Friday, February 19, 2021

1 Plato’s Phaedrus and Aristophanes’ Frogs, with reference to Plato’s Seventh Letter

Plato says in the Seventh Letter that in his youth, as many other men, he wished to embark on a political career (epi ta koina tȇs poleȏs ienai) as soon as he became his own master (ei thatton emautou genoimȇn kurios). He could enter into public life when he became twenty, and from what he says it becomes clear that his desire to do politics was the strongest in the two or four last years of democracy – ‘two’ if he was born in 427 B.C. (Diog. Laert. III.2), four if he was born in 429 B.C. (Diog. Laert. III.3).

***

Democracy was overturned by oligarchic revolution in 404 B.C., after the defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian war. When the oligarchs took power, Plato’s friends and relatives among their leading men invited him at once to join the administration as something to which he ‘had a claim’ (hȏs epi prosȇkonta pragmata). But he waited, ‘watching them very closely what they would do’ (autois sphodra proseichon ton noun, ti praxoien). And when he saw that they began to commit evil, ‘I was indignant (eduscherana te)’, he says, ‘and withdrew myself (kai emauton epanȇgagon) from the evil practices then going on (apo tȏn tote kakȏn)’. When in the end of 404/beginning of 403 the democrats defeated the oligarchs ‘then once more (palin de)’, he says, ‘though less urgently (braduteron men), I was impelled with a desire to take part in public and political affairs’ (heilken de me homȏs hȇ peri to prattein ta koina kai politika epithumia). (S.L. 324b8-325b1)

***

Plato’s desire to do politics was no secret, and a lot was expected of him. And if he was inflamed with a desire to do politics without attempting to actually do so, this was presumably owing to his attachment to Socrates. This transpires in Aristophanes’ Frogs, where the chorus expresses delight at Aeschylus’ return from the underworld: ‘It is pleasant (charien oun) not to sit around Socrates, babbling (mȇ Sȏkratei parakathȇmenon lalein), having thrown away art (apobalonta mousikȇn) and abandoned what is the greatest, the art of tragedy (ta te megista paraliponta tȇs tragȏidikȇs technȇs, 1491-5).’

***

The story of Plato throwing his tragedies into fire after listening to Socrates’ discussion on philosophy must have been widely known (cf. Diog. Laert. III.5, Arist. Met. 987b1-8), for only on that basis could Aristophanes refer to it in his culminating choric song in the Frogs.

***

The chorus continued: ‘To seek august quibbles and speak chippings of nonsense, in which nothing is done (to d’ epi semnoisi logoisi kai skariphȇsmoisi lȇrȏn diatribȇn argon poieisthai), befits an insane man (parapohronountos andros, 1496-9)’.

***

Those who expected that Plato would not leave Aristophanes’ gibes unanswered weren’t disappointed. In the Phaedrus he found a way of responding to them both in Socrates’ and in his own name. In his own name as the writer, in Socrates’ name by making Socrates the narrator and the main actor in the dialogue; Phaedrus plays a minor, though essential, role as Socrates’ interlocutor. In the dialogue Plato gives Socrates a strong voice within the framework of Socrates' philosophic ignorance, which allows Plato to present his own thoughts in the dialogue – in the Palinode, in the discussion of rhetoric – as the source of inspiration that overpowers Socrates. After listening to Lysias’ speech, which Phaedrus read to him, Socrates says: ‘There is something welling up within my breast, which makes me feel that I could find something different, and something better, to say (plȇres pȏs to stȇthos echȏn aisthanomai para tauta an echein eipein hetera mȇ cheirȏ). I am of course well aware it can’t be anything originating in my own mind (hoti men oun para ge emautou ouden autȏn enenoȇka, eu oida) for I know my own ignorance (suneidȏs emautȏi amathian, 235c5-8).’

Concerning the gibe of having thrown away art (apobalonta mousikȇn), the Phaedrus with its exquisite Palinode (Socrates’ second speech on love) provides the best answer. In addition, Plato answers it with a myth of the cicadas, who after their death ‘announce to Calliope, the eldest, and to Ourania who comes after, those who spend their time in philosophy and honour the art that belongs to them (tȇi presbutatȇi Kalliopȇi kai tȇi met’ autȇn Ouraniai tous en philosophiai diagontas te kai timȏntas tȇn ekeinȏn mousikȇn angellousin). For they, most of all the Muses (hai dȇ malista tȏn Mousȏn), have as their sphere both the heavens and discourse both divine and human (peri te ouranon kai logous ousai theious te kai anthrȏpinous), and whose song is the most beautiful (hiasin kallistȇn phȏnȇn).’ (259b6-d7) Presenting philosophy as the most beautiful art (mousikȇ), Plato was in full agreement with Socrates, for we learn from the Phaedo that Socrates believed ‘philosophy to be the greatest of the arts’ (philosophias men ousȇs megistȇs mousikȇs), and that he was practising it (emou de touto prattontos, 61a3-4).

