Great Books Ep 95. Aristophanes - The Acharnians. Seeking Peace in a Time of War
Reflecting on the importance of peace treaties to end the vicious cycle of violence that causes a lot of destruction
I’m trying to see how to best get back to my previous reading/writing plan of finishing Volume 5 by the end of Feb. I’m thinking that I would do around two posts every week starting this week. But I don’t want to spam people more than once a week. So, one post will go as an email, and the other will be on the Substack site. I hope this works. Below is a tentative timeline.
Euripides
Iphigenia among the Tauri: 11/30/24 (Planned) → 1/4/25 (Actual)
Iphigenia at Aulis: 12/7 → 1/11
The Cyclops: 12/14 → 1/18
Aristophanes
The Acharnians: 12/21 → 1/25
The Knights: 12/28 → 1/25 (No email)
The Clouds: 1/4 → 2/1
The Wasps: 1/11 → 2/1 (No email)
The Peace: 1/18 → 2/8
The Birds: 1/25 → 2/8 (No email)
The Frogs: 2/1 → 2/15
The Lysistrata: 2/8 → 2/15 (No email)
The Thesmophoriazusae: 2/15 → 2/22
The Ecclesiazusae: 2/22 → 2/22 (No email)
The Plutus: 3/1 → 3/1
The Acharnians
Amphitheus: And all at once they cried, “O villain, dare you Bring treaties when our vineyards are cut down?” Then in their lappets up they gathered stones; I fled away: they followed roaring after.
Dicaeopolis: So let them roar. But have you got the treaties ?
Amphitheus: O yes, I have. Three samples; here they are. These are the Five-year treaties; take and taste them.
~ ‘The Acharnians’ by Aristophanes (Benjamin B. Rogers translation. GB5 - p. 458)
Brief Summary
The play starts with a prominent Athenian citizen named Dicaeopolis, who has come to attend the city assembly at the Pnyx but finds that everyone, including the committee (Prytanes), is late. He uses the time to complain about things that he likes and dislikes. Finally, people come in, and everyone jostles for the foremost place.
Amphitheus first comes in to address the assembly, but archers seize him. Dicaeopolis asks them to release him since they should not be seizing a person who wants to give them peace. Next, envoys sent to the Persian court eleven years ago enter the assembly in oriental attire. They talk gibberish, which the ambassador translates to ‘Persian King will send them gold’. Dicaeopolis interprets the next gibberish statement as Ionians must be nincompoops for expecting any gold from Persia. The envoys turn out to be frauds who have just been taking money all along for their services but not doing anything. Dicaeopolis gives Amphitheus eight drachmas to make a private peace treaty with Sparta for him. Theorus addresses the assembly next and says that he has returned from Thrace, and the king there has promised to send a large army to help. Dicaeopolis says that he wouldn’t believe a single word from Theorus. The assembly is dissolved after Dicaeopolis says that he felt a drop of rain.
Amphitheus returns with three different peace treaties - 5-yr, 10-yr and 30-yr treaties. Dicaeopolis says the 30-year treaty smells of nectar and ambrosia and chooses it. The next scene is the Chorus (24 elderly Acharnians) chasing Amphitheus because he is making treaties with their enemies, the Spartans, who destroyed their vineyards. But since they are old, they are not able to catch the younger Amphitheus. The scene then shifts to Dicaeopolis having a ceremony with his family to celebrate his personal peace treaty. The Chorus comes there and calls him a traitor to Athens and throws stones at him. He defends himself and says that he will put his head on a chopping block and speak to everyone to explain why he bought a treaty. When they still don’t listen, he goes inside and comes out with a basket of charcoal, which distresses the Chorus, and they leave, agreeing to his offer of defense plea.
