Lefkowitz, Jeremy B.

English

Works

 Swarthmore College
Works 
 
 
Classics Faculty Works 
 
 
2010 
 
Review Of "Aristophanes The Democrat: 
The Politics Of Satirical Comedy During 
The Peloponnesian War" By K. Sidwell 
 
Jeremy B. Lefkowitz 
Swarthmore College, jlefkow1@swarthmore.edu  
 
Let us know how access to this work benefits you. 
 
Follow this and additional works at: http://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-classics/ 
 Part of the Classics Commons 
 
 
Recommended Citation 
Jeremy B. Lefkowitz. (2010). "Review Of "Aristophanes The Democrat: The Politics Of Satirical Comedy 
During The Peloponnesian War" By K. Sidwell". Bryn Mawr Classical Review. 
http://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-classics/4 
 
This work is brought to you for free and open access by the Swarthmore College Libraries. It has 
been accepted for inclusion in Classics Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Works. For 
more information, please contact myworks@swarthmore.edu. 
Keith Sidwell, Aristophanes the Democrat: the Politics of Satirical
Comedy during the Peloponnesian War.   Cambridge/New York:
 Cambridge University Press, 2009.  Pp. xv, 407.  ISBN
9780521519984.  $99.00.
bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010-10-62.html
Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2010.10.62
Reviewed by Jeremy B. Lefkowitz, Swarthmore College (jlefkow1@swarthmore.edu)
Table of Contents
The idea that some of the fictional characters in Aristophanic comedy are in fact caricatures of real Athenians
has been around since antiquity. In the opening of Knights, for example, one of two unnamed slaves appears
to out himself as the general Demosthenes when he complains that Cleon has stolen credit for "my own"
( μο , 54) victory at Pylos (Knights 54-57). Ancient commentators speculated on the identity of the other
slave as well: "They say that while one of the slaves is Demosthenes, the other is Nikias, to make both of
them politicians (demegoroi)" (Hypothesis A3). 1 But does this type of masquerade only make sense in the
context of the allegorical plot of Knights? And is it just a one-off joke or is it the case that "Slave A =
Demosthenes" and "Slave B = Nikias" in some more meaningful way? Scholars such as Süvern (1827/1835)
and Katz (1976) wrestled with similar questions in their attempts to identify real individuals underneath the
veil of fiction in Birds;2 but the first extended attempt to justify and describe a pattern of disguise and identity
in Aristophanic comedy was Michael Vickers' Pericles on Stage: Political Comedy in Aristophanes' Early
Plays (1997). Vickers focused his attention on characters who (he claimed) represent Pericles and
Alcibiades; the book was criticized in BMCR 97.9.15 for treating Old Comedy (and its audience) as
excessively subtle and sophisticated. In an article on "The Limits of Allegory and Allusion in Aristophanes,"
Kenneth Dover was more disparaging, describing Vickers' speculative method of detecting similarities and
resonances as "beyond the reach of parody" (242).3 Readers of Aristophanes understandably have trouble
believing that veils or ventriloquial games were a part of his repertoire--when one thinks of Aristophanic
comedy's excoriating, name-naming satirical attacks, its graphic sexual language, its celebrations of hubris
and heroic poneria, and its dangling phalloi, one does not exactly think of a poet who was concerned with
hiding things.
But, for Keith Sidwell, whose own review of Pericles on Stage  in The Classical Review (1997, 47: 2, 254-255)
concludes by applauding Vickers as a "pioneer," the main problem with Vickers' approach is that it did not go
far enough. Several years before Vickers' book, Sidwell had begun to lay out his own view of the intersection
of politics and satire in Old Comedy, which he based on two tendentious claims: (1) the primary mode of
satirical attack was subtle caricature, not onomasti komodein (as is commonly thought); (2) comic poets
appropriated and parodied each other's plays by a kind of ventriloquism: "...the new play pretended to be by
the rival".4 These two concepts--now called "disguised caricature" and "metacomedy"--are central to the
project of Aristophanes the Democrat, which presents an entire network of "identifications" in Old Comedy
and outlines an elaborate system for discovering the nature of the relationship between politics and comedy
1/3
2/3
in 5th-century Athens.
The key insight of this book is that Aristophanes' politics are to be discerned not from a straight reading of the