The discussion that Socrates and Phaedrus undertook in the midday heat is devoted to Plato’s view that without philosophy, seen as the knowledge of truth, there can be no rhetoric worthy of being called technȇ, (‘art’, Hackforth, ’science’ Rowe). – Socrates tells Phaedrus at 261a4-5 ‘that unless he engages in philosophy sufficiently well (hȏs ean mȇ hikanȏs philosophȇsȇi), he will never be a sufficiently good speaker either (oude hikanos pote legein estai) about anything (peri oudenos, tr. C.J. Rowe)’. – And since in democracy rhetoric, used in public assemblies, and politics, were one and the same thing, without philosophy there was no politics worthy of being called technȇ.

The Phaedrus can be seen as Plato’s answer to the expectations concerning his entry into the political arena. I am saying ‘the Phaedrus’, and not just its second part devoted to Plato’s revision of rhetoric, for Plato entered the political arena with the opening lines of the dialogue. Socrates opened it with the words: ‘My dear Phaedrus (Ō phile Phaidre), where is it you’re going (poi dȇ), and where have you come from (kai pothen;)? – When Plato wrote the Phaedrus, in 405 B.C., Phaedrus was in exile. Presenting him in the dialogue as Socrates’ dear friend, Plato made it clear that he viewed the return of the emigrants as a political imperative.

Phaedrus replied: ‘From Lysias, son of Cephalus, Socrates; and I’m going for a walk outside the wall … I’m doing what your friend and mine, Acumenus, advises, and taking my walks along the country roads; he says that walking here is more refreshing than in the colonnades.’ In 405 B.C., the citizens of Athens could only dream of refreshing themselves by walking along the country roads. It became impossible ever since Sparta occupied Decelea in Attica as its permanent base in 413 B.C. Making peace with Sparta was the most pressing political task of the day.

Let’s see these political aspects of the Phaedrus through the prism of the song of the chorus in Aristophanes’ comedy, the Frogs.

The jibes directed against Socrates and his disciple – the disciple in whose name the chorus sings ‘It is pleasant (charien oun) not to sit around Socrates, babbling (mȇ Sȏkratei parakathȇmenon lalein)’ – form the antistrophe of the choric song, which cannot be fully understood without the strophe, in which Aeschylus is praised, 1482-1490:

‘Blest the man who possesses a

Makarios g’ anȇr echȏn

Keen intelligent mind

xunesin ȇkribȏmenȇn

This we may learn by many an example

para de polloisin mathein

He, having proved to be well disposed

hode gar eu phronein dokȇsas

Returns to his home

palin apeisin oikad’ au

For the good of the citizens

ep’ agathȏi men tois politais

For the good of his

ep’ agathȏi de tois heautou

Relatives and friends

xungenesi te kai philoisi

Because of his keen intelligent mind.

dia to sunetos einai

Within the comedy, the meaning is clear. It is only because Aeschylus has proved himself to be a man with keen intelligent mind, well disposed towards his citizens, he is now returning home for the good of his fellow citizens; because he has keen intelligent mind. But the purpose of Aristophanes’ Frogs transcends the framework of comedy. Aeschylus does not return to write tragedies. He returns home to make and ensure peace with Sparta. This becomes clear from the choric song with which the comedy ends, 1528-1533:

First, as the poet triumphant is passing away to the light,

Grant him success on his journey, ye powers that are ruling below.

prȏta men euodian agathȇn apionti poiȇtȇi

es phaos ornumenȏi dote, daimones hoi kata gaias,

Grant that he find for the city good counsels to guide her aright;

tȇi te polei megalȏn agathȏn agathas epinoias.

So we at last shall be freed from the anguish, the fear, and the woe,

Freed from the onset of war. Let Cleophon and his band

Battle, if battle they must, far away in their own fatherland.

pangchu gar ek megalȏn acheȏn pausaimeth’ an houtȏs

argaleȏn en hoplois sunodȏn. Kleophȏn de machesthȏ

k’allos ho boulomenos toutȏn patriois en arourais.

This closing chorus is translated by B.B. Rogers. In translating the previous chorus’ song I could use just snippets from Roger’s translation; in my view, he misunderstood it. In the accompanying remark he says: ‘During the absence of Pluto and his guests, the Chorus sing an airy little strophe and antistrophe, each consisting of nine trochaic lines; the strophe in praise of Aeschylus, the antistrophe in deprecation of Euripides.’

