THE COMIC POETICS OF APOLLO

IN ARISTOPHANES’ KNIGHTS

Pavlos Sfyroeras

Middlebury College

About a month before the summer solstice, the Athenians celebrated the

Thargelia in honor of Apollo. The first day of the festival featured the ritual

expulsion of the pharmakoi, generally persons of inferior status, hence

expendable, who were temporarily admitted into the center of the polis, and

whose removal effected the purification of the community.1 Scholars have ob-

served that the Thargelia with its pharmakos ritual underlies Aristophanes’

Knights.2 The analogies, some of which are already noted in the ancient scholia,

are indeed difficult to miss. Paphlagon, explicitly termed a pharmakos (1405), is

clearly cast in that ritual role:3 he is of lowly status, vulgar and ugly, yet he is fed

in the Prytaneion (e.g. 766) and in general invested with political power, but only

temporarily, as he is eventually expelled from the city, to bring about the

rejuvenation of Demos, the personified citizen body. The plot of the play thus

reflects to some extent the ritual program of the Thargelia.4

I propose to take this observation one step further—a bold step perhaps,

yet I hope justified, since it may allow us a clearer view of our god. The

celebration of the Thargelia presupposes the presence of Apollo and his unique

ability to eradicate pollution and purify the polis. The god who presides over the

expulsion of the pharmakos is also present in Knights, which, more than any

other Aristophanic comedy, employs oracles to propel the plot forward. Besides,

Apollo is here invoked more frequently than in any other of Aristophanes’ extant

plays: there are about forty references to his cult titles or attributes, almost twice

1 On the Attic Thargelia see Deubner 179–98; Parke 146–49; Bremmer 318–20.

2 See e.g. Bowie 74–77, who detects additional ritual patterns, some of which

involve Apollo. For all their scepticism, Bennett and Tyrrell rely on the premise that “the

pharmakos complex unifies Knights” (241). 3 Schol. Eq. 1136; Schol. Ra. 733; Bremmer 303. As noted by Bowie 77, the

Sausage-seller is “potentially a much better pharmakos than Paphlagon;” this is evident

in his name Agorakritos “chosen by the assembly” (1255–56), which is reminiscent of the

Naxian Polykritê (“chosen by many”), analyzed as a scapegoat figure by Burkert 72–77. 4 The atmosphere of Apollo’s festival may be reinforced by the references to the

drinking of undiluted wine (85) and the branch decorated with wool and first fruits

(eiresiônê 729); cf. Bremmer 318–19; Burkert 134.

P. SFYROERAS 502

as many as in the runner up, the Birds, which is (let it be noted) about three

hundred and fifty lines longer. No other comedy comes close to twenty allusions

to the god.5

Apollo, then, is a shadowy figure hovering in the background of Knights,

but where exactly is he and what does he do? If we are to agree that the political

project of the poet in the play is the elimination of Cleon’s influence, and if the

impetus for that is provided by Apollo, who supervises the ritual frame of the

Thargelia and inspires oracular utterances, another question emerges: how far can

we push the alignment between the poet’s program and Apollo’s sphere? It is

worth asking, in other words, to what extent and in what sense can the poet be

said to be like Apollo? Can we discern Apollo behind the comic poetics of the

play?

In order to answer, we need to consider a cluster of mythical narratives

that center on the figure of Marsyas, especially his musical contest with Apollo.

Although we do not possess a full account in Greek literature until Diodorus

Siculus (3.58.1–59.6) in the first century BC, there is solid evidence, both literary

and visual, that the myth was popular in the late fifth century.6 The following

brief outline contains nothing incompatible with the fifth-century sources. Athena

invented the aulos to reproduce the wailing sounds of Medusa’s sisters, but cast it

aside because blowing on it disfigured her face. The Phrygian Marsyas picked it

up and eventually challenged Apollo to a musical contest. At first the aulos

seemed superior to the kithara, but subsequently Marsyas was unable to keep up

with Apollo, who performed two feats that Marsyas could not possibly match: he

played with his instrument upside down and sang at the same time as he plucked

the strings. As a result, Apollo subjected Marsyas to a cruel punishment: he hung

his defeated opponent on a tree and flayed him.

Early on, this myth became the focus of ideological elaboration. By the

last third of the fifth century, certainly by the time of Plato at the latest, the

symbolic value of Marsyas and his aulos-playing, as well as the contested

position of the aulos in relation to the human voice and string instruments, can be

5 This is not to deny, of course, the involvement of other deities in Knights, most

notably Athena and Poseidon, discussed e.g. by Edmunds 39–41 and Anderson 9–38. 6 See the elliptical references in Hdt. 7.26.3; Melanipp. 758 PMG; cf. X. An. 1.2.8.

For a discussion of those, as well as of visual evidence (LIMC 6.1, 366–78; 6.2, 183–93),

see Leclercq-Neveu. While Hdt. 7.26.3 mentions no musical contest (Martin 159), no

later version explains Marsyas’ flaying differently. Not differentiating his “Phrygian

logos” from other accounts, Hdt. must think of the musical contest as self-evident. As

Martin 159 n. 28 admits, Hdt. may allude to music through the word askos, which can

also mean “bagpipe.”

THE COMIC POETICS OF APOLLO

503

shown to underlie both literary accounts and visual representations.7 It would not

be unreasonable, therefore, to read this comedy of 424 and its intensely agonistic

structure in light of the struggle between Apollo and Marsyas.

Let me then turn to the opening scene of the Knights, where we can hear

some leitmotivs that evoke the mythical background of the play. The comedy

begins with the cries of pain of Demos’ two servants, who upon having been

flogged complain of the influence of the new Paphlagonian slave and bemoan

their plight. In their vain attempt to escape or at least alleviate their suffering,

they resort to a variety of measures, from songs of lamentation to word-games to

even a hint of autoerotic gratification. Nothing can provide relief, however, until

they taste some neat wine, which inspires in them the idea to purloin and peruse

the oracles zealously guarded by Paphlagon. The prophecy contained therein is

soon fulfilled, with the epiphanic entrance of the Sausage-seller. Even within this

brief introduction, we can clearly discern the basic components of Marsyas’

story.