Dicaeopolis then visits Euripides and asks his servant if he could borrow rags for this upcoming speech, implying that Euripides’ heroes are often dressed in beggarly clothes (looks like none of those plays mentioned here - Oeneus, Philoctetes, Bellerophon, Telephus, etc., have survived). Dicaeopolis then goes to the chopping block to make his speech. He argues that his vines were also destroyed and says that the war itself was due to petty reasons. After hearing this, the Chorus argues amongst themselves. During the altercation, someone calls out to Lamachus to help stop the fight. Lamachus arrives and Dicaeopolis mocks him for his armor and decision to fight. He says he will trade with everyone except Lamachus. Then, the Chorus addresses the audience, praising the chorus-instructor (playwright) the role of comedy.
After this, the play shifts to a scene probably many months later where Dicaeopolis has already established his private market because of his treaty and has welcomed traders from all over. People in Athens are desperate for basic goods, and a person has even disguised his daughters as pigs to sell them for food. In the end, we see a huge contrast between war and peace through Lamachus and Dicaeopolis. One is asked to fight in the snow to guard a mountain pass, while the other is asked to go to a feast. Later, we see that the warrior is battered and injured while the trader is drunk and happy.
My Thoughts
The tone of the play is so different from that of Euripides. It is a shift from mythology and folklore to realistic day-to-day drama, like watching a Marvel or DC movie and switching to a realistic drama like “Lady Bird” or a comedy TV series like “Modern Family”. Unlike Euripides, there was no introductory monologue where a character in the play explains the context and their origin story. I had to read the play a couple of times to understand, but I doubt if I got all the jokes about garlic, onion, figs, charcoal, etc. Also, I feel that it has to be read aloud. A lot of funny moments in the market scene. Megarian’s speech is written in a different English dialect (probably Scottish/Irish). So reading aloud makes more sense.
This is just the first play of Aristophanes that I’m reading, and it seems so much like something someone would write today. It’s pretty engaging, too! Kudos to the translator, also, for making so many passages rhyme. If we can relate to day-to-day lives 2000 years in the past, what is to say that 2000 years in the future, when humans have hopefully colonized Mars and made some other astounding discoveries, they cannot relate to the day-to-day lives of today? People may still have the same challenges in their normal lives - someone coming into an assembly meeting hoping to interrupt other speakers if they bring discord, people trying to have their own trade economy when there is a trade embargo, etc. That’s one reason I like the TV series “The Expanse” - there is a lot of technological advancement, but the conflict among humans - misunderstandings, greed, different people having different ideas of freedom, etc., remains.
Anyway, the topic that I had in mind when I started writing was peace treaties. The overarching theme of the play is that constant war is bad, especially for common people. The sane thing to do is to somehow set egos aside and have a treaty to move forward, like the Amazon principle of ‘agree to disagree but commit to a shared goal’. But it is easier said than done because every human being has the notion of justice deeply ingrained in their psyche. In this case, Spartans have destroyed people’s vineyards, and they say that they will never hold back till they punish them for what they have done.
“Upon whom War I make For my ruined vineyard's sake; And I ne'er From the strife Will give o'er, No, I ne'er Will forbear, Till I pierce them in return, Like a reed, Sharply barbed Dagger-pointed, and they learn Not to tread Down my vines Any more.”
It reminds me of the quote, ‘An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind’. Even if people know it, even if they are suffering because day-to-day life is hard due to the war, people want revenge before peace. Not wanting to seek revenge is a huge psychological barrier to overcome because one needs to set aside legitimate grievances. I’m not sure if a third party should advocate people to stop fighting. There are so many bitter conflicts around the world, between countries and between factions within countries. There is little that external parties are able to do. People outside the conflict are able to see the destruction that the continuing cycle of violence causes more than the people in the fight. They could influence the key people to see reason. Ultimately, the people in the conflict need to realize the future damage and decide to stop. Destroying a livable future for one’s descendants in the quest for perfect justice may not be the right path. The notion of ‘perfect justice’ is also subjective. There will always be misunderstandings, and people’s narratives of the past could keep drifting as the mind makes up new things due to the simmering hatred. It takes courage and a huge amount of selflessness to not focus on ‘who is right’ but focus on ‘what is next’. It is an active choice to prioritize tomorrow over yesterday’s wounds.
