Gregory Justina - Euripides and the Instruction of the Athenians

The earliest assessments of tragedy we possessone by a fourth-century philosopher, the other by a fifth-century comic poetbear witness to the organic connection between tragedy and the Athenian polis. Aristotle, to be sure, refers to it only in passing. In the Poetics, while discussing the element of thought in tragedy, he remarks that the older poets (that is, the fifth-century tragedians) made their characters speak politiks, in a political vein, whereas those of his own day make their characters speak rhtoriks, in a rhetorical vein. If (as seems likely) Aristotle is using the term in the same sense in both passages, then his remark offers a preliminary indication that the political and ethical components of Greek tragedy will be closely conjoined.

Aristophanes, on the other hand, considers the political role of tragedy directly and at length. The climax of the Frogs is an agn or poetry contest that takes place in the underworld under the auspices of the god Dionysus. The shades of Aeschylus and Euripides are vying for the title of best tragedian; the realm of Hades, it seems, bears a curious resemblance to Athens, where tragedians competed for first prize at the City Dionysia. Just as at Athens public benefactors were rewarded with free entertainment and favored seating in the Prytaneum or city hall, so in the underworld the winner of the contest will enjoy meals in the Prytaneum and a seat next to Pluto (Frogs 764-65).

Euripides, arguing his own cause, claims to have freed tragedy from the cumbersome staging and obscure language favored by his rival. He explains that he has substituted a leaner, more tightly structured, democratic form (952) that is relevant to the spectators daily life and allows them room for discrimination and judgment. Aeschylus presently demands, On what grounds should we admire a tragedian? Euripides is unhesitating in his reply: For his skilfulness and his admonitions, because we improve the people in the cities (1009-10).

Aeschylus has no quarrel with this formulation. He concurs with Euripides on the didactic function of tragedy: For children it is the schoolteacher who instructs; for grown-ups, it is the poet.

The association between poetry and teaching is a recurrent motif in the Frogs. The parabasis leads off with the statement that it is right for the chorus to offer good advice and instruction to the city (chrsta tei polei xumparainein kai didaskein, 686-87). At a later point in the play Aeschylus associates his own inspirational and instructive practice with that of a distinguished group of predecessors: Orpheus, Musaeus, Hesiod, and Homer (1032-36). In identifying the poets as the fountainhead of practical and moral wisdom he is on firm historical ground. There is an important element in early, archaic, and classical verse that might be called, broadly, educational or culturally formative. Homer, Hesiod, Solon, Xenophanes, Theognis, to name a few, all address themselves, in greater or lesser degree, to the information and admonition of their audiences.

But Aristophanes has in mind something more precise than cultural formation. In the course of the contest between the two rivals, it emerges that the improvement of the polis is the goal of the poet's instruction; it is in that sense, according to Aristophanes, that tragedy aspires to the political. As we have seen, the chorus offers its good advice to the city, and Euripides asserts that the tragedian should make the people better in the cities. Defending himself against Aeschylus accusations, Euripides inquires indignantly in what way his passionate female protagonists harm the city (1049). Dionysus ultimately informs the two tragedians that he intends to bring back with him to the upper world whichever one of you can give the city some useful advice (1420-21)a charge that each does his best to satisfy.

These passages make assumptions that may appear startling to modern readers, but are taken for granted by the two contestants; presumably they reflect fifth-century preconceptions about poets and poetry. There is no concern that aesthetic and political purposes might inhibit one another; rather, artistry and admonition are said to operate in tandem (cf. 1009-10). The domain of private life is not envisaged as separate from the public realm; both dramatists agree that sexual conduct, for example, has the potential to damage the city. Both recognize too that as dramatists they are doubly accountable: not only should they help the Athenians become better citizens, they must themselves serve as examples of responsible statesmanship. Both assume that the representations of tragedy will provoke a mimetic response in the audience. Aeschylus, to be sure, reduces this notion to its most absurd because most literal form: Athenian women have committed suicide in emulation of Euripidean prototypes, he claims, and prosperous citizens have managed to evade their civic responsibilities by dissimulating their wealth on the model of Euripides ragged kings (1050-51, 1065-66). Euripides does not admit that his characters have caused harm, but neither does he challenge the basic premise. As we have seen, the two poets disagree only on whether the community is better served by portraying conflicts and passions in all their complexity, or by presenting a simple and idealized account of human nature.