We can first note the suggestion to “sob a tune of Olympus as an aulos-

duet (!"#$"%&$#)” (9). Variously described in our sources as the disciple and be-

loved or the father of Marsyas, as Phrygian or Mysian, Olympus is credited with

important innovations in aulos-music, including the double aulos, the tunes of

lament ('()#)*+,-& #Òµ-+) and what we would call instrumental music (µ-".+-

,Ø ,(-"µ$*+,Æ).8 All these are particularly apt here, as we watch a duo of ser-

vants wailing and mimicking music without words (10 µË µË µË).9 Moreover,

their sobbing (9 ,%$Ê./µ0#) reminds us of the significance of wailing in tales

about the aulos; in Pindar’s Pythian 12, for instance, Athena invents the instru-

ment to imitate the Gorgons’ dirge (8 '(1#-#; 21 2Ò-#).10

The repeated syllable

µË symbolizes the servants’ general inability to find the appropriate words and

their subsequent lack of courage to pronounce them (13–17); it recalls at the

7 See Wilson and Leclercq-Neveu; Martin’s more nuanced approach to the Athenian

politics of the aulos, which considers diachronically aristocratic attitudes to the

instrument, is consonant with the present argument. 8 Olympos could be seen with Marsyas on Polygnotos’ painting at Delphi (Paus.

10.30.9); cf. Sommerstein 1981 ad loc.; Neil ad loc.; Michaelides s.v.; Taillardat 156. 9 Although it could occasionally include string instruments, ."#$"%&$ properly

indicates the concerted performance of auloi, always without words; see Schol. ad loc.;

Poll. 4.83; Athen. 618a–b with Barker 274–75; Michaelides s.v. 10

Pertinent aspects of Pyth. 12 are elucidated by Frontisi-Ducroux; Strauss Clay;

Papadopoulou and Pirenne-Delforge.

P. SFYROERAS 504

same time the fateful limitations of the aulos in the story of Marsyas, particularly

his failure to add words to the tunes of his instrument.

But while the only “poetics” initially available to the servants is that of

Olympus and his aulos, they gradually inch closer to the sphere of Apollo, by

rejecting the wailing and wordless tunes of the aulos and seeking their salvation

(11-12) that comes from the god of divination. Not only is the god invoked

directly (14), but also his specialty, i.e. prophetic speech, colors the atmosphere

of the opening, as the servants turn their attention to the oracles that will

dominate the comedy. In fact, even before we become aware of the existence of

such oracles, the word-game with the rhythmic repetition of µÒ%/µ0# and

$È*! moves us from the inarticulacy of Olympus’ nomos to the rhetorical subtle-

ty of Apollo: meaning emerges out of apparent meaninglessness, and the repeated

phrase is perceived as an omen (28 -3/#Ò4). The playful use of language that, to

paraphrase Heraclitus, simultaneously conceals and reveals, expresses the ser-

vants’ fearful reluctance to speak out, and at the same time recalls the cryptic and

mantic utterances of Apollo, foreshadowing the prominent use of prophecy in the

plot (61, 115–17, passim).

The contrast between the wordless wailing of the aulos and the salutary

speech of Apollo is wonderfully encapsulated in the question: *& ,+#"(Ò-

µ0'5 6%%/4; (11). The rare verb ,+#Ê(-µ$+ “to utter a plaintive sound, lament,”

is used only here and in Aeschylus’ Septem 123, before becoming more common

in Hellenistic poetry. In his Hymn to Apollo 20, for instance, Callima-chus

employs it in a manner that happens to reaffirm the contrast between lament and

Apolline poetics. As a result of Apollo’s song but also, presumably, of

Callimachus’ hymn, ritual silence (0È7)µ&$) spreads all over nature; even Thetis

ceases mourning her son (-È8¢ ,+#Ê(0*$+ $‡%+#$), whenever she hears the

paean. We shall return to the connection between ritual silence (0È7)µ&$) and

9$+:#.11

For now suffice it to say that, as the choice of ,+#Ê(0.'$+ suggests, the

servants’ lamentation produces sounds that are antithetical to the Apolline

paean.12

Finally, the opening strikes yet another note that will recur in a more

menacing form and that alludes to the grimmer aspects of Marsyas’ myth. The

word-game of $È*-µÒ%/µ0# is perceived as an ill omen: the slave fears for his

skin (26–28). Besides the metaphorically expressed fear for one’s safety, the

mention of 8°(µ$ adds another layer. As the repetition of $È*-µÒ%/µ0#

11

In Eq. 1316–18 they are treated as virtually synonymous; see below. 12

Consider, by contrast, the striking juxtaposition at S. OT 5, 186.

THE COMIC POETICS OF APOLLO

505

mimics the rhythmic movement of masturbation (24 À.90( 807Òµ0#-4), the

slave explains his fear: when people masturbate, their foreskin (8°(µ$) comes

off.13

Between serious metaphor and literal playfulness, between fear for one’s

skin and retracted foreskin, these lines resonate on an additional register,

especially given the recent invocation to Apollo and the melody of Olympus still

ringing in our ears: they suggest the cruel flaying of Marsyas at the hands of

Apollo.

The music without words of the aulos, its mournful modulations that

stand in sharp contrast to Apollo’s verbal subtlety, even the dark undercurrent of

flaying, however playfully disguised: taken together, these constitute the primary

themes of Marsyas’ story. Let us now examine how these themes, first heard in

the opening scene, are developed in the course of this play.

We can begin with Marsyas’ punishment, which demonstrates Apollo’s

sacrificial expertise, as the god, sacrificial knife (µ:;$+($) in hand, is skilled in

separating the skin (8-(:) from the body of the victim (Leclercq-Neveu 264).

This is an important aspect of Apollo’s Delphic persona as that is established at

the end of his Homeric Hymn (535–36).14

But this is also precisely the

atmosphere that pervades the play, beginning with the trades of the two

antagonists, tanner and sausage-seller, who represent two side activities and by-

products of the sacrificial process. More importantly for the play, however, the

two antagonists threaten each other by invoking their respective specialties.

Examples abound in a comedy that is saturated with such imagery; consider

however a relatively early exchange between the two opponents (367–81).

Paphlagon threatens to have his challenger stretched on the tanning-bench,

spread out and pegged to the ground. Armed with sacrificial knives (489

µ$;$!($4), the Sausage-seller counters with the threat to flay his rival into a

thief’s hold-all, to make him into mincemeat, and to cut out his crop. One of the

servants voices his support by promising to shove a peg in Paphlagon’s mouth as

the butchers do (376 µ$20+(+,«4), then pull out his tongue and inspect his

bottom. Such a passage is too explicit to require further elaboration: just as in the

13

On 8°(0+#/ 8°(µ$ in the context of sexual arousal see Taillardat 73; Henderson

115, 221. On this and other aspects of the scene see Hubbard 64–67, who also comments

on “the movement from inarticulate speech to linguistic pyrotechnics” (66). 14

This aspect of Apollo, on which see Detienne 1988; 1998: 63–84; Nagy 120–26, is

evidently known to Aristophanes: see fr. 705 K–A <%%5 Œ =0%7«# 9%0&.*$4 <,-#«#

>-›?0 µ$;$&($4. Apollo’s related cultic epithet Mageirios is attested on Cypriot

inscriptions: cf. SEG 23.622; ICS 304.

