ancient authorities that it anticipated one of the most characteristic
features of romantic comedy—nay more, that it actually served as the
model for Menander and Philemon. Thus, in the _Vita Aristophanis_, p.
xxxviii., it is said: ἐγένετο δὲ καὶ αἴτιος ζήλου τοῖς νέοις κωμικοῖς,
λέγω δὴ Φιλήμονι καὶ Μενάνδρῳ ... ἔγραψε Κώκαλον, ἐν ᾧ εἰσάγει φθορὰν καὶ
ἀναγνωρισμὸν καὶ τἄλλα πάντα ἃ ἐζήλωσε Μένανδρος, and again, p. xxxv.:
πρῶτος δὲ καὶ τῆς νέας κωμῳδίας τὸν τρόπον ἐπέδειξεν ἐν τῷ Κωκάλῳ, ἐξ οὗ
τὴν ἀρχὴν λαβόμενοι Μένανδρός τε καὶ Φιλήμων ἐδραματούργησαν.
Of these statements, the one part, startling as it is, must presumably
be accepted without question. In the face of such definite evidence,
it would be rash to attempt to deny that one of the features of
Aristophanes’ play was φθορὰ καὶ ἀναγνωρισμός—a feature which is, as is
well known, not only one of the commonest in romantic comedy, but also
peculiarly characteristic of the love-element as there treated. The sort
of story of which we are speaking is sufficiently familiar to every
reader of Terence. A man seduces a girl, either without knowing at all
who she is, or else under the impression that she is a foreigner or a
slave. Afterwards she is proved to be an Athenian citizen, and he, being
still in love, marries her, with the double object of atoning for his
fault and of continuing his amour on a legitimate basis.[233]
But here a question arises. Granted that Aristophanes anticipated one of
the most characteristic situations of the romantic comedy, in how far, if
at all, did he anticipate the romantic treatment of that situation, such
as we subsequently find it? Aristophanes, as we have seen, has the first
part of the romantic love-story in his _Cocalus_; is it probable that
he also had the second? He has the seduction and the recognition; is it
probable that he had also the _amende honorable_ prompted by feelings of
respect and devotion? And, as a natural pendant to this, is it probable
that the _Cocalus_ was really, as asserted, the model after which the
later romantic comedy was formed?
It is not probable. No one who knows the works of Aristophanes, and
considers the character of the Athenians of his day, would expect such
a thing; and, apart from this inherent improbability, there are various
reasons which seem to suggest that the second part of the anonymous
grammarian’s statement was based upon a misconception. But, before
discussing any of these points, it will be necessary to investigate, as
far as possible, the exact nature of this play of Aristophanes, for which
so much is claimed.
An examination of the actual remains of the _Cocalus_ will not afford
very much information, for the fragments preserved are few and
unimportant, while the mercurial nature of Aristophanes’ plots, as we
know them from existing plays, makes it obviously hazardous to venture
conjectures as to what they may or may not have included. Certain facts,
however, seem sufficiently clear. For one thing, the play was based, at
any rate originally and ostensibly, on the legendary history of Cocalus,
Daedalus, and Minos. This history was, briefly, as follows:—
Daedalus, after his flight from Crete, took refuge with Cocalus, king of
Sicily, and rose to high favour at his court. When Minos, having learnt
his whereabouts, demanded his surrender, Cocalus at first seemed willing
to comply, and invited Minos to his palace. The latter, suspecting
nothing, accepted the invitation, and was at once murdered in his bath,
either by Cocalus himself or by his daughters.[234]
That the latter version of the final incident was accepted by
Aristophanes seems probable, but even so it is hard to see how the
φθορὰ καὶ ἀναγνωρισμός can be brought into the story. It is, perhaps,
justifiable to assume that the hero of the amour was Daedalus, and that
the lady was subsequently recognised as a daughter of Cocalus; but how
this all came about, it is well-nigh impossible to say. In some of the
fragments we are apparently introduced to a regular Hetaera (_e.g._ 2,
10; and, perhaps, 6, 7); in another, however (_Fr._ 3), a woman seems
vigorously repudiating some slur cast on her character. It cannot, of
course, be proved that the plot[235] was not one of the regular New
Comedy kind: The daughter of Cocalus, being stolen as a child, became the
property of a _leno_, and was thus brought in contact with Daedalus, &c.
