COMIC SOPHOI: ARISTOPHANES' INTELLECTUAL FIGURES
by
Megan Leigh Falconer
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts
at
Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia September 2010
© Copyright by Megan Leigh Falconer, 2010 Library and Archives Bibliothèque et ?F? Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de l'édition
395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 OttawaONK1A0N4 Canada Canada
Your file Votre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-69793-1 Our file Notre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-69793-1
NOTICE: AVIS:
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par télécommunication ou par l'Internet, prêter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non- support microforme, papier, électronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.
The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.
In compliance with the Canadian Conformément à la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privée, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont été enlevés de thesis. cette thèse.
While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis.
1*1 Canada DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY
To comply with the Canadian Privacy Act the National Library of Canada has requested that the following pages be removed from this copy of the thesis: Preliminary Pages Examiners Signature Page (pji) Dalhousie Library Copyright Agreement (piii) Appendices Copyright Releases (if applicable) For my brothers: James, Matt, and Ben Falconer.
IV TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract vi
List of Abbreviations vii
Acknowledgements vi i i
Chapter 1 : Introduction 1
Chapter 2: Socrates in the Clouds 4
Chapter 3: The Clever Poet: Aristophanes' Euripides 22 3.1 Euripides: From Acharnians to Frogs 24
3 . 1 . 1 Acharnions 27
3.1.2 Thesmophoriazusae 30
3.1.3 Frogs 37
Chapter 4: Conclusion 5 1
Bibliography 55
? ABSTRACT
This thesis looks at Aristophanes' characterization of Socrates and Euripides as members of the new intellectual movement in the late fifth century. By examining his portrayal of Socrates and Euripides, this discussion argues that Aristophanes uses these two characters to voice his concerns about the sophistic movement, especially their influence over the demos in Athens. Aristophanes compares the traditional and the new approaches to morality and education, and while he criticises both, the comic poet finds the traditional side much less objectionable. Finally, this discussion concludes that by criticising these figures, particularly Euripides, as participants in the new intellectual movement, Aristophanes assumes the didactic role he assigns to all poets in order to make the intellectual movement's effect on the proper functioning of the polis clear.
Vl LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED
The following abbreviations occur in the bibliography:
AJP American Journal of Philology CI Classics Ireland
CQ Classical Quarterly G&R Greece & Rome HPT History of Political Thought JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies PT Political Thought RP The Review of Politics RSQ Rhetorical Sciences Quarterly SAQ South Atlantic Quarterly TAPA Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association
vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I owe the entire Classics department at Dalhousie a debt of gratitude. In particular, my sincerest thanks go to my advisor, Leona MacLeod, and my readers, Peter O'Brien, and Eli Diamond for their advice and unending patience with this project. Donna Edwards also should be thanked for being a source of constant support as well as distraction. I also owe (Dr.) Emily Varto for sharing her wisdom and experience as well as feeding my often neglected craving for ancient history.
My family and friends deserve my eternal gratitude for their support throughout this degree. I would especially like to thank my parents, Andrew Falconer and Joanne Falconer, for their uncomprehending but infinite support throughout this degree. My brothers, James, Matt, and Ben Falconer (sorry, guys, the order is chronological, not necessarily by preference) have been particularly crucial to retaining my sanity. Matt deserves special mention for reading over every single draft of every version of this thesis. James also warrants my gratitude since, in a fit of insanity, he moved to Halifax and dragged me away from my work.
Deanna Foster, our future empress (all hail), has been responsible for many escapes from my thesis. Thank you for the many times you literally dragged me out of my office and into the real world if only for the duration of a coffee break. My favourite Ho, Krys, also deserves special mention for retaining our close friendship despite the rather large country between us. For the rest of the supportive crew, who are unmentioned but not forgotten (you know who you are): thank you.
viii 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Old Comedy frequently mocks politicians, poets, and other well-known figures of the day. In the extant plays and fragments of Aristophanes, there are more than three hundred komodoumenoi ('those mocked in comedy').1 One of his favourite targets is the poet Euripides, who is mentioned in several plays and even appears as a dramatis persona in three. Another of Aristophanes' targets is the philosopher, Socrates, who plays a central role in the Clouds. While at first glance it might seem that the poet and the philosopher have little in common, Aristophanes provocatively connects the pair when he has the chorus of the Frogs tell Euripides:
?a??e? ??? µ? S????te? pa?a?a??µe??? ?a?e??, ap?ßa???ta µ??s???? ta te µ???sta pa?a??tt??ta t?? t?a???d???? t?????. t? d' ?tp seµ???s?? ?????s? ?a\ s?a??f?sµ??s? ????? d?at??ß?? a???? p??e?s?a?, pa?af??????t?? a?d??? {Frogs, 1491-1499).
It is best to not sit beside Socrates while the greatest gifts of the Muses, the tragic art, goes to waste. To compose idle chatter with meaningless words is the mark of a man going mad.
Despite this explicit connection, most critics have treated these two figures separately.
Yet when we look at precisely what his criticisms of Euripides and Socrates are, we see that they both reflect the problems posed by the new critical thinking introduced by the sophistic movement in the late fifth century.
1 Storey 1998: 85-134. 2
The sophists, who serve as representatives of the most significant intellectual developments of the fifth century, are thinkers who traveled between the Greek poleis, trading private instruction for money. Topics they taught include language, communication, and rhetoric, skills necessary to become an apt orator or politician. They are also credited with scepticism and relativism. Critics of the sophists often accuse them of teaching men to turn the hetton logos (weaker argument) into the kreiton logos (stronger argument) of any debate, thereby making the ability to persuade more valuable than truth. They debunk the sophists' use of persuasion and relativistic morals and argue that these intellectuals undermine the stability of traditional beliefs and social norms. They also show the sophists selling their wisdom off to all comers for a fee, thus enabling anyone with money to buy their lessons on such potent skills.2
Since the sophists' own writings only exist as fragments, we must rely on the representation of them in the works of their contemporaries for our information on these thinkers. For instance, Aristophanes' association with these new intellectual figures is shown most clearly by his appearance in Plato's Symposium. Also, as a poet of the late fifth century, Aristophanes criticizes the intellectual movement in Athens with his comedies.
This thesis examines Aristophanes' representation of the philosopher and the poet in his plays. The characters of Euripides and Socrates both take on sophistic traits in the comic poet's depiction of them. The first chapter will discuss the portrayal of Socrates as a sophist and an intellectual. The second will similarly analyze Aristophanes' portrayal of
2Kerferd 1981:25-27. 3
Euripides in the context of his sophistic tendencies and his role of poet-teacher to the polis (city-state). 4
Chapter 2: Socrates in the Clouds
The portrayal of Socrates in the Clouds has sparked debate over which is a more realistic depiction of the Athenian philosopher: the philosopher who questions accepted truths, as shown by Plato or the intellectual quack, as Aristophanes portrays him. Comparing the two versions of this figure becomes problematic because of the differences between them. The comic Socrates is a combination of a stereotypical sophist and the pug-nosed philosopher whose physical appearance lent itself to comedy. In contrast, the Platonic Socrates has been deliberately separated from the sophists. Plato even depicts the philosopher questioning sophistic beliefs as well as the ones held by the average
Athenian citizen.
Aristophanes' Socrates teaches at a school for money, and has a wealth of knowledge on natural science, rhetoric, grammar, and metre. He is also willing to teach how to make the weaker argument appear the stronger in a debate for a fee. All of these traits are sophistic, and run contrary to the Socrates presented by Plato and Xenophon. His less sophistic representation of his mentor shows the philosopher questioning people in the marketplace to debunk preconceived notions. The common points between them are purely physical: both portray him with a distinctive walking style and large rolling eyes that make him a natural target for comic mockery. His dislike of clothing and footwear is also common to both versions of Socrates. However, these similarities are all that the two Socrates figures have in common. 5
Critics have never agreed on how to reconcile these two very different portrayals. Ian Storey usefully breaks down the different approaches into three groups:3
1) Aristophanes is a traditionalist for whom the intellectual movement is something new and dangerous, so he creates this character with deliberate malice. 4
2) The depiction is humorous and not serious; Socrates was personally distinctive and Athenian, making him ideal as a caricature of the intellectual.5
3) Aristophanes was unaware of the difference between Socrates and a sophist and likely would not care if someone were to point it out to him. 6
The first approach acknowledges Aristophanes' criticisms for their apparent serious nature. The way Socrates and his teachings are portrayed reflects a critical tone and perspective cast towards this particular character. Yet this way of considering the Clouds suggests that Aristophanes is a traditionalist, which completely disregards the way he represents the advocates of the traditional education, such as the kreiton logos.
The second approach, which considers the criticisms of the new education in the Clouds as a humorous distortion of a new and prominent movement, is an underwhelming analysis of the play. This view suggests that the distinguishing features of Socrates are supposed to be dramatically exaggerated for the sake of a few laughs. It also ignores the various types of intellectual whose characteristics Socrates assumes, and the rather bleak
3 Storey 1998: 85-134. 4 See Norwood 1933: 217; Dantu 1907: 58-83. 5 See Edmunds 2004: 193-198; Zuckert 2004: 189-219; MacDowell 1995: 133;Bowie 1993: 114-131. 6 See Ehrenberg 1974: 276-277; Ussher 1979: 15. 6 and unusual ending of the play in which the newly transformed traditionalist immolates
Socrates' school.
The third method argues that Aristophanes is unaware of what kind of philosopher he created with his representation of Socrates. This sort of theory is problematic for two noteworthy reasons. First, it is unlikely that Aristophanes was ignorant of what he was doing when he wrote the Clouds. Second, considering the association between Socrates and Aristophanes made explicit in Plato's Symposium, it is difficult to accept that Aristophanes was unfamiliar enough with Socrates or the sophists not to realize the difference between them. On these grounds, this third theory becomes the least acceptable of all.
One way of overcoming these difficulties is the approach suggested by Michael Silk and others. They consider the Socrates figure in Aristophanes as a composite arch-sophist to whom Aristophanes assigns all the theories and activities he wants to ridicule, thus deliberately depicting Socrates as an intellectual quack.7 In so doing, they recognize the common grounds between Socrates and the sophists. For example, both hold up traditional beliefs for reflection and criticism. Aristophanes is acutely aware of what he was creating when he designed his Socrates character since this rendition of Clouds is his second version of the play. If we consider Socrates and the school he runs, it becomes clear that Socrates is more than just an intellectual fop interested in obscure subject matter; he espouses sophistic theories and charges fees for passing along his experience.