P. SFYROERAS 506

myth of Marsyas, whose flayed skin can be called a bag (<.,Ò4, Hdt. 7.26.3), so

in the play the processes of butchery, including flaying, are the punishment in

store for the prospective loser in the contest.

But Paphlagon and the Sausage-seller go so far as to turn their aggression

upon themselves. In an attempt to win Demos’ favor, they proclaim their

readiness to subject themselves to the practices of their respective trades, should

their love for their master prove false (767–72). To demonstrate his loyalty to

Demos, Paphlagon declares his willingness to be sawn in two and be cut up into

yoke straps (8+$9(+.'0!)# ,$*$*µ)'0!)# *0 %°9$8#$). Not to be outdone, the

Sausage-seller offers to be cut up and boiled with mincemeat (,$*$*µ)-

'0"4 � #@-!µ)# §# 90(+,-µµ$*!-+4). He is even prepared to be grated with

cheese into a savoury mash and to be dragged by the balls with his own meat-

hook to Kerameikos.15

In other words, the fate that both antagonists are willing to inflict and

endure is similar to that which Apollo the butcher-sacrificer might administer—

similar, indeed, to the punishment of Marsyas. This applies especially to

Paphlagon who, upon sensing his imminent defeat (1248), exclaims (1240–41):

! � >-"?5 AB9-%%-# CÊ,+0 *! � 9-*° µ5 §(2:.0+;

*°;#)# 8¢ *!#$ 9-*5 0$;04 §!$#8(-ʵ0#-4;

Phoebus Apollo, Lycian lord, what on earth will you do to me?

What trade did you practice as you were becoming a man?

This invocation to Apollo is rather ambiguous. As the following question (1241)

indicates, the second person singular refers ostensibly to the Sausage-seller, but

sentence structure and context, namely Paphlagon’s recognition of the

truthfulness of the oracle, compel us to identify, at least for a moment, the ‘you’

of §(2:.0+ with the vocative Apollo. This is also suggested by the Euripidean

provenance of this Aristophanic verse, according to the scholia ad loc. (= 700

N2). Whether it is Telephus, a foreigner from Asia Minor (like Paphlagon and

Marsyas), or another character who addresses these words to the god, the

15

At 962–64 Paphlagon, employing his familiar images, warns Demos that, if he

listens to his rival, he will become a µ-%2Ò4 “a bag made of oxhide” (cf. Hsch. s.v.). The

Sausage-seller’s response (964) confirms the parallelism, established in the opening

scene, between drawing back the foreskin and flaying.

THE COMIC POETICS OF APOLLO

507

question protests against the fate brought on by Apollo’s oracles.16

A spectator

alert to the tragic tone and context would be tempted to discern in the vocative

“Phoebus Apollo of Lycia” the subject of the verb §(2:.0+. In that light, might

we then take this paratragic verse as a cry of agony that could also be imagined in

the mouth of Marsyas upon his defeat by Apollo? Be that as it may, the violence

of the two antagonists towards each other assumes the form of Apollo’s

sacrificial expertise, clearly manifest in his punishment of Marsyas.

Having noted the imagery of flaying that runs through the play, we might

want to pursue a little further the analogy between myth and comic plot, by

exploring the possible connections between Marsyas the aulos-player and

Paphlagon. Here I draw on recent work on the symbolic values of aulos-playing

in fifth-century Athens.17

In particular, I shall first refer to the low status of

aulos-players, then to the effect of the music they produce: highly emotive,

appealing to the baser impulses, and antithetical to logos. Plutarch’s Alcibiades

2.4–6 can serve as our paradigmatic text. Although it comes from a later era, it is

worth quoting in full not only because it refers back to the late fifth century but

also because it articulates values that are found earlier, in the philosophers but

also in fifth-century poetry.

When it came to schooling, he usually paid proper attention to his

teachers, but he avoided playing the aulos, holding it to be an ignoble

thing unsuited to the free man. The use of the plektron and the lyre, he

argued, wrought no havoc with the bearing (.;Ƶ$*-4) and appearance

(µ-(714) that were becoming to a free man; but when a man blows at

the auloi with his mouth, even his own acquaintances can scarcely

recognize his face (9(Ò./9-#). (5) Moreover, the lyre blended its

tones with the voice and song of its user, while the aulos blocked up and

barricaded the mouth, robbing its master both of voice and speech

(*Æ# *0 7/#Ø# ,$" *Ú# %Ò2-#). ‘So let the sons of the Thebans play

the aulos,’ he said, ‘for they do not know how to converse. But we

Athenians, as our fathers say, have Athena as founder and Apollo as

patron, and the former threw away the aulos, while the latter flayed the

aulos-player.’ (6) In this half-joking, half-serious way, Alcibiades

16

Such invocations, not uncommon in Greek tragedy, are often parodied in Aristo-

phanes, as e.g. at Pax 58, 62; Th. 71; see Rau 169–73, esp. 171. 17

For all the insights of Wilson and Leclercq-Neveu, Martin’s attempt to construe

the rejection of the aulos as a political stance and a partisan expression of aristocratic

ideology is particularly relevant to my reading of Knights.

P. SFYROERAS 508

emancipated himself from this discipline, along with the rest of the boys.

For word soon made its way to them that Alcibiades was quite rightly

disgusted with the art of aulos-playing and mocked those who learned it.

As a consequence the aulos became entirely dissociated from the

pastimes of free men and was utterly despised (tr. Wilson, slightly

modified).

