Table Of ContentNONSENSE AND MEANING IN ANCIENT
GREEK COMEDY
This book examines the concept of “nonsense” in ancient Greek
thought and uses it to explore the comedies of the fifth and fourth
centuriesbce.If“nonsense”(phluaria,lēros)isatypeoflanguagefelt
tobeunworthyofinterpretation,itcanhelptodefinecertainaspects
ofcomedythathaveproveddifficulttograsp.Notleastistherecurrent
perception that, although the comic genre can be meaningful (i.e.,
containpoliticalopinions,moralsentiments,aesthetictastes),someof
itisjust“foolery”or“fun.”Butwhatexactlyisthis“foolery,”thispart
ofcomedy whichallegedlylies beyond thescope ofseriousinterpre-
tation? The answer is to be found in the concept of “nonsense”: by
examining the ways in which comedy does not mean, the genre’s
relationship toseriousmeaning (whether it bepolitical,aesthetic, or
moral)canbeviewedinaclearerlight.
stephen e. kidd is Assistant Professor in Classics at Brown
University. He has published articles on Greek comedy as well as
other topics like ancient dreams and games. His research interests
centerbroadlyaroundtheroleofplayinancientlifeandhowsuchplay
affectsmodesofinterpretationandevaluation.
NONSENSE AND MEANING
IN ANCIENT GREEK COMEDY
by
STEPHEN E. KIDD
UniversityPrintingHouse,Cambridgecb28bs,UnitedKingdom
CambridgeUniversityPressispartoftheUniversityofCambridge.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’smissionbydisseminatingknowledgeinthepursuitof
education,learningandresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781107050150
©StephenE.Kidd2014
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception
andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,
noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten
permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.
Firstpublished2014
PrintedintheUnitedKingdombyClays,StIvesplc
AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary
LibraryofCongressCataloguinginPublicationdata
Kidd,StephenE.,1980–
NonsenseandmeaninginancientGreekcomedy/byStephenE.Kidd.
pages cm
Includesbibliographicalreferences.
isbn978-1-107-05015-0
1. Greekdrama(Comedy)–Historyandcriticism. 2. Greeklanguage–Semantics. 3. Greek
witandhumor–Historyandcriticism. 4. Meaning(Psychology) 5. Witandhumor–
Socialaspects. I. Title.
pa3166.k53 2014
8820.0109–dc23
2014003926
isbn978-1-107-05015-0Hardback
CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracyof
urlsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication,
anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain,
accurateorappropriate.
Contents
Acknowledgments page vi
Introduction 1
1 Greeknotionsofnonsense 16
2 Nonsenseas“no-reference”:riddles,allegories,metaphors 52
3 Nonsenseas“no-serioussense”:thecaseofCinesias 87
4 Nonsenseas“no-sense”:jokes,puns,andlanguageplay 118
5 Playingitstraight:comedy’s“nonsense!”accusations 161
Conclusions 187
References 190
Generalindex 205
Indexlocorum 207
v
Acknowledgments
The best parts of this book are from others and I would like to thank all
thosewhohavecontributed.AdeepdebtofthanksgoestoDavidSider,my
dissertation advisor at NYU, and the dissertation committee, David
Konstan, Markus Asper, Ralph Rosen, and Nancy Worman, for their
original ideas and criticisms. Different pieces of the project were later
presented at Columbia University, Brown University, and Boston
University,andIthankthoseaudiencesfortheirinvitationsandfeedback.
Thanks also go to thosewho read various parts of the bookat later stages,
including Ralph Rosen, Colin King, Sara Chiarini, and, especially, Ben
Sammonswhoneverfailedinthattrueactoffriendship:honest(whichisto
say, negative) criticism. At Cambridge University Press, I would like to
thankmyeditorMichaelSharp,LizHanlon,LauraMorris,andtheanon-
ymousreaderswhooftenwereabletoarticulatetheideasofthisbookmuch
better than I could. Many thanks also go to Carly Margolis for her
invaluableeditorialhelpinthesummerof2013andmygoodcolleaguesat
Brown, especially the department chair, Jeri Debrohun, who makes it
possible for junior faculty to get work done. To Olya and little Eric too,
ofcourse,forthehappinesstheybring.
Finally, thanks most of all go to Markus Asper, who, in his enthusiasm
fortheproject,providedmefirstwiththeconfidencetopursueit,and,later
inBerlin,thetimetobringittocompletion.Thisbookprobablywouldnot
havehappenedwithouthimandso,ifitwerepossibletodedicateabookon
suchatriflingsubjectasnonsense,itwouldbetohim.
vi
Introduction
Like other genres of literature, comedy is full of meaning. Moral imper-
atives, aesthetic tastes, lofty sentiments, and political opinions can be
extractedfromthecomictextnotjustbycleverinterpretersbutbyordinary
audience members engaged in the communicative act of spectating and
listening. Unlike other genres, however, comedy has a long tradition of
resistancetosuchdiscoveredmeanings.Foreveryreaderwhohasfoundin
certaincomediesametapoeticdiscourseregardingthepoet’srole,orsubtle
codesofreligiousinitiation,orallegoriesrevealingAristophanes’politics,or
some other system of references or allusions, there is a persistent backlash
whichinsiststhatnot“all”ofcomedyismeaningful;ratherthatsomeofitis
just“foolery”or“fun.”
