We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 October 2013
Aristophanes' Acharnians, performed at the Lenaea in 425 BC, is the story of Dicaeopolis' unilateral withdrawal from Athens' political system and her seemingly endless war against Sparta. What seems never to have been appreciated is the extent to which the hero's motivations are specifically economic in character. Dicaeopolis resents both his unhappy new status as an urban cash-consumer of staple goods, and the fact that he is excluded from all the pleasures the war-time city still has to offer, while others continue to enjoy themselves. It is a combination of these resentments which drives the hero to break ranks with his fellow citizens and make his separate peace with the Peloponnesians, and both problems are accordingly resolved in the ‘ideal’ new world of the second half of the play.
1 I refer throughout to the text of Coulon, V., Aristophane i (Paris 1923Google Scholar). Although there is no thorough modern scholarly edition of the play, the commentaries of Rennie, W., The Acharnians of Aristophanes (London 1909Google Scholar), Starkie, W.J.M., The Acharnians of Aristophanes (London 1909Google Scholar), Rogers, B. B., The Acharnians of Aristophanes (London 1910Google Scholar), and Sommerstein, A. H., Acharnians, The Comedies of Aristophanes i (Warminster 1980Google Scholar), are all valuable.
2 With the exception of the historical question of the content and effect of the Megarian Decree (for which see esp. de Ste. Croix, G. E. M., The origins of the Peloponnesian War [Ithaca 1972] 225–89Google Scholar), economic issues in Acharnians have received little sustained critical attention. Ehrenberg, V., The people of Aristophanes (Oxford 1943Google Scholar), is more concerned with Aristophanes as a source for day-to-day life in Athens than with the playwright's larger poetic purposes. I. Stark, ‘Das Verhältnis des Aristophanes zur Demokratie der Athenischen Polis’, Klio lvii (1975) 329–64, unfortunately fails to document her wide-ranging claims about developments in Athenian society, and seems out of touch with much of the modern European and American work on the play.
3 On the significance of the hero's name, see Bowie, E. L., ‘Who is Dicaeopolis?’, JHS cviii (1988) 183–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Bowie may be right to argue that the name ‘Dicaeopolis' would remind an Athenian audience of the contemporary Comic playwright Eupolis. Bowie's theory that the aggressively self-assertive (esp. 633–58) Aristophanes wrote a play with one of his main rivals as a hero seems improbable on the face of it, however, and rests on a series of unprovable and generally unlikely assumptions: that Eupolis was prosecuted by Cleon in 426/5 BC along with Aristophanes (a hypothesis for which there is no evidence whatsoever); that an audience who heard the (as yet unidentified) hero's speech in 377–82 would automatically identify him with another poet, rather than with the author of the play (who, as many presumably knew, had recently had precisely the same sort of troubles cf. 628–31); and that the name ‘Dicaeopolis’, when finally given (406), would suggest ‘Eupolis himself, rather than ‘someone like Eupolis, who claims that his special concern is τὰ δίκαια’ (see 655, 661), i.e., ‘Aristophanes'. As A. H. Sommerstein has pointed out to me, however, this identification too is undercut by the fact that the hero says he is from the deme Cholleidae (406). The historical Aristophanes (PA 2090) was from Kydathenaion; the deme-affiliation of Eupolis (PA 5936) is unknown. For a separate response to Bowie, see the note by L. P. E. Parker, which appears below.
4 This is certainly the point at which the observations of Stark (n. 2) 340–1, about the rise of an economy of ‘exchange value’ in Aristophanes' Athens, have their greatest relevance.
5 The existence of economic corruption in the city's leadership has already been hinted at in Dicaeopolis' opening reference to the five talents which the Knights forced Cleon to ‘vomit forth’ (5–8). On the events alluded to here, see most recently Carawan, E. M., ‘The five talents Cleon coughed up’, CQ n.s. xl (1990) 137–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A bankruptcy of political leadership is apparently not unique to Athens. The Megarian declares that when he left his city, the Councillors were doing their best to ruin it as quickly and miserably as possible (754–6).