Regarding the question of status, Alcibiades rejects the aulos essentially

because it does not belong in the behavioral code of the kalos kagathos, for it

distorts the face, as illustrated by Athena’s reaction. The “ignoble and illiberal”

nature of aulos-playing, classified among the “sordid trades” by Philostratus

(Vita Soph. 1.17.4), is correlated with the servile and lowly status of aulos-

players, male and female. They are considered un-Athenian, as evident in

Alcibiades’ dismissive attitude towards the Thebans, but also un-Greek: figures

such as Marsyas and Olympus exemplify the Greek perception of the aulos as

something foreign that comes from outside, from Asia Minor. All these traits are

matched in Paphlagon, a lowly slave specifically from Asia Minor and the enemy

of the kaloi kagathoi, who, as one of Demos’ servants promises, will vigorously

oppose him (225–29). An additional reproach against the aulos applies also to

Paphlagon: there is a proverb, “you live the life of an aulêtês,” which is glossed

in the Suda as “referring to those who live off others; inasmuch as aulêtai keep

watch over those who perform sacrifices and live gratis.”18

This stereotype,

evident in Aristophanes’ treatment of aulos-players (e.g. Ach. 866; Av. 856–61),

provides further proof of the affinity between the aulos and Paphlagon, who is

depicted throughout the Knights as essentially a parasite, fed at public expense

(281, 1135, 1404).

The ancient rhetoric against the aulos harps on the player’s distorted

countenance, which is changed beyond recognition and assumes the appearance

of rage. According to Plutarch, Mor. 456b–c, in fact, Marsyas invented the

phorbeia in an attempt to control the violence of blowing (*-Ë 9#0ʵ$*-4

*Ú D$28$"-#) and to conceal the resulting facial distortion.19

In this passage,

where Plutarch reinforces his point by quoting Simonides’ description of

“boisterous mouth” (.*Òµ$ %:?(-#, 115 Edmonds), the effects of playing the

aulos resemble those of rage, which Plutarch goes on to compare to the stormy

sea. Further, in a Sophoclean fragment (768 Radt), we hear of “wild blowing”

18

Translated and discussed by Wilson 85. 19

On this lack of bodily control associated with playing the aulos see Wilson and

Martin.

THE COMIC POETICS OF APOLLO

509

(<2(!$+4 7Ê.$+.+). Such phrases assimilate the aulos to the tremendous forces

of nature, the wind and the waves, which also become the dominant metaphorical

tropes that describe Paphlagon’s raging oratory in Knights.20

It would be

unnecessary to trace the use of such verbs as *$(:**0+# and ,",E# throughout

the play; let us recall, however, that the chorus addresses Paphlagon as a “mud-

churner who has thrown the entire city into “confusion” (% ?-(?-(--

*:($!+ ,$" *Ø# 9Ò%+# F9$.$# Gµ«# <#$*0*"(?$,H4, 308–10). The same

idea under-lies the Sausage-seller’s accusation that his opponent profits from

churning the mud and disturbing the city (864–67). Paphlagon himself boasts of

resembling a storm-wind that “disturbs land and sea into confusion”

(&µ-Ë *$(:**/# *Æ# *0 21# ,$" � *Ø# ':%$**$# 03,ª, 430–31). Further, the

poet makes sure that we do not miss the similarity between Paphlagon’s name

and the verb 9$7%:I0+# “being on a boil” (919–22), which is also used in Iliad

13.798 of the seething sea waves (,ʵ$*$ 9$7%:I-#*$) stirred by violent

winds. In short, the analogy between Paphlagon’s blustery rhetoric and a violent

storm applies both to the quality of his voice and to the effect on the polis.21

We may consider further the impact of the aulos on both player and

audience. Marsyas’ failure to wed words to music, as related in Diodorus Siculus,

makes the aulos, as Plutarch’s Alcibiades and Aristotle will observe, into an

obstacle to and an enemy of logos.22

This antithesis is rather employed to

establish hierarchy in the hyporcheme of Pratinas (708 PMG), where the aulos is

commanded to refrain from drowning out the human voice.23

We may compare

this effect of the aulos with the inarticulate cries of Paphlagon-Cleon, described

by verbs such as ,(:I0+# and ?-E# that convey the subordination of the mean-

ing of words to the strident sound of his voice. As to the impact on the audience,

the demagogue’s oratory, not unlike the aulos, robs the Athenians of logos and

reduces them to silence (352). Aristophanes coins a new term in Knights to

20

The adjective %:?(-4 is used in Homer only of wind and water; cf. LSJ s.v. 21

On *$(:**0+# and ,",E# as images of disturbance in Knights see Newiger 27–

30; Edmunds 6–9; Taillardat 180–94, 408–13; Halliwell 76; Sommerstein 1981 on 214–

15. 22

On the Athenian notion of the aulos as hostile to speech and rationality see Wilson

85–95; Martin. 23

See Seaford; Wilson; Martin 164–70, who further adduces an Attic red-figure

krater attributed to Euphronios (Munich 8935, ARV21619.3 bis, Para. 322), where a

symposiast appears to block one tube of the instrument played by the aulêtris, so that the

voice of his couchmate singing a hymn to Apollo can be heard more clearly. The aulos is

thus toned down in favor of the voice honoring Apollo.

P. SFYROERAS 510

express the mute passivity of the citizens: J0;)#$'-+ (1263), a play on the noun

5B')#$'-+ and the verb ,°;)#$ “to gape” (261, 651, 755, 804, 1119).24

Servile status, foreign provenance, blustery and stormy rhetoric,

antithesis to logos: all these assimilate Paphlagon to Marsyas the aulos-player

and implicitly contrast him to Apollo the kithara-player. In fact, this contrast

becomes explicit in the choral song (984–95) that makes fun of the vulgar

culture, literally the “swinish musical education” (Í-µ-".!$), of Paphlagon,

whose dramatic persona is here removed to reveal the real Cleon underneath

(976). Cleon is said to have been expelled by his kithara teacher, because he

would not learn any other mode except the =/(-8-,+.*!—which substitutes an

adverb derived from 8/(-8-,0'# “bribe-taking” for the expected “Dorian.” This

is, in effect, the reverse of Alcibiades’ rejection of the aulos, and illustrates the

correspondence between musical preferences, on the one hand, and political and

oratorical orientation, on the other.25

But if Paphlagon can be aligned with Marsyas the aulos-player, it

follows that the comic poet is on the side of Apollo, and that the defeat of

Paphlagon is a victory of Apolline rhetoric and poetics. This has two aspects:

first the triumph of harmony and order over the forces of chaos; second, the

validation of oracles. As expected, this conception of comic poetics is most

clearly articulated in the parabatic anapaests. The poet claims that he deserves the

praise of chorus and spectators, because “he hates the same people as you do and

dares speak just things, and advances courageously against Typhoon

(9(Ú4 *Ú# *"7«) the hurricane” (509–11).26

This encapsulates the poet’s bold

and lonely struggle against the blasts of Cleon’s demagogical oratory, which

render all other Athenians speechless. While *"7H4 can simply be a violent

wind, the word has significant mythological overtones that are relevant to the

poet’s struggle. Thus, in order to characterize Cleon at Wasps 1030–35 and

Peace 752–58, Aristophanes alludes to various mythical monsters, including

Typhon-Typhoeus, whom Hesiod’s Theogony 820–80 endows with a hundred

24

Sommerstein translates it as “Open-mouthenians.” By contrast, Demos’ recovered

capacity for logos enables him to shake off Cleon’s influence (805–807). On Demos’

silence see also Sfyroeras 62–63. 25

Martin rightly emphasizes this correlation. Demagoguery and musical education

are said to be mutually exclusive at Eq. 188–93. 26

Whether or not we decide to capitalize *"7«, the ancient audience would hardly

distinguish between Typhon-Typhoeus and whirlwind. Both ancient readers (Schol. ad

loc.) and modern scholars (Edmunds 6–7) understand this as a reference to the

mythological monster.

