Nectanebo II and Philip II in Mythic Disguise: Comedy’s Burlesque of History

Athina Papachrysostomou

Abstract

The present chapter demonstrates how Greek Middle Comedy practises burlesque of contemporary history – with ensuing political ramifications – through the means of mythological parody. The argument is substantiated through the analysis of two exemplary cases from the fragmentarily surviving corpus of the fourth-century BC comic poet Ephippus, where contemporary historical figures are presented in mythical, albeit recognizable, disguise. It is argued that (i) in the play Busiris Ephippus uses the mythical persona of the title-figure as a disguise for the Egyptian pharaoh Nectanebo II, and (ii) in his Geryon the Macedonian king Philip II can be identified as the historical equivalent of the mythical title-figure.

“What is myth?”, Walter Burkert asked more than forty years ago, only to admit that “a simple definition will not do.”¹ Likewise, Geoffrey Kirk acknowledged that “there is no one definition of myth.”² As a matter of fact, with regard to classical antiquity (both Greek and Roman), we rarely question the quintessence of the term ‘history’, yet we often fervently pursue and seek to accurately define and comprehend the multifarious connotations and multifaceted nuances that are concomitant to the largely fluid and malleable notion (better say, phenomenon) of ‘myth’.³ Originally, the term myth (μῦθος) signalled any authoritative utterance that sought to disseminate powerful truth claims; produced in a predominantly oral environment, the potency of myth largely relied on its capacity to respond and seemingly explain new and changing circumstances.⁴ Accordingly, throughout antiquity, mythical narrative discourse widely exercised a sanctioning effect upon contemporary reality, endorsing, interpreting, substantiating, and ratifying the present (political and other). In his (1999) monograph on Theorizing Myth Bruce Lincoln defined myth as “ideology in narrative form”;⁵ through this interpretative angle one can easily comprehend the powerful dynamics of ancient Greek myth in general and its decisive effectiveness upon Greek politics in particular. Relevant to this approach of myth is Calame’s (2003) monograph Myth and History in Ancient Greece, where he demonstrates – through an exemplary case study – the intricate interplay and the (purposely) traversable boundaries among history, myth, and politics in ancient Greece.⁶ Blurring the boundaries (deliberately or incidentally, and for multiple reasons) between history and myth (both terms understood in their widest possible meanings) is a frequently repeated phenomenon in antiquity, which the present volume bears witness to (cf. Preface for further analysis).

Within the literary genre of Comedy, myth’s fluidity and plasticity acquire a whole new meaning and new, unthinkable (even absurd) dimensions. There is a conspicuous comic fragment (preserved by Athenaeus Deipnosophistae 6.222c-223a) by the fourth-century playwright Antiphanes⁷ (from his play Ποίησις – Poetry), where the speaker (probably a comic playwright himself, judging from what he says) furiously complains about how tragedy has an easy ride in dealing with myth (given that the basic mythical background is widely known), whereas Comedy needs more sophistication and elaborate, hard work, since new plot-twists need to be invented and new (comic) versions of myth to be staged (otherwise, there would be no fun and no point whatsoever, if comedy retold tragic myths in their traditional versions). This is what the comic hero says in Antiphanes fr. 189 (lines 1–8, 17–18):

μακάριόν ἐστιν ἡ τραγῳδία

ποίημα κατὰ πάντ᾿, εἴ γε πρῶτον οἱ λόγοι

ὑπὸ τῶν θεατῶν εἰσιν ἐγνωρισμένοι,

πρὶν καί τιν’ εἰπεῖν· ὥσθ’ ὑπομνῆσαι μόνον

δεῖ τὸν ποητήν. Οἰδίπουν γὰρ † φῶ 5

τὰ δ᾿ ἄλλα πάντ᾿ ἴσασιν· ὁ πατὴρ Λάιος,

μήτηρ Ἰοκάστη, θυγατέρες, παῖδες τίνες,

τί πείσεθ᾿ οὗτος, τί πεποίηκεν.

…

ἡμῖν δὲ ταῦτ᾿ οὐκ ἔστιν, ἀλλὰ πάντα δεῖ 17

εὑρεῖν

Tragedy’s a thoroughly enviable

type of poetry! The plots, first of all,

are familiar to the audience,

before anyone speaks a word; so, all the poet has to do

is offer a reminder. Because † says † “Oedipus”, 5

they know everything else: his father’s Laius;

his mother’s Jocasta; who his daughters and his sons are;

what’s going to happen to him; what he’s done.