plays themselves nor from the statements of the putative authorial voice of the parabases, but from a web of
intertextual relationships (grounded in "disguised caricature" and "metacomedy") interwoven through the
plays of Aristophanes, Eupolis, and Cratinus, spanning a period of more than 20 years (during the height of
the Peloponnesian War). This insight is articulated most concisely on p. 208: "...metacomedy is the vehicle for
the expression of the political content of comedy."
The thrust of Aristophanes the Democrat lies in its title: this network of allusions and appropriations will
reveal that Aristophanes was a supporter of radical democracy and not the nostalgic conservative he is often
thought to have been. The basis for this view of Aristophanes' politics is developed in the first chapter (3-30),
which presents a detailed, line-by line reading of the parabasis of Clouds (lines 518-562)--a passage that is
invoked in just about every chapter of Aristophanes the Democrat (e.g., at 34, 91, 120, 166, 219, 299, et al.).
Sidwell's avowedly hypothetical reconstruction of the performance context of the revised Clouds ("Clouds II"
passim) and his new interpretation of its parabasis provide both the basis and model for his approach to the
rest of the corpus. After discussing the likelihood that Clouds II was never performed at a festival (5-7) and
suggesting that the specificity of its references exceeds anything else in Aristophanes (6)--both of which
suggest that the poet may not have had a broad audience in mind for the revision--Sidwell raises the stakes
with the claim that the Clouds II parabasis provides evidence of an elaborate (and previously unrecognized)
political agenda designed to promote the interests of a small circle of Aristophanes' supporters. In this first
chapter, Sidwell maps out the core beliefs of this (hypothetical) group, which emerges as a loyal, tightly-knit
group of fundraisers that has stood by Aristophanes from the start of his career (a conjecture based on
references to Banqueters and Knights in the parabasis); they are anti-Socrates and anti-Cleon, but (more
surprisingly) they are devoted supporters of the radical democrat Hyperbolus, whom Aristophanes appears to
defend at Clouds II 551-559. Because Sidwell sees Clouds II as a uniquely private communication between
Aristophanes and his friends, he treats it as "quasi external" (7) evidence of what Aristophanes must really
have thought and felt; thus, the "positive authorial evaluation" (28) of Hyperbolus at Clouds II 551-559
overrides the many negative attacks on him found throughout the corpus. Moreover, as Sidwell will argue in
the next chapter, named attacks in Aristophanes are not as simple as we thought, since they may "disguise
private intent" (29) and are "wrapped in the cocoon of caricature and cross-reference to other comedies"
(29).
Sidwell applies his analyses of the performance context and subtext of Clouds II to the entire corpus of Old
Comedy, arguing that each comic poet would have had an analogous inner circle of supporters, with
Aristophanes (radical democrat) and Eupolis (conservative/oligarchic) on opposing ends of the Athenian
political spectrum, and with Cratinus (accommodationist/Cleon-supporter) floating somewhere between
them. In Chapter 2, "Metacomedy and Politics," Sidwell pursues the idea that references to other comic
poetry in Aristophanes--particularly to items on the list of trite comic motifs at Clouds II 537-550--signal
Aristophanes' intent to wage a "politically motivated comedic campaign" (45) aimed above all at his primary
rival, Eupolis. Because these motifs are found throughout the corpus, a picture begins to emerge of
Aristophanes' entire career as one long attack on Eupolis--an attack that occasionally appears to be
grounded in aesthetic rivalry but in fact will turn out always to be political in nature. In Chapter 3,
"Metacomedy and Caricature," Sidwell begins by arguing that there is no reason why Aristophanes could not
have alluded to comedic plays with the same level of detail with which he alluded to tragedy; though his term
"metacomedy" is not sufficiently (or even explicitly) defined, it is clear that he wants the reader to think about
its mechanics as essentially the same as paratragedy. A key difference, of course, is that metacomedy in
Aristophanes will always be "ideologically motivated parody" (53). According to Sidwell, Aristophanes,
Eupolis, and Cratinus attacked each other for their respective political allegiances: since the weapon of
choice for all three was disguised caricature--both of each other and of other prominent Athenians--the