THE COMIC POETICS OF APOLLO

511

heads emitting a variety of terrifying animal voices and describes as the begetter

of storm-winds.27

More importantly, we should also consider the Homeric Hymn to Apollo

and Pindar’s Pythians, because both poetic traditions intimate a conflict between

the monster Typhoeus and Apollo, thus reaffirming the link between the god and

the comic poet. Although the Hymn to Apollo does not depict the god attacking

Typhoeus directly, Hera gives birth to the monster and entrusts him to the she-

dragon that Apollo slays (351–62). In Pythian 1, Pindar juxtaposes the hundred-

headed Typhos (15–16), who is the arch-enemy of Zeus, to the golden phorminx

of Apollo (1), that is, to the musical harmony that represents the Olympian order.

Also in Pythian 8, Typhos and the king of the Giants, both enemies of Zeus, are

overpowered by his lightning bolts and Apollo’s shafts (16–18). In other words,

by comparing Paphlagon-Cleon to Typhoeus, the comic poet effectively inscribes

his own enterprise within the sphere of Apollo kitharode, who joins logos to the

harmony of his lyre, just as Aristophanes, unlike his fellow citizens, boasts of

maintaining the faculty of just speech.

Aristophanes’ claim of a synergy with Apollo is confirmed in the rest of

the parabatic anapaests, in which the poet offers an admittedly slanted “history of

comedy” to complement his proud self-presentation as an upholder of justice and

an opponent of Typhos (511). Aristophanes presents the failures and inadequa-

cies of his predecessors and contemporaries in images that seem to confirm this

reading. Consider in particular Cratinus, who bears the brunt of our poet’s

criticism. The symbol of his pitiful current state is a decrepit lyre that is out of

tune, its keys falling out and its strings loose (531–33).28

The implication of this

striking metaphor is clear: Aristophanes’ superiority is that of a well-tempered

27

Real etymology aside, the Greeks associated the monster with *"7H4-*"7H#

“tornado, violent wind;” cf. West 379–97. For Cleon as Typhon/Typhoeus see Bowie 58–

66; Edmunds 6–7. The voices of this hundred-headed monster (cf. Nu. 336 with Dover

1970 ad loc.) have an intriguing similarity with the nomos polykephalos of the aulos. This

depiction of Cleon as a monster symbolically associated with the aulos would be

reinforced by Dover’s ingenious suggestion (1967: 23) that the mask-makers’ refusal to

reproduce Cleon’s repugnant features (Eq. 230–33) is akin to the fear at the prospect of

seeing the face of the gorgon Medusa, who, like Typhoeus, has snake-heads and whose

sisters’ wailing becomes the music of the aulos (Pyth. 12). Frontisi-Ducroux notes further

affinities, acoustic and visual, between aulos-playing and Medusa. 28

On the comparison see Hubbard 74–75 and Perusino. Further, one of the partici-

ples that modify Magnes is @:%%/# “plucking the strings” (522), which retains its signi-

ficance even if these participles conceal references to the titles of his comedies.

P. SFYROERAS 512

lyre, the only instrument to produce the harmonious sounds that can silence the

blustery oratory of the demagogical monster.

The second parabasis in Knights encapsulates nicely the contrast between

kithara and aulos in a more oblique, yet equally illuminating way. The first

epirrheme (1274–89) is taken up by the multi-layered contrast between two

brothers, Arignotus and Ariphrades. Of these two sons of Automenes, who are

also mentioned in Wasps 1275–91, Arignotus receives praise, while Ariphrades

becomes the object of scorn. This antithesis is highly significant for our purposes,

because the two brothers are subtly but unmistakably correlated with kithara and

aulos respectively (1274–89):

%-+8-(1.$+ *-Á4 9-#)(-Á4 -È8¢# §.*5 §9(7'-#-#, <%%K *+µØ *-'.+ ;().*-'4, ).*+4 0* %-2(I0*$+. 03 µ¢# -*# +#'(/9-4, ,# 80' � 9Ò%%5 <,-Ê0+# ,$" � ,$,:, $È*Ú4 -# ¶#8)%-4, -È, L# <#8(Ú4 §µ#Æ.')# 7(%-". #Ë# 85 5B((2#/*-# 2K( -È80"4 ).*+4 -È, §9(.*$*$+, ).*+4 M *Ú %0",Ú# -$80# M *Ú# .('+-# #Òµ-#. ¶.*+# -Ô# <80%7Ú4 $È*/ � *-Á4 *(Ò9-"4 -È ."220#Æ4, 5B(+7(:8)4 9-#)(Ò4. <%%K *-Ë*- µ¢# ,$" ?-Ê%0*$+: ¶.*+ 85 -È µÒ#-# 9-#)(Ò4, -È 2K( -È85 L# º.'Òµ)#, -È8¢ 9$µ9Ò#)(-4, <%%K ,$" 9(-.0!)Ê(),° *+. *Ø# 2K( $Í*-Ë 2%«**$# $3.;($'4 G8-#$'4 %"µ$(#0*$+, §# ,$./(0(-+.+ %0(;/# *Ø# <9Ò9*".*-# 8(Ò.-#, ,$" µ-%Ê#/# *Ø# Í9Æ#)# ,$" � ,",«# *K4 §.;:($4, ,$" � N-%"µ#Æ.*0+$ 9-+«# ,$" !"#O# P3/#(;0. ).*+4 -Ô# *-+-Ë*-# 6#8($ µØ .7Ò8($ ?80%Ê**0*$+, -1 9-*5 §, *$È*-Ë µ0'5 Gµ«# 9(0*$+ 9-*)((-".