…

We don’t have these advantages, so we have to invent 17

everything.⁸

Be that as it may, the comic playwrights did not seem to have been disheartened; on the contrary, Comedy assumed (quite early on) an idiosyncratic treatment of myth and engaged in a resourceful and extensive dialogue (intertextual and satirical) with the mythical tradition.⁹ The mythological repertoire spiked during especially Middle Comedy. Despite the entirely fragmentary nature of this era’s surviving evidence,¹⁰ modern research has revealed the details of the comic poets’ resourcefulness, with regard to mythological parody. Most telling of the unimaginable extent of mythological parody is Aristotle’s testimony about the plot of an unidentifiable comic play (Po. 1453a37-39):

οἳ ἂν ἔχθιστοι ὦσιν ἐν τῷ μύθῳ, οἷον Ὀρέστης καὶ Αἴγισθος, φίλοι γενόμενοι ἐπὶ τελευτῆς ἐξέρχονται, καὶ ἀποθνῄσκει οὐδεὶς ὑπ’ οὐδενός

Those who are deadliest enemies in the mythical tradition, such as Orestes and Aegisthus, exit at the end having become friends, and no one is killed by anyone.¹¹

It is the current scholarly belief that in Middle Comedy¹² myth and contemporary reality are inextricably intertwined. The traditional myth is comically distorted and accordingly presented in an adapted version that abounds in comic burlesque, twists, and unexpected turns; this is what Webster identified as “comic reversal of tradition.”¹³ Typically, plays that engage in mythological parody are dramatically situated in a distinct realm, in-between the mythical world and the contemporary reality of fourth-century Athens, thus transcending and blurring the boundaries between history/historicity/reality on the one hand and myth on the other. Accordingly, mythological figures are arbitrarily pulled out of the mythical sphere and plunged into the real world, where they commonly function as a dramatic disguise for contemporary politicians and other historical figures, whom the comic poet wishes to target, ridicule, and/or accuse (for various reasons). This indirect, subtle mockery should not surprise us, since after all the element of enigmatic/symbolic/veiled satire was the defining attribute of Middle Comedy (as opposed to the straightforward, caustic satire of Old Comedy), according to various ancient testimonies, like the one by Tzetzes (XIa I.70–71 Koster):

τῆς μέσης δὲ καὶ δευτέρας ἦν γνώρισμα τὸ συμϐολικοτέρως, μὴ καταδήλως λέγειν τὰ σκώμματα

Mocking through symbolisms/metaphors and not openly was the characteristic of the second period, the Middle one.

and another one by the ancient scholiast on Dionysius Thrax (XVIIIa.37–39 Koster):¹⁴

τρεῖς διαφορὰς ἔδοξεν ἔχειν ἡ κωμῳδία· καὶ ἡ μὲν καλεῖται παλαιά, ἡ ἐξ ἀρχῆς φανερῶς ἐλέγχουσα, ἡ δὲ μέση ἡ αἰνιγματωδῶς, ἡ δὲ νέα ἡ μηδ᾿ ὅλως τοῦτο ποιοῦσα πλὴν ἐπὶ δούλων ἢ ξένων

Comedy seems to have had three distinct periods, one known as Old Comedy, which from its inception criticized openly; Middle Comedy, whose criticism was enigmatic; and New Comedy, which eschewed even this except in the case of slaves or foreigners.¹⁵

The Middle Comedy playwright Ephippus¹⁶ presents special interest with regard to the abovementioned dramaturgic technique, since not only did he practise mythological parody, but he also combined it with history burlesque and daring political innuendos;¹⁷ two of his surviving fragments are most typical and worthy of analysis.

The first example comes from Ephippus’ play Busiris (Βούσιρις).¹⁸ The play-title is revealing of the rich mythological material that constituted the basis of the play’s plot (Busiris was a mythical king of Egypt, who used to sacrifice his guests, following some oracle, and was eventually killed by Heracles).¹⁹ Athenaeus, who preserves the play’s one surviving fragment (10.442d-e), informs us that the first speaker is Heracles (confronting either Busiris himself or one of his men):

