HALLIWELL, F. S., Authorial Collaboration in the Athenian Comic Theatre , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:4 (1989) p.515 Authorial Collaboration In the Athenian Comic Theatre F. S. Halliwell LITERARY HISTORIANS are strongly inclined to assume a rather pure notion of authorship for the texts with which they deal. For many types of writing this is doubtless entirely defensible. But where 'literature' denotes the texts of works designed for staged performance, there are practical reasons, varying according to the particular theatrical circum­ stances of the time, why the authorship of the words actually spoken by actors may be less than entirely the responsibility of a single person. While there have been periods in which dramatic collaboration has been commonly practised and even openly acknowledged, l the contingencies of theatrical produc­ tion can readily turn such activity into an inconspicuous and, so to speak, 'backstage' matter. The principal aim of this article is to present and interpret a collection of evidence that will allow us to infer that authorial collaboration did sometimes take place between Athenian comic poets in the latter part of the fifth century. In the process, a number of suggestions will be made about the careers of four playwrights: Phrynichus, Aris­ tophanes, Eupolis, and Plato Comicus. The enquiry will in­ evitably prove speculative at certain points, but the speculation will be carefully controlled and is anyway worthwhile as part of the attempt to draw attention to a phenomenon neglected by students of the classical Athenian theatre. In independent articles published in 1979 and 1980,2 Giuseppe Mastromarco and I argued for a fresh interpretation of lines 1018-20 of the parabasis of Aristophanes Wasps, where the chorus describes one-and apparently the earliest-way in 1 The clearest English instance is the Elizabethan-Jacobean theatre: see G. E. Bentley, The Profession of Dramatist in Shakespeare's Time 1590-1642 (Princeton 1971) 197-234: Bentley estimates that perhaps half of the 1500 plays known from this period involved some authorial collaboration. 2 G. Mastromarco, "L'esordio av'tlOT\<;, apparently served to express the gibe that his rival Ecphantides (active in the 450's, and perhaps both earlier and later) was helped by Choerilus, the latter said by Hesychius (s.v. E1C1C£XOtptAffiJ,lEVT\) to have been a servant of Ecphantides who collaborated (crUJ,l- 7tOt£lV) with him: it looks likely that we have traces here of more than one comic reference to the matter. The roet's col­ laborator-servant is a motif that parallels the case 0 Euripides and Cephisophon (Al). Al: Telecleides frr.39-40 K. (likely to date from the 430's or early 420's), intimates that Socrates (? and Mnesilochus) has something to do with the composition of Euripides' plays. Euripides was regularly exposed both to broad insinuations of influence on his work, and to rather blunter aspersions: Callias fr.15 (12 K.; ca 430-424?), Ar. Ran. 944, 1408, 1452f, frr.392 (376 K.), 596 (580 K.), the last using crUJ,l7tOtelV; cf V. Eur. 12-17,78- 80 (Meridier), Satyrus V. Eur. (P.Oxy. IX 1176) fr.39.xvi.17-29. For the dubious idea that Cephisophon was a slave-collaborator see V. Eur. 92 and cf A1. A3: Hermippus fr.64 (64 K.), dating from ca 425, ridicules Phrynichus Comicus: ro<; UAAo'tpta U7tO~aAAOJ,lEVOU 7totllJ,la'ta. 5 Partial treatments can be found in C. G. Cobet, Observationes criticae in Platonis Comici reliquias (Amsterdam 1840) 65ff; E. Stemplinger, Das Plagiat in der griechischen Literatur (Leipzig 1912) 12ff. 6 Comic fragments are cited where possible from R. Kassel and C. Austin, edd., Poetae Comici Graeci (Berlin 1983- : PCG ); K.=T. Kock, ed., Comi­ corum Atticorum Fragmenta (Leipzig 1880-88). HALLIWELL, F. S., Authorial Collaboration in the Athenian Comic Theatre , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:4 (1989) p.515 518 AUTHORIAL COLLABORATION IN THE COMIC THEATRE This has been taken to impute plagiarism,7 but the verb (a meta­ phor from supposititious children: e.g. Ar. Thesm. 