Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T16:21:44.874Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Nature of Aristophanes' Akharnians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2009

Douglas M. Macdowell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The problem which in recent years has generally been regarded as the main problem about Akharnians is: has the play a political purpose? Fifty years ago, I suppose, no one doubted that the play did have two purposes. One was to entertain the audience and make them laugh. The other was a purpose of extreme seriousness, to persuade the audience that the Peloponnesian War, now in its sixth year, was a terrible mistake, and peace ought to be made as soon as possible. This view is associated especially with the name of Gilbert Murray, who in 1897 wrote, simply as a statement of fact, ‘It is political in its main purpose, and is directed against Cleon and Lamachus, as representing the war party’. In his later monograph on Aristophanes, he still holds this view; Akharnians is, he says, ‘a definite plea for peace’. But in 1938 A. W. Gomme published an important article on Aristophanes and politics, in which he maintains that the question ‘What were Aristophanes' political views?’ is not relevant to the interpretation and criticism of his plays, and that we cannot tell from Akharnians whether he was in favour of peace or not. That is a non-committal position, almost a defeatist one. But more recently two scholars have gone much further in opposing the old view that the play is a plea for peace. W. G. Forrest considers that no one could have made a plea for peace in Athens in 425 B.C.; at that date the Athenians, he thinks, were so fully engaged in the war that making peace was completely out of the question.

Type
Research Article
Information
Greece & Rome , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , October 1983 , pp. 143 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. A History of Ancient Greek Literature (London, 1897), pp. 281–2Google Scholar.

2. Aristophanes, a study (Oxford, 1933), p. 27Google Scholar.

3. CR 52 (1938), 97–109Google Scholar, reprinted in his More Essays in Greek History and Literature (Oxford, 1962), pp. 70–91.

4. Phoenix 17 (1963), 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. Aristophanic Comedy (London, 1972), p. 88Google Scholar.

6. The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (London, 1972), p. 366Google Scholar.

7. Proc. Cl. Ass. 76 (1979), pp. 32–3Google Scholar.

8. Edition of Acharnians (Warminster, 1980), p. 32Google Scholar.

9. YCS 26 (1980), 1Google Scholar.

10. YCS 26 (1980), 220–24Google Scholar.

11. CQ N.S. 32 (1982), 40Google Scholar.

12. This and other quotations are from my own unpublished translation of the play, based on Coulon's text in the Budé series.

13. Cf. Starkie's edition of the play (London, 1909), pp. 241–3. Starkie attributes this interpretation to Lübke, whose work I have not seen.

14. CQ N.S. 32 (1982), 21–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15. Cf. Dover, , Maia 15 (1963), 15Google Scholar.

16. Phoenix 17 (1963), 8–9Google Scholar.

17. Op. cit., pp. 369–70.

18. For reconstruction of Telephos see Handley, E. W. and Rea, J., The Telephus of Euripides (BICS Supplement 5, 1957)Google Scholar; Jouan, F., Euripide et les légendes des chants cypriens (Paris, 1966), pp. 222–55Google Scholar; Rau, P., Paratragodia (Munich, 1967), pp. 19–42Google Scholar.

19. Fragments of Telephos may be found in Nauck, A., Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta, reprinted with a supplement by Snell, B. (Hildesheim, 1964)Google Scholar, and in Austin, C., Nova fragmenta Euripidea in papyris reperta (Berlin, 1968)Google Scholar.

20. Cf. Starkie's notes on 504 and 514.

21. Cf. the note on 541–2 in Rennie's edition of the play (London, 1909) and Wilamowitz, , Kleine Schriften iv. 297Google Scholar, following whom the words π⋯ρ' ɛἰ < > ⋯κπλɛ⋯σας σκ⋯πɛι are listed as fr. 708a Snell = 116 Austin.

22. Hdt. 1.1–5.

23. E.g. Forrest, , Phoenix 17 (1963), 8Google Scholar; Rau, , Paratragodia, p. 40Google Scholar; Dover, , Aristophanic Comedy, p. 87Google Scholar; Edmunds, , YCS 26 (1980), 13Google Scholar; Newiger, ibid., 222.