(Ἡρ.) οὐκ οἶσθά μ᾿ ὄντα, πρὸς θεῶν, Τιρύνθιον

Ἀργεῖον; οἳ μεθύοντες αἰεὶ τὰς μάχας

πάσας μάχονται. (B.) τοιγαροῦν φεύγουσ᾿ ἀεί²⁰

(Her.) Don’t you know, by the gods, that I’m a Tirynthian

Argive? These people always fight all their battles

drunk. (B.) It is exactly for that very reason that they always run away.²¹

Given the era’s pronounced propensity for mythical burlesque and given the play’s Egyptian flavour (already introduced by the title and sustained by the fragment), it is conceivable that Ephippus handled and staged the traditional myth in a way that involved some political allegory and entailed burlesque of both myth and contemporary history. The choice of Egypt as the play’s backdrop may not have been a random or an innocent one; accordingly, Busiris and Heracles should not be taken at face value as mere mythological figures. We know that in mid-fourth century (343 BC) the Persian king Artaxerxes III (known as ‘Ochus’) commissioned the Greek general Nicostratus of Argos to lead a mercenary military force of 3000 Argive soldiers²² and join his expedition against Egypt and its ruler, the pharaoh Nectanebo II. In fact, these historical events can also help us date Ephippus’ play; Edmonds (2,147) suggested the year 342 BC as the play’s production date, precisely on the basis of the Argive participation in the invasion of Egypt by Ochus’ military forces the previous year. A further piece of information that fits nicely in our jigsaw puzzle is that Nicostratus in real life had much more in common with Heracles than just the Argive origin; Ephippus (in fr. 17, from the play The Peltast) refers to the Greek general as Νικόστρατος δ’ Ἀργεῖος ἕτερος Ἡρακλῆς (‘Nicostratus the Argive, a second Heracles’), while Diodorus of Sicily (16.44.3) reports that Nicostratus ἐμιμεῖτο τὸν Ἡρακλέα κατὰ τὰς στρατείας καὶ λεοντῆν ἐφόρει καὶ ῥόπαλον ἐν ταῖς μάχαις … μεμιγμένην δ᾿ ἔχων τῇ φρονήσει μανίαν (‘he imitated Heracles when on a campaign by wearing a lion’s skin and carrying a club in battle … having madness mingled with his intelligence’ – i.e. just like his mythical counterpart). Besides, for what it is worth, the Egyptian flavour of Ephippus’ play was not a first in Greek Comedy; some twenty years earlier, Middle Comedy had already exhibited a political interest in current affairs between Greece and Egypt. In particular, Anaxandrides fr. 40 is believed to allude to the alliance forged between the Egyptian king Tachos and the Athenian general Chabrias against the Persians in 361 BC.²³

Taking everything into account (Middle Comedy’s tastes, current relations with Egypt, Nicostratus’ resemblance with Heracles), we can confidently argue that Ephippus’ play featured a – detectable – political allegory; in this allegorical context, Heracles stands for Nicostratus, while the Egyptian king Busiris is a mythical disguise for the real-life Egyptian ruler Nectanebo II; thus, the mythical and the real world blend with one another, allowing for all possible assimilations and paradigms to be drawn (e.g. Nectanebo II is visualized as an uncivilized, boorish figure). It is further intriguing that myth and history coincide even in their respective outcomes, in the sense that both Egyptian leaders were defeated in the end. In the mythical realm Busiris was overpowered by Heracles, whereas in reality Nectanebo’s defeat was significantly aided by Nicostratus, the other Heracles. The burlesque of both myth and history climaxes with – but is not limited to – the caricatural and allegorical portrayals of Nicostratus (as Heracles) and Nectanebo II (as Busiris). Another instance of history burlesque occurs in line 3 of this fragment, which features a sarcastic comment by character B. Arguably, the comment refers to at least one occasion, where some Argive military corps was forced to retreat (φεύγω: ‘flee, abandon the battle-field running’). It is likely that this reference alludes to the events narrated by Diodorus of Sicily (16.34.3, 16.39.4) regarding a military defeat of Argive forces in 352 BC, near the city of Ὀρνε(ι)αί (‘Orneae’) in Argolis.

Judging from his surviving output, Ephippus had a special predilection for mythical material related to Heracles. The second example worth studying comes from his play Geryon.²⁴ Geryon was a mythological ogre that possessed three heads and three bodies. According to the mythical tradition, Geryon was visualized dwelling on the remote island of Erytheia, beyond the Pillars of Heracles (i.e. the modern Strait of Gibraltar).²⁵ Heracles killed Geryon, in order to accomplish his tenth labour, which consisted of stealing Geryon’s cattle. Three fragments survive from Ephippus’ Geryon; fr. 5 features an imaginative narration of how an enormous fish is being prepared for Geryon, who is visualized as king (βασιλεύς, line 9); the two personal datives of interest (line 1, τούτῳ, and line 4, αὐτῷ) refer to Geryon, according to Athenaeus’ testimony (Deipn. 8.346f): τῷ Γηρυόνῃ σκευάζεσθαι (‘prepared for Geryon’).