7 See Sidwell 2009: 172; Silk 2000: 240; Marianetti 1992: 1 12-124; Reckford 1987: 393; Friedrich 1980: 17 for similar approaches to the Socratic problem. 7
From the beginning of the Clouds, Socrates is shown as an egghead who focuses on obscure matters. The comedy begins with a once-wealthy farmer kept awake by a pressing concern: the overwhelming debts he has assumed to finance his son's horse-
loving ways. Strepsiades, whose name means the Twister, first tries to convince his son, Pheidippides, to learn the adikos logos (unjust argument) in order to scare off his creditors. Rather than pay off his crippling debts, Strepsiades is willing to break the laws of the polis in order to save his oikos (household). When his son refuses, the father goes to the Thinkery and asks Socrates to teach him the adikatatos (least just) form of arguing. After introducing Strepsiades to the Clouds, Socrates reluctantly agrees to teach Strepsiades the kainai mechanai (new devices), rather than the adikos logos. The pair of old men encounters difficulties when Strepsiades cannot retain even the most basic of Socrates' lessons; the old farmer's performance as a student is abysmal. Refusing to give up, Strepsiades returns to the school with his son in tow and demands Socrates educate him instead. Rather than teach the youth himself, however, Socrates allows the arguments to decide which of them will teach Pheidippides. The weaker argument prevails and the young man goes indoors with it to be educated. When Strepsiades' son returns, he is full of the new form of arguing and rhetoric.
When two creditors appear at Strepsiades' door on Old-and-New day demanding payment, he sends each away on his own by using some crafty arguments. Temporarily free of his debts, Strepsiades returns inside to feast with his son. Yet Pheidippides' newfound rhetorical skill becomes a problem when he beats his father over his admiration for Aeschylus' traditional poetry. Using his rhetorical skill, Pheidippides convinces Strepsiades that father-beating is merited. When his son extends his logic to 8 justify mother-beating, Strepsiades is horrified. The Clouds return to the stage and announce that they are, and have always been, vengeful goddesses who punish men who turn to shameful doings, which means Strepsiades in this case. Having been awakened to the corruption he allowed into his oikos, Strepsiades rejects Socrates, the Thinkery, and the new education and reasserts his old belief in nomos and the traditional gods. The play
ends with the old man setting the Thinkery on fire, sending Socrates and his pupils running through the streets naked.
When we look at the character and his school Socrates resembles an amalgamation of the
various types of intellectuals from the fifth century. Socrates is represented as a philosopher who is interested in absurd ideas and follows a seemingly incoherent stream of reasoning. Socrates first appears on stage suspended in a basket. He explains that he is up there to raise his mind above the earthly force draining his thoughts (230-234). His conviction that the force of the earth drains the intelligence from him demonstrates a strange understanding of earthly forces. This reasoning also exhibits the absurd sort of logic to which he adheres. Socrates is concerned with the development of his mind and lofty thoughts; he focuses almost exclusively on this growth and tends to neglect or abuse the physical reality of things like his bodily needs. The philosopher demonstrates the obscurity of his train of thought when he informs Strepsiades that he is walking on air and turning his wits to the sun as he hangs in his basket (225). The reason he needs to walk on air to study the sun is left unclear as is the way the earth can drain his intellect out of him. He resolves the problem of losing his train of thought with the following reasoning: the earth drains his thoughts; therefore it is necessary to find somewhere else
to stand. Moreover, like Socrates, the sun is suspended in the air; perhaps the proximity 9 will stimulate his mind (227-230). His solution is inventive but preposterous, as is his choice to suspend himself in a basket rather than some alternative form of elevation.
It is clear that Aristophanes associates Socrates with natural philosophers, rather than the sophists alone. Firstly, Socrates is fixated on things above the earth, such as the path of the sun and that of the moon; he even worships Clouds, Air, and Aether as deities. Secondly, most of the other matters he studies are either unduly complex or absurd.
Three topics Socrates has recently resolved are the distance a flea can jump in terms of its own feet (142-146), which end of a gnat sound comes out of (166-164) and the trajectory and orbit of the moon (171-172). To accentuate the ludicrous nature of these projects, Aristophanes has the student explain how Socrates' study of the moon was interrupted by a gecko defecating on him from the roof (172-173). This anecdote suggests how unintelligent creatures, an animal in this case, can ruin an intellectual exercise. All of these traits seem more characteristic of the studies of a natural philosopher than a sophist.
Other subject matters that catch Socrates' attention are equally abstract, complex, and difficult to believe; some of these even affect the polis directly, such as his understanding of religion. Socrates teaches and believes very complex and strange things about the gods. What the philosopher tells Strepsiades about the divine demonstrates how his critical thinking has an impact on the religious beliefs of the polis. The differences he imposes on the accepted pantheon are first observed when Strepsiades swears by Zeus and in return Socrates informs him that he does not accept oaths upon the gods as coinage (248). Money is the only currency he recognizes. Like the sophists, he will take money in exchange for his lessons in rhetoric, theoretical science, and abstract thinking rather than the oaths of the gods. 10
His views of the gods are both unconventional and unexpected. According to Socrates, Zeus, the god upon whom Strepsiades so willingly swears and considers the king of the gods, conveniently does not exist (367). However, later Socrates asserts that Zeus has been overthrown by aitherios dinos (divine Vortex) (379), which seems odd since Socrates has claimed already that Zeus does not exist. This usurpation of Zeus' power also extends the successions of Hesiod's Theogony from the mythological to philosophical realms. The deity who has overthrown him is troubling as well since another translation of dinos (Vortex) is whirl, or eddy. None of these translations conjure the idea of order. This choice of deity is in keeping with the complaints against sophists that they worshipped strange, insubstantial gods, who varied depending on the sophist. Dinos in particular comes up in relation to several natural philosophers, such as Anaxagoras and Empedocles. Thus Socrates incorporates the demythologizing of the pre-socratics and the sophists.
New and strange gods are characteristic of the pantheon taught by Socrates at the Thinkery. Exactly what qualifies as a deity in the Socratic pantheon varies from one passage to another.10 He worships Clouds, Aether, Respiration, Air, Chaos, and the Tongue. These gods are not only unusual, but most of them have also not been considered divinities previously. While cursing Strepsiades' stupidity, Socrates swears by Chaos, Respiration, and Air (627). Earlier he claims that the only gods worth worshipping are the Clouds, Chaos, and the Tongue (423-424). Add in his statement that only the Clouds are true gods (365), and Socrates' understanding of the divine becomes
8Kerferdl981: 163-172. 9 Reckford 1987: 427. 8 Sommerstein 1984: 184. 11 confusing. His deities of choice are inconsistent and insubstantial.11 They are also fluid and mutable, much like the rhetoric Socrates is teaching. They are also concepts introduced to Athens by the new intellectual movement; in this way, he commits an exaggerated version of some of the charges against the sophist by changing the divine.
According to Socrates, the Clouds are the only gods worth worshipping (365). Like his argument, his patron goddesses are mutable and malleable and created from very minute substances. Moreover, the responsibilities he assigns the Clouds belong to other gods, but he clearly considers that a moot point. These gods and their positions have been deduced by observation rather than traditional belief. For example, when Strepsiades protests that Zeus brings rain, Socrates asks "when have you ever seen rain without Clouds?" (370). Socrates' claim that rain cannot fall without Clouds does not negate Zeus' existence at all; in fact, his belief in the Clouds affirms Zeus' existence. He assigns his new divinities their duties based on his perception of their function in nature rather than the conventional beliefs held by society. This understanding of the divine purports to be based solely on reason and observation, rather than the beliefs handed down from earlier generations.
Attempts to question Socrates' theories about the divine are easily refuted. His form of arguing with reason discards the accepted beliefs and deduces an explanation based on observation. For instance when Strepsiades asks about the source of the thunder,
Socrates credits that to the Clouds as well (376-377). His answers to all these defences of the traditional beliefs demonstrates his focus on using rational thinking to arrive at an
11 Dillon 2002: 145. 12 Strauss 1966: 49 discusses Zeus' sudden nullification. 12 answer to his dilemma. Thus, he questions traditional beliefs and casts them aside in favour of those his mind affirms as real, despite their inconsistent and insubstantial manner. His rhetoric is persuasive, although the reasoning is unconvincing and unconventional.
Unlike the subjects he studies, the matters which Socrates teaches are confidential. Like the students, they are not allowed to leave the Thinkery. The secrecy of the pupils' studies are shown when the student whom Strepsiades has interrupted complains of losing his half-complete thought which he is not at liberty to disclose to Strepsiades (135- 140). This confidentiality demonstrates the exclusive nature of the information and deductive skills available under Socrates' tutelage and removes the Thinkery further from the accepted traditions. The Thinkery' s isolation from the polis becomes more apparent with this cautious guarding of its curriculum.
Further, the matters of study are complex and made through reasoning. Strepsiades sees the Thinkery' s students with their faces pressed to the ground and their rear ends sticking in the air; they are examining the ground in attempt to discover what lies beneath by looking at the surface intently, while alluding to the common form of compensation for an education. These students are contemplating the depths of Tartaros (188-192). 13 The method is another application of rational thinking, yet seems ineffective since they cannot directly observe the underworld from the surface of the earth. The subject of their studies
Literally: ??t?? d' ??eß?d?f?s?? ?p? t?? t??ta???. "They are groping about in Tartaros." 13 complements Socrates' fixation with the sky and its occupants, thus showing the Thinkery containing studies of all layers of existence: divine, mortal, and posthumous.14
The treatment of Socrates' pupils also serves to demonstrate the disconnect between the character of Socrates and the cold hard reality of their daily life. What is ordinary for the Thinkery instead is evidenced in the treatment of its pupils. Socrates' students find their bodily needs neglected in favour of their minds. Socrates keeps them in substandard living conditions. Socrates' students are nude, barefoot, and pale while in his care. The first time Strepsiades encounters the pupils, he remarks that they resemble the Spartan prisoners at Pylos (186). The physical condition of his students is considerably less healthy, strong, and virile than that of the old education's advocates. The contrast between the two emphasizes the insignificance of the body to the new education, which favours instead mental skills, such as rational thinking and rhetoric.
The treatment of students which produces more intellectual figures like Socrates tells much about the philosopher as a teacher. His students are also taught to endure physical discomforts. Such treatment seems to act as a motivational tool since the discomfort can be ignored if the students focus closely on other things. For instance, Strepsiades complains of bedbugs biting him when he is left to contrive a solution to his problem (709-715, 725, 742). Socrates often forgets to feed the pupils as well. A student tells an anecdote of how Socrates procured the previous night's meal by stealing a cloak from one of the athletes at the wrestling school (177-179). This act of theft as well as the removal of all cloaks and shoes is akin to Socrates stripping away conventions and
14 Bowie 1993: 119 considers the studies of Tartaros and the sun a way of studying Heaven and Hell, which disregards the accepted Greek view of the afterlife. 14 traditions from his students prior to their entry into the Thinkery.15 Students are confined indoors, as indicated when Strepsiades is informed that "they do not venture out often" (198-199). As a result, they become pale-skinned and emaciated creatures who resemble prisoners of war. Thus the students lose contact with reality due to their focus on the abstract under Socrates' guidance.