6 Meanwhile, Amphitheos' request for sufficient funds to allow him to go to Sparta to make peace leads to his expulsion from the Assembly (53–4). Two drachmae a day does not, in fact, seem to have been an excessive rate of pay for ambassadors, and (once expenses were paid) probably offered little opportunity to grow rich at public expense. See Westermann, W. L., ‘Note upon the ephodia of Greek ambassadors’, CP v (1910) 203–16Google Scholar; Mosley, D. J., Envoys and diplomacy in ancient Greece, Historia Einzelschrift xxii (Wiesbaden 1973) 74–7Google Scholar.
7 The ἀρτάβη was a Persian measure, equal to one medimnus plus three choenikes (Hdt. i 192).
8 On the (immensely confusing) action in this scene, see most recently Chiasson, C. C., ‘Pseudartabas and his eunuchs: Acharnians 91–122’, CP lxxix (1984) 131–6Google Scholar.
9 Two drachmae a day would be twice the wage of sailors in the fleet (Thuc. iii 17), and thus (as Dicaeopolis notes in 161–3) an affront to the city's rowers. No-one else in the Assembly seems disturbed by this. The only actual accomplishment of this ‘horde of locusts' (148–52), of course, is to snatch food out of the mouths of real Athenians (163–5; 174).
10 Dover, K.J., Aristophanic comedy (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1972) 80Google Scholar, briefly notes the economic basis of some of Dicaeopolis' complaints, but does not develop the point. Similarly, Walcot, P., ‘Aristophanic and other audiences’, G&R xviii (1971) 42–3Google Scholar, sees that the play attacks ‘those who had exploited the war for their personal gain’, but never explores the issue in any detail.
11 Contra Murray, G., Aristophanes: a study (New York 1933Google Scholar) esp. 29–32, who identified Dicaeopolis as a simple pacifist, who argues that ‘the war has arisen out of a muddle and is a very bad way of correcting the muddle’.
12 Foley, H. P., ‘Tragedy and politics in Aristophanes' Acharnians’, JHS cviii (1988) 33–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 38, does not see this, and is therefore compelled to join the as-yet-unenlightened Chorus (esp. 289–91; 307–8) in attacking the hero as a traitor to his fatherland.
13 Dicaeopolis stresses the economic nature of the sycophants' behavior by characterizing them specifically as bad money, ‘false-stamped, valueless, counterfeit, of foreign mintage’ (517–8). For the image, cf. Ra. 718–33.
14 It has long been recognized that the raping back and forth here is a parody of the opening chapters of Herodotus' Histories. For a dissenting view, see Fornara, C. W., ‘Evidence for the date of Herodotus' publication’, JHS xci (1971) 25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp-28, and the response of Sansone, D., ‘The date of Herodotus' publication’, ICS x (1985) 1–9Google Scholar. In any case, as Harriott, R. M., ‘The function of the Euripides scene in Aristophanes' Acharnians’, G&R xxix (1982) 41Google Scholar n. 20, observes, the parody (if that is what it is) is at most incidental to the force of the speech.
15 ὁ δὲ λάμαχος ἦν … πένης δὲ τοσοῦτον καὶ λιτός, ὤστε καθ’ ἑκάστην στρατηγίαν ἀπολογίζεσθαι τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις μικρὸν ἀργύριον εἱς ἐσθῆτα καὶ κρηπῖδας έαυτῷ.—Plu. Nic. 15.1; cf. Alc. 21.
16 For notorious poverty as a source of sarcastic humor in Old Comedy, cf. e.g. V. 1267–74.
17 See Molitor, M. V., ‘Aristophanes, Acharnians 593 and 1073–4’, CR xix (1969) 141Google Scholar, and Fornara, C. W., The Athenian board of generals from 501 to 404, Historia Einzelschrift xvi (Wiesbaden 1971) 58–9Google Scholar, and further bibliography provided there. 1073, which refers to ‘the generals’ giving orders to Lamachus, should not be taken as evidence that Lamachus is not a general within the context of the play. As Dunbar, N. V., ‘Three notes on Aristophanes’, CR xx (1970) 269–70Google Scholar, argues, οι στρατηγοί here is probably to be understood as ‘the (other) generals’.
18 For the costume, cf. Pax 1172–4. Comparison with the arming-scene in 1097–1142 suggests that Lamachus also carries a spear (1118; 1120) and wears a breastplate (1132), since his intentions here are exactly the same as there—to wage war wherever necessary (572–3; 620–2; 1073–7; 1134).
