The comparison entails a withering political analysis that is not wholly mitigated
by the general air of mirth and absurdity or by the wishful ending. The clear impli-
cation is that Demos gets the politicians he deserves. As for Aristophanes’ relation to
the real Athenian demos, this may be likened to the jester at the court of the king; he
is allowed the fool’s licence to insult them with the unflattering truth. Paradoxically,
the Knights may be said to be a tribute to the maturity of the Athenian democracy
(Cleon, of course, continued to be popular, and Aristophanes to attack him, to his
death in 422) as well as a stringent criticism of it, as damning in its way as that of
Thucydides in his history or that of Plato in his Republic and unlike these delivered
directly at the time when the criticism might evoke a response.
The relation between dramatic art and life is subjected to a serio-comic critical
scrutiny in the Frogs,written just after the death of Euripides and at a time of impend-
ing national disaster in 405. In a comically irreverent opening sequence the theatrical
god Dionysus is seen in the not very effective disguise as Heracles, with lion skin and
club, which he has donned in a desire to go down into Hades to fetch back Euripides
in the absence of any decent tragic writers left since his death. To get guidance for
his trip, he knocks on Heracles’ door, explaining to the old hero that his longing for
Euripides is like the longing Heracles experiences for pea soup. Outside Pluto’s
palace, we learn that Euripides newly arrived in Hades has greatly impressed the riff-
raff he encounters there with his sophistical talents and as a result attempts to usurp
the throne of tragedy from the incumbent Aeschylus, who furiously resists. A contest
ensues in which their poetry is to be weighed. Dionysus is to be judge. The chorus
characterises the poets in language appropriate to their actual styles: Aeschylus will
sweep all before him in a grand manner thundering in anger with mighty words and
grandiloquent maxims; Euripides will side-step the bombardment with his subtle
analysis, clear-cut phrases and neat wit, refining, dissecting and finding fault. Euripides
is the sophist who prays to strange gods and finds his opponent Olympian, obscure,
bombastic, lacking in dramatic action and artistically primitive; Aeschylus is the
traditionalist who accuses his opponent of degrading tragedy in subject matter and
style with his importation of kings in rags, incest on the stage, subtle argumentation
and common talk. Euripides takes pride in having slimmed tragedy of its excess
weight. He has given a voice to women and slaves and made tragedy truly demo-
cratic. He has taught his audiences to speak, to look into things, to be critical, to follow
subtleties in plot, and showed them scenes from common life. He has encouraged
the spirit of enquiry.
Aeschylus begins his attack by asking Euripides what he thinks is the purpose
of poetry: ‘wit, wisdom and to make the people better citizens’ replies Euripides
(ll. 1009–1010). Aeschylus then points to the difference between the patriotic citizenry
ofhis day, inspired by warlike plays such as the Seven against Thebes and the Persians,
and the idle men of the agora of the present, who prefer talking and debating to
166 THE GREEKS