Πρωτεσίλαος (fr. 41)

195

War. Since the play is ostensibly about him, but also features contemporary
politicians and leaders, there seem to be two possible conclusions. Either the
references to contemporary figures and events are incidental to the plot and
are only introduced in passing for the sake of mockery, or the play deals with
contemporary events that are somehow represented somehow in terms of the
story of Protesilaos. The fragments suggest a more than incidental connection
with contemporary politics, and thus the latter possibility seems more likely.
If so, at least some fourth-century plays with mythological titles may have
been closer in plot and intent to Cratinus’ Dionysalexandros, which used the
wooing of Helen to mock Pericles for having brought war to the Athenians,
than to the mythological farce of Plautus’ Amphitryo* * 80
Date Breitenbach 1908.126 dated the play to ca. 381/0 BC on the assumption
that it closely followed the wedding of Iphicrates (for the date of the wedding,
cf. on fr. 42.3-4); on similar grounds, Nesselrath 1990. 195 places it between
386 and 380 BC. In either case, this would be Anaxandrides’ earliest known
play (he first took the prize in 376 BC; cf. test. 3). But Iphicrates’ wedding
seems to have attracted enough renown that reference to it would still have
been meaningful some years later (and fr. 42 does not obviously treat it as a
recent event) and, more important, the public career of Melanopus (cf. on fr.
41.2) is not attested prior to 372 BC. The play is thus better dated not earlier
than the mid to late 370s BC.

fr. 41 K.-A. (40 K.)
μύρω 6έ παρά Πέρωνος, ούπερ άπέδοτο
εχθές Μελανώπω, πολυτελούς Αιγυπτίου,
ώ νυν αλείφει τούς πόδας Καλλιστράτου
habent Α(1), Α(2)
1 μύρω δέ Α(1): μύρον τε Α(2) 2 εχθές Α(1): χθές Α(2) αίγυπτίου Α(2): έν
αίπτιωι Α(1) 3 νΰν αλείφει Α(2): συναλείφει Α(1)

although there are exceptions (e. g. Dionysus at the beginning of Frogs and espe-
cially Plutus in Aristophanes’ play of that name).
80 This is not to suggest that such plays were allegories appreciated only by the
discerning few, as Cobet 1840. 124 seems to imply. Rather, the meaning would
presumably be obvious to most, if not all, as seems to have been the case with
Cratinus’ play or Aristophanes’ Knights.