summary:

The claim that Pericles in 440 sponsored a decree restraining comedy because of the genre’s offensiveness should be rejected. The claim depends on the scholium to Ar. Ach. 67; this paper argues that the alleged decree was the scholiast’s deduction from a victor list that showed three non-performance years in a festival. These are better explained as a suspension in only one of the two dramatic festivals, occasioned not by hostility to freedom of speech but perhaps by limited resources caused by the siege of Samos.

中文翻译：

---

伯里克利斯法令审查喜剧

概括：

认为Pericles在440年因为该类型的攻击性而赞助一部限制喜剧的法令的主张应被驳回。索赔取决于对Ar的霍乱。乙酰胆碱。67; 该论文认为，所谓的法令是scholiast从胜利者名单中扣除的，该名单显示节日中有3年没有表演。最好将这些解释为仅在两个戏剧性节日中的一个中止，而不是出于对言论自由的敌视，而可能是由于萨摩斯的围困造成的资源有限。