nature and intent of their attacks (and thus their politics) will only come to light when all the identifications
have been discovered.
The second part of Aristophanes the Democrat (Chapters 4-6) maps out all the "true targets" (105) of
Aristophanes' plays. Although Sidwell does raise some questions about the nature and purpose of Old
Comedy writ large, these chapters are dominated by the type of inside baseball that suggests that Sidwell's
intended audience is itself a small circle of cognoscenti:5 most of Sidwell's arguments turn on painstaking
and conjectural readings of thorny passages and tireless examination of previous scholarship on the
fragments (e.g., there are more than 125 references to Ian Storey's work on Eupolis). For example, on
Vickers' reading of Knights, Sidwell writes: "Vickers has in fact ventured to identify the Sausage-Seller as a
3/3
caricature of Alcibiades. Of his thirty-seven arguments, however, none is compelling, and, since I shall argue
that he is, nonetheless, correct, this is a good demonstration of how difficult it is to pry from the text what it
was not meant to reveal per se" (158). Instead of attempting a summary of these chapters, I will offer a quick
survey of what I take to be the four principal lines of argument in Chapters 4-6, followed immediately by a
short list of the identifications to which Sidwell seems to be most strongly committed: (1) the antagonism
between poets was based on the real political agenda of each participant; (2) poets were themselves the on-
stage targets of one another; (3) their plays were attempts to satirize each other's political postures and
circles; (4) the satiric weapons were "antagonistic misappropriations" of each other's work. Babylonians:
Dionysus = Cratinus; Acharnians: Dicaeopolis = Eupolis pretending to be Cratinus (sic); Eupolis' Noumeniai:
Paphlagon = Cleon; Demos = Cratinus; Lamp-seller = Hyperbolus; Knights: Paphlagon = Cleon; Demos =
Cratinus; Sausage Seller = Alcibiades; Cratinus' Pytine: Poet figure = Aristophanes; Wasps: Philocleon =
Cratinus; Bdelycleon = Eupolis; Eupolis' Marikas: Marikas = Hyperbolus; Peace: Trygaeus = Eupolis; Clouds
II: Strepsiades = Alcibiades; Pheidippides = Phaeax; Unjust Logos = Eupolis; Just Logos = Cratinus; Birds:
Peisetairos = Critias; Thesmophoriazusae: Euripides' kinsman = Eupolis; Eupolis' Demes: Pyronides =
Aristophanes; Frogs: Dionysus = Eupolis.
Tackling the famously elusive problem of Aristophanes' politics with conjectural interpretations of the
fragments of Eupolis and Cratinus will strike most readers as a clear case of obscurum per obscurius.
Moreover, there are some theoretical blind spots that one wishes Sidwell had taken more time to address,
including approaches to intertextuality (which Sidwell takes to be always intentional, xi) and the sociological
function of humor (it is not always clear what the audience got from disguised caricatures). These oversights
are in part a product of a tendency in Aristophanes the Democrat to emphasize small questions at the
expense of big ones, which results in a comfortingly totalizing neatness (if this = this = this, then this = this =
this) that leaves little room for dissent--for example, if one does not buy into the highly speculative
reconstruction of the performance context of Clouds II, it is difficult to know what to make of the subsequent
chapters. But it must be said that Sidwell is everywhere open about the hypothetical nature of his project--
even those who think he goes too far will benefit from his insistent reminders that Aristophanes' politics must
(in some way) be wrapped up in his rivalries with other comic poets.
Notes:
1.   See discussion in K. J. Dover, "The limits of allegory and allusion in Aristophanes," in D. L. Cairns and R.
A. Knox, eds., Law, Rhetoric and Comedy in Classical Athens: Essays in Honour of Douglas M. MacDowell
(Swansea, 2004) 239-249. 
2.   J. W. Süvern, Über Aristophanes Vögel  (Berlin, 1827); J. W. Süvern, Essay on the "Birds" of Aristophanes
(translated by W. R. Hamilton, London, 1835); B. R. Katz, "The Birds of Aristophanes and politics,"
Athenaeum 54, 353-81. 
3.   See above, note 1. 
4.   K. Sidwell, Review of Dunbar and MacDowell in Hermathena 161, Winter 1996, p. 79. 
5.   One sub-section of Chapter 4 begins as follows: "MacDowell is also correct, then..." (111); and another: "I
now turn to the problem that exercised Parker in her response to Bowie's identification of Eupolis as the poet
behind Dicaeopolis..." (117).
BMCR, Bryn Mawr College, 101 N. Merion Ave., Bryn Mawr, PA 19010 
HTML generated at 05:37:48, Monday, 25 October 2010