There is nothing invidious about reviling the wicked; it amounts to

honoring the good, if you consider it logically. If the man who is now to

have many hard things about him were himself well known, I would

never have made mention of a man who is my friend. As it is, however,

there is no one who does not know Arignotus, if he can tell white from . .

. the Orthian melody; well, Arignotus has a brother, far from akin to him

in his ways, Ariphrades the wicked. Actually, wicked is what he sets out

to be; but in fact he’s not merely wicked (had he been that, I wouldn’t

even have noticed him), nor merely super-wicked, but he’s invented

something to top that. He defiles his own tongue with obscene pleasures,

licking the “abominable dew” in brothels, soiling his beard, disturbing

THE COMIC POETICS OF APOLLO

513

women’s sacred hearths, composing songs like Polymnestus and keeping

company with Oionichus. Whoever does not utterly loathe such a man

shall never drink from the same cup with me (tr. Sommerstein, slightly

modified).

Arignotos is one of the few historical characters that Aristophanes mentions by

name without, as far we can tell, disparaging them. In Wasps 1277–78 he is

described as a supreme kitharode who embodies grace (*Ú# ,+'$($-+8Ò*$*-#,

Q ;:(+4 §7°.90*-; cf. also Athen. 220b–c). His kithara-playing is not explic-

itly mentioned in Knights, but the audience is expected to know him: punning on

his name, Aristophanes describes him as impossible to ignore if one knows the

first thing about music—and that “first thing” here happens to be the

� ˆ('+-4 #Òµ-4. Now, anyone hearing this term would inevitably think of its

inventor, Terpander, an unsurpassable kitharode.29

Arignotos is then in effect

fused with the orthios nomos, sung to the kithara in honor of Apollo. Moreover, he serves as a foil for his brother Ariphrades, whose sole

claim to notoriety, according to Aristophanes, is a predilection for cunnilingus.

But his sexual “innovation” (1283 9(-.0!)Ê(),° *+) is presented in images that

can be associated with the aulos. His perversion entails doing things with the

tongue; in fact, his activity is curiously described in Wasps as 2%/**-9-+0›#.30

This verb is an intriguing choice, for the maker of reeds (2%/..&804) for auloi

was called 2%/**-9-+Ò4.31

It is of course no surprise that the passage employs

the language of shame: through his shameful pleasures Ariphrades is said to de-

file or maltreat his tongue ($3.;($›4 G8-#$›4 %"µ$&#0*$+) and to pollute his

chin. But this is precisely the effect of playing the aulos in roughly contemporary

lyric poetry, as in a fragment by Melanippides of Melos (758 PMG), which

29

See Suid s.v. ˆ('+-4; Poll. 4. 65; [Plu.] de mus. 1132e; Marm. Par. 34. Another

link of ˆ('+-4 #Òµ-4 with kithara is found in Arion’s story (Hdt. 1.24.5). Although the

term is vague enough to refer to various types of composition that may make use of the

aulos, its primary association is with the kithara; see Barker 249–55. 30

This strange choice to denote cunnilingus is noted by Sommerstein 1977: 276,

who discerns wordplay with 20%/*-9-+0›# “to raise laughter” and adduces the sugges-

tion, in Arist. Poet. 1458b31–32, that Ariphrades was a comic poet. On his profession see

also the more expanded comments by von Möllendorff, who further connects Ariphrades,

oral sex, aulos-playing, and comedy in Wasps; cf. Wilson 84–85. 31

See Poll. 2.108; Hsch. s.v. (ı *K4 $È%)*+,K4 2%/..&8$4 9-+«#); EM p.

235.44. The ancient testimonia (Schol. ad Ec. 129; Suid. s.v.) that Ariphrades was a

kitharode have been rightly rejected as patently false; cf. Degani 196.

P. SFYROERAS 514

depicts Athena rejecting the instrument and addressing it as $‡.-

;0$, .Hµ$*+ %ʵ$ “shameful things, outrage to the body.” 32

The combination

of the roots $3.;- and %"µ- in the two passages, the lyric and the comic,

illustrates the parallelism between two improper uses of the mouth, sexual and

musical, that result in defilement of the face. What is more, the pollution brought

about by Ariphrades’ tongue, touching what it should not touch, modulates into

the phrase ,",«# *K4 §.;:($4.33

But the use of this verb signals his affinity to

Paphlagon-Cleon, which would be especially poignant if Ariphrades, as has been

argued, was a sophist and a public speaker.34

In other words, the objectionable

use of the tongue ties together all the strands: sexual depravity, demagoguery,

and (given the contrast with Arignotos and the diction) aulos-playing.

Should all that fail to conjure up the image of aulos-playing, what

follows leaves no doubt. Whether or not Ariphrades had anything to do with the

aulos, his transgression slides clearly from the sexual to the musical with the

phrase N-%"µ#Æ.*0+$ 9-+«#, “composing songs à la Polymnestos,” i.e. lasci-

vious songs. Even if this is only meant as a metaphorical reference to Ariphrades’

application of his tongue, Aristophanes’ decision to couch it in musical

terminology is telling. This is especially so given that Polymnestos, a 7–6th

century poet and musician from Colophon in Asia Minor, was said to be a

student of Klonas, another 7th-century aulos-player and composer, who was

credited with inventing the various types of $È%/8+,Ú4 #Òµ-4. In fact, we may

add that in [Plutarch], On Music 1132c (also 1133a), Klonas’ creation of the

aulodic compositions is said to follow and be modeled upon what was

accomplished for the kitharodic compositions by Terpander, the inventor of

orthios nomos.35

In other words, Aristophanes constructs the contrast between

Arignotus and Ariphrades in such a manner as to pattern it on the polarity

32

The dating of this poem to 440–415 (cf. Wilson 63–66) would fit Knights. 33

Since §.;:($ “hearth” is also slang for the female genitals (Schol ad loc; Hen-

derson 143), the phrase conflates ritual pollution and sexual transgression. 34

Degani explores fully the ramifications of the reference to Ariphrades as a pupil of

Anaxagoras in Athen. 220b–c; cf. Hubbard 84–85, who also remarks on the two

demagogues’ active tongue (352, 378, 637, 837, 1034). For ,",«# as a link between

Ariphrades and Paphlagon-Cleon see Napolitano 75. 35

On all these see Michaelides s.vv. Oionichos is an obscure figure; we can only say,

on the basis of Adespota 396 K–A, that he had some association with music.