τούτῳ δ᾿ ὁπόταν ναέται χώρας

ἰχθύν τιν᾿ ἕλωσ᾿ οὐχ ἡμέριον,

τῆς περικλύστου δ᾿ ἁλίας Κρήτης

μείζω μεγέθει, λοπάς ἐστ᾿ αὐτῷ

δυνατὴ τούτους χωρεῖν ἑκατόν. 5

καὶ περιοίκους εἶναι ταύτῃ

Σίνδους, Λυκίους, Μυγδονιώτας,

Κραναούς, Παφίους. τούτους δ᾿ ὕλην

κόπτειν, ὁπόταν βασιλεὺς ἕψῃ

τὸν μέγαν ἰχθύν· καὶ προσάγοντας, 10

καθ᾿ ὅσον πόλεως ἕστηκεν ὅρος,

τοὺς δ᾿ ὑποκαίειν. λίμνην δ᾿ ἐπάγειν

ὕδατος μεστὴν εἰς τὴν ἅλμην,

τοὺς δ᾿ ἅλας αὐτῷ ζεύγη προσάγειν

μηνῶν ὀκτὼ συνεχῶς ἑκατόν. 15

περιπλεῖν δ᾿ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἄμβωσιν ἄνω

πέντε κέλητας πεντασκάλμους

περιαγγέλλειν τ᾿· “οὐχ ὑποκαίεις,

Λυκίων πρύτανι; ψυχρὸν τουτί.

παύου φυσῶν, Μακεδὼν ἄρχων. 20

σβέννυ, Κέλθ᾿, ὡς μὴ προσκαύσῃς”²⁶

Whenever the inhabitants of the country

catch an exceptional fish for him (sc. Geryon),

larger in size than the sea-girt, thalassic Crete,

a frying-pan is available for his sake, which is

capable of holding one hundred of these. 5

And the inhabitants dwelling around this country are

Sindians, Lycians, Mygdonians,

Cranaans, and Paphians; these, they chop wood,

whenever the king is cooking

the big fish, and carry it forward, 10

up to the city’s boundaries,

and set fire to it. And a lake full of water

is supplied for the brine;

and they marshal one hundred pairs of oxen to transport

salt for it, for eight months non-stop. 15

And up on the rim, five fast,

five-tholed boats keep sailing about

and carry orders around: “Won’t you turn up the fire,

Lycian commander? This bit right here is cold!

Stop blowing, ruler of Macedon! 20

Quench that flame, Celt, lest you burn it all!”²⁷

The play’s mythological framework aptly intertwines with the poet’s contemporary reality; first, the speaker refers to present-day people dwelling in and around mainland Greece and on Greek islands (and not around the western island of Erytheia, Geryon’s habitat), and secondly we hear of some Macedonian ruler and some Celt (lines 20–21). Accordingly, it is likely that the monstrous mythological figure of Geryon was transferred²⁸ to the poet’s contemporary reality and served as a comic disguise for some real-life character. Over the years, the title-figure of Ephippus’ Geryon has been interpreted as being a comic disguise for (i) the Athenian general Timotheus (a dominant figure of the Second Athenian League),²⁹ (ii) Alexander the Great,³⁰ and (iii) the Persian king.³¹ Acknowledging that certainty is impossible (given the fragmentary nature of evidence), it is my belief that Geryon is to be interpreted as a comic disguise for Philip II of Macedon. Philip’s sweeping political agenda and outstanding military achievements had unquestionably turned him into a dominant figure of the fourth century BC.³² We already know of another play from Middle Comedy, which was entirely dedicated to Philip II (and was probably set in Macedon); this is the play Φίλιππος (Philip) by Mnesimachus (PCG 7,23–26), a contemporary of Ephippus.³³ Once again, Comedy (during the largely non-political era of fourth century) exhibits substantial political interest, albeit presently camouflaged under the veil of myth and mythological parody. We can confidently argue that Ephippus’ Geryon was a full-scale political allegory (just like Aristophanes’ Knights, Eupolis’ Marikas, and Plato’s Cleophon and Hyperbolus), wherein the mythological figure of Geryon functioned as a comic disguise – of grotesque dimensions – for the Macedonian king Philip II. Besides, this interpretation is compatible with the dates of Philip’s reign (360/359–336 BC), the Celts’ first contact with the Greeks (369 BC),³⁴ and Ephippus’ floruit (first victory ca. 378–376 BC). In addition, Geryon’s non-human size and preposterous appetite fittingly correspond to Philip’s geostrategic agenda (regarding territorial expansion and political control). It is intriguing that Mnesimachus depicts a largely similar situation in his abovementioned play Philip; in fr. 8 the citizens of Pharsalus (a town in Thessaly and an ally of Philip II) are portrayed as gluttonous people who would even eat the tables, though they are currently busy chewing up the town of Halus (which Philip II had recently helped them reduce to submission).³⁵