Like other aspects of this portrayal of Socrates, his method of teaching, particularly in the case of Strepsiades, is unconventional and difficult to comprehend. Strepsiades' failed education is full of problems which arise primarily because of the way Socrates tries to teach his student. Rather than adapt his lesson plan to suit his student, the philosopher tries to make Strepsiades adjust his beliefs to fit the lessons he is being taught. For instance, his solution to Strepsiades' debts is too complex for Strepsiades to understand. He uses theoretical concepts to teach the basic fundamental ideas of rhetoric, but fails due to Strepsiades' incomprehension. His attempts to teach the dimwitted pupil take so poorly indoors that he breaks his rule and takes Strepsiades outdoors, which is abnormal for Socrates' treatment of students (628-633).
Socrates' measure of his students is immaterial in light of how and what he tries to teach them. Strepsiades, although he tries to grasp the concepts Socrates teaches him, cannot , retain any of his lessons for long. The first thing he tries to teach Strepsiades outdoors is proper diction, using rhythms, and measures (638). He preaches about the gender of nouns (658-663). All of these concepts are basic fundamentals of speech, and are necessary for learning the skills of rhetoric and persuasion which Strepsiades wants to
15Eubenl96:892. 15 acquire. His assumption is that Socrates will teach him the concrete application or definition of each. Despite Socrates' attempts at explaining his meaning, measure and meter become physical measurement (641-642); dactyls become fingers (and an obscene gesture) (648-651); the genders of words change into vocabulary lessons (658-663). Since a speaker must correctly understand what he is discussing in order to apply it to his own devices, Strepsiades must correctly grasp these concepts before he can learn the more advanced stages of argument. Even though Socrates reduces them to their most basic form, there is no way to further simplify such things to suit Strepsiades' mental capacity.
Another problem which arises during Strepsiades' lessons is that the old man is focused on his body, yet undertakes an education that should empower his mind. Strepsiades cannot grasp abstract thought; he renders all the abstract thoughts concrete. Nearly every concept discussed returns to his body and corporeal functions. Thus when he is left to devise a solution to his problems, he chooses to masturbate instead (734). Socrates is aware of this issue, but does not change his teaching method to accommodate it. Instead he expects his student to alter his limited comprehension to acquire the skills he teaches following his own method. Despite his awareness of Strepsiades' mental deficiencies, Socrates here enacts one of the charges against the sophists, namely that he sells his wisdom to all comers without discrimination. 16
Strepsiades cannot move attention beyond his body, whereas Socrates cannot bring his full attention to it. This bodily fixation is also evidenced by Strepsiades' inability to
16Kerferd 1981:25. 16 understand Socrates' complex description of the cause of thunder. When the concept is reworded in terms of his stomach growling on festival day, Strepsiades is able to comprehend it (383-385). The theory escapes his grasp on the conceptual level but when it is placed in terms of his own body Strepsiades begins to understand. His description of thunder shows that initially Socrates is able' to simplify his complex ideas to accommodate the limitations of his Strepsiades' mind. However, his later and more complicated lessons are too abstract to be placed in such terms.
While teaching Strepsiades, Socrates focuses his lesson plan on preparing him to understand the use of argument. The teacher tries to remove the body from the equation by covering it and having Strepsiades learn in his bug-ridden bed while reducing the use of reasoning to a simple set of instructions to apply reasoning to any situation, which is as follows:
??? ??? ?a??pt??, ?a? s???sa? t?? f???t?da ?ept?? ?at? µ????? pe??f???e? ta p???µata, ????? d?a???? ?a? s??p?? ... e?' ?t??µa- ?a? ?p???? t? t?? ???µ?t??, afe'?? ?pe??e, ?at? t? ???µ? p???? ????s?? a???? a?t? ?a? ???????s?? (740-745). Now cover your head, and slice your idea into small parts and consider the business piece by piece by investigating each and analysing them correctly „. If you come to some obstacle in one of your plots, release it and move on, and later return it to motion in your deliberation and weigh it properly in the balance.
This set of instructions is easy to follow, but to use it, one must be able to think critically and anticipate reactions to his solutions. It also outlines the purpose and use of the earlier lessons for the application of reasoning and development of the rhetorical skill which has made Socrates notorious. This skill set has enough flexibility to allow those who learn it 17
to promote self-interest in a way that others find agreeable. As no limitations are set on its application, it allows the individual to defend shifting his focus from the benefit of the polis and towards self-interest and personal concerns.
Moreover, Strepsiades, the ineloquent and incapable pupil, nearly manages to retain this lesson; his attempts at using this method initially succeed, so the philosopher cannot be such a poor teacher as he originally seems. Socrates tries to have Strepsiades practice the newfound reasoning by giving him three realistic scenarios, starting with his current problem. His first two solutions to legal problems posed to him by Socrates are unrealistic. One involves pulling the moon out of the sky (749-754), and the other requires buying a piece of rare and expensive glass to melt wax on a tablet (766-772). But they follow the reasoning outlined earlier by Socrates, so the teacher accepts and praises them. Socrates' teaching and approval of this skill show how he encourages the violation of laws and traditionally held values, with the proper application of reasoning.
However, not all absurd solutions meet Socrates' approval. In order to gain the support of this philosopher, the answers to the riddle must fit a certain set of criteria. What he approves of is absurd but follows his method of devising a solution, whereas what he cannot approve does not involve the subtle application of logic to a problem. Strepsiades' solution to the third scenario is to hang himself, reasoning that if he is dead, no one can expect him to pay a fine (779-781). Clearly he no longer grasps this concept as he once again focuses his solution on his body, despite Socrates' attempts to develop his mind. His reasoning is sound, but the solution would defeat the purpose of the entire exercise. Regardless of the tactic, Socrates cannot convey the theoretical and complex thoughts to the old farmer. For a minute, though, he passes along the ability to twist words, thoughts, 18 and deeds into realistic situations in order to achieve one's own way rather than what is conventionally considered proper.
Aristophanes also shows that Socrates and his Thinkery have the means to teach the particularly potent skill of rhetoric and reasoning for a fee, even though these lessons are beyond the grasp of the corporeally-minded Strepsiades. Socrates even keeps the weaker and stronger arguments in his school at his ready disposal. The two arguments hold a debate on stage in which the weaker argument easily beats the stronger, thus showing the state of education in Athens as well as the problem in appealing to tradition for support.
The way the pair debate also demonstrates the power of the new logos, heightened by the new education. Although Socrates is not present in this debate, he is familiar with both forms of argument and maintains them.
One of the most problematical parts of this play is the finale. Usually Aristophanes' plays end with a celebration, feasting, or dancing. The conflict of the play is resolved, the guilty party is punished or exonerated, and the hero has successfully accomplished his goal. But the Clouds has none of these things. Instead, the play comes to a close with the Thinkery burning and Socrates and his students running naked through the streets of
Athens.
What takes place immediately before the Thinkery burns also is unusual since the play's agon has already taken place between the two forms of logos. Strepsiades and Pheidippides hold a second debate, having come to blows over the son's newfound esteem for "the genius Euripides" (1376) and the father's insistence on hearing lines from Aeschylus (1366-1369). During this argument, Pheidippides reveals all the implications 19 of his education at Socrates' hands. He can now justify father-beating, and offers to extend his argument to justify striking his mother as well (1444-1446). Further, he has no reverence for the traditions by which his father should be revered. Also, in a surprising turn of events, the Clouds reveal that they are not the patron goddesses of rhetoric Socrates considers them, but traditional goddesses who punish wrongdoers, specifically those who turn to rhetoric to subvert the traditions of the polis (1458-1461). As a result of both his debate with Pheidippides and the revelation of the Clouds' real purpose, Strepsiades has a change of heart concerning the importance of tradition and law. The old man realizes that by trying to save himself and his family from his debts, he has introduced a new danger to it with this skill. As a result, he burns the Thinkery down
(1494). As a reaction to Pheidippides' willingness to beat his own mother, burning the Thinkery down is ineffective. However, his decision shows how he realizes the importance of the traditions of the polis and has decided to eradicate the Thinkery, which he now perceives as a threat to the polis.
There are several ways to look at this unusual ending. The impact of the new critical thinking will not change nor will Socrates' influence on his students diminish. Socrates, Pheidippides, and the other members of the Thinkery survive the fire relatively unscathed. Although their gathering place is gone, these people and their problematic rhetoric still exist within the polis. Note how the newly-turned traditionalist resorts to brute force, a violent piece of action which words cannot extinguish, as a response to the power of the newer generation's tactics. The old farmer would not succeed in a battle of wits, thus he resorts to the physical tactics that he can understand which these thinkers have abandoned. When asked what he is doing, Strepsiades responds that he is "mincing words with the beams of the house" (1496). In this way, Strepsiades' burning of the Thinkery demonstrates the destructiveness of the measures which the traditionalists prefer. While he can to minimal effect apply Socrates' skills against him, the old farmer realizes the effectiveness of traditional violence over newfangled logos.
From the above analysis of Socrates, it is clear that Aristophanes designed this character with the whole of the new education and its proponents in mind. Common charges often made against the sophists can all be applied to Socrates. He teaches the youth of Athens the use of rhetoric; he keeps both forms of argument in his school; he adheres to absurd logic and studies things which make no sense. Furthermore, Socrates promotes rational explanation over the traditional form of understanding. He also encourages belief in new and strange gods instead of the Olympians. As demonstrated by Pheidippides after his education at the Thinkery, Socrates' school also teaches the appreciation of the new forms of other matters, such as poetry, while undermining the traditional values crucial to the functioning of the polis.
The Aristophanic Socrates thus embodies all the aspects of the new intellectual movement and its adherents which the comic poet wished to ridicule. The ending of the Clouds as well as the representation of Socrates has led to suppositions that Aristophanes is a traditionalist for whom the sophists caused the moral and social decay of the polis. The tensions between the two representations of this philosopher can be resolved by acknowledging that neither Socrates is a sophist, but guilty of similar faults and identifiable as a part of the new intellectual movement. The differences between the two portrayals of this philosopher can be explained by the purpose of the man writing the character. Plato searches for a philosophical truth, whereas Aristophanes entertains and 21 criticises contemporary figures and movements. When Aristophanes depicts him as a stereotypical sophist, he is criticizing all members of the new intellectual movement rather than Socrates alone. His depiction in the Clouds warns the demos of the dangers introduced by the newer approach to arguing, and the people by whom it is taught. 22
Chapter 3: The Clever Poet: Aristophanes' Euripides
If Aristophanes had a favourite target for his comic mockery, it would be the tragic poet Euripides. Almost every extant play by Aristophanes contains at least some reference to this tragedian. Euripides even appears as a character in the Acharnians, Frogs, and Thesmophoriazusae. The frequent appearance of Euripides in Aristophanes' comedies has always caused problems for critics. Although there is no alternate depiction of
Euripides with which Aristophanes' portrayal of the tragedian may be compared, it cannot be known how realistic his Euripides is.