340, cf LSJ S.v. II) suggests rather the charge of presenting in his own name plays composed by another: possible if speculative contexts for this idea will present themselves (see infra). A4: Cratinus fr.213 (200 K.), from Putine of 423, speaks of Aristophanes ro<; tel EimoAloo<; A£'YOVtlOl1tO­ ~aAAEcreat in Hermippus' fragment (which may derive from parabatic anapaests) does not express an ordinary charge of plagiarism (ef., e.g. A5). I am therefore inclined to suppose that Hermippus may have gathered something about Phrynichus' collaborative relation to another comic poet, and it was this that he was (mis)representing in the fragment we have. While it can be only guesswork that there may even have been a connection between Phrynichus' putative collaborations and Aristophanes' claim at Vesp. 1018ff to have helped other poets, or alternatively between the activities of Phrynichus and Plato Com. (ef A6 and infra), it is nonetheless relevant to note the chronological proximity of all the material in items A3 -4, A6-11, since this lends cumulative weight to the case for be­ lieving in authorial collaboration as a real phenomenon in the comic theatre of this period. Before suggesting how the phe­ nomenon could have fitted into the larger picture of theatrical conditions, I want to return briefly to the career of Plato Com­ icus, which poses a number of extremely intricate and vexed difficulties. In order to attempt clarification of some of these, I must limit myself to the evidence contained in A6-7. From the latter I propose the following series of deductions: (1) that more 17 I cannot forbear to draw attention to the plural possessive itJ.Lin:poc; at Nub. 554: not only is this a conspicuous contrast to the reiterated singular at 559ff, it would be, so far as I can see, a unique use of TtJ.l.£'t£pOC; in reference to Aristophanes himself (as opposed to his choruses, e.g. Eq. 588, Ran. 354). I therefore record, without knowing what to make of it, the heretical suggestion that we have here an allusion (for those who knew) to some Eupolidean in­ volvement in Knights. HALLIWELL, F. S., Authorial Collaboration in the Athenian Comic Theatre , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:4 (1989) p.515 F. S. HALLIWELL 525 than one of Plato's earlier plays was produced at the Dionysia Ot' E-tEPOU; (2) that, since Eratosthenes says that under this ar­ rangement Plato EUOO1dJ,.1£t, the poet must have received some credit for the success of these works, which eliminates any question of concealed authorship; (3) that, as other evidence would indeed lead us to believe, the didascalic records on which Eratosthenes based his claims must have shown both the poet's and the producer's names;18 (4) that Plato's early suc­ cesses, if they antedated the one recorded in the victors' lists (IG IP 2325), cannot have been first prizes.19 To these deductions can be added a highly significant infer­ ence of a different kind, namely that if Eratosthenes' testimony in A7 was sound, it cannot have referred to the same flays as does Plato frr.106-07 (A6 );20 whatever we may make 0 Plato's presentation of himself as having, like the Arcadians and Heracles, toiled for others, this can scarcely have been meant to describe his action as a comic poet using didaskaloi for the pro­ duction of plays with which he was authorially credited. That A6 and A 7 contain some similar wording (aA.A.Ol<; XUPEXElV/ aA.A.Ol<; EStOOU) has proved, I believe, a false if seductive scent, and it should not be allowed to obstruct the inference just stated. The two contexts-one referring to Plato's "poverty" and to the fact that he did not personally enjoy the success of what he had written, the other clearly stating that Plato EUOO1dJ.1El-show that we are dealing with distinct matters. Plato frr.l06-07 point, I therefore submit, to something other than the poet's use of didaskaloi. While the fragments of Peisander cannot necessarily be taken at face value, what confronts us here appears to be a claim of a similar kind to that made by Aristophanes in the parabasis of Wasps (AS); and for much the same reasons as applied there, it is implausible to suppose that this is a case of entire comic fiction: though the motive of sell- 18 See DFA 2 85f; Mastromarco (supra n.2) 160-65. For Eratosthenes' use of didascalic documents see Mastromarco, RhM 121 (1978) 19-24; discussion of P.Oxy. 2737 in relation to Plato's career can be pursued through this article and the same author's in ZPE 53 (1983) 29-35: I differ from Mastromarco by dissociating Plato fr.l06 (A6) from Eratosthenes' testimony (A 7), but also by taking EUOOldJ.Ltl in the latter to cover only Dionysia plays, hence my inference (4). Cf now R. M. Rosen, ZPE 76 (1989) 223-28. 19 See DFA2 112, noting with 116 (foot) that the date given for Ameipsias, the entry before Plato, is only approximate and might be earlier than 414. 