Furthermore, it is instructive that the food being prepared for Geryon is fish; given that fish was widely considered the luxury food par excellence,³⁶ this is another piece of corroborating evidence that favours the identification of Geryon with Philip II, since it is consistent with our knowledge regarding the notorious sumptuousness of the Macedonian king. Indeed, Philip II was well-known for his propensity for dissolute behaviour and self-indulging habits; see Theopompus 115 F 224 FGrH and Demosthenes 2.18–19.³⁷

Philip’s greediness is both literal (the preposterously huge fish corresponds to ancient testimonies about his extravagance) and metaphorical, i.e. alluding to political greediness (‘imperialism’). Ephippus’ fragment mentions five areas of geostrategic importance (lines 7–8) that arguably form the king’s arc of political influence; the latter starts expectedly from Macedonia (Mygdonians),³⁸ extends to the north up to the territory of Sindians (in the northern border of Black Sea),³⁹ then extends south to Cyprus (Paphians), before entering Asia Minor to the east reaching Lycia (Lycians);⁴⁰ of course, it includes the city of Athens (Cranaans),⁴¹ as well as all other areas in-between.

The political repertoire may be receding during Middle Comedy, but it never disappears. The element of experimentation lies at the very core of Greek Comedy and quintessentially defines the entire genre. The comic playwrights love experimenting with the endless comic possibilities created when mythical characters step out from the mythical sphere into a very concrete and very political here-and-now. Myth becomes the vehicle that bridges the chronotopic gap with the present and facilitates the transfer of legendary figures (such as Heracles and Geryon) from a vague mythological chronotope to the play’s practically tangible contemporary reality. The result of this whimsical technique is blatantly anachronistic and consists of an imaginative amalgamation of mythical tradition with contemporary reality, including contemporary politics, as the mythical realm infiltrates the real world and blends with it. Not only does Comedy reverse the mythical tradition, but it also engenders a concomitant burlesque of history, with accompanying political echoes. Unfortunately, due to the fragmentary nature of the surviving evidence, the extent of history’s burlesque escapes us. Be that as it may, it would be interesting to try to imagine the grotesque staging of a monstrous (three-bodied and three-headed) Philip-Geryon devouring fish the size of the island of Crete; the identification does not need to have been spelled out to the audience but only hinted at – to a recognizable extent (cf. how at the beginning of Aristophanes’ Knights Paphlagon is immediately decoded as being a disguise of Cleon through the references to the tannery theme and the three-obol piece in lines 44 and 51). One should also bear in mind that the people who read Theopompus’ stories and listened to Demosthenes’ ardent harangues in the Popular Assembly were the same people who attended the theatre and watched Ephippus’ Geryon playing out as a grotesque caricature of Philip II. The same goes for Busiris and Nectanebo II; as soon as mythical tradition is reversed and coupled with history, history burlesque inescapably follows. Following the performance of Ephippus’ plays, Nectanebo II would be stuck in people’s minds as the real-life equivalent of the mythical killer king, while Philip II would be accompanied by the odious memory of some monstrous, non-human creature (cf. how Cleon is stuck in our minds as the vulgar slave Paphlagon).

Ephippus (like any other Middle Comedy poet) does not tell his audience what to do;⁴² he simply winks at his audience inviting them to an archetypical version of a ‘who’s who’ challenge. These imbued in myth comic plays that meddle with history had a considerable impact on people – in fact, a bigger and more considerable impact than what we are often willing to acknowledge at first sight.

To conclude, myth – this multivalent phenomenon of ancient Greek thought – becomes a useful dramaturgic tool for comic poets, especially of the fourth century BC. Resourcefully adapted and comically twisted versions of traditional myth serve as a virtual platform, upon which history is stripped naked from its rigidness and gets burlesqued, along with myth, while historical figures – safely disguised behind their mythical counterparts – get their fair share of criticism and/or satire.