Review Of  Aristophanes The Democrat: The Politics Of Satirical Comedy During The Peloponnesian War  By K. Sidwell

 Swarthmore CollegeWorks   Classics Faculty Works   2010  Review Of "Aristophanes The Democrat: The Politics Of Satirical Comedy During The Peloponnesian War" By K. Sidwell  Jeremy B. Lefkowitz Swarthmore College, jlefkow1@swarthmore.edu   Let us know how access to this work benefits you.  Follow this and additional works at: http://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-classics/  Part of the Classics Commons   Recommended Citation Jeremy B. Lefkowitz. (2010). "Review Of "Aristophanes The Democrat: The Politics Of Satirical Comedy During The Peloponnesian War" By K. Sidwell". Bryn Mawr Classical Review. http://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-classics/4  This work is brought to you for free and open access by the Swarthmore College Libraries. It has been accepted for inclusion in Classics Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Works. For more information, please contact myworks@swarthmore.edu. Keith Sidwell, Aristophanes the Democrat: the Politics of SatiricalComedy during the Peloponnesian War.   Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.  Pp. xv, 407.  ISBN9780521519984.  $99.00.bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010-10-62.htmlBryn Mawr Classical Review 2010.10.62Reviewed by Jeremy B. Lefkowitz, Swarthmore College (jlefkow1@swarthmore.edu)Table of ContentsThe idea that some of the fictional characters in Aristophanic comedy are in fact caricatures of real Athenianshas been around since antiquity. In the opening of Knights, for example, one of two unnamed slaves appearsto out himself as the general Demosthenes when he complains that Cleon has stolen credit for "my own"( μο , 54) victory at Pylos (Knights 54-57). Ancient commentators speculated on the identity of the otherslave as well: "They say that while one of the slaves is Demosthenes, the other is Nikias, to make both ofthem politicians (demegoroi)" (Hypothesis A3). 1 But does this type of masquerade only make sense in thecontext of the allegorical plot of Knights? And is it just a one-off joke or is it the case that "Slave A =Demosthenes" and "Slave B = Nikias" in some more meaningful way? Scholars such as Süvern (1827/1835)and Katz (1976) wrestled with similar questions in their attempts to identify real individuals underneath theveil of fiction in Birds;2 but the first extended attempt to justify and describe a pattern of disguise and identityin Aristophanic comedy was Michael Vickers' Pericles on Stage: Political Comedy in Aristophanes' EarlyPlays (1997). Vickers focused his attention on characters who (he claimed) represent Pericles andAlcibiades; the book was criticized in BMCR 97.9.15 for treating Old Comedy (and its audience) asexcessively subtle and sophisticated. In an article on "The Limits of Allegory and Allusion in Aristophanes,"Kenneth Dover was more disparaging, describing Vickers' speculative method of detecting similarities andresonances as "beyond the reach of parody" (242).3 Readers of Aristophanes understandably have troublebelieving that veils or ventriloquial games were a part of his repertoire--when one thinks of Aristophaniccomedy's excoriating, name-naming satirical attacks, its graphic sexual language, its celebrations of hubrisand heroic poneria, and its dangling phalloi, one does not exactly think of a poet who was concerned withhiding things.But, for Keith Sidwell, whose own review of Pericles on Stage  in The Classical Review (1997, 47: 2, 254-255)concludes by applauding Vickers as a "pioneer," the main problem with Vickers' approach is that it did not gofar enough. Several years before Vickers' book, Sidwell had begun to lay out his own view of the intersectionof politics and satire in Old Comedy, which he based on two tendentious claims: (1) the primary mode ofsatirical attack was subtle caricature, not onomasti komodein (as is commonly thought); (2) comic poetsappropriated and parodied each other's plays by a kind of ventriloquism: "...the new play pretended to be bythe rival".4 These two concepts--now called "disguised caricature" and "metacomedy"--are central to theproject of Aristophanes the Democrat, which presents an entire network of "identifications" in Old Comedyand outlines an elaborate system for discovering the nature of the relationship between politics and comedy1/32/3in 5th-century Athens.The key insight of this book is that Aristophanes' politics are to be discerned not from a straight reading of theplays themselves nor from the statements of the putative authorial voice of the parabases, but from a