But it seems to me much more probable that the structure of the story was
somewhat of the following kind. The daughter of Cocalus is violated by
Daedalus on the occasion of a nocturnal orgy, without being recognised by
her lover. She, however, is aware of his identity, and consequently, when
the time comes, murders Minos, an event which necessitates explanations
(the ἀναγνωρισμός of the grammarian).[236] One thing there is to be said
in favour of this scheme of reconstruction, though, of course, when the
evidence is so slight, it is impossible to feel anything like confidence
with regard to this or any other suggestion. If this view be adopted,
Aristophanes may be assumed to have chosen his story with the object of
satirising the _Pannychides_ and other similar orgies, which were always
a favourite subject of attack with him, and which he had already abused
in the _Horae_,[237] the _Lemniae_, and, perhaps, elsewhere.
But, be this as it may, one thing is plain. There is nothing, either in
the story of the _Cocalus_ or in its treatment, as far as the fragments
allow one to judge of this, which has any real sympathy with that later
feeling which inspires the romantic comedy. For one thing, the erotic
incident, such as it is, belongs entirely to that primitive class in
which the action is all on the side of the woman. The daughter of Cocalus
saving her lover is but a reflection of Medea or Ariadne. In the later
romantic comedy, on the other hand, the action is regularly on the side
of the man; for, as is well known, the attempts of the lover to outwit
his father or the _leno_ supply pretty well the whole stock of the
incidents of New Comedy. Again, there is no suggestion whatever, as far
as one can judge, of any marriage by way of reparation, or, indeed, of
any marriage at all;[238] and marriage, as we shall see very clearly
later on, is the fundamental principle of Greek romance. Again, there is
no suggestion—and this is still more important—that the love of Daedalus
was described as more than a mere temporary emotion; and here is another
point of difference between this play and the romantic New Comedy. In
fact, if one comes to examine the story of the _Cocalus_ carefully,
it becomes apparent that the essential features of Greek romance are
entirely wanting. Indeed, the only real affinity of this play to the New
Comedy seems to be that it anticipated, or possibly suggested, some of
the rather cumbrous conventional machinery of the latter form of art.
A further fact, which well-nigh precludes the possibility of regarding
the _Cocalus_ as the real model of New Comedy, is furnished by the dates.
The date of the _Cocalus_ cannot be fixed later than the year 380 or
thereabouts. The first play of Philemon, admittedly the most ancient
poet who wrote romantic comedies, appeared in 330. Thus, even if it were
granted that such romantic comedies were among the earliest of Philemon’s
works, which was almost certainly not the case,[239] there would still
be an interval of at least fifty years during which the “romantic”
_Cocalus_ of Aristophanes did not find a single imitator. The works of
Antiphanes, Eubulus, and, indeed, all the typical writers of “Middle”
Comedy, do not contain so much as a suggestion of a romantic element, and
yet, before the time of all of them, there was in existence a perfect
romantic comedy, which only needed to be revived by Philemon to bring
about a complete revolution of the canons of dramatic art. In fact, the
introduction of the romantic element into comedy—that is, the birth of
the modern drama—was due to a chance resuscitation by Philemon of an
obscure piece that had been lying unnoticed for more than fifty years.
_Credat Apella._
Moreover, if one comes to consider the matter, there were powerful causes
at work in the minds of the early critics, which may very well have led
them to assign an undue degree of importance to the _Cocalus_. Such
causes would be mainly of two distinct kinds.
In the first place, there was the tendency, with which every student of
ancient and mediaeval criticism is familiar, to exaggerate the merits of
certain individuals, and to ascribe to certain admittedly great names
an even more extended influence than they actually possessed.[240] It
seemed only natural, therefore, to the ancient critic to expect that
Aristophanes, being admittedly the greatest of the comedians, should
not only have profoundly influenced his own immediate field of art, but
should also have laid the foundations of every subsequent form of comedy.
The grammarian, therefore, who found in the story of the _Cocalus_ a
certain resemblance to stories with which he was familiar in the plays of
the New Comedy, felt no hesitation in affirming that the _Cocalus_ was
actually the model on which these plays of the New Comedy were based,
just as Platonius (p. xxxiv.) speaks of the _Aeolosicon_ as ὁ τῆς μέσης
κωμῳδίας τύπος.