Bibliography

Bakola, E. 2010. Cratinus and the Art of Comedy. Oxford. →

Boardman, J., et al. (eds.) 1981–2009. Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae. 8 vols. (and 2 vols. suppl.). Zürich. (abbr. as LIMC) 

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

Bowie, A. 2000. Myth and Ritual in the Rivals of Aristophanes. In The Rivals of Aristophanes, eds. Harvey, F.D. and Wilkins, J.M., 317–339. London. →

Bowie, A. 2007. Myth in Aristophanes. In The Cambridge Companion to Greek Mythology, ed. Woodard, R.D., 190–209. Cambridge. →

Bowie, A. 2010. Myth and Ritual in Comedy. In Brill’s Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy, ed. Dobrov, G.W., 143–176. Leiden. →

Bradford, A.S. 1992. Philip II of Macedon: A Life from the Ancient Sources. Westport, CT. →

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

Calame, C. 2003. Myth and History in Ancient Greece. The Symbolic Creation of a Colony (transl. Berman, D.W.). Princeton. →

Casolari, F. 2003. Die Mythentravestie in der griechischen Komödie. Münster. →

Davidson, J.N. 1993. Fish, Sex and Revolution in Athens. CQ 43: 53–66. →

Davidson, J.N. 1997. Courtesans and Fishcakes. The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens. London. →

Dixon, D. 2015. Myth-Making in Greek and Roman Comedy (Ph.D. Diss. ProQuest). →

Dobrov, G.W. 2010. Comedy and Her Critics. In Brill’s Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy, ed. Dobrov, G.W., 3–33. Leiden. →

Dušanić, S. 1980–1981. Athens, Crete and the Aegean after 366/5 B.C. Talanta 12–13: 7–29. →

Edmonds, J.M. 1957–1961. The Fragments of Attic Comedy after Meineke, Bergk, and Kock. 3 vols. Leiden. (abbr. as Edmonds plus volume and page number) 

Freeman, P. 1994. The Earliest Classical Sources on the Celts: A Linguistic and Historical Study (Ph.D. Diss. ProQuest). →

Gantz, T. 1993. Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources. Baltimore. →

Graf, F. 1993. Greek Mythology. An Introduction (transl. Marier, T.). Baltimore. →

Hall, J.M. 2007. Politics and Greek Myth. In The Cambridge Companion to Greek Mythology, ed. Woodard, R.D., 331–354. Cambridge. →

Henderson, J. 2008. Aristophanes: Fragments. Cambridge, MA. →

Henderson, J. 2012. Pursuing Nemesis: Cratinus and Mythological Comedy. In No Laughing Matter: Studies in Athenian Comedy, eds. Marshall, C.W. and Kovacs, G., 1–12. London. →

Henderson, J. 2014. Comedy in the Fourth Century II: Politics and Domesticity. In The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, eds. Fontaine, M. and Scafuro, A.C., 181–198. Oxford. →

Jacoby, F., et al. 1923–1999. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin. (abbr. as FGrH) 

Kassel, R. and Austin, C. (eds.) 1983–. Poetae Comici Graeci, 8 vols. Berlin. (abbr. as PCG) 

Kirchner, I., 1901. Prosopographia Attica, 2 vols, Berlin. (abbr. as PA) 

Kirk, G. 1970. Myth: Its Meaning and Functions in Ancient and Other Cultures. Berkeley. →

Konstantakos, I.M. 2000. Notes on the Chronology and Career of Antiphanes. Eikasmos 11: 173–196. →

Konstantakos, I.M. 2014. Comedy in the Fourth Century I: Mythological Burlesques. In The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, eds. Fontaine, M. and Scafuro, A.C., 160–180. Oxford. →

Koster, W.J.W. 1975. Scholia in Aristophanem, pars I, fasc. 1A: Prolegomena de Comoedia. Groningen. 