On reading Rogers’ remark, one might expect the Chorus to praise Aeschylus as a good writer of tragedies in the strophe, in contrast to Euripides deprecated as a bad tragedian in the antistrophe. In his translation he did his best to present the chorus' praise of Aeschylus in this way. Chorus’ line hode gar eu phronein dokȇsas, which means ‘He, having proved to be well disposed’ Rogers translates ‘He, the bard of renown’. In this line the Chorus does not praise Aeschylus as ‘the bard of renown’, but glorifies him as a man well disposed to his city. This is why, in the next line, ‘He returns home again’ (palin apeisin oikad’ au). Translating this line ‘Now to earth reascends’ Rogers missed the point. Even in the Underworld Aeschylus thought of Athens as his home.

Next, the Chorus explains: Aeschylus is returning home ‘For the good of the citizens’ (ep’ agathȏi men tois politais). Rogers translates: ‘Goes, a joy to his town’. But Aeschylus is not returning to Athens to bring joy; the advise, which he is giving the Athenians, is to bring them hardship and pain, for only through hardship and pain directed for the good of the city could Athens be saved.

Let me elaborate. At 1435-6 Dionysus asks the two contestants: ‘But once again. Let each in turn declare (all’ eti mian gnȏmȇn hekateros eipaton) What plan for saving the city you’ve got (peri tȇs poleȏs hȇntin’ echeton sȏtȇrian).’

Euripides advises (1446-1450): ‘If we mistrust those citizens of ours Whom now we trust, and those employ whom now We don’t employ, the city will be saved (ei tȏn politȏn hoisi nun pisteuomen, toutois apistȇsaimen, hois d’ ou chrȏmetha, toutoisi chrȇsaimestha, sȏtheiȇmen an). If on our present tack we fail, we surely Shall find salvation in the opposite course (ei nun ge dustuchoumen en toutoisi, pȏs t’ananti’ an prattontes ou sȏzoimeth’ an;).’ Euripides has a point, but he is not giving any thought to how his advice could be achieved, enamoured as he is with his jingling phrases: pisteuomen/ apistȇsaimen, ou chrȏmetha/ chrȇsaimestha, sȏtheiȇmen an/ ou sȏzoimeth’ an.

Aeschylus advises (1463-5): 'When they shall count the enemy’s soil their own, And theirs the enemy’s: when they know that ships Are their true wealth, their so called wealth delusion (tȇn gȇn hotan nomisȏsi tȇn tȏn polemiȏn einai spheteran, tȇn de spheteran tȏn polemiȏn, poron de tas naus, aporian de ton poron)'.

Rogers comments: ‘It is, as the Scholiast observes, the counsel which was given by Pericles at the commencement of the war (Thuc. i. 140-144) … They are to consider their fleet to be their real wealth; and mere money stores, not expended on their fleet, to be unworthy of the name of wealth.’

But back to the chorus song; it is followed by Pluto’s farewell speech to Aeschylus:

‘Farewell then, Aeschylus, great and wise (age dȇ chairȏn, Aishyle, chȏrei), Go, save our state by maxims rare Of thy noble thought; and the fools chastise, For many a fool dwells there (kai sȏdze polin tȇn hȇmeteran gnȏmais agathais, kai paideuson tous anoȇtousˑ polloi d’ eisin).’ (1500-15003, tr. Rogers). Rogers notes on line 1501: ‘In this last solemn scene – for a solemn scene it is, although it occurs in comedy – Pluto, as Dr Merry observes, is paying a compliment to Athens, by identifying himself with her citizens.’

Pluto, the Lord of the Underworld, continues: ‘And this to Cleophon give, my friend (kai dos touti Kleophȏnti pherȏn), And this to the revenue-raising crew (kai touti toisi poristais), Nicomachus, Myrmex (Murmȇki th’ homou kai Nikomachȏ).’ As Rogers notes, with approval, the Scholiast conjectured that Pluto gives Aeschylus three halters, for the three to hang themselves. That they are to end their lives, with whatever Pluto gave Aeschylus, is clear from what Pluto says next:

‘And bid them that without delay, To my realm of the dead they hasten away (kai phraz’ autois tacheȏs hȇkein hȏs eme deuri kai mȇ mellein). For if they loiter above, I swear I’ll come myself and arrest them there. And branded and fettered the slaves shall go With the vilest rascal in all the town, Adeimantus, son of Leucolophus, down, Down, down to the darkness below (k’an mȇ tacheȏs hȇkȏsin, egȏ nȇ ton Apollȏ stixas autous kai sumpodisas met’ Adeimantou tou Leukolophou kata gȇs tacheȏs apopempsȏ).

Rogers notes: ‘What induced the poet to include Adeimantus in his list of reprobates, we cannot tell: but that he had good reason for doing so may be inferred from the fact that this Adeimantus is the Athenian commander who was credited with having, a few months later, on the fatal day of Aegospotami, betrayed to Lysander the entire Athenian fleet.’

As can be seen, Pluto is sending Aeschylus to Athens not as a bard who is to write tragedies, but as a man who is to save Athens with his good advice. He thus reinforces the political aspects of the chorus’ praise of Aeschylus.