IanStorey,forexample,inquestioningtheallegedpoliticalseriousnessof
Eupolis’ Demoi articulates comedy’s peculiar problem in general terms
(2003,173,myitalics):
Too many critics of Demoi, from Körte onwards (“the greatest political
comedy of all time”), assume that Eupolis shared this alleged serious
approach of Aristophanes and therefore see in Demoi comedy’s healing
response to a time of crisis. But comedy need not be as serious as that.
Eupolis and Aristophanes were comedians first and foremost. They saw in
the Athens of their day, in her people, events, and issues, the material for
brilliantfantasyandcomicfun.
Storey’scomplaintrestsonanopposition:thereisthe“serious”ontheone
hand, “fantasy/fun” on the other. Something would be lost, such opinion
suggests, if all comedy were treated “seriously”: indeed, if all comedy
contributedtoseriousmeaning,itwouldnotbecomedyatall.
The sentiment is widespread and chronic: MacDowell, for example,
writes: “[A]s we read the plays, it is reasonable to expect that we shall
find, at least occasionally, a scene or passage in which Aristophanes is not
just trying to make the Athenians laugh but is making some serious point
1
2 Introduction
which is intended to influence them.”1 Here the opposition is similar:
there is “some serious point” on the one hand, and “just trying to make
Athenianslaugh”ontheother.Theclaimisnotthatthereisanopposition
between seriousness and laughter, but something more subtle: to unpack
MacDowell’s “just,” when comedy is making a serious point it is usually
2
also making the Athenians laugh. The perceived non-meaningful part of
comedy, however, seems not to be that which is “funny” but rather, that
whichisjustfunny,justfantasy.
Somescholarsadoptmetaphorsof“beneath”or“behind”todescribethis
relationship between the meaningful and non-meaningful in comedy.
Körte, for example, whom Storey cites above for treating Eupolis’ Demoi
tooseriously, himselfacentury earlier censuredcontemporaryscholars for
findingtoomuchmeaning“behind”thebuffooneryofAristophanes’Frogs.3
Similarly,McGlewdescribesthosewho“searchbehind[comedy’s]humor
to find its attitudes toward the political questions of the day,”4 while
Malcolm Heath allows that “serious points can be conveyed in comic
guise.”5 It is “beneath” not “behind” for Ralph Rosen who writes “the
conventional (or read: ‘carnivalesque’) elements of a comic play compel
the audience to find seriousness beneath the surface details of the play,”6
and De Luca who writes, “By making us laugh at these extremes,
Aristophanes also makes us laugh at the arguments which underlie them,
and so Aristophanes induces us to question their validity.”7 Whether
“behind” or “beneath,” it seems that there is some part of comedy that is
meaningful, andthat somewhere, there is some part where meaning, or at
least“serious”meaning,isabsent.
1 MacDowell(1995)5.
2 Ruffell’s(2011)oppositionbetween“funny”and“serious”(e.g.,at55),ratherthanthemoretypical
“playful”and“serious,”maycausehimtooverlookthenuanceofpreviousscholarswhojoinRuffellin
seeingcomedy’smeanings(or“interventions”touseRuffell’smoresubtleterm,e.g.,at26)in,not
outsideof,itshumor.
3 Körte(1904)487(myitalics):“Kaibel[REII981]alreadymadelegitimateobjectionsagainsttheview,
whichhasbecomecommonsinceStallbaum[DepersonaBacchiinRanisAristophanis.Lipsiae1835],
thatDionysusisapersonificationoftheAthenianpublic:onehashere,asoftenisthecase,soughtto
findtoomuchbehindtherambunctiousexuberanceofthebuffoonery.”“GegendieseitStallbaum
üblichgewordeneAuffassungdesDionysosalsPersonificationdesathenischenPublicumshatKaibel
bereitsberechtigteEinwendungengemacht,manhathier,wieauchsonstoft,zuvielhinterdem
derbenUebermuth[sic]derPossegesucht.”
4 McGlew(2002)12. 5 Heath(1987)15. 6 Rosen(1988)6n.21.
7 DeLuca(2005)xiii.Cf.Wright(2012)2,myitalics:“Beneaththesefeaturesofpresentation[i.e.,jokes
andirony],thereisinfactasurprisingamountofcommongroundbetweencomedyandthelater
criticaltradition”;Katz(1976)353,myitalics:“Aristophanes,amidstmuchcomicfoolery,intendedhis
divineembassyofPoseidon,HeraclesandTriballios...toremindhisaudienceofthecurioustroika
placedinchargeoftheSicilianexpedition.”