In this respect, we are faced with the same problem as with the Aristophanic version of Socrates. We know that Euripides was an affiliate of the sophists, and was even friends
1 7 with a few of them, yet beyond this there is little else known about Euripides' life. Naturally there is little consensus among critics on how seriously we are to understand Aristophanes' portrayal of the tragic poet. While there have been various approaches taken in attempt to settle this problem, they usually fall into one of the following approaches:18
1) Aristophanes was a critic of Euripides as a sophist. ' 2) Aristophanes admired Euripides and was himself a sophist, thereby satirizing Euripides in good fun.20
17 See Conacher 1998: 1-28; Allan 2000: 145-156 for discussions of Euripides and the sophistic movement. 18 Storey 1998: 85-134. 19 See Norwood 1931: 296-298; Dantu 1907: 57-83; Foley 1988: 43. 20 See Bowie 1993: 245-252; MacDowell 1995: 355. 23
3) Even though the comic poet may have admired Euripides, Aristophanes realizes that Euripides has brought about the ruin of tragedy, and as a result the decay of the polis21 Proponents of this first approach usually point to Aeschylus' victory and rather severe condemnations of Euripides in the Frogs as a basis for their position. This perspective, however, disregards the serious criticisms of Aeschylus found in the Frogs, which nearly match the charges against Euripides. Further, Euripides is not a sophist, but a tragedian, albeit one whose work exhibits sophistic tendencies and characters, such as the Nurse in the Hippolytus or Polyphemus in the Cyclops.
Supporters of the second consider the Thesmophoriazusae a shining example of light humour applied to Aristophanes' favourite komodoumenos. Those who claim that his portrayal of Euripides is an expression of admiration also use the frequency of Euripides' appearance in Aristophanes' comedies to ground their arguments.22 One of the chief proponents of this argument is R. Wycherley, who points out "that parody, even merciless parody, does not necessarily mean complete condemnation."23 He sees the relationship between Aristophanes and Euripides as one of grudging respect and argues that, despite the frequent parodies, Aristophanes admired Euripides. This view comes off as slightly naive because it ignores the fact that parody, even a recurrent one, is meant to ridicule the figure in question. The parodies of Euripides, particularly when considering the criticisms of the tragedian therein, are unlikely intended as an expression of begrudging respect.
21 See Konstan 1995: 63-72; Goldhill 1991: 205; Ehrenberg 1974: 63-65, 209. 22 See Wycherley 1946: 98-107; Roselli 2005: 1-49. 23 Wycherley 1946:99. 24
The third and more common stance accounts for Aristophanes' constant references to Euripides as well as the criticism of both the tragedian and his innovative tragedies.24 Such critics claim that this portrayal shows Aristophanes' apprehension over the effect his novel approach had on tragedy.25 Rainer Friedrich, for instance, suggests that Aristophanes adopts the very intellectualism for which he castigates Euripides.26 Cratinus, one of his rivals, coined the phrase euripidaristophanizein to describe the relationship between the comic poet and the tragedian. By this argument, even though the comic poet does so in a self-contradictory way, Aristophanes uses his criticisms of the poet to reflect the crisis of the polis and attempts to counter the threats to the ethical order.
3.1 Euripides: From Acharnions to Frogs
Euripides' first and briefest appearance occurs in the Acharnians. In this play, Dikaiopolis, whose name means just citizen, has decided to negotiate his own personal peace with the Spartans since he cannot convince the senior politicians that Athens should sue for peace. In order to do so without facing the censure of the rest of the Athenians, in particular the chorus of Acharnians, he begs the rags of Telephus from
Euripides.
The tragedian reluctantly emerges from his house on a wheeled platform, wearing the rags of a beggar and resembling a cripple. Dikaiopolis assumes the Euripides must be creating a cripple. This assumption is the comic inversion of the idea that the poet must
See Konstan 1995: 63-72; Goldhill 1991: 205; Ehrenberg 1974: 63-65, 209. See Worman 2008: 105; Austin and Olson 2004: Iv. Friedrich 1980:21. 25 assume his character's traits to make a convincing figure. Aristophanes also uses this opportunity to mock the frequency with which Euripides creates beggars out of kings; he names several royals in rags before Dikaiopolis determines whose costume he would like.
When he dons Telephus' rags and borrows Euripides' beggar tools, Dikaiopolis begins to assume the mannerisms of a beggar and the tragic style of Euripides' speech. On top of everything else that the peace-loving citizen has taken from this tragedian, he swallows some of Euripides' rhetorical skill as well. Dikaiopolis manages to persuade part of the Chorus of the value of his treaty. The peace-loving Dikaiopolis makes his own contracts with Megarians and Boeotians at the market. While Dikaiopolis celebrates his peace with a great feast, the Athenians under Lamachus face battle and warfare.
The Thesmophoriazusae focuses more directly on the impact of Euripides in the polis. The women of Athens are angry with Euripides for the reaction of their men to his portrayal of them in tragedy so they gather at the festival of Demeter and Kore to plot the offending poet's demise. Little do the women realize that Euripides has sent an agent, his elderly in-law disguised as a woman, to infiltrate their meeting and speak on his behalf. Unfortunately the in-law' s deceit is uncovered and he is held captive as Euripides tries to free him by parodying plots from his tragedies. At last the tragedian negotiates a truce with the women which stipulates that each party reverts to their traditional role as poet and women celebrating a festival. Next Euripides disguises himself as a procuress and distracts the slave guarding his in-law. While the guard is off-stage with the dancing girl,
Euripides frees his in-law and they both flee for safety. 26
Euripides is more overtly criticised in the Frogs than the Thesmophoriazusae. Although he only appears in the second half of the play, Euripides plays a significant role in the Frogs: Dionysus has undergone a catabasis specifically to seek this poet out. The urge that drives the god to Hades is visceral, as seen when he compares his longing for Euripides to a craving for soup (60-66). When Dionysus finally finds Euripides, his tragedian of choice has challenged Aeschylus for the Seat of Tragedy. Dis asks Dionysus to judge the competition (agon) between the two tragic poets.
At first Euripides and Aeschylus attack each other and quarrel over the effect the other has had on both tragedy and the polis. Then they invoke the blessing of their chosen deities; Aeschylus calls upon the traditional pantheon while Euripides summons less conventional gods. Afterwards they tear apart one another's prologues and choral lyrics. Neither comes out a clear victor of either of these stages. They then weigh individual lines on a scale. Due to the turgidity of his poetry, Aeschylus wins this part easily.
Overall, the poetic agon treats both the traditional and the intellectual poets with equal severity. Dionysus, who is appointed judge because of his role as god of the theatre, has a difficult time deciding which one to take back to Athens with him. Dis forces Dionysus to choose which poet he will take back to the land of the living with him. The prize for winning the agon has changed without any notice. Dionysus poses the question of what to do about Alcibiades to the tragedians. Euripides' response is vindictive; Aeschylus' is obscure. When forced to make a choice, Dionysus chooses to take Aeschylus. Lest Euripides take the Seat of Tragedy as a consolation prize, Aeschylus bequeaths it to Sophocles as he and Dionysus depart. 27
In all three plays, Aristophanes portrays Euripides as an innovator who embodies the new form of tragedy within the polis. The comic poet uses this caricature to show the impact of such a figure in the poet's role mostly because of his didactic influence on the demos. The Euripides character is not exactly a sophist, but shares many aspects of a typical member of the new intellectual movement. Further, he assumes a didactic role because of his position as a tragic poet, an honour which Aristophanes is trying to claim for Comedy as well. Within each of his appearances, Aristophanes' Euripides character embodies several sophistic attributes and inclinations, which Aristophanes shows to be the reason for tragedy's demise, particularly in light of the poet's influence with the demos.
3.1.1 Achamians
Euripides' role in the Achamians is essential to the outcome of the play since he provides
Dikaiopolis with the disguise which allows him to convince some of the Achamians to accept his private peace. However, the more interesting part for us is how Euripides is portrayed in his brief appearance in the oldest extant comedy. For one thing, he is shown as a smooth talker, indulging in sophistic double speak, which proves to be contagious. By simply donning Telephus' rags, Dikaiopolis borrows enough of Euripides' skill to save himself from the Achamians (484). Euripides' servant gives a paradoxical answer when asked if the tragedian is home (396). Moreover, he is notorious for sharing this rhetorical skill with those with whom he has been in contact, as evidenced when Dikaiopolis comes to him proclaiming:
Foley 1988:43. 28
a??' ??t?ß??? p??? t?? ????t?? ?', ????p?d?, d?? µ?? ?????? t? t?? pa?a??? d??µat??. de7 ?a? µe ???a? t? ???? ??s?? µa???? a?t? de ???at??, ?? ?a??? ????, f??e?. (414-417) I come before your gates, Euripides, asking that you give me something from your old play. For they say that I must speak something long to the chorus: she brings death if I speak poorly. To speak well, he must acquire some of Euripides' eloquent speech by proximity and some of the tragedian's tricks for transforming a wealthy man into a poor man.
The most obvious criticism of Euripides in the Acharnians is that he reduces his tragic heroes to the lowest possible rank by making them dress in rags and act as beggars. Dikaiopolis' decision to turn to Euripides for a disguise demonstrates that the tragedian has become notorious for staging these kinds of character. Apparently the tragic poet has so many of these characters that he does not immediately know which of his characters' costumes Dikaiopolis would like to borrow. To emphasize the plethora of beggar-kings in Euripidean tragedy, Aristophanes makes Euripides recite a litany of beggar-heroes, describing how he depicted each one. First he suggests Aeneus, whom he depicted as a miserable old man; next comes Phoenix, described as blind; then Philoctetes, of whom he made a beggar; Bellerophon becomes lame (418-427). Dikaiopolis stops the litany by declaring "not Bellerophon; he who is worse off, but a clever and better speaker too" (428-429). The character whose costume he wants fits the description of a sophist despite his beggar's rags and 'worse off status. Euripides is able to deduce immediately who, from all his beggar-kings, is more wretched and better at speaking than Bellerophon. Euripides knows his characters by such vague descriptions, despite the plethora of ragged royals he has presented on stage. Not only does he have several beggars in mind, but he also has their rags sorted and lying on marble. 29
There are other overt criticisms of Euripides and his new style of tragedies in the Acharnians, although they are much less obvious than the making of beggars and indulging in subtle wordplay. For instance, when the tragedian complains of losing his
tragedies by loaning out his props to Dikaiopolis, he is informed that:
??p? µa ??' ??s?' oí a?t?? e??a?e? ?a??? (461). By Zeus, you do not know what sort of ills you yourself produce.