web ofintertextual relationships (grounded in "disguised caricature" and "metacomedy") interwoven through theplays of Aristophanes, Eupolis, and Cratinus, spanning a period of more than 20 years (during the height ofthe Peloponnesian War). This insight is articulated most concisely on p. 208: "...metacomedy is the vehicle forthe expression of the political content of comedy."The thrust of Aristophanes the Democrat lies in its title: this network of allusions and appropriations willreveal that Aristophanes was a supporter of radical democracy and not the nostalgic conservative he is oftenthought to have been. The basis for this view of Aristophanes' politics is developed in the first chapter (3-30),which presents a detailed, line-by line reading of the parabasis of Clouds (lines 518-562)--a passage that isinvoked in just about every chapter of Aristophanes the Democrat (e.g., at 34, 91, 120, 166, 219, 299, et al.).Sidwell's avowedly hypothetical reconstruction of the performance context of the revised Clouds ("Clouds II"passim) and his new interpretation of its parabasis provide both the basis and model for his approach to therest of the corpus. After discussing the likelihood that Clouds II was never performed at a festival (5-7) andsuggesting that the specificity of its references exceeds anything else in Aristophanes (6)--both of whichsuggest that the poet may not have had a broad audience in mind for the revision--Sidwell raises the stakeswith the claim that the Clouds II parabasis provides evidence of an elaborate (and previously unrecognized)political agenda designed to promote the interests of a small circle of Aristophanes' supporters. In this firstchapter, Sidwell maps out the core beliefs of this (hypothetical) group, which emerges as a loyal, tightly-knitgroup of fundraisers that has stood by Aristophanes from the start of his career (a conjecture based onreferences to Banqueters and Knights in the parabasis); they are anti-Socrates and anti-Cleon, but (moresurprisingly) they are devoted supporters of the radical democrat Hyperbolus, whom Aristophanes appears todefend at Clouds II 551-559. Because Sidwell sees Clouds II as a uniquely private communication betweenAristophanes and his friends, he treats it as "quasi external" (7) evidence of what Aristophanes must reallyhave thought and felt; thus, the "positive authorial evaluation" (28) of Hyperbolus at Clouds II 551-559overrides the many negative attacks on him found throughout the corpus. Moreover, as Sidwell will argue inthe next chapter, named attacks in Aristophanes are not as simple as we thought, since they may "disguiseprivate intent" (29) and are "wrapped in the cocoon of caricature and cross-reference to other comedies"(29).Sidwell applies his analyses of the performance context and subtext of Clouds II to the entire corpus of OldComedy, arguing that each comic poet would have had an analogous inner circle of supporters, withAristophanes (radical democrat) and Eupolis (conservative/oligarchic) on opposing ends of the Athenianpolitical spectrum, and with Cratinus (accommodationist/Cleon-supporter) floating somewhere betweenthem. In Chapter 2, "Metacomedy and Politics," Sidwell pursues the idea that references to other comicpoetry in Aristophanes--particularly to items on the list of trite comic motifs at Clouds II 537-550--signalAristophanes' intent to wage a "politically motivated comedic campaign" (45) aimed above all at his primaryrival, Eupolis. Because these motifs are found throughout the corpus, a picture begins to emerge ofAristophanes' entire career as one long attack on Eupolis--an attack that occasionally appears to begrounded in aesthetic rivalry but in fact will turn out always to be political in nature. In Chapter 3,"Metacomedy and Caricature," Sidwell begins by arguing that there is no reason why Aristophanes could nothave alluded to comedic plays with the same level of detail with which he alluded to tragedy; though his term"metacomedy" is not sufficiently (or even explicitly) defined, it is clear that he wants the reader to think aboutits mechanics as essentially the same as paratragedy. A key difference, of course, is that metacomedy inAristophanes will always be "ideologically motivated parody" (53). According to Sidwell, Aristophanes,Eupolis, and Cratinus attacked each other for their respective political allegiances: since the weapon ofchoice for all three was disguised caricature--both of each other and of other prominent Athenians--thenature and intent of their attacks (and thus their politics) will only come to light when all the identificationshave been discovered.The second part of Aristophanes the