In the second place, the story of the _Cocalus_ had actually
been converted into a “New” Comedy play—the _Hypobolimaeus_ of
Philemon[241]—and the existence of this neo-comic version of the story
may very possibly have influenced the recollections of the original; for
it is more than probable that the play of Philemon, while adopting the
main features of the story as it appeared in Aristophanes, yet differed
considerably in its general treatment of the erotic incidents. In other
words, there is little reason to doubt that Philemon, actuated by the
changed spirit of his time, developed the romantic capabilities of the
story to the utmost, and gave a romantic interpretation to various
situations, where nothing of the kind had been done or intended by
Aristophanes. And hence the fact that a romantic version of the _Cocalus_
was familiar, served to spread the idea that the original _Cocalus_ was
romantic also, and, as such, a forerunner of the romantic element in
New Comedy, whereas, as a matter of fact, it was nothing of the kind,
owing its romantic colouring entirely to the influence of the ideas
disseminated by that New Comedy which it was erroneously supposed to
inspire.
To sum up, then: There seems little reason to believe that the _Cocalus_
is really as important for the history of the romantic element as would
at first sight appear. Apart from the strong _prima facie_ improbability
of finding a romantic love-story in a play by Aristophanes, there is the
further remarkable fact that the Aristophanic suggestion, if really
given, found no one to take it up for more than fifty years. Again, while
the legendary history of Cocalus and the fragments of the play, as far
as such have been preserved, do not actually preclude the possibility
that the erotic incident may have been treated in a romantic manner, they
certainly furnish no evidence whatever in favour of such a view. There
are, besides, various reasons which may have induced the ancient critics
to see a greater resemblance between the _Cocalus_ and the plays of the
New Comedy than was actually present. On the whole, therefore, it would
appear that the similarity between this work of Aristophanes and the
romantic comedies of Menander and his followers, is merely an accidental
and superficial one, and that it is incorrect to say, as some have done,
that the latter class of composition was derived from or inspired by the
former.
VI. THE POETS OF THE TRANSITION.
To return after this somewhat lengthy digression to our examination of
the poets of the transition.
Plato, even more than his model Aristophanes, was a follower of the
political school of Cratinus, revelling in personal attacks of the most
violent kind, and hence there seems little reason to doubt that such of
his plays as bear the stamp of Middle Comedy belong to his later period,
and were only produced, decidedly _invita Minerva_, when the free license
of abuse had been artificially checked. Hence the allusions in his works
to women or erotic subjects seem to have been unusually scarce. In the
_Adonis_, mention is made of the rival lovers of the hero, Aphrodite
and Dionysus; but there is nothing to indicate that this play contained
anything of the nature of a serious exposition of the respective claims
of male and female love. The _Zeus Cacumenus_ very probably introduced
Zeus in his usual comic character of the adulterer, as did the _Nyx
Macra_,[242] and the _Europe_ may very possibly have treated of a
similar subject. More original, however, and interesting than these is
the _Phaon_, which seems to have been one of the poet’s latest works,
and which furnishes a good specimen of his manner of treating women.
Phaon, having been presented by Aphrodite with the cosmetics which
were to inspire universal passion, appears surrounded by a crowd of
admiring women, who are, however, refused access to his presence, unless
they perform certain propitiatory rites (_Fr._ 2), and otherwise prove
themselves worthy of the honour. The means by which one lady eventually
qualifies (_Fr._ 4) can only be guessed, but the language of _Fr._ 3
seems to suggest that the contest was somewhat after the manner of those
described in _Anth. Pal._ v. 35 or Alciphron i. 39, 4 _seqq._[243]
The interest of this piece lies in the fact that the plot is, despite
its ribald handling, unequivocally a love-story, and, as such, perhaps
distinct from any piece that we have hitherto had occasion to examine.