24. Cf. Fornara, C. W., JHS 91 (1971), 28–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25. For a more precise interpretation of AcuKaarpLo. see Jocelyn, H. D., PCPS 206 (1980), 12–66Google Scholar.

26. Cf. de Ste. Croix, , op. cit., pp. 383–6Google Scholar.

27. ⋯πɛλ⋯ν σ' ὦ τυπλ⋯ дλο⋯τɛ

μ⋯τɛ γῇ μ⋯τ' ⋯ν θαλ⋯σση

μ⋯τ' ⋯ν ἠπɛ⋯ρῳ παν⋯μɛν,

⋯λλ⋯ T⋯ρταρ⋯ν τɛ να⋯ɛιν

κ' Aχ⋯ροντα δι⋯ σ⋯γ⋯ρ π⋯ντ'

αἰ⋯ν ⋯νθρώποις κακ⋯.

(Text from Wilson's, N. G. edition of the scholia on Akharnians, line 532Google Scholar.)

28. I am puzzled by Dover, , Aristophanic Comedy, pp. 86–7Google Scholar, who finds line 538 ambiguous. It appears to me obvious that, since ‘we’ is the subject of ‘refused', that implies that the object of ‘asked’ is ‘us’.

29. Cf. Wick, T. E., Ant. Cl. 46 (1977), 90Google Scholar.

30. Cf. de Ste. Croix, , op. cit., pp. 232–6Google Scholar; Chapman, G. A. H., Acta Classica 21 (1978), 59–70Google Scholar.

31. Cf. CQ N.S. 32 (1982), 21–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32. I retain the manuscripts’ reading ἄξιος.

33. This passage refers to ambassadors sent to Athens by cities in the Athenian Empire (636 ⋯π⋯ τ⋯ν π⋯λɛον cf. 643 οὑκ π⋯λɛον τ⋯ν π⋯ρον ὑμῖν ⋯π⋯γοντɛς). It has nothing to do with the Athenian ambassadors sent to foreign countries who appeared earlier in Akharnians; here I disagree with Bowie, A. M., CQ N.S. 32 (1982), 30–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34. For detailed exposition of the pun see Dover, , Aristophanic Comedy, pp. 63–5Google Scholar.

35. Lines 1037–9 have been misunderstood to mean that Dikaiopolis will not let anyone share in the peace treaty. It is better to understand TO τ⋯ ⋯δ⋯, not τ⋯ς σπονδ⋯ς, as the object of μɛταδώσɛιν. At this point Dikaiopolis is cooking the delicious food which he got from the Boiotian. The members of the chorus envy his meal, which he refuses to share with them (1044–6, cf. 1008–17); I take this to imply only that they will have to do their own shopping and cooking, not that they cannot make peace.

36. Sommerstein in his note on 1028 mentions the inscriptions but draws no conclusion from them. However, Dr L. P. E. Parker, after hearing my paper delivered orally in Oxford in May 1982, told me that she had independently reached a view similar to mine; see now CR N.S. 33 (1983), 11Google Scholar.

37. E.g. Pind, . Ol. 2.7Google Scholar ⋯ρθ⋯πολιν, ‘keeping the city upright’; Pyth. μɛγιστ⋯πολι, ‘making cities great’; 8.22 δικαι⋯πολις, ‘having a just city’; Soph, . OT 510Google Scholar ⋯δ⋯πολις, ‘pleasing to the city’; Ant. 370 ὑΨ⋯πολις, ‘having a high city’; Ant. ⋯μ⋯πτολις, ‘belonging to the same city’. In some of these instances the interpretation can be disputed, but it is certain that they cannot all be made to fit a single pattern. Therefore dogmatic statements such as ‘Dicaeopolis must be the “Just City”’ (de Ste. Croix, , op. cit., p. 365Google Scholar) are unjustified.