Anyone who seeks to add to the already vast pile of literature dealing with the I.A. must needs feel apologetic, especially if he is conscious that little of what he will say is new. Nevertheless this seems to be one of those occasions when it is necessary to restate old arguments. Recent contributors to the debate about the problems of the opening of the play either fail to realize what the problems are or else attempt to explain away valid criticisms (...) of the text with arguments that are methodologically suspect and parallels which will not hold water. (shrink)

The predominance of the rhetorical spirit in fourth-century tragedy has often been remarked: Aristotle himself explicitly attests the rhetorical character of contemporary dramatic compositions when he says that the older poets used to present the dramatis personae speaking like statesmen.

We generally think of the poetry of Anacreon as coming from an entirely different world from that of the iambists, but among the extant fragments there is some indication to the contrary. With fr. 44 Gentili = 432 PMG iamb. 5 West, an epodic passage, we find Anacreon closest in form to the iambists. Here is the text with the full context from the Etymologicum Magnum : τò δ κνύςα ώς λÉγι ‘Hgr;ρωδιανòς ν τ καθολικ, εί μν πί τοű υτοű, (...) συγκοπή στιν πò τοű κóνυςα, οίον “χαμαίςήλοιο κονύςης”. εί δ πί τού παρθαρμÉνου καί ρρυσωμνου, οÙ συγκοπή οτιν, λλ' πò τοű κνύω, ' οǘ κνύος θορá οȋον “κατà κνύος Ȅχευεν, φίλωτο δ κáρηνα”. γίνεται κνύςα, ώς παρà’ ΑνακρÉοντι ν ίáμβω κνυςή τις ñδη καί πÉπειρα γίνομαι σ διà μαργοσύνην. (shrink)