That the love-story is, however, of the kind which belongs essentially to
Middle Comedy, and has nothing whatever in common with those of the later
romantic comedy, will become abundantly clear when we come to deal with
the points of difference between these two schools of art.[244]
The information to be gained from the remains of the other poets of
the transitional period is sadly scanty. The _Moechi_ of Ameipsias, a
play which, to judge by the title, might have thrown much light on the
present subject, is hopelessly lost. Of the _Sappho_ even the title is
doubtful. The celebrated _Ichthys_ of Archippus seems to have contained
punning allusions to the Hetaerae Sepia and Aphye, a sign of the growing
inclination to discuss this class of persons on the stage. The latter
lady, or a namesake of hers, is mentioned by Callias in his _Cyclopes_.
Of the _Atalanta_ of the same writer, one line is preserved:
κέρδος αἰσχύνης ἄμεινον· ἕλκε μοιχὸν ἐς μυχόν,
which seems in some sort to suggest that episode in the life of
the mythical Atalanta, daughter of Schoeneus, which led to her
metamorphosis[245]; but, seeing that even the title _Atalanta_ is
doubtful, this conjecture cannot be considered as very certain. Strattis
appears to have introduced Lais on the stage in his _Macedones_ (_Fr._
5), and in his parodies of the _Medea_, the _Phoenissae_, &c., the
female characters of Euripides doubtless came in for their full share of
ridicule, though no definite evidence to this effect has been preserved.
A little more information is to be gained from the works of those
poets who belonged to the very end of the period of transition. Thus,
the plays of Theopompus, which deal almost exclusively with Middle
Comedy subjects, furnish several instances of that treatment of female
characters with which one is familiar in the plays of the Middle Comedy
proper. The _Aphrodisia_ introduces us to the Hetaerae celebrating their
customary festival. _Fr._ 1 affords a specimen of the remarks passed
on absent friends on such occasions,[246] while _Fr._ 2 gives further
details of the festivities. The solitary but considerable fragment of
the _Nemea_ (called after the Hetaera of that name) gives a lively
description of a scene in which an intending lover is doing his best to
gain the approval of the lady’s _lena_, a class which was, doubtless,
as devoted then to the _curto vetus amphora collo_ as it was 400 years
later.[247] In the _Capelides_ it is equally possible to get a glimpse
of the action of the piece. A man dropping in at the bar of a house he
has been in the habit of frequenting, and finding himself less effusively
welcomed than he had had reason to hope (_Fr._ 3, 4), threatens to
attack the proprietress and the rival of whom he is jealous (_Fr._
5). Of the rest, the _Hedychares_ described a wedding ceremony (_Fr._
3),[248] the _Callaeschrus_ contained an allusion to the expensiveness
of certain Hetaerae, and general erotic allusions are not uncommon
(_e.g._ _Odysseus_ 1, _Medus_ 2). The _Stratiotides_ seems to have had
some points in common with the _Ecclesiazusae_ of Aristophanes. Alcaeus,
who is one of the very latest in date of the writers usually ranked as
belonging to the “Old” Comedy, deals in nearly all his plays with erotic
subjects, mostly in the shape of mythological stories burlesqued. To
this class belong the _Pasiphae_, the _Hierus Gamus_, the _Endymion_,
the _Ganymedes_, and perhaps the _Callisto_, unless this be, like the
_Palaestra_, named after an Hetaera. From this list of titles it may
be seen that every style of love came in for treatment, but in no case
are the fragments sufficiently numerous, for it to be possible even to
hazard a guess as to what the nature of that treatment may have been.
As to the plot of the _Adelphae Moecheuomenae_, we are equally in the
dark, though the title seems to suggest the _Aeolosicon_ of Aristophanes
and the _Canace_ of Euripides. Lastly, in the _Antea_ of Eunicus and the
_Thalatta_ of Diodes, both named after Hetaerae, we have two further
instances of a class of piece with which we have been steadily growing
more familiar, the nearer we have approached the confines of the typical
“Middle” Comedy.
VII. THE MIDDLE COMEDY.
The poets of the transition, of whom we have just been speaking, have
introduced us, more or less, to most, if not all, of the features which
belong to the Middle Comedy proper; at the same time, it may not be
amiss, for clearness’ sake, to recapitulate briefly those features, in so
far as they affect our immediate subject.
The points on which it is essential to concentrate the attention are
three in number:—
(1) In Middle Comedy, the preponderance of politics as the main dramatic
interest—a preponderance which, naturally, tended to exclude women
from the stage—disappears, and, consequently, female characters step
inevitably into a more prominent position.