THE COMIC POETICS OF APOLLO

515

between two founding figures in the musical traditions of kithara and aulos, at

the same time presenting their history in miniature.36

The indirect elevation of kithara above aulos in the second parabasis of

Knights is foregrounded by the diction and metrical shape of the ode and antode

(1264–73, 1290–99). As the Scholiast ad 1264 informs us, this passage is adapted

from a prosodion (“processional song”) by Pindar (89a Maehler), which has an

Apolline content, since it mentions Artemis and Leto.37

In fact, the Aristophanic

chorus goes on to invoke Apollo (1270 Π7&%5 AB9-%%-#). Moreover, this is the

only song in Aristophanes’ extant corpus that is composed in pure dactylo-

epitrites, the quintessential Pindaric meter.38

The song that introduces this

underlying privileging of the kithara at the expense of the aulos is itself a model

of the poetics that Pindar seems to exemplify and that Aristophanes appears to

appropriate.39

It should be noted, however, that Aristophanes cannot advocate an

absolute rejection of the aulos, especially given the presence of the instrument at

the dramatic performances. Although he may be implying something analogous

to the proper hierarchy of aulos and human voice promoted in Pratinas’

hyporcheme (708 PMG), the important point is that he makes the aulos with its

disturbingly polyharmonic sounds into a signifier that condenses metonymically

all the negative traits associated with the demagogues.40

The connection between the defeat of Paphlagon and Apolline poetics is

further evident in the way Knights, more than any other comedy, relies on oracles

to propel the plot forward (e.g. 61, 116, 797, 818). Unlike, say, Peace or Birds,

36

It is perhaps no accident that the third brother lauded at V. 1279 as an extremely

skillful actor is omitted here, given Aristophanes’ concern to highlight the (musical and

political) antithesis, on which see also Napolitano 87–88. Musical and sexual ethos are

similarly correlated in Aeschylus’ complaint that Euripides uses Carian $È%Ƶ$*$ and

(in Meineke’s emendation) 9-(#ƒ8&$+ “performances of songs by whores,” and his

concomitant request for a lyre (Ra. 1298–1308); cf. Napolitano 88 n. 70. His aversion is

shared by Dionysus, who associates Euripides’ Muse with %0.?+:I0+# in a complex

allusion elucidated by Dover ad 1308; cf. Wilson 84–85. 37

As Maehler notes in the apparatus of his Teubner edition, Pindar may be quoted

here more extensively than the Scholiast admits. 38

Parker 160–61, 181–82. 39

Far from claiming that this opposition to aulos is Pindar’s own, on whose auletic

innovations see Martin 161–63 and Papadopoulou and Pirenne-Delforge 51–54, I only

propose that it is here retrojected onto Pindar. 40

It is possible that, as Martin 169 notes, innovations in aulos music by the late 5th

century may have contributed to the negative attitudes towards the instrument. On the

aulos at the dramatic festival see Wilson 75–79.

P. SFYROERAS 516

where oracles represent attempts by the antagonist to thwart the comic hero’s

plan and are therefore dismissed, oracles in Knights predetermine Paphlagon’s

defeat, thus converging with the comic poet’s project. What is more, various

characters in the play concur in deriving the authority of the oracles explicitly

from Apollo (220, 1015–16, 1229). We might also note that, differently from all

other Aristophanic comedies, the very plot of this play is emphatically

constructed as an allegory, whereby the various dramatic personas stand for

historical individuals or collective entities of the Athenian state. Similarly

conceived is the domestic trial in Wasps, but the allegorical mode in Knights

extends beyond the boundaries of a single scene to comprise the entire plot,

which can therefore be described as a riddle, an oracle writ large to be

deciphered.41

That the defeat of Paphlagon-Cleon is tantamount to a triumph of

Apolline poetics becomes evident in these words of the Sausage-seller, which

follow directly upon the second parabasis and sum up the final outcome of the

agon (1316–18):

RÈ7)µ0›# ;(Ø ,$‹� .*Òµ$ ,%S0+# ,$‹� µ$(*"(+«# <9°;0.'$+, ,$‹ *K 8+,$.*Æ(+$ ."2,%S0+# -Â4 G 9Ò%+4 ¥80 2°2)'0#, §9‹ ,$+#$›.+# 85 0È*";&$+.+# 9$+/#&I0+# *Ú '°$*(-#.

It is necessary to observe ritual silence, to keep the mouth shut and

abstain from testifying, to close down the courts, in which this city now

rejoices, and for the theater to sing the paean over our new good fortune.

In this crucial passage, the blustery oratory of the demagogues is altogether

replaced by a kind of ritual silence, 0È7)µ0›#. Such an injunction is expected at

the beginning of a religious rite; in this case, the ritual act is the performance of a

paean.42

But the victorious 9$+/#&I0+#, a cultic term primarily, though not ex-

clusively, belonging in the sphere of Apollo, is now singularly and strikingly

identified with the language of the theater, the words and tunes of the present

comedy.43

41

On the importance of oracles in Knights and their tragic models see Rau 169–73;

on the allegorical dimensions of the play see Newiger 9–49; Hubbard 66–67;

Komornicka 48–57. 42

See Sommerstein ad loc. 43

We may compare Pax 555, where 9$+/#&I0+# indicates triumphant celebration in

comedy, but not (at least explicitly) comedy itself: Pax 1316–19, however, implies the

THE COMIC POETICS OF APOLLO

517

We have now completed the journey: the wordless lament of Olympus’

auletic melody of the opening has finally given way to Apollo’s hymn. In the

course of this play, which could be described, not in formal terms to be sure yet

certainly in its ethos, as a continuous agon, the blustery whirlwind of Paplagon-

Cleon’s oratory, which has been correlated with the sounds and symbolic

associations of the aulos, has been silenced by the comic poet’s kithara. If the

ensuing victory of the lyre over the aulos, of Apollo over Marsyas, seems to go

against the grain of the comic style, especially in this comedy of ferocious

invective, this need be no paradox. By troping himself as Apollo kitharode, and

by conflating that vision of the god with the Apollo of the Thargelia who expels

the pharmakos,44

Aristophanes seeks to reform not only the polis, but also

perhaps his own genre. To put it in another way, he seeks to bring quiet to the

polis precisely by reforming his own genre and reconfiguring its relationship to

the political sphere—by going beyond sporadic verbal abuse of prominent

individuals to turn the comedy into a transparent allegory and launch a single-

minded, daring attack against the forces of chaos and their representative,

Cleon.45

In Plato’s Symposium, Socrates, soon to be told that he resembles none

other than Marsyas (215a–e), observes that Aristophanes is exclusively pre-

occupied with Dionysus and Aphrodite (177e). I hope that this reading of Knights

has demonstrated that the comic poet knows also something about Apollo.

equivalence of 0È7)µ0›# and comedy, albeit without the mediation of the paean. On the

Apolline connections of the paean see Rutherford 10–36. In this connection, we must also

note the chorus’ invitation to raise the ololygê cry (1327 Ù%-%Ê!$*0), which is related to

the paean (Rutherford 19–20) and is used by Aristophanes as a response to Apollo and its

music (Av. 222, 783). 44

It may be worth adding that in Athens the pharmakos was expelled to the sounds

of a special auletic nomos: Hsch. s.v. ,($8&)4 #Òµ-4; Hippon. 153 W; [Plu.] de mus.