Let me now turn to chorus’ song that Rogers views as ‘the antistrophe in depreciation of Euripides’. There is no mentioning of Euripides in the antistrophe; the basis for his interpretation he presumably found in lines 1494-5: ta te megista paraliponta tȇs tragȏidikȇs technȇs, which he translates: ‘Stripping tragedy-art of All things noble and true’. Presumably, he viewed this line as a recapitulation of Aeschylus’ criticism of Euripides. So let us see how is Euripides presented within the framework of the contest, and then consider, whether ta te megista paraliponta tȇs tragȏidikȇs technȇs can be seen as the chorus’ criticism of him.

Euripides presents himself and his tragedies as follows:

‘From the very opening lines no idleness was shown

apo tȏn prȏtȏn epȏn ouden parȇk’ an argon;

The mistress talked with all her might, the servant talked as much

The master talked, the maiden talked, the beldame talked.’ – Aeschylus: ‘For such

An outrage was not death your due?’ – Eur. ‘No, by Apollo, no:

That was my democratic way. – Dionysos: ‘Ah, let that topic go.

Your record is not there, my friend, particularly good.’

 all’ elegen hȇ te gunȇ te moi ch’ȏ doulos ouden hȇtton,

ch’ȏ despotȇs ch’ȇ Parthenos chȇ graus an. – Ais. Eita dȇta

ouk apothanein se taut’ echrȇn tolmȏnta; - Eu: ma ton Apollȏˑ

dȇmokratikon gar aut’ edrȏn. – Dionysos: touto men eason, ȏ tan.

ou soi gar esti peripatein kallista peri ge toutou. (948-

Rogers notes: ‘Dionysus is of course referring generally to the antidemocratical tendencies of the school to which Euripides belonged … Euripides himself, as Hermann observes, had left democratic Athens, and spent his last years at the Court of King Archelaus of Macedon.

As can be seen, on what Euripides prided himself was targeted by Aeschylus as the ground for his censure. And even Dionysus found that Euripides’ self-praise deserved criticism. But although both of them found Euripides worthy of criticism, neither accused him of ‘having thrown away art’ (apobalonta mousikȇn, 1493).

Rogers leaves 'having thrown away art’ (apobalonta mousikȇn) untranslated; thus, and only thus, can he view the following line ta te megista paraliponta tȇs tragȏidikȇs technȇs – as the basis for his interpretation of the antistrophe as directed against Euripides. But this is not the only defect in his translation of this line. The verb paraliponta ‘having abandoned’ is in the aorist, in agreement with the introductory apobalonta ‘having thrown away’; it thus refers to the activities described by these verbs as something that preceded ‘sitting by Socrates in empty talk’ (Sȏkratei parakathȇmenon lalein). Rogers’ translation of paraliponta by the participle ‘stripping’ makes ta te megista paraliponta tȇs tragȏidikȇs technȇs into something that was going on within the framework of ‘by Socrates sitting’ (Sȏkratei parakathȇmenon).

To make this point clearer, let me bring in Rogers’ translation of the first half of the antistrophe:

Right it is and befitting,

Not, by Socrates sitting,

Idle talk to pursue,

charien oun mȇ Sȏkratei

parakathȇmenon lalein,

Stripping tragedy-art of

All things noble and true.

apobalonta mousikȇn [left untranslated],

ta te megista paraliponta

tȇs tragȏidikȇs technȇs.

Trying to see these lines as ‘deprecation of Euripides’, we must envisage that before Aeschylus ‘reascended to earth’, Euripides, or his acolyte, was ‘by Socrates sitting, stripping tragedy-art of all things noble and true’. Supposedly, from now on he will write tragedies that won’t be stripped ‘of all things noble and true’. But Aristophanes did not envisage any such possibility, for among the young tragedians he saw no one of any promise (see l. 72, where Dionysus complains that ‘there are no good tragedians any more hoi men gar ouket eisi, and those that are, are bad hoi d’ ontes kakoi.’).

I see the chorus’ song as part of Aristophanes’ patriotic exhortations with which the Frogs end. Aeschylus’ Periclean advice can save Athens. Because of it, Aeschylus is returning home. But if it is to work, Aeschylus must guide the city towards peace. This can happen in the Frogs, not in real life, but the Frogs is gesturing towards real life. Aristophanes hopes that a man can be found who will save the city with his keen intelligent mind. That’s what the strophe is all about; to awaken that man to the great expectations with which the Athenians look forward to his entry into politics. Aristophanes points to where this man is to be found; he is one of those who are sitting around Socrates. Who but Plato from among them could it be?

Plato must shake Socrates off, becoming fully aware of his powers and of his destiny. This is what the song of the chorus, the strophe and antistrophe, is all about.