B.B. Rogers argues that Aristophanes wrote The Ecclesiazusae (The Assemblywomen) in B.C. 393, that Plato wrote the Republic, or at least the books II-V prior to it, and that his Republic, either in its present, or in an incomplete shape came into the hands of the Athenians before the termination of B.C. 394. If he is right, this means that Plato was born several years before the usually accepted date of his birth.
Before
explaining Rogers’ reasons for his dating of The Ecclesiazusae, I must
say a few words on the main plot of the comedy. At Skirois, a festival
celebrated by women alone, the women of Athens, under the leadership of
Praxagora, decided to take the public affairs into their hands. To achieve
this, they dressed as men, attended the assembly early at dawn to get their
seats in front, and, with the unfailing support of the Chorus, Praxagora
persuaded the assembly to accept her proposal.
The passage
from Praxagora’s speech, which is of crucial importance for the dating of the
comedy, Rogers introduces on the first page of his ‘Introduction’. He says that
Praxagora ‘arraigns the policy of the people for its total want of continuity;
she avers that they are perpetually chopping and changing; enamoured of one
course to-day, and of the opposite to-morrow; and in illustration of her
statement, she says:
“Then again
this alliance (to\ summaxiko\n au] tou~q’), when we were deliberating about it (o3t’ e0skopou/meqa), they vowed (e1faskon)
that not to conclude it (ei0
mh\ ge/noit’) would be
the ruin of the state (a0polei=n
th\n po/lin): but when once it was concluded (o3te dh\ d’ e0ge/net’), they were disgusted with it (h1xqonto);
and the orator who persuaded them into it (o9 tou=t’ a0napei/saj) had straightway to cut and run (eu0qu\j a0podra\j w!|xeto).” (Lines 193-196, translation Rogers).
As Rogers points out, the alliance, to
which Praxagora referred, was the Anti-Spartan League; it was accepted by the
Assembly without a dissentient vote (B.C. 395). At first, everything seemed to
promise well. The League was at once joined by the Corinthians and the Argives,
and shortly afterwards by the Euboeans, the Acarnanians, the Leucadians, and
other states. And when in the following spring and summer (B.C. 394) a large
army, composed of contingents from all the members of the League, was gathered
together at Corinth, the confidence of the leaders was unbounded. They decided
to march on Sparta, and marched as far as the valley of Nemea, but then had to
quickly retrace their steps to repel an attack of Sparta on their own
headquarters. The battle between these two mighty Hellenic armies resulted in
the total rout of the army of the League, and the main body of the Athenian
troops, assailed at once in front and on their left flank by the Lacedaemonians,
suffered more severely than any other contingent. (Rogers notes: ‘”We lost good
men at Corinth,” says Plato {Menexenus 17), who is supposed to have
taken part in the battle.’) [Cf. Plato, Menexenus 245e.]
Thus within a few weeks the entire
aspect of affairs had, as regarded Athens, undergone a serious change for the
worse. She had lost many citizens without any beneficial result; the bright
hopes with which the year B.C. 394 had commenced, had altogether died away. And
it was quite natural that the Athenians should become disgusted, h1xqonto,
at the failure of those brilliant expectations, through which they had been
induced, less than two years before, to take an active part in the formation of
the Anti-Spartan League.
It was at this juncture, at the
commencement of the year B.C. 393, that Praxagora comes forward, in the play
before us, to condemn the vacillating policy of the men, and to propose that
the government of Athens shall be henceforth entrusted to the women, as the
more stable and conservative sex. (Concerning the Anti-Spartan League, I freely
condensed Rogers’ discussion of it, op. cit. pp. xiii-xviii.)
Rogers argues that The Ecclesiazusae could not have been conceived and
staged in 392: ‘But before another year had rolled away, before the spring of
B.C. 392 had arrived, a brilliant and marvellous change, one might almost say a
resurrection, had taken place in the affairs of Athens. Conon had returned,
bringing the Persian fleet, and an ample supply of Persian gold to secure her
safety; the other members of the League had readily assisted, Thebes alone
sending 500 skilled workmen; the Long Walls had risen again, the fortifications
of Peiraeus were restored, and Athens was entirely delivered from the doubts
and the dangers which had so long beset her. At the commencement of B.C. 393
Athens was in a state of disquiet and perplexity, still halting between two
courses. There was no doubt or wavering at the commencement of B.C. 392. Her
safety was assured. She has been finally launched on a new career of prosperity.’
(Op. cit. p. xix.)