1133f–34a; cf. Deubner 182; Bremmer 313–14. 45

For a reading of Knights that is congruent with this approach see McGlew 97–111.

P. SFYROERAS 518

BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, C. A. 1995. Athena’s Epithets. Their Structural Significance in Plays

of Aristophanes. Stuttgart and Leipzig.

Barker, A. 1984. Greek Musical Writings: i. The Musician and His Art.

Cambridge.

Bennett, L. J and W. B. Tyrrell. 1990. “Making Sense of Aristophanes’ Knights,”

Arethusa 23: 235–54.

Bowie, A. M. 1993. Aristophanes: Myth, Ritual, and Comedy. Cambridge.

Bremmer, J. N. 1983. “Scapegoat Rituals in Ancient Greece,” HSCP 87: 299–

320.

Burkert, W. 1979. Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual.

Berkeley, Los Angeles and London.

Degani, E. 1960. “Arifrade l’anassagoreo,” Maia 12: 190–217.

Detienne, M. 1988. “L’Apollon meurtrier et les crimes du sang,” QUCC 22: 7–

17.

_____. 1998. Apollon le couteau à la main. Paris.

Deubner, F. 1932. Attische Feste. Berlin.

Dover, K. J. 1967. “Portrait-masks in Aristophanes.” In !"µ"#$%&'()Ƶ(&(.

Studia Aristophanica viri Aristophanei W. J. W. Koster in honorem.

Amsterdam. 16–28.

_____. 1970. Aristophanes’ Clouds. Oxford.

_____. 1993. Aristophanes’ Frogs. Oxford.

Edmunds, L. 1987. Cleon, Knights, and Aristophanes’ Politics. Lanham, New

York and London.

Frontisi-Ducroux, F. 1994. “Athéna et l’invention de la flute,” Musica e storia 2:

239–67.

Halliwell, S. 1990. “The Sounds of the Voice in Old Comedy.” In E. M. Craik,

ed., ‘Owls to Athens.’ Essays on Classical Subjects Presented to Sir Kenneth

Dover. Oxford. 69–79.

Henderson, J. 1991. The Maculate Muse. Obscene Language in Attic Comedy.

2nd ed. Oxford and New York.

Hubbard, T. K. 1991. The Mask of Comedy: Aristophanes and the Intertextual

Parabasis. Ithaca, NY.

Komornicka, A. M. 1964. Métaphores, personnifications et comparaisons dans

l’oeuvre d’Aristophane. Wraclaw, Warsaw and Cracow.

Leclercq-Neveu, B. 1989. “Marsyas, le martyr de l’aulos,” Métis 4: 251–68.

THE COMIC POETICS OF APOLLO

519

Martin, R. P. 2003. “The Pipes are Brawling: Conceptualizing Musical

Performance in Athens.” In C. Dougherty and L. Kurke, eds., The Cultures

Within Greek Culture: Contact, Conflict, Collaboration. Cambridge. 153–80.

McGlew, J. F. 2002. Citizens on Stage. Comedy and Political Culture in the

Athenian Democracy. Ann Arbor.

Michaelides, S. 1978. The Music of Ancient Greece. An Encyclopaedia. London.

Nagy, G. 1979. The Best of the Achaeans. Baltimore and London.

Napolitano, M. 1994. “5B(+7(:8)4 9-#)(Ò4: una riconsiderazione (Ar. Eq.

1274–1289),” QUCC n.s. 48: 67–92.

Neil, R. A. 1901. The Knights of Aristophanes. Cambridge (repr. Hildesheim

1966).

Newiger, H.-J. 1957. Metapher und Allegorie. Studien zu Aristophanes. Munich.

Papadopoulou, Z. and V. Pirenne-Delforge. 2001. “Inventer et réinventer l’aulos:

autour de la XIIe Pythique de Pindare.” In P. Brulé and C. Vendries, eds.,

Chanter les dieux: musique et religion dans l’Antiquité grecque et romaine.

Rennes.

Parke, H. W. 1977. Festivals of the Athenians. Ithaca, NY.

Parker, L. P. E. 1997. The Songs of Aristophanes. Oxford.

Perusino, F. 1982. “Cratino, la Kline e la Lira: Una Metafora ambivalente nei

Cavalieri di Aristofane,” Corolla Londinensis 2: 147–59.

Rau, P. 1967. Paratragodia: Untersuchungen zu einer komischen Form des

Aristophanes. Munich.

Rutherford, I. 2001. Pindar’s Paeans. A Reading of the Fragments with a Survey

of the Genre. Oxford.

Seaford, R. 1977–79. “The ‘Hyporchema’ of Pratinas,” Maia 29–30: 81–94.

Sfyroeras, P. 2001. “Silence and Comic Language in Aristophanes.” In S. Jäkel

and A. Timonen, eds., The Language of Silence, vol. 1. Turku. 50–70.

Sommerstein, A. H. 1977. “Notes on Aristophanes’ Wasps,” CQ n.s. 27: 261–77.

_____. 1981. The Comedies of Aristophanes 2: Knights. Warminster.

_____. 1984. The Comedies of Aristophanes 4: Wasps. Warminster.

Strauss Clay, J. 1992. “Pindar’s Twelfth Pythian: Reed and Bronze,” AJP 113:

519–25.

Taillardat, J. 1962. Les images d’Aristophane. Paris.

Von Möllendorff, P. 2002. “Die Zungenfertigkeit des Komödiendichters. Spott,

Oralsex und Metapoetik in den Wespen des Aristophanes.” In A. Ercolani,

ed., Spoudaiogeloion. Stuttgart and Weimar. 299–316.

West, M. L. 1966. Hesiod. Theogony. Oxford.

Wilson, P. 1999. “The aulos in Athens.” In S. Goldhill and R. Osborne, eds.,

Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy. Cambridge. 58–95.