(2) The restriction of the original license of Comedy, had led the
comedians to devote their talents to parodying mythological subjects; the
parodists of mythology would naturally find their readiest materials in
the stories of the amours of the various gods, and hence erotic stories
of a sort at once come to the fore.
(3) Middle Comedy being in great part, if not entirely, devoted to the
realistic treatment of contemporary social life, the Hetaerae, who
formed an important feature in that life, were necessarily brought into
prominence.[249]
Of these three main features,[250] the first two will not require special
illustration,[251] but the last is one on which it will be necessary to
dwell for some time.
The Hetaera-plays[252] are one of the most characteristic features of
the fourth century; indeed, it may almost be said that admiration for
the Hetaera, and ridicule of the wife, were the two main social canons
of the period. These plays seem to have been realistic representations
of contemporary life, and their general character is sufficiently
demonstrated by the well-known retort of Antiphanes to Alexander;[253]
but while they all thus have, as it were, a certain family likeness,
it would appear, beyond doubt, that they may be also divided into two
distinct classes, viz., those that have a distinct erotic plot, and those
that have none, the latter naturally belonging to an earlier period of
development than the former.
Plays dealing with Hetaerae were not, as we have already seen,
exclusively a feature of the fourth-century Comedy, though the majority
of such plays does, of course, belong to this period. In the very
beginnings of Comedy at Athens, we have at least three plays of this
class from the pen of Pherecrates,[254] while, at a later period of the
fifth century, other works of a similar character seem certainly to have
appeared.
The general character of these plays, however, seems, in spite of the
modernity of their subject, to have been essentially that prevailing
during the early period to which they belong. Pherecrates and his
imitators seem to have been merely concerned in drawing a picture—perhaps
a somewhat burlesque one—of the general life of an Hetaera and her
followers, and in dwelling upon the various comic incidents which might
occur in her environment, without troubling to connect these incidents
by means of any very definite story. In other words, the Hetaera-play
of Pherecrates was still, in the main, that mixture of pantomime and
variety-show with which one is familiar in Aristophanes, and with which
one’s ideas of the early Athenian Comedy are usually associated. And that
plays of this class continued to be produced with success till well into
the fourth century, there seems no reason to doubt.
The typical Hetaera-play of the Middle Comedy, however, is of an entirely
different character. In this there is a definite plot, of which the
Hetaera is the heroine, while the action of the piece is supplied by the
struggles _de nocte locanda_ of her various rival lovers. In fact, the
Hetaera-play of Antiphanes or Alexis is a comedy in the modern sense of
the word, while the Hetaera-play of an earlier period is still nothing
but an extravaganza. The author of this great change is not known;
perhaps it was Anaxandrides.
It is stated of Anaxandrides that he was the first to introduce ἔρωτας
καὶ παρθένων φθοράς[255] into Comedy. This statement is, at first sight,
rather difficult to understand, when one considers plays like the
_Nemesis_ of Cratinus, or the _Cocalus_ of Aristophanes, not to speak
of erotic episodes like the one which terminates the _Ecclesiazusae_ of
the latter writer; and it must be apparent that the mere introduction
on the stage of such subjects cannot be the merit claimed by Suidas
for Anaxandrides. The most simple explanation of the apparent anomaly
would therefore seem to be, that what Suidas means to imply, is that
Anaxandrides was the first to make erotic subjects the main interest
of his plot, and to introduce his principal characters as taking part
in them; for this, as we have already seen, was not the case with the
earlier plays which dealt with erotic matters.
Whether this great advance was really due to Anaxandrides cannot,
unfortunately, be proved with anything like certainty, for such fragments
of his works as have survived are remarkably reticent on this particular
subject;[256] but there can be no doubt that it took place about
his time, so that there is at least a strong probability, under the
circumstances, that it was the result of his influence.
On the first and older class of Hetaera-play, it is useless to dwell
further; a certain vague idea of their general nature is all that can
be gained by the study of their fragments, and the external evidence
as to their character is equally meagre, while the intentional want
of coherence which marked their action makes it obviously absurd to
endeavour in any way to reconstruct them. The character of the second
and, for our purposes, more important class, will be best explained by a
brief examination of one or two striking specimens, the remains of which
are sufficiently important to render it possible to follow their story,
at any rate for a certain distance.