But how does
Plato’s Republic come into all this? Rogers says:
‘Reverting
now to Praxagora and her scheme for the future government of Athens, we find
that the main argument put forward in support of her proposed gunaikokrati/a (government by women) is based on the more
conservative character of the female sex. Men, she says, are always in quest of
novelty and change. Women abide by their principles, and the women of the
present day use the same customs and follow the same practices that their
predecessors have used and followed throughout all generations. Athens,
imperilled by the restlessness of men, will be saved by the steadfast and sober
adherence of women to ancient methods and venerable traditions. Yet no sooner
does Praxagora by these arguments and for these purposes obtain the reins of
power, than she spontaneously develops a scheme so startling and novel, as to
throw altogether into the shade the wildest extravagances of men. It is a scheme
of naked socialism, involving the community of goods, the abolition of
marriage, and (what is one-sidedly called) the community of women.
How can we account for this singular
phenomenon? It has no parallel in any other comedy of Aristophanes. The Chorus
indeed will frequently go over to the side which it began by opposing, and
sometimes one of the principal characters will yield to argument, or the stress
of circumstances; but there is always enough in the play itself to determine
and explain the change. Here, however, the heroine, who has been earnestly
seeking power for one purpose, immediately employs it for the opposite purpose:
her special mission being to put a stop to all political novelties, she at once
introduces a political novelty so vast and revolutionary, that she doubts if
the men can be brought to accept it. And there is not a syllable in the play to
justify or account for her sudden change. It is therefore necessary to look for
the determining cause in something outside the play itself.
And it seems impossible to doubt that
the cause is to be found in the appearance, whilst Aristophanes was engaged on
the Ecclesiazusae, of the Republic of Plato,
or at all events of that part of the work which now constitutes Books II to
V (inclusive) of the Republic. After the death of Socrates, an event
which occurred in June, B.C. 399, Plato, we are told (Diogenes Laertius, III.
6-7), retired to Megara, then travelled to some other well-known philosophic
centres, Cyrene, Italy, and Egypt, and was contemplating a visit to the
Magians, but finally, dia\ tou\j th=j 0Asi/aj pole/mouj (because of the wars in Asia), gave up
the idea, and returned to Athens. If by tou\j th=j 0Asi/aj pole/mouj we are to understand, as seems unquestionable,
the expeditions of Dercyllidas and Agesilaus (which would naturally render it
unsafe for an Hellenic citizen to journey into the interior of the Persian
empire), Plato must have returned to Athens a year or two before the date of
the present play. And this would be in accordance with the tradition that he
took part in the battle of Corinth, B.C. 394, though, as we have already seen,
the tradition itself rests on no very certain foundation. But, however this may
be, it is clear that his Republic, either in its present, or in an
incomplete, shape came into the hands of the Athenian people before the
termination of that year.
Praxagora, therefore, having obtained
supreme power of Athens, with, apparently, authority to remodel its
institutions at her will, suddenly finds, all ready to her hand, as a
delightful subject for caricature, the elaborate communistic schemes developed
with such detail in the new philosophic treatise. Aristophanes was not the man
to let such an opportunity to escape him. What mattered Praxagora’s consistency
compared with the brilliant opening for philosophic chaff? And so the greatest
novelty of all, a system of undiluted communism, is at once introduced, by the
opponent of all novelty, into the practical everyday life of the people of
Athens …
It seems strange that anyone should
ever have doubted or ignored the very obvious fact that in the latter half of
the Ecclesiazusae, Aristophanes is laughing at the communistic theories
of the Platonic Republic. Many similarities of thought and diction between
the Praxagorean and Platonic schemes will be found pointed out in the
Commentary … It will be sufficient here to consider a single instance. In both
systems, though for widely different reasons, children will be unable to recognize
their parents, and parents their children. In both cases this fact is only
brought out in answer to a question. In both cases the question is propounded in
the same form, not Will they recognize? but How will they recognize?
(pw~j diagnw&sontai, Plato; pw~j dunato\j e1stai diagignw&skein, Aristophanes) the answer being, of course,
that no recognition is possible; all youths must consider themselves the
children of all the old people. Out of this novel state of things a variety of
strange and startling results might arise; but in both cases one, and one only,
and that by no means the most obvious, is selected, viz. the greater security
of the old people. For now, if a youth should assault (tu/pth|,
Plato, Aristophanes) his elder, the bystanders would at once interfere; since,
for all they can tell, they may themselves be the children (Plato adds “or the
brothers or the parents”) of the sufferer. Is the identity of this peculiar
train of thought, couched, as it is, in such similar phraseology, merely the
result of an accident? Credat Judaeus Apella. Non ego.’ (Rogers, op.
cit. pp. xxi-xxv).