19 On Euripides' Telephus and the Telephus-parody in Acharnians, see esp. Rau, P., Paratragodia: Untersuchung einer komischen Form des Aristophanes (Munich 1967) 19–42Google Scholar; Foley (n. 12). Dicaeopolis chooses specifically the rags of Telephus, because he thinks of him as particularly δεινὸς λέγειν (429; compare Nu. 920–4), and he needs to be persuasive here. As the Telephus-parody has already proceeded handily for over a hundred lines (from at least 326) without any such elaborate change of costuming, however, a desire to poke fun at Euripides is not a sufficient explanation for the stage-action.
20 Russo, C. F., Aristofane autore di teatro (Florence 1962) 87Google Scholar; Edmunds, L., ‘Aristophanes' Acharnians’, YCIS xxvi(1980) 14Google Scholar; Stone, L. M., Costume in Aristophanic comedy (New York 1981) 417Google Scholar; Harriott (n. 14) 39; Reckford, K., Aristophanes' old-and-new comedy (Chapel Hill 1987) 185–6Google Scholar. See also Whitman, C. H., Aristophanes and the comic hero, (Cambridge MA 1964) 68CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘The role of the beggar … is explicitly abandoned.’
It is clear that Dicaeopolis' decision to wear rags is heavily overdetermined in any case. His own explanation is that he wants to appear as pitiful as possible during his speech before the Acharnians (383–4; compare V. 556–7; 564–5; 568–73; 976–8; Pl. 382–5), but this is undermined by the Chorus' insistence that a change in costume will have no effect on them whatsoever (385–92). The disguise is also said later not to be intended to deceive the audience in the theater (442). Harriott (n. 14) 37, argues that a more significant effect of the rags is to provide a visual confirmation of Dicaeopolis' decision to step outside of Athenian society: ‘The beggar was an “outsider”, a man without the support of philoi, … not part of the system of reciprocal obligations on which society was based’. Edmunds 12, on the other hand, maintains that the disguise is a reference to the nature of comedy itself: ‘Although comedy comes before the people with a just claim and a didactic mission, it can do so only in disguise.’ Foley (n. 12) believes that the Telephus-disguise is intended to underline the morally ambiguous nature of the hero's case.
21 Thus also Segal, C. P., AJP lxxxvi (1965) 308Google Scholar. If the action that follows is intended to parody the confrontation between Achilles and Telephus in Euripides' tragedy, we would certainly expect Dicaeopolis/Telephus to stay in costume.
22 In all fairness, it must be pointed out that the historical Lamachus seems to have been a brave soldier (Plu. Alc. 18—φιλοκίνδυνος ἐν τοῖς ἀγῶσι; Pl. La. 197c), and that he died in action in 414 BC in the fighting in Sicily (Th. vi 101.6, 103.1). After this, Aristophanes seems to have softened his attitude toward him (Th. 839–41; Ra. 1039).
23 See the discussion of Bowie, A. M., ‘The parabasis in Aristophanes: prolegomena, Acharnians’, CQ n.s. xxxii (1982) 36Google Scholar. For a detailed analysis of the arming-scene, see Harriott, R. M., ‘Acharnians 1095–1142: words and actions’, BICS xxvi (1979) 95–8Google Scholar.
24 This has been noticed by Sutton, D. F., Self and society in Aristophanes (Washington 1980) 20Google Scholar, who does not develop the point. See also Foley (n. 12) 46 n. 52. Aristotle also argued that barter was a more primitive and local form of trade, although he believed that the beginning of truly ‘foreign’ trade (ξενικωτέρας βοηθείας) necessitated the introduction of money (Pol. 1257a).
25 Cf. 31, where the hero spends his free time in the city doing his accounts (λογίζομαι). Even Dicaeopolis' treaty can be obtained only by giving Amphitheos eight drachmae for travel expenses (130–2).
26 Even the wager the Megarian proposes over the identity of the ‘piggies’ is not for money, but for spiced salt (772). The bridegroom understands the new world well enough to try to obtain peace only through an exchange of gifts (1049–53). The Farmer simply begs for some for free (1020–1).
27 Dicaeopolis does, however, mention the barter possibilities of the general's shield (966).
28 Cf. the plot of Peace (421 BC), in which the war is blamed once again on greed and short-sighted self-interest (esp. Pax 447–52; 603–48), and the hero's ideal new world taken to imply a return to countryside not just for farmers, but for everyone (e.g. Pax 865–9a; 1316–28)