Assuming the evils Euripides produces are his tragedies, this criticism shows Aristophanes' judgement falling not on Euripides himself, but on plays he produces and the effect he has on tragedy. Aside from his indulgence in paradoxes and rhetorical
tricks, Euripides is shown to have reduced the tragic hero from the kings of Aeschylean tragedy to the beggar-kings he is notorious for creating.
Further, Aristophanes presents Euripidean tragedy as being all props and costumes; hence
Euripides' lament that Dikaiopolis has taken all his tragedies. Helene Foley supports this
charge when she remarks that:
By having Dikaiopolis call for Euripides to be rolled out from within his house on the ekkuklema (408), Aristophanes not only stresses in an untragic fashion the mechanics of tragic theater, but suggests that comedy reveals the unglamorous but important truths that tragedy hides behind the stage. The point of the parody in the Acharnians is the implicit charge that Euripides is undermining the tragic tradition by introducing elements that belong to comedy into tragedy, such as the reliance on costume, disguise, and emphasis on domestic details of the oikos. As a result, he shows Euripides' undermining tragic tradition and so tragedy's
Foley 1988: 44. 30 moral and political purpose, as explicitly expressed in the Frogs: to act as paideia to the polites.
3.1.2 Thesmophoriazusae
Euripides' second appearance in Aristophanes' comedies is much longer and more critical than in the Acharnians: However, the basic criticism of Euripides and his impact on tragedy, while less negative, is quite similar. This Euripides is also notorious for his indulgence in subtle rhetorical skill and is incapable of answering even a simple question clearly. In the opening of the Thesmophoriazusae, his in-law asks Euripides where they are going (1-4). Euripides answers him in the most obscure way possible by saying that his relative should not hear what he is about to see and specifies that the senses should be treated as separate entities (5-12). Then he explains why sight and hearing are two different senses in terms of aether, which he considers a deity (13-18). No part of his explanation provides any particular insight into the question posed, but his diatribe references Euripides' tragedies and demonstrates exactly how obscure his method of thinking is alleged to be. Rosen comments on this particular exchange:
Euripides claims that he could educate him in all sorts of Euripidean niceties, if (or so he implies, for the subject is immediately dropped) he keeps listening to him repeat his own poetry within a comedy.29
So Euripides' self-citation as well as his overindulgence in subtle wordplay perplexes his single listener unnecessarily, thereby demonstrating his disregard for the nature of his
Rosen 2006: 14. 31 audience. He does, however, express a willingness to spread the use of this sort of speaking by teaching it even to his dimwitted in-law.
Nevertheless, Aristophanes' Euripides seems to provoke a strong sense of loyalty from his kinsman. His in-law is unduly impressed with Euripides' theories, but does not understand them, which he considers a natural consequence of conversing with a clever fellow like Euripides (19-21). Despite the poet's reputation for being inconsistent, his in- law volunteers to attend the festival to defend Euripides (211-212). This act of sacrilege, going to a festival exclusive to women, could be fatal to him, yet he offers to intervene on Euripides' behalf; Euripides does not ask him to.
For a man known for his use of rhetoric and subtle word-twisting, Euripides fails in his use of persuasion quite frequently in this play. For instance, after his in-law has undergone his feminine metamorphosis, he extracts a promise from Euripides to save him if the women discover his ruse. The relative even insists that he swear on the traditional gods instead of Aether, which Euripides tries to use (272). Also Euripides cannot persuade Agathon, who is the most feminine man in Athens, to dress as a woman and join the polis' women at the Thesmophoria for him. When he protests, he receives his own line as a reply. Agathon tells him "You enjoy seeing the light; do you think your father
TA does not?" (194). It also demonstrates the unwillingness of Agathon to sacrifice himself on Euripides' behalf even though Euripides is allegedly skilled at the art of persuasion.
This line is taken from Euripides' Alcestis (691). 32
Euripides encounters more opposition than anticipated for what he has shown the people with his tragedies. He has roused the men's suspicions against the women as the women themselves complain when they conspire against the tragedian (383-428). This consequence of his innovative tragedies is first revealed at Agathon's house when Euripides asks Agathon to infiltrate the Thesmophoria dressed as a woman. He acknowledges that "today the women will meet in the Thesmophoria because I represented them in a wicked way." (181-182). Additionally, the nature of Euripides' dilemma in the Thesmophoriazusae is caused by the poor reception of his work by people who likely did not see his tragedies. This second-hand criticism suggests his poetry is well-written enough to rouse suspicions in the oikos. It also suggests that his influence with the demos is sufficient that what he writes about the oikos causes them to react as members of their individual households instead of members of the polis.
Although Euripides' plays demonstrate the untrustworthiness of women, his representations of them are a symptom of men's belief in their wickedness rather than a cause.31 But Euripides's portrayal of females of which the women complain as all Phaedras and no Penelopes (544-548) seems unprecedented. The principal complaint of the women is not that he has shown wicked women, but that he has shown only poorly behaved women with no balancing good exempla. These stories existed before Euripides dramatizes them. How he stages them is what upsets his persecutors. The largest
3 'Austin and Olson 2004: liv. 33 problem that this figure brings up in the Thesmophoriazusae is a loss of complacency in the oikos because of the men's learned watchfulness.32
The tragic parodies in the Thesmophoriazusae demonstrate the novelty and complexity of his newer forms of drama. Even though these parodies do not prove effective in freeing his captured in-law, Euripides uses his drama as a source of inspiration. Each parody contains a submissive woman waiting to be rescued by a male hero, who will be overtaken by a sudden profound desire to carry this defenceless woman away for a marriage that fits into the happily ever after model.33 Only a piece of work worthy of such extensive attention can be parodied as Euripidean tragedy. The use of parody here attests to the calibre of the parodied tragedies;34 unfortunately these parodies do not assume the plot of the originals. The Andromeda is reduced to truncated version of Helen35
His choice of parody as a means to free his relative is both subtle and overly clever and demonstrates Euripides' reliance on his art for all circumstances. There are several methods of diversion Euripides could employ to save his in-law; however, Euripides relies on his clever skills that have caused the problem to resolve the issue instead. Surprisingly the subtle and obscure idea of using tragic parodies does not originate from
Euripides, but from his in-law. To summon Euripides, he uses Euripides' own plays. The first few attempts fail, but the Helen, which is one of the more innovative tragedies, successfully draws Euripides to the stage in the role of Menelaus (855-870). However,
Stehle 2002: 376. Austin and Olson 2004: lxiii. Friedrich 1980: 20. Austin and Olson 2004: lxi. 34 there are several problems with his use of tragic solutions to his problem. One issue is that the plays chosen, at first by the relative then by Euripides, are too subtle and clever to function in the roles, despite their themes of disguise and trickery. Two of them focus on the in-law assuming the role of a captive depending on a male saviour.
Moreover, the parodies change the nature of the roles in the original tragedies in such a way that what is objectionable in them is gone. Euripides' in-law adapts the role of Helen to better suit the circumstances at hand; he transforms himself from a hostage to a helpless damsel in distress. Euripides' Helen was no such creature. One noteworthy aspect of his parodied character is that the relative uses the type of female behaviour not demonstrated by Euripides' heroines as his exempla.36 The characters of Helen and Menelaus have changed to better suit actors. Helen becomes a helpless damsel in need of rescue and Menelaus is no longer the dolt Euripides depicts.
However, the Andromeda parody fails because the archer refuses to play along with Euripides' alterations to the situation. He is confused by Euripides' attraction to his relative, but is willing to permit him to indulge his lust for the captive old man (1119- 1 120), which is not the reaction either Euripides or his in-law is looking for. Euripides' role of dashing enamoured hero leaves the in-law exposed for penetration (1 123-1 124). He cannot adapt his plots to persuade the guards, either the uneducated woman or the barely coherent slave, to release his in-law.
Bobrick 1997: 183. Austin and Olson 2004: lxi. 35
Aristophanes makes it clear that neither guard is capable of playing along with the roles assigned to them in these parodies. Instead of helping to free his in-law, Aristophanes' tragic poet manages to confuse the captors or anger them with his subtle plots. Euripides' use of tragedy and tragic themes is above them and they lack the understanding necessary to adopt the role assigned to them. Neither guard is even aware that Euripides and his relative are parodying Euripides' tragedies. The difference between the intelligence of Euripides and his opponents is especially emphasized by the contrast between Euripides' euphemistic and paratragic language and the archer's vulgar language.38 Euripides has clearly forgotten the nature of his audience when he applies these complex and subtle plots against them. According to Aristophanes' portrayal, these parodies encourage members of the demos to disregard theatrical illusion and exaggeration and apply what Euripides stages to their real lives.
Euripides' solution to the conflict shows the problems with subtle rhetoric and logic. As with most criticisms of Euripides, the Thesmophoriazusae merely foreshadows the criticism presented in the Frogs. Euripides will not be the complete failure he is from the later play. Instead of rescuing his relative with his parodies and clever plots, Euripides resolves his quarrel with the women by promising to stop his representation of wicked women; they in turn allow him to live (1 160-1 171). With this agreement, Euripides and the women agree to revert to their traditional roles. In other words, their pact dictates that Euripides returns to writing a more traditional form of poetry while the women return to their traditional celebrations of the Thesmophoria.
Henderson 1975: 90. In the end Euripides is forced to give up his use of tragedy and clever plots, and the trickery and disguise which have caused so much trouble. It is a simple and crude plot, more characteristic of comedy than tragedy, which succeeds. As Bobrick points out "Euripides must stoop even lower than Mnesilochus [in-law] did to conquer his enemy... Tragedy must bow to comedy in order to save its hide." Eva Stehle observes that Euripides' final trick shows the clever poet accepting the consequences of his treatment of women because he must act one himself instead of scripting a role for others to play out.40 The role and sexual inversion play an important part in the plot which succeeds in attaining his in-law' s liberty, but it is unlikely that the success can be attributed to Euripides finally taking a female role himself. He shows the depths of a woman's treachery once again, this time against a foreign archer. The plot distracts the guard long enough for Euripides to free his in-law.
Aristophanes' chief complaints against Euripides in this play,.therefore, are his subtle trickery, his focus on oikeia pragmata (domestic affairs) rather than the civic paideia of the polis, and finally, his poaching on territory that firmly belongs to comedy. He shows that only by agreeing to revert to his traditional role can Euripides resolve the conflict stirred up by his portrayal of domestic affairs. Thus Euripides, as the sophistic intellectual fop in the Thesmophoriazusae, causes members of the demos to look to the oikos instead of the polis by poaching the prerogative of comedy. As a result, the character must descend from the heights of tragedy into the comic realm in order to
resolve his conflict.
