B.B. Rogers in the ‘Introduction’ to his edition of Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae (Assemblywomen) argues that the comedy was exhibited in the spring of the year B.C. 393, and that Plato wrote the Republic, or at least books II-V prior to it, which must have come into the hands of the Athenians before the termination of B.C. 394,
Before
explaining Rogers’ 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 accomplish 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. Roger says that in the passage of her speech, which is crucial
for the dating of the comedy, 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 today, and of the opposite tomorrow.’ In
illustration she says:
‘Then again
this alliance (to summachikon au touth’), when we were deliberating
about it (hot’ eskopoumetha), they vowed (ephaskon) that not to
conclude it (ei mȇ genoit’) would be the ruin of the state (apolein
tȇn polin): but when once it was concluded (hote dȇ d’ egenet’); they were disgusted with it (ȇchthonto); and the orator who persuaded them into it (ho tout’ anapeisas)
had straightaway to cut and run (euthus apodras ȏicheto).’ (193-196, tr. 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. 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.
Thus within
a few weeks the entire aspect of affairs had, as regards Athens, undergone a
serious change for the worse. She had lost many citizens without any beneficial
results; 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, ȇchthonto, 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 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.
Rogers
argues that Ecclesiazusae could not have been conceived and staged in
B.C.392: ‘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 Long Walls had risen again, the
fortifications of Piraeus 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 carrier of
prosperity.
But how does
Plato’s Republic come into all this? Rogers says: ‘Reverting now to
Praxagora and her scheme of future government of Athens, we find that the main argument
put forward in support of her proposed gunaikokratia [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 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 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 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 the 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 of the Republic. Plato’s Republic,
either in its present, or in an incomplete, shape came into the hands of the
Athenian people before the termination of B.C. 394.
Aristophanes’
Praxagora obtained supreme power in Athens, which she was to use to give free
reign to the conservative character of women, with all the humorous situations
it offered for comedy, when Aristophanes suddenly finds, all ready to his hand,
the elaborate communistic schemes developed by Plato 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.
Rogers finds
it strange that anyone could doubt or ignore the very obvious fact that in the
latter half of the Ecclesiazusae Aristophanes is laughing at the
communistic theories of the Platonic Republic. He notes that in his ‘Commentary’
he refers to many similarities of thought and diction between the Praxagorean
and Platonic schemes. In the ‘Introduction’ he considers a single instance. In
both systems 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?’ (pȏs diagnȏsontai, Plato; pȏs dunatos estai diagignȏskein, Aristophanes) the answer being of
course, that no recognition is possible; all youths must consider themselves
the children of 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 (tuptȇi, 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 particular train of thought, couched, as it is, in such
similar phraseology, merely the result of an accident?