Lane Fox, R.J. (ed.) 2011. Brill’s Companion to Ancient Macedon: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Macedon, 650 BC-300 AD. Leiden. →

Lincoln, B. 1999. Theorizing Myth. Narrative, Ideology, and Scholarship. Chicago. a, b

Mastellari, V. 2020. Calliade – Mnesimaco. Introduzione, Traduzione e Commento. Göttingen. →

Meineke, A. 1839–1857. Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum. 5 vols. Berlin. (abbr. as Meineke plus volume and page number) 

Millis, B.W. 2015. Anaxandrides: Introduction, Translation, Commentary. Heidelberg. →

Millis, B.W. and Olson, S.D. (eds.) 2012. Inscriptional Records for the Dramatic Festivals in Athens: IG II² 2318–2325 and Related Texts. Leiden. →

Müller, K. 1855. Geographi Graeci Minores. Tabulae in Geographos Graecos minores instructae. Paris. (facsimile repr. Hildesheim 1965) 

Müller, S. 2010. Philip II. In A Companion to Ancient Macedonia, eds. Roisman, J. and Worthington, I., 166–185. Chichester. →

Nesselrath, H.-G. 1990. Die attische Mittlere Komödie. Berlin. a, b

Nesselrath, H.-G. 1995. Myth, Parody, and Comic Plots: The Birth of Gods and Middle Comedy. In Beyond Aristophanes: Transition and Diversity in Greek Comedy, ed. Dobrov, G.W., 1–28. Atlanta. →

Nesselrath, H.-G. 1997. The Polis of Athens in Middle Comedy. In The City as Comedy: Society and Representation in Athenian Drama, ed. Dobrov, G.W., 271–288. Chapel Hill. →

Nilsson, M.P. 1951. Cults, Myths, Oracles and Politics in Ancient Greece. Lund. →

Ober, J. 2015. The Rise and Fall of Classical Greece. Princeton. →

Olson, S.D. 2007. Broken Laughter. Select Fragments of Greek Comedy. Oxford. 

Olson, S.D. 2008. Athenaeus. The Learned Banqueters, vol. 3: Books 6–7. Cambridge, MA. →

Papachrysostomou, A. 2008. Six Comic Poets. A Commentary on Selected Fragments of Middle Comedy. Tübingen. a, b

Papachrysostomou (Παπαχρυσοστόμου), A. 2009. Οὐδὲν πρὸς τὴν πόλιν; Αναφορές σε πολιτικά πρόσωπα στη Μέση Κωμωδία του τετάρτου αιώνα π.Χ. Ελληνικά 59.2: 181–204. →

Papachrysostomou, A. 2016. Amphis: Introduction, Translation, Commentary. Heidelberg. →

Papachrysostomou, A. 2017. Time- and Space-Travelling in Greek Middle Comedy. In Time and Space in Ancient Myth, Religion and Culture, eds. Bierl, A., Christopoulos, M., and Papachrysostomou, A., 165–178. Berlin. a, b

Papachrysostomou, A. 2021. Ephippus: Introduction, Translation, Commentary. Göttingen. a, b, c, d, e

Ruffell, I.A. 2011. Politics and Anti-Realism in Athenian Old Comedy: The Art of the Impossible. Oxford. →

Sommerstein, A. 2014. The Politics of Greek Comedy. In The Cambridge Companion to Greek Comedy, ed. Revermann, M., 291–305. New York. →

Traill, J.S. 1994–. Persons of Ancient Athens. 21 vols. Toronto. (abbr. as PAA) 

Webster, T.B.L. 1948. South Italian Vases and Attic Drama. CQ 42: 15–27. →

Webster, T.B.L. 1970². Studies in Later Greek Comedy. Manchester. a, b, c

Wilkins, J. 2000. The Boastful Chef: The Discourse of Food in Ancient Greek Comedy. Oxford. →

Worthington, I. 2014. By the Spear: Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the Rise and Fall of the Macedonian Empire. Oxford. →

Notes

1

Burkert (1979) 1.

2

Kirk (1970) 7.

3

For an overall introduction to Greek myth, see Graf (1993).

4

Hall (2007) 332.

5

Lincoln (1999) 146–147.

6

In that regard, Nilsson’s monograph (1951) is considered a pioneering work.

7

On Antiphanes’ date, see Konstantakos (2000).

8

English translation by Olson (2008) 3–5. See Olson (2007) 154–155, 172–173 for further analysis of this fragment.

9

This trend of myth burlesque can be traced back to Old Comedy (the major example being Cratinus’ Dionysalexandros). On Old Comedy’s legacy in dealing with mythical tradition, see Bowie (1993); Bowie (2000); Bowie (2007); Bakola (2010) 180–208; Bowie (2010); Ruffell (2011) 314–360; Henderson (2012).

10

Unlike Old and New Comedy, we have no intact surviving play from the period of Middle Comedy.

11

My translation.