Bobrick 1997: 190. Stehle 2002: 396. 37
3.1.3 Frogs
Aristophanes' criticisms of Euripides as a sophistic poet are most clearly laid out in the poetic agon of the Frogs. There are several causes for complaint against Euripides, many of which come out through the debate between Aeschylus and Euripides, though others are shown by the chorus or Dionysus. The criticism of tragedy is not limited to Euripides' innovative style, however. Traditional tragedy is criticised by the younger tragedian as well as the god, who serves as adjudicator for the contest. The complaints of the poet reflect his sophistic interests nearly as much as the charges against him do.
One attribute of this figure is his popularity among the lower and baser levels of society. Without his followers, the poet would become an inconsequential and unproblematic figure. For example, it is the followers of Euripides that support the poet's challenge of accepted traditions. Dis' slave describes Euripides' arrival as follows:
dte d? ?at???' ????p?d??, ?pede????t? t??? ??p?d?ta?? ?a? t??s? ßa??a?t??t?µ??? ?a? t??s? pat?a???a?s? ?a? t??????????, dpe? est' e? ??d?? p?????, ?? d' a?p??µe??? t?? a?t??????? ?a? ????sµ?? ?a? st??f?? ?pe?eµ???sa? ?a??µ?sa? s?f?tat?? ??pe?t' ?pa??e?? a?te??ßet? t?? ??????, V ??s????? ?a??st? (771-778). When Euripides came down here, he began showing off to the muggers, and the purse-snatchers, and father-beaters, and burglars, of which there are plenty in Hades, who having heard his debates and twists and turns, went crazy for him and named him the cleverest; having been so inspired, he tried to claim the chair upon which Aeschylus sat. He thus challenges the established order with the support of the lowlifes. Note that his supporters have named him cleverest, not the most excellent, poet, which suits him since he is known for his intellect, not his virtue. His popularity is based on his use of intellect, 38
which in turn inflates his pride, leading to his pursuit of personal ambition, such as the Seat of Tragedy in Hades, instead of the acceptance of the status quo.
Aristophanes' Euripides is assigned a variety of posts which bring out the sophistic traits of both the character and his tragedies in his comic appearances. The most obvious of these is the position of influence as a tragic poet. As a poet, Euripides is shown to be something entirely different from the traditional tragedian. Rather than concentrate on displaying civic virtue, he focuses the attention of his audience on such unconventional
things as domestic concerns, trivial matters, and daily occurrences (959). All of these matters, while important to the individual and his oikos, do not reflect the interests of a polis at war.
The most significant role that Aristophanes gives Euripides and Aeschylus in their capacity as poets is adviser to the polis. Aeschylus assigns to the tragic poets the role of
guiding men the way a teacher does boys in the Frogs when he defines a poet's didactic responsibility as:
a??' att????pte?? ??? t? p?????? t?? ?e p???t??, ?a? µ? pa???e?? µ?d? d?d?s?e??. t??? µe? ?a? pa?da????s?? ?st? d?d?s?a??? dst?? f???e?, t??s?? d'?ß?s? p???ta?. p??? d? de? ???st? ???e?? ?µ?? (1053-1056). But the poet must hide the base and not lead towards nor teach it, for just as the teacher guides young children, so the poet is to grown men. We must show them only the good. Hence Aeschylus grants both himself and Euripides the position of educator and adviser to the polis. The rivalling tragic poets see eye to eye in this case; it is probably the only 39 thing they agree on.41 The events affecting Athens, namely the Peloponnesian War, would make the role of adviser pivotal to the polis ' survival. The question becomes then, what exactly does the polis need from its advisers? Euripides claims to have "taught them to talk" (954). Who "they" are is unspecified, so he likely means the audience in general, or the demos. To emphasize this idea, he calls it a "democratic act" (952).
Were the members of the demos meant to be silent previously? Their silence is implied by Aeschylus' declaration against Euripides' actions; however, it is never stated.
Because the demos learns from Euripides and his tragedies, Aristophanes demonstrates that the innovative poet has a detrimental impact on the polis. Aeschylus asks "why should a man admire a poet?" (1008) Euripides gives the expected answer: because a poet makes people better members of their communities (1009). All three poets (the two tragedians and their comic creator) agree that the poet takes on a civic didactic function.
The source of contention becomes precisely what constitutes a good member of the community. Nevertheless, even though Aeschylus presents Euripides' realistic tragedies as detrimental to the virtuous education oî \he polîtes, the Euripides figure is guilty of even worse transgressions against the demos. Euripides shows sophistic theories and rhetorical skill through his poetry. Aeschylus claims that:
e?t' a? ?a??a? ?p?t?de?sa? ?a? st?µ???a? ?d?da?a?, ? '?e????se? t?? te pa?a?st?a? ?a? ta? p??a? ???t???e? t?? µe??a???? st?µ????µ?????, ?a? t??? ?a?a???? ???pe?se? a?ta???e?e?? t??? a????s??. (1069-1072)
41Konstan 1995:71. 40
You taught them to use babbling and chatter, you draw them away from the palaestra and wear out the rumps of the chattering youths and convince sailors to argue with their commanders. In other words, Euripides has taught the citizens of Athens nearly everything that can be considered wrong with their behaviour. Rather than the traditional behaviour, he has taught them to think for themselves, chatter, and argue. Euripides has also taught "them" chattering speech (954), and has presented oikeia pragmata (949) on stage. None of these things seems to fit in with the traditional or exemplary education. That he has to face such charges implies that he holds considerable influence.
Euripides' influence within the polis is a source of trouble considering his position as a teacher of virtue and political excellence as Aristophanes portrays it. He is popular with the young and the lower echelons of the demos as well as the apparent violators ?? nomos in Hades. Since the educator is responsible for teaching his student proper morals, what he has shown them is troubling. As Dantu remarks:
Deux dangers sont à éviter dans l'éducation des mœurs: les initiations grossières et brutales qui peuvent donner le goût du vice au lieu d'en inspirer l'horreur, la pruderie exagérée qui, de parti pris, fait mystère de tout, et n'estime jamais que le temps est venu de mettre les âmes en face des réalités de l'existence, et de les fortifier contre la vie par le spectacle de la vie elle-même.42 While the poet does have the license to exaggerate reality, what he presents contains a real complaint; the degree of seriousness with which the audience will treat the presented material is precisely the predicament Aristophanes' Euripides faces in each of his appearances. He agrees with Aeschylus that a poet is supposed to teach excellence
Dantu 1907: 73. 41
(1054), but it is obvious that Aeschylus, as the advocate for tradition, believes Euripides has accomplished the opposite.
Aristophanes shows in two of his comedies that Euripides reduces wealthy men to a beggar's stature, but has a treasury of beggar's gear. He attracts the attention of not only the lower classes, but also the less moral crowd. The tragic poet is shown to be crude and undignified and appeals to those of a similar background.43 Euripides' followers are from the lower classes of Athenian society. More importantly, they are described as thieves, burglars, and father-beaters (771-774), all of whom are violators of nomos. Furthermore, he boasts of his prized disciple Theramenes, in contrast to the apparently feeble-minded people whom Aeschylus has mentored (959-967), whom Dionysus considers a slippery and mutable character. "One minute he is a Chian, the next a Keian," Dionysus says (969-970). For a politician like Theramenes, inconsistency is not an admirable trait so far as Aristophanes is concerned. Additionally, Aeschylus' claims that Euripides teaches young men the new form of argument rather than the traditional wrestling as well as to question authority and trade sex for the ability to talk (1069-1072). The implication is that as a teacher, Euripides is a degrading influence rather than an edifying one since he diverts the attention of the demos from the functioning of the polis to the running of their oikoi.
Further, what Euripides is guilty of as a poet is including an excess of exaggerated reality in his tragedies. The reason for Aristophanes' complaints, through Aeschylus' mouth, is not that Euripides' stories are untrue so much as that they demonstrate the wicked side of
43 Roselli 2005: 1-12 examines an elaborate case regarding Euripides' appeal to the common crowd in the Frogs. 42 the tales as well as the good. Euripides shows women giving birth in temples, falling in love and seducing family members (as Phaedra's love for her stepson and Stheneboa's seduction of her brother), and claiming life is not life (1077-1082). As before, all these stories existed before Euripides wrote them, but the variations he chose to employ in his tragedies offend, as shown by Aeschylus' objections to them. This character rouses suspicions against the lesser members of the oikos and causes men to spend their time worrying about running their households rather than improving the polis.
Contrary to Aeschylus' stated expectation that teachers should only display exemplary behaviour, Euripides demonstrates the wicked behaviour of men, women, and slaves alike. This expansion of the scope of tragedy exposes the audience to a more realistic reflection of the myths upon which people were reared. Arguing that he should only show the exemplary behaviour that qualifies as arete (virtue) minimizes the reality of
Euripides' plays and eliminates the choice of which example to follow. If only one option is presented to them, they can only experience the one idea. Thus, by allowing for the fact that the wicked side of the myths exists, Euripides exposes his audience to a broader, less virtuous, reality. As a result, he earns Aeschylus' censure for being a negative influence on the polis.
Additionally, Aristophanes holds his Euripides accountable for rousing and empowering the baser part of the population in Hades. Once Euripides has been rejected by Dionysus, the chorus tells the younger tragedian:
?a??e? ??? µ? S????te? pa?a?a??µe??? ?a?e??, ?p?ßa???ta µ??s???? ta te µ???sta pa?a??p??ta 43
t?? t?a??d???? t?????, t? d' ?p? seµ???s?? ?????s? ?a? s?a??f?sµ??s? ????? d?at??ß?? a???? tt??e?s?a?, pa?af??????t?? a?d??? (1491-1499). It is best to not sit beside Socrates while the greatest gift of the Muses, the tragic art, goes to waste. To compose idle chatter with meaningless words is the mark of a man going mad.
Their deliberate association of Euripides and Socrates indicates the sort of character he is and with whom he is affiliated. To emphasize this idea, the chorus label Euripides' tragedies as idle lalia (chatter), which is full of meaningless words, instead of the semnos logos (sacred words) he should be producing.
