760. Aristophanis comoediae undecim (Lugduni Batavorum)Bonanno, M.G. 1987. Metafore redivive e nomi parlanti (sui modi del Witz in Aristofane),

in: Della Corte, F. (ed.) Filologia e forme letterarie. Studi offerti a Francesco della Corte,I (Urbino), 213-28

Bravi, L. 1999. L’ombra di Simonide in Aristofane, Cavalieri 402-406, Seminari Romani2, 235-41

Cassio, A. 1985. Commedia e partecipazione. La Pace di Aristofane (Napoli)



Chantraine, P. 1966. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, I (Paris)Coulon, V. 1923. Aristophanes (Paris)De Oliveira, F. 1997. Typologie de l’invective politique chez Aristophane, in: Thiercy, P.,

Menu, M. (eds.) Aristophane: la langue, la scène, la cité (Bari), 481-505Dover, K.J. 1987. Portrait-Masks in Aristophanes, in: Dover, K.J. Greek and the Greeks.

Collected Papers, I (Oxford), 267-78Edmunds, L. 1987. Cleon, Knights, and Aristophanes’ Politics (Boston)Engle, J.M. 1983. Playing About the Stage: Poetics, Ritual, and Demagoguery in the Knights

of Aristophanes (Diss. Princeton University)Foley, H.P. 1988. Tragedy and Politics in Aristophanes’ Acharnians, JHS 108, 33-47Frey, V. 1946. Die Stellung der attischen Tragödie und Komödie zu Demokratie (Aarau)Frisk, H. 1960. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (Heidelberg)Gelzer, Th. 1970. Aristophanes der Komiker, in: RE 12, 1392-569Gilula, D. 1989. A Case for Aristomenes ( IG II2 2325), CQ 39, 332-8Habash, M. 1997. The Odd Thesmophoria of Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae, GRBS

38, 23-50Harriott, R.M. 1986. Aristophanes. Poet and Dramatist (Baltimore)Heath, M. 1987. Political Comedy in Aristophanes (Göttingen)Henderson, J. 1998. Aristophanes, 2 vols (Cambridge/London)Imperio, O. 2004. Parabasi di Aristofane (Bari)Landfester, M. 1967. Die Ritter des Aristophanes (Amsterdam)Lanza, D. 1989. L’attore comico sulla scena, Dioniso 59, 297-312Lauriola, R. 2002. Aristofane: commedia e impegno didascalico. Con una lettura degli Acarnesi

(Diss. Università degli Studi di Firenze)Lauriola, R. 2004. Aristofane, Eracle e Cleone: sulla duplicità di una immagine aristofanea,

Eikasmos 15, 85-97Lauriola, R. 2005 (forthcoming). BvmolÒxow, bvmolÒxeuma, bvmolÒxeusyai: alcune

considerazioni sul lessico aristofaneo, Sileno 30Lind, H. 1990. Der Gerber Kleon in den “Rittern” des Aristophanes. Studien zur

Demagogenkomödie (Frankfurt am Main/Bern/New York/Paris)MacDowell, D.M. 1990. The Meaning of élaz≈n, in: Craik, E.M. (ed.) Owls to Athens.

Essays on Classical Subjects Presented to Sir Kenneth Dover (Oxford), 289-92Mann, C. 2002. Aristophanes, Kleon und eine angebliche Zäsur in der Geschichte Athens, in:

Ercolani, A. (ed.) Spoudaiogeloion. Form und Funktion der Verspottung in der AristophanischenKomödie (Stuttgart), 105-24

Mastromarco, G. 1983. Commedie di Aristofane, I (Torino)Mastromarco, G. 1989. L’eroe e il mostro (Aristofane, Vespe 1029-1044), RFIC 117,

410-23Mastromarco, G. 1993. Il commediografo e il demagogo, in: Sommerstein, A.H., Halliwell,

S., Henderson, J., Zimmermann, B. (eds.) Tragedy, Comedy and the Polis (Bari),341-57

Mastromarco, G. 21996. Introduzione a Aristofane (Roma/Bari)Mastromarco, G. 2002. Onomastì komodeîn e spoudaiogéloion, in: Ercolani A., Spoudaiogeloion.

Form und Funktion der Verspottung in der Aristophanischen Komödie (Stuttgart), 205-23Muecke, F. 1998. Oracles in Aristophanes, Seminari Romani 1, 257-74Neil, R.A. 1966. The Knights of Aristophanes (Cambridge)Oellacher, H. 1916. Zur Chronologie der altattischen Komödie, Wiener Studien 38,

81-157Olson, S.D. 1998. Aristophanes. Peace (Oxford)Olson, S.D. 2002. Aristophanes. Acharnians (Oxford)Paduano, G. 41996. Aristofane. La festa delle donne (Milano)Paduano, G. 2002. Aristofane. La Pace (Milano)


94 ROSANNA LAURIOLA

Platnauer, M. 1964. Aristophanes. Peace (Oxford)Prato, C. 1955. Euripide nella critica di Aristofane (Galatina)Rau, P. 1967. Paratragodia. Untersuchungen zu einer komischen Form des Aristophanes

(München)Rosen, R.M. 1988. Old Comedy and the Iambographic Tradition (Atlanta)Ruppel, A. 1913. Konzeption und Ausarbeitung der Aristophanischen Komödie (Darmstadt)Schwinge, E.R. 2002. Aristophanes und Euripides, in: Ercolani, A. (ed.), Spoudaiogeloion.

Form und Funktion der Verspottung in der Aristophanischen Komödie (Stuttgart), 3-43Sciarrotta, S. 1995. Aristofane e l’APATH, in: Arrighetti, G. (ed.) Poesia Greca (Pisa),

213-30Slater, N.W. 1993. Space, Character, and épãth: Transformation and Transvaluation in the

Acharnians, in: Sommerstein, H., Halliwell, S., Henderson, J., Zimmermann, B.(eds.), Tragedy, Comedy and the Polis (Bari), 397-415

Slater, N.W. 2002. Spectator Politics. Metatheatre and Performance in Aristophanes (Philadelphia)Smith, N.D. 1989. Diviners and Divination in Aristophanic Comedy, CA 8, 140-59Sommerstein, A.H. 1980. Notes on Aristophanes’ Knights, CQ 30, 46-56Sommerstein, A.H. 1981. The Comedies of Aristophanes, II (Warminster)Taillardat, J. 21965. Les images d’Aristophane. Etudes de la langue et style (Paris)Thompson, W.D.A. 1966. A Glossary of Greek Birds (Hildesheim)Totaro, P. 22000. Le seconde parabasi di Aristofane (Stuttgart)Welsh, D. 1978. The Development of the Relationship between Aristophanes and Cleon to

424 b. C. (London)Woodhead, A.G. 1960. Thucydides’ Portrait of Cleon, Mnemosyne 13, 289-317Zanetto, G. 1999. Aristofane e il lessico della politica, in: Conca, F. (ed.) Ricordando

Raffaele Cantarella (Milano), 257-70


ATHENA AND THE PAPHLAGONIAN IN ARISTOPHANES’ KNIGHTS. RE-CONSIDERING EQUITES 1090-5, 1172-81

Documents

Transcript of ATHENA AND THE PAPHLAGONIAN IN ARISTOPHANES’ KNIGHTS. RE-CONSIDERING EQUITES 1090-5, 1172-81