Democrat (Chapters 4-6) maps out all the "true targets" (105) ofAristophanes' plays. Although Sidwell does raise some questions about the nature and purpose of OldComedy writ large, these chapters are dominated by the type of inside baseball that suggests that Sidwell'sintended audience is itself a small circle of cognoscenti:5 most of Sidwell's arguments turn on painstakingand conjectural readings of thorny passages and tireless examination of previous scholarship on thefragments (e.g., there are more than 125 references to Ian Storey's work on Eupolis). For example, onVickers' reading of Knights, Sidwell writes: "Vickers has in fact ventured to identify the Sausage-Seller as a3/3caricature of Alcibiades. Of his thirty-seven arguments, however, none is compelling, and, since I shall arguethat he is, nonetheless, correct, this is a good demonstration of how difficult it is to pry from the text what itwas not meant to reveal per se" (158). Instead of attempting a summary of these chapters, I will offer a quicksurvey of what I take to be the four principal lines of argument in Chapters 4-6, followed immediately by ashort list of the identifications to which Sidwell seems to be most strongly committed: (1) the antagonismbetween poets was based on the real political agenda of each participant; (2) poets were themselves the on-stage targets of one another; (3) their plays were attempts to satirize each other's political postures andcircles; (4) the satiric weapons were "antagonistic misappropriations" of each other's work. Babylonians:Dionysus = Cratinus; Acharnians: Dicaeopolis = Eupolis pretending to be Cratinus (sic); Eupolis' Noumeniai:Paphlagon = Cleon; Demos = Cratinus; Lamp-seller = Hyperbolus; Knights: Paphlagon = Cleon; Demos =Cratinus; Sausage Seller = Alcibiades; Cratinus' Pytine: Poet figure = Aristophanes; Wasps: Philocleon =Cratinus; Bdelycleon = Eupolis; Eupolis' Marikas: Marikas = Hyperbolus; Peace: Trygaeus = Eupolis; CloudsII: Strepsiades = Alcibiades; Pheidippides = Phaeax; Unjust Logos = Eupolis; Just Logos = Cratinus; Birds:Peisetairos = Critias; Thesmophoriazusae: Euripides' kinsman = Eupolis; Eupolis' Demes: Pyronides =Aristophanes; Frogs: Dionysus = Eupolis.Tackling the famously elusive problem of Aristophanes' politics with conjectural interpretations of thefragments of Eupolis and Cratinus will strike most readers as a clear case of obscurum per obscurius.Moreover, there are some theoretical blind spots that one wishes Sidwell had taken more time to address,including approaches to intertextuality (which Sidwell takes to be always intentional, xi) and the sociologicalfunction of humor (it is not always clear what the audience got from disguised caricatures). These oversightsare in part a product of a tendency in Aristophanes the Democrat to emphasize small questions at theexpense of big ones, which results in a comfortingly totalizing neatness (if this = this = this, then this = this =this) that leaves little room for dissent--for example, if one does not buy into the highly speculativereconstruction of the performance context of Clouds II, it is difficult to know what to make of the subsequentchapters. But it must be said that Sidwell is everywhere open about the hypothetical nature of his project--even those who think he goes too far will benefit from his insistent reminders that Aristophanes' politics must(in some way) be wrapped up in his rivalries with other comic poets.Notes:1.   See discussion in K. J. Dover, "The limits of allegory and allusion in Aristophanes," in D. L. Cairns and R.A. Knox, eds., Law, Rhetoric and Comedy in Classical Athens: Essays in Honour of Douglas M. MacDowell(Swansea, 2004) 239-249. 2.   J. W. Süvern, Über Aristophanes Vögel  (Berlin, 1827); J. W. Süvern, Essay on the "Birds" of Aristophanes(translated by W. R. Hamilton, London, 1835); B. R. Katz, "The Birds of Aristophanes and politics,"Athenaeum 54, 353-81. 3.   See above, note 1. 4.   K. Sidwell, Review of Dunbar and MacDowell in Hermathena 161, Winter 1996, p. 79. 5.   One sub-section of Chapter 4 begins as follows: "MacDowell is also correct, then..." (111); and another: "Inow turn to the problem that exercised Parker in her response to Bowie's identification of Eupolis as the poetbehind Dicaeopolis..." (117).BMCR, Bryn Mawr College, 101 N. Merion Ave., Bryn Mawr, PA 19010 HTML generated at 05:37:48, Monday, 25 October 2010

https://works.swarthmore.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=fac-classics

Review Of Aristophanes The Democrat: The Politics Of Satirical Comedy During The Peloponnesian War By K. Sidwell

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Works

Works