The chorus of the Frogs also express a dislike for his teaching the people to speak and tell Dionysus that "to turn to the softer side of the mattress is the act of a clever man, a Theramenes by nature" (539-541). The impression that the pursuit of the sort of speaking Euripides promotes makes a man effeminate and weak leads them to dislike the clever poet and his influence with the demos. While they admit that Euripides is clever, subtle, and deft at speaking, they consider these rhetorical skills idle chatter and babbling and therefore useless to them and the general audience. His influence does not help generate the strong, silent warriors that his colleagues, whom the chorus prefers, promote. Because of the didactic role of both tragic and comic poets, Aristophanes can show the effect of Euripides' plays on both the demos and tragedy. By demonstrating Euripides' fondness for characters with sophistic skills, Aristophanes shows how Euripides has 44 failed in his role as ethical guardian of the polis. He depicts the tragic poet assisting tragedy's suicide by reducing its dialogue to mere chatter and sophistic logic chopping.44
Euripides' complaints against Aeschylus' poetry are based largely on the contrast between his innovative style of tragedy and Aeschylus' more traditional approach to the genre. Aeschylus, even though he emerges victorious, does not escape the poetic agon unscathed. His tragedies are criticised by Euripides as crude and obscure (836-840). He also invents creatures (922-926, 937) and appeals to tradition as justification for his role in the polis (1030). Dionysus agrees on many of these charges, although he claims that at the time he had enjoyed Aeschylus' prolonged silences (916-917). There is no defence given against these charges, which implies that Aristophanes sees the necessity of some of the innovations to tragedy.
Dionysus' decision is the turning point of the whole comedy and shows the heart of the problems with Euripides and the new intellectual movement. At the beginning of the Frogs, Dionysus is presented as an ardent admirer of Euripides; he ventures into the underworld in search for more of Euripides' poetry because he believes there are no more worthwhile tragedians in Athens (70). Based on this beginning, the anticipated ending of the Frogs is that the god will successfully fetch Euripides and return him to Athens. When urged by Dis to render his verdict, Dionysus chooses the poet that his soul desires (1467-1468); much to Euripides' surprise, Aeschylus is granted Dionysus' reward. Since neither poet truly overcomes his opponent during the agon, this ending has caused debate among critics as to why Aeschylus emerges victorious.
Friedrich 1980: 15. 45
The most common approach taken by critics is that Aeschylus must win in order to restore Athens to her former glory. Aristophanes was aware that Euripides and the sophists were undermining something of vital importance to society and therefore must give the victory to Aeschylus.45 This theory assumes Aristophanes is a staunch traditionalist and would seem more appropriate if Aeschylus were portrayed as the clear victor in all parts of the agon. The traditional form of tragedy is attacked just as harshly and the competition almost comes to a draw. The pair of tragedians is set in opposition to undercut both styles, rather than merely criticize the one.46
Since Dionysus appears to realize that the polis needs an adviser rather than an entertainer, it seems plausible that Aristophanes makes Aeschylus the victor because he never abandoned the polis in this role. Aristophanes has Dionysus come to understand that the quality of the poetry and politics presented in the agon, with the joint goal of saving the polis. Aeschylus fits the role of saviour to the polis in a way that Euripides cannot.47 For all the criticism applied to Aeschylus' poetry, Aristophanes' critiques of, Aeschylus in his capacity of political adviser role are minimal, as Aeschylus never veered from his focus on issues concerning the polis.
As the advocate for the side of tradition, Aeschylus defends his position by pointing out how he has helped create the warriors of the older generation. Aeschylus' poetry is strong and silent (917) and full of war (1021-1023). He relies on Homer and Hesiod, among others, as his precedents (1031-1035). His work focuses on civic arete and
See Ehrenberg 1974: 65; Friedrich 1980: 23; Sommerstein 1980: 7; Harriot 1986: 55. Goldhill 1991:211. Bowie 1993: 245. 46 nomos instead of the domestic affairs so prevalent in Euripides' work. Aeschylus also insists on only showing the good exempla. He explains that "the poet must conceal what is shameful and neither teach it nor steer men towards it" (1053-1054). In other words, he does precisely the opposite of the harsh faults of which Euripides is guilty in Aristophanes' opinion.
In contrast, Euripides produces something else altogether. He claims to have trimmed down tragedy and shaped it up to a point of accessibility (939-943). However, in so doing, he turned tragedy into something very different than the traditional form of poetry written by Aeschylus. Of the numerous criticisms of Euripides in the agon, the most relevant of these critiques indicate that the charges against Euripides are based on his association with the sophists. Euripides is unable to defend himself against such charges without proving some of their accuracy. Since he is the source of some of the indictments against him, he does not perceive them as harmful to his case. Euripides believes that he has performed a service by showing men how to think critically and by showing everyone as equals on stage.
Despite the evidence mounting against both poets, Dionysus remains torn between the two generations of poetry until forced to make a choice. He resolves this dilemma by having the poets fill their most significant role: adviser on concerns of the polis. The question that Dionysus uses to decide his poet of choice is:
p??t?? µe? ??? pe?? ????ß??d?? t??' e?et?? ???µ?? ???te???; (1422-1423). First, which of you has an opinion about Alcibiades? 47
By making the adjudication of the agon to a political issue, Dionysus demonstrates his new understanding of poetry's role in the polis.
When called upon to serve in the position of political adviser, both the traditional and the innovative poets give inadequate advice. In fact, neither Aeschylus nor Euripides gives a clear answer to the problem of Alcibiades. On the one hand, Aeschylus suggests that Athens is responsible for its own dilemma because it created the problematic Alcibiades. He tells Dionysus that:
?? ??? ????t?? s??µ??? e? p??e? t??fe?? · ?? d' e?t?af? t??, t??? t??p??? ?tt??ete'?? (1431- 1432).
It is best not to rear a lion's whelp within a polis; but if you do, cater to its ways.
Essentially, Aeschylus' solution is that Athens has brought Alcibiades on herself, and should therefore deal with the mess it has made. However, his answer does demonstrate the degree of seriousness with which he considers the matters of the polis in his role as adviser. On the other hand, Euripides' answer is:
µ?s? p???t??, ?st?? ?fe?e?? p??t?a? ß?ad?? pefa?ta?, µe???a de ß??pte?? ta???, ?a? tt???µ?? a?t?, t? p??e? d'aµ??a??? (1427-1429). I hate the citizen who is slow to help his fatherland, but quick to do her great harm and resourceful on his own behalf, but inept for the polis. This answer condemns Alcibiades but expresses Euripides' personal dislike on behalf of the polis rather than provide a plan of action. As an adviser to the polis, neither poet truly gives a sound resolution to the dilemma posed to the Athenians by Alcibiades but
Aeschylus' answer reflects both the opinion and interests of the polis. 48
Dionysus' change from considering his own whims to those of the polis as a priority is unexpected. Having witnessed and directly compared the traditional and new styles of tragedy and their products, Dionysus now judges the traditional poet more beneficial to the polis. Even though he originally preferred the inventive ways of Euripides, the god reverts to conventional tastes. The god of theatre's primary concern shifts from fulfilling his personal desire for Euripides and his sophistic poetry to the needs of the polis. Once he has understood the role of the poet as a teacher of the polis, he decides that Athens is best preserved by Aeschylus rather than Euripides. In this way, Aristophanes uses the poetic agon to demonstrate that traditional values, flawed though they are, serve the polis better than the new values promoted by the new intellectual movement. He portrays Euripides as an intellectual fop who cannot string together a coherent sentence even to save, or rather return, his life.
In all three of his appearances in Aristophanes' comedies, Euripides' intellectual probing of traditional values threatens the ethical life on which the polis is based. Since the new ways fail to sustain or improve the polis, but rather detract from it, Aristophanes posits a return to traditional values. As shown in this discussion, Aristophanes has three principal complaints against Euripides:
1) Euripides is accused of babbling and overindulging in his rhetorical, nonsensical word games. Such terms as ?a?e??, ??µata, and ?p????a are used to describe the way he speaks (Acharnians, 396-401; Clouds, 1370-1378). This character is also fond of paradoxes and antitheses. Aristophanes often gives him highly philosophical speeches that contain little coherent thought. He is his own worst enemy when he tries to defend 49 his tragic art in this quarrel with longwinded speeches full of rhetorical and sophistic devices (Frogs, 940-945).
He boasts of having trimmed down the turgidity of tragedy when he inherited the art from Aeschylus (939-943); however, he left it in a poor state when he was done. After he died, there were no tragedians whose work was not all babbling and chatter (Frogs, 70). Although his lines seem to amuse greatly, when directly compared with Aeschylus' silences, it becomes obvious that they lack substance. The very lightness of which he has boasted brings about his loss during the weighing of lines.
2) The second charge against him is that he has taught sophistic skills and concepts to the demos. He claims that he taught these people to chatter (954). He also prides himself on having introduced equality to tragedy by allowing everyone to speak: men, wives, slaves, masters, youths, and geriatrics (Frogs, 949-950). He has also taught them the use of logic:
t??a?ta µ??t???? f???e?? t??t??s?? e'?s???s?µ??, ????sµ?? ???e?? t? t???? ?a? s????? (Frogs, 971-975) I taught them to think such things, having introduced reflection and calculation into the art.
By introducing all these innovations to the stage, Euripides has instructed the demos in many of the basic skills for which the sophists are renowned, thereby making the charge of sophistic leanings on Euripides' part evident.
3) The main charge against Euripides in all three plays is that he has reduced tragedy to a trivial form of poetry. He has made tragedy democratic by bringing domestic affairs and 50 the interest of ordinary men to the tragic stage. Secondly, he cheapens it by dressing his kings and heroes in the rags of beggars or cripples. Thirdly, he has filled tragedy with love in place of war. He portrays promiscuous or adulterous women on stage and because of this surfeit of Aphrodite in Euripidean tragedy, men are suspicious of wives, and respectable women commit suicide from shame (Frogs, 1046-1048).
With all these charges against Euripides, Aristophanes shows exactly what kind of impact the innovative poet has had not only on tragedy but also on the polis. Euripides' new tragedy has many comic elements, to which the comic poet cannot help but object. Moreover, the tragedian undermines the prestigious and lofty status of tragedy by concerning himself with domestic matters and critical thinking. By showing the problems Euripides introduces to tragedy and criticising his choice target Euripides as a sophistic figure, Aristophanes takes up the poet's didactic role. In so doing, the comic poet suggests that Euripidean tragedy does not play its proper part and lead the demos towards virtue. 51
Chapter 4: Conclusion
One particularly troubling problem facing critics of Aristophanes has always been exactly what to make of his portrayal of Socrates and Euripides. The comic representation of the poet and the philosopher seem to have no immediate relation to one another initially. However, considering these figures as members of the new intellectual movement, although neither were sophists, shows how much these characters have in common.
This work has endeavoured to show that in light of his criticisms of Euripides and Socrates, Aristophanes can be understood to use both characters to reflect the problem posed by the new critical thinking of the late fifth century. Both the Euripides and Socrates characters take on sophistic traits in the comic poet's depiction of them. Each also has some form of didactic role in Aristophanes' comedies. Their behaviour and ideas meet many of the criteria of a typical sophist.