12

I.e. the period between the performance of Aristophanes’ last intact surviving play, Plutos, in 388 BC, and Menander’s first stage appearance in 324/323 or 321 BC.

13

Webster (1948) 23. On mythological parody, see further Webster (1970²) 16–19, 82–85; Nesselrath (1990) 188–241; Nesselrath (1995); Casolari (2003); Konstantakos (2014); Dixon (2015); Papachrysostomou (2016) 14; Papachrysostomou (2017).

14

For an evaluation of the testimonies collected by Koster, see Dobrov (2010) 21–27.

15

English translation by Henderson (2008) 81–83.

16

Ephippus was an Athenian comic poet, who is recorded to have won a single Lenaean victory ca. 378–376 BC. See PCG 5,131–152; Millis and Olson (2012) 2325E.40; PAA 452960; PA 6160 + add.; RE 5.2,2858 s.v. Ephippos no. 3, Papachrysostomou (2021) 11–12.

17

For discussion of politics in Middle Comedy, see Webster (1970²) 37–56; Nesselrath (1990) 218–225; Nesselrath (1997); Papachrysostomou (2009); Henderson (2014); Sommerstein (2014).

18

For analytical commentary of all aspects of the play and the surviving fragment, see Papachrysostomou (2021) 32–41.

19

See [Apollod.] 2.116–117.

20

Ephippus fr. 2 (apud Athenaeus Deipnosophistae 10.442d-e), PCG 5,132.

21

English translation by Papachrysostomou (2021) 34.

22

See Diod. Sic. 16.44.2.

23

See Millis (2015) 189.

24

For analytical commentary of all aspects of the play and the surviving fragments, see Papachrysostomou (2021) 42–82.

25

See Hes. Theog. 287–294, 979–983; Scyl. 26.14–15 Müller; Hdt. 4.8; Diod. Sic. 4.17, [Apollod.] 2.42, 2.106–112. See further Gantz (1993) 402–408; LIMC iv.1.186–190, v.1.81–85.

26

Ephippus fr. 5 (apud Athenaeus Deipnosophistae 8.346f-347b), PCG 5,134–135.

27

English translation by Papachrysostomou (2021) 69–70.

28

For this idiosyncratic ‘transfer’, see Papachrysostomou (2017).

29

Dušanić (1980/1981).

30

Meineke 1,351–352.

31

Webster (1970²) 40–42; Davidson (1993) 61.

32

On Philip II of Macedon, see Müller (2010); Worthington (2014) 25–119; Ober (2015) 239–240, 268–291.

33

See Papachrysostomou (2008) 183, 209–220; Mastellari (2020) 331, 339.

34

The Celts became involved in the Greek affairs for the first time in 369 BC, when Dionysius of Syracuse dispatched a Celtic mercenary force to assist the Spartans, as Webster points out (1970²) 42; cf. Xen. Hell. 7.1.20 καταπλεῖ Λακεδαιμονίοις ἡ παρὰ Διονυσίου βοήθεια, τριήρεις πλέον ἢ εἴκοσιν. ἦγον δὲ Κελτούς τε καὶ Ἴβηρας (‘the expedition sent by Dionysius to aid the Lacedaemonians sailed in, numbering more than twenty triremes; and they brought Celts and Iberians’); see further Freeman (1994).

35

See Papachrysostomou (2008) 216–218.

36

See Wilkins (2000) 293–304; Davidson (1997) 11–20.

37

For an exhaustive compilation of ancient testimonies relating to Philip II, see Bradford (1992); Lane Fox (2011) 257–269, 335–391.

38

These were the inhabitants of the region called Mygdonia (Μυγδονία), in Macedonia; see Steph. Byz. s.v. Μυγδονία, and Thuc. 1.58, 2.99.4–5.

39

The Sindians were a Scythian tribe, who lived south of the Maeotis Lake (modern Sea of Azof; see Steph. Byz. s.v. Σίνδοι), in the northern part of the Black Sea.

40

Lycia was situated in southwestern Asia Minor.

41

The term Cranaans is an archaic appellation of the Athenians, highlighting their descendance from Κραναός, the mythical king of Athens; see [Apollod.] 1.49, 3.186–187; Str. 9.1.18; Paus. 1.2.6, 1.31.3.

42

Unlike Aristophanes, who assumed all righteousness and wisdom for himself in the parabasis (and elsewhere); the sense is rather pervasive in the Aristophanic texts and the examples are numerous, e.g. Ach. 500–501, Vesp. 1015–1050, Ran. 686–737, etc.