20 It is hardly conceivable that Eratosthenes was basing himself not on didascalic information (ef supra n.18) but on the parabasis of Peisander; this would leave the use of EUOOldJ.LEt unexplained. HALLIWELL, F. S., Authorial Collaboration in the Athenian Comic Theatre , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:4 (1989) p.515 526 AUTHORIAL COLLABORATION IN THE COMIC THEATRE ing plays out of poverty has the look of distortion or exag­ geration, my larger argument gives us grounds for disc~rning and entertaining the underlying possibility of Plato's invol­ vement in the creation of comic scripts not produced in his name. Though I do not wish to speculate beyond this point, 21 I conclude that here too we have traces, albeit scrappy and tantalising, of activities that can be classified as authorial collaboration. I have been contending, then, that a number of references to authorial collaboration between Athenian comic poets in the latter part of the fifth century allow us glimpses of a real theatri­ cal phenomenon, despite the fictional fabric of boasts and in­ sults that undoubtedly colours the detail of several of the relevant passages. If I am correct, the practice is one which at various times, and doubtless in differing ways, concerned Aris­ tophanes, Eupolis, Phrynichus, and Plato, as well (presumably) as other poets: it deserves, consequently, to be much more ex­ plicitly acknowledged by theatre historians than has been the case in the past. What authorial collaboration represents, as I indicated at the outset, is the existence of much more uncertain and even tangled compositional rrocesses than notions of pure literary authorship admit. It wil help, I think, to make sense of this idea if I conclude by relating it to the larger institutional complexity entailed in the official procedures and the theatrical circum­ stances of creating, rehearsing, and performing a play at a major public festival. Aristophanes colourfully reflects something of the character of this situation in his use of an elaborate nautical metaphor at Eq. 541-44 to describe the various levels of practi­ cal participation in, and responsibility for, a comic production. 22 Though this passage refers primarily to matters of direction and production, and whatever its precise implications for Aristopha­ nes' own early career, it does help to conjure up the involved nature of theatrical organisation at this date. Against this general 21 That Plato actually sold plays has certainly been believed: see e.g. DFA2 85. A. Giannini, ·Platone comico: questioni cronologiche e tematiche," Dio­ niso 22 (1959) 194ff, believes that Plato's Symmachia was produced under the name of Cantharus in 422-hence the first rrize recorded for Cantharus in IG 112 2318.115 (DFA2 105) and 2325.60 (DFA 112); if. Geissler (supra n.15) XIV. 22 The metaphor has been newly explicated by D. Gilula, CQ N.S. 39 (1989) 259ff; to the evidence cited there might be added Arist. Pol. 1276b23f. On the relation of the passage to Aristophanes' career see Halliwell 41-44. An im­ portant glimpse of the practical preparations for theatrical production is given by Antiphon 6.tH: n.b. the use of lhoamc£1.v of the choregus. HALLIWELL, F. S., Authorial Collaboration in the Athenian Comic Theatre , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30:4 (1989) p.515 F. S. HALLIWELL 527 background we need to si tuate the way in which the closely interdependent functions of playwright, actor, and producer in the Athenian theatre of the mid-to-Iate fifth century were served by shifting and evolving patterns of career. Thus, for example, some playwrights continued what was presumably an old but probably no longer standard tradition of beginning their careers as actors; in addition to Crates and Pherecrates, it is pos­ sible that Aristophanes should be counted among their num­ ber.23 As regards the status of didaskalos-a term we cannot even translate unequivocally, since it refers to responsibility for rehearsing a play but tends to be used as virtually synonymous with 'dramatic poet'-this appears to have been in a transitional phase in which the poet-producer and the independent ('profes­ sional') didaskalos existed side by side. 24 Some didaskaloi, furthermore, were, or had once been, actors toO. 25 What this all amounts to is that, while there was perhaps a late fifth-century tendency towards increasing specialisation, all possible combina­ tions of the three functions of poet, producer, and actor were to be found in the comic theatre of this period. This general theatrical context should make it less (if at all) surprising that authorial collaboration could be sometimes prac­ tised by comic poets. But there is one further factor that bears precisely on this question. The numbers of poets competing at the City Dionysia and the Lenaea were fixed by the state; during the Peloponnesian War, moreover, they were subject to some reduction. 26 In such circumstances it is not difficult to see 23 Crates: see the testimonia in PCG IV 2f; Pherecrates: W. J. W. Koster, ed., Prolegomena de comoedia (Groningen 1975) 8, III.29. That Aristophanes acted in Acharnians has recently been reargued by N. Slater, .. Aristophanes' Apprenticeship Again," GRBS 30 (1989) 67-82: I agree that this hypothesis (71) best explains the key passages in Ach. 24 On the term otOUmC