However, neither figure is a sophist, despite Aristophanes' depiction. This paradox has led to the question of which representation, Aristophanes' or Plato and Xenophon's, to credit with revealing the 'real' character of Socrates. The issue comparing the two versions is that the comic Socrates seems to be a combination of a stereotypical sophist and the notorious Athenian philosopher, while the alternate rendition is an inquisitive philosopher who shares common traits, but is not a sophist. When considered as a composite sophistic figure chosen to represent the movement due to his comical physique and use of critical thinking within the polis, it seems likely that Aristophanes was more interested in portraying a sophist and the problems caused by the new intellectual movement. As a composite arch-sophist, Socrates is assigned all the theories and 52 activities Aristophanes deemed worthy of ridicule. The depiction of Socrates is one of an intellectual quack who, for a fee, teaches rhetoric, critical thinking, and obscure ideas.
Most things which catch this character's attention are abstract, complex, and difficult to believe; in particular, his understanding of the divine is complex and inconsistent. To worsen matters, after he has proven through his incoherent logic that the traditional gods are irrelevant, his patron goddesses, the Clouds, reveal themselves as Olympian enforcers. The common charges against the sophists can all be applied to Socrates. He teaches rhetoric, logic, and moral relativism; he keeps both forms of argument in his school; he adheres to absurd logic and studies things which make no sense.
Socrates is duly punished, though not eradicated, for his success in teaching Pheidippides to enjoy the intellectual poet Euripides and prevail while arguing the weaker side of any debate. He is also punished for Strepsiades' failure to understand the ramifications of a sophistic education before persuading his son to undertake it. Since Socrates has a detrimental effect on the order of the polis by subverting traditional authority in the domestic and political spheres, the Clouds serves as a warning to demos. As the reformed traditionalist burns the Thinkery and sends Socrates and his students running, he restores the proper relation between oikos and polis.
The treatment of Euripides in Aristophanes' comedies is similarly troublesome for critics. In this respect, they are faced with the same problem as occurs with Socrates. How serious is Aristophanes in his criticism of Euripides? No counter-representation exists in Euripides' case, but we know that Euripides is not a sophist. The question remains: to what degree does the sophistic movement permeate in Euripides' worldview, 53 and so his tragedies? However, Aristophanes' frequent portrayal of him shows his sophistic leanings and expresses apprehension on account of the tragedian's influence over the Athenian polîtes and his innovations to tragedy.48
Aristophanes portrays Euripides as an innovative poet who embodies the new form of tragedy within the polis. The comic poet uses him to show the impact of such a figure in the poet's role. He assumes a didactic role through his tragedies as agreed upon by Aeschylus and Euripides in their competition. In all of Euripides' appearances in Aristophanes' comedies he uses this position of influence to teach incoherent babbling, logic, and rhetoric. Aristophanes also cites the problem of excessive realism in Euripidean tragedy. Further, he has brought tragedy down from its austere height to the low, democratic base of the demos.
The portrayals of both Socrates & Euripides are meant as a warning of the problems brought about by the new intellectual movement. Each is shown causing the same form of corrosion to the ethical order of the polis by use of their sophistic reasoning and rhetoric. They also use their didactic influence to point out the flaws of adhering to the traditional form of nomos. As a result members of the demos learn to prioritize the oikos over the polis. Changing the citizens' priorities encourages members of demos to live off the polis rather than for it.49 For this reason, Dionysus resurrects Aeschylus in Euripides' intended place; crude and ineloquent though the older form of tragedy may be, the polis is at the heart of Aeschylus' work.
See Worman 2008: 105; Austin and Olson 2004: Iv. Friedrich 1980:23. As seen throughout this discussion, Aristophanes' intellectual figures, Euripides and Socrates, embody the intellectual movement and the problems it presents to the polis. Even though in some ways what these individuals teach is advantageous to the demos, they have a largely detrimental effect on the polis. By taking on the didactic role of a poet and demonstrating the problems with the new Tragedy, the comic poet tries to borrow some of the prestige that belongs to Tragedy for Comedy. His undertaking of the poet's role as adviser and educator for the polis leads him to present two well-known intellectual, though not sophistic, Athenian figures as sophists. 55
Bibliography
Texts and Commentary Austin, C. and S.D. Olson 2004. Aristophanes. Thesmophoriazusae. Oxford. Dover, K. 1993. Aristophanes. Frogs. Oxford. ______?9?Q. Aristophanes. Clouds. Oxford. Sommerstein, A. 1982. The Comedies ofAristophanes. Vol. III. Clouds. Wiltshire. ______1980. The Comedies ofAristophanes. Vol. I. Acharnians. Wiltshire. West, T. and West, G. 1984. Plato and Aristophanes: Four texts on Socrates. Ithaca and London.
Wilson, N. G. 2007. Aristophanes. Fabulae I. Oxford. ______2007. Aristophanes. Fabulae II. Oxford.
Secondary Sources Allan, W. 1999-2000. "Euripides and the Sophists," ICS 24-25 : 145-156. Arnott, P. 1989. Public Performance in the Greek Theatre. London and New York.. Arnott, W.G. 1991. "A Lesson from the 'Frogs'" G&R 38: 18-23. Blanchard, K. 2000. "The Enemies of Socrates: Piety and Sophism in the Socratic Drama." RP. 62:421-449. Bobrick, E. 1997. "The Tyranny of Roles: Playacting and Privilege in Aristophanes' Thesmophoriazusae " In The City as Comedy: Society and Representation in Athenian Drama. Ed. G. Dobrov, 177-197. Chapel Hill and London. Borthwick, EK. 1994. "New Interpretations of Aristophanes Frogs" Phoenix. 48: 21-41. Bowie, A. 1993. Aristophanes: Myth, Ritual, and Comedy. Cambridge. Compton-Engle, G. 2003. "Control of Costume in Three Plays of Aristophanes" AJP 124:507-535.
Conacher, D. 1998. Euripides and the Sophists. London. Cowan, R. 2008. "Nothing to Do with Phaedra? Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusae 497-501." CQ 58:315-320. 56
Dantu, G. 1907. Opinions et critiques d'Aristophane sur le mouvement politique et intellectuel à Athènes. Paris. Dillon, M. 2002. "By Gods, Tongues, and Dogs: The Use of Oaths in Aristophanic Comedy" G&R 42 : 1 3 5- 1 5 1 . Edmunds, L. 2004. "The Practical Irony of the Historical Socrates". Phoenix. 58: 193-207. Ehrenberg, V. 1974. The People ofAristophanes. New York. Euben, J. P. 1996. "When There Are Gray Skies: Aristophanes' Clouds and the Political Education of Democratic Citizens" SAQ. 95(4): 881-918. Foley, H. 1988. "Tragedy and Politics in Aristophanes' Acharnions" JHS 108: 33-47. Friedrich, R. 1980. "Euripidaristophanizein and Nietzschesokratizein: Aristophanes, Nietzsche, and the Death of Tragedy" Dionysius. 4: 5-36. Goldhill, S. 1991. The Poet's voice: Essays on poetics and Greek literature. Cambridge. Harriott, R. 1986. Aristophanes: Poet and Dramatist. Baltimore. Heath, M. 1987. Political Comedy in Aristophanes. Gottingen, Henderson, J. 1975. The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy. New Haven. ______1972. "The Lekythos and Frogs 1200 -1248" Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 76: 133-143. Kastely, J. 1997. '"The Clouds'': Aristophanic Comedy and Democratic Education." RSQ 27: 25-46. Kerferd, G. 1981. The Sophistic Movement. Cambridge. Knox, B. 1979. Word and action: Essays on the Ancient Theater. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press. Konstan, D. 1995. Greek Comedy and Ideology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. MacDowell, D. 1995. Aristophanes and Athens: An Introduction to the Plays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marianetti, M. 1992. Religion and Politics in Aristophanes ' Clouds. Hildesheim: Olms- Weidmann. Neumann, H. 1969. "Socrates in Plato and Aristophanes: In Memory of Ludwig Edelstein, (1902- 1965)," ?/?. 90: 201-214. 57
Nichols, M. 2004. "Socrates' Contest with the Poets in Plato's Symposium. " PT 32 (2): 86-206. ______.1987. Sócrates and the Political Community: An ancient debate. Albany. Norwood, G. 1931. Greek Comedy. London: Methuen & Co. O 'Regan, D. 1992. Rhetoric, Comedy, and the Violence ofLanguage in Aristophanes' Clouds. New York: Oxford University Press. Pucci, P. 2007. "Euripides and Aristophanes: What does Tragedy Teach?" In Visualizing theTragic. Drama, Myth, and Ritual in Greek Art and Literature. Essays in Honour ofFroma Zeitlin. Ed. Chris Kraus, Simon Goldhill, Helene P. Foley, Jas Eisner. Oxford: 105-126. Reckford, K. 1987. Aristophanes' Old-and-New Comedy. Vol. 1. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Roselli, D. 2005. "Vegetable-Hawking Mom and Fortunate Son: Euripides, Tragic Style, and Reception." Phoenix. 59: 1-49. Rosen, R. 2006. "Aristophanes, Fandom and the Classicizing of Greek Tragedy" in Playing Around Aristophanes: Essays in Celebration ofthe Completion ofthe Edition ofthe Comedies ofAristophanes Edited by Alan H. Sommerstein, Ed. Kozak, L., andRich, J.: 27-47. Oxford.
Rosen, R. 2004. "Aristophanes' Frogs and the Contest ofHomer and Hesiod" TAPA. 134: 295-322.
Sandbach, F. 1977. Ancient Culture and Society: The Comic Theatre ofGreece and Rome. London. Silk, M. 2000. Aristophanes and the Definition ofComedy. Oxford. Slater, N. 2002. Spectator Politics: Metatheatre and Performance in Aristophanes. Philadelphia. Stehle, E. 2002. "The Body and Its Representations in Aristophanes' Thesmophoriazousai: Where Does the Costume End?" AJP. 123 (3): 369- 406. Storey, I. 1998. "Poets, Politicians and Perverts Personal Humour in Aristophanes." CI. 5: 85-134. Strauss, L. 1966. Socrates and Aristophanes. New York. Taaffe, L. 1993. Aristophanes and Women. London. Taplin, O. 1992. Comic Angels: and Other Approaches to Greek Drama Through Vase Paintings. London. Ussher, R. 1979. "Aristophanes." G&R 13. Oxford. 58
Van Rooy, C. 1966. Studies in Classical Satire and Related Literary Theory. Leiden. Whitman, C. 1964. Aristophanes and the Comic Hero. Cambridge. Worman, N. 2008. Abusive Mouths in Classical Athens. Cambridge. Wycherley, R. 1946. "Aristophanes and Euripides." G&R. 15: 98-107. Zuckert, C. 2004. "The Socratic Turn." /ffr. 25: 189-219.