AI Response to the Post
Text Response (Gemini)
1. Expanding on Your Thoughts about Peace Treaties and the Vicious Cycle of Fighting:
You’ve rightly pointed out the destructive nature of cyclical violence and the psychological barrier of revenge. “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” is a fitting summary. “The Acharnians” vividly portrays this through the Acharnian Chorus’s relentless desire for retribution against the Spartans for destroying their vineyards. This personal grievance becomes a microcosm of the larger Peloponnesian War, demonstrating how individual losses fuel the flames of conflict.
The play highlights the difficulty of achieving peace when emotions run high and the focus is solely on past injustices. Dicaeopolis’s desire for a personal peace treaty is a radical act precisely because it breaks this cycle. He prioritizes his own well-being and the restoration of his livelihood over the collective desire for revenge. This doesn’t mean he dismisses the suffering caused by the war; rather, he recognizes that continuing the conflict will only perpetuate that suffering.
Your mention of the “Amazon principle of ‘agree to disagree but commit to a shared goal’” is insightful. In the context of “The Acharnians,” the shared goal should be the restoration of normalcy, trade, and prosperity. Dicaeopolis understands that this can only be achieved through peace, even if it means setting aside the pursuit of perfect justice. The play suggests that sometimes, a pragmatic peace, even an imperfect one, is preferable to a righteous but destructive war.
2. Deeper Analysis of Themes and Symbolism, and Lessons for Today:
Themes: The Individual vs. the State: Dicaeopolis’s pursuit of a private peace treaty directly challenges the authority and priorities of the Athenian state. This tension is central to the play, questioning the extent to which the state can demand sacrifices from its citizens in the name of war. This is relevant today in discussions about individual liberties versus national security.
The Absurdity of War: Aristophanes uses humor and satire to expose the irrationality of war. The farcical envoys, the petty reasons for the conflict, and the contrast between Dicaeopolis’s peaceful life and Lamachus’s military hardships all serve to highlight the senselessness of continued fighting.
The Power of the Common Man: Dicaeopolis, an ordinary citizen, takes matters into his own hands and achieves peace for himself and his family. This resonates with the idea that individuals can make a difference, even in the face of powerful institutions.
Symbolism: The Wine and the Vineyards: The destruction of the vineyards symbolizes the devastation of war on the land and the livelihoods of ordinary people. Dicaeopolis’s desire to restore his vineyards represents his yearning for peace and normalcy.
The Different Peace Treaties: The three treaties offered by Amphitheus symbolize different approaches to peace. The 30-year treaty, chosen by Dicaeopolis, suggests a desire for lasting peace and stability.
Lamachus and Dicaeopolis: These characters represent opposing forces: war and peace. Their contrasting fates at the end of the play underscore the benefits of peace over war.
Lessons for Today: “The Acharnians” offers several lessons for the modern world:
Question Authority: Don’t blindly accept the justifications for war. Critically examine the motives and consequences of conflict.
Prioritize Dialogue and Diplomacy: Seek peaceful solutions to disputes before resorting to violence.
Recognize the Human Cost of War: Remember that wars are not fought by abstract entities but by real people who suffer real losses.
Value Individual Agency: Don’t underestimate the power of individuals to promote peace and challenge the status quo.
3. Thought-Provoking Questions for Modern Readers:
To what extent should individuals be allowed to dissent from state policy, especially during times of war?
How can we break the cycle of revenge and retaliation in conflicts around the world?
What are the responsibilities of ordinary citizens in promoting peace?
How can we use humor and satire to challenge the narratives of war and violence?
In a world often driven by national interests, how can we prioritize the common good and the well-being of all people?
How do we balance the need for justice with the need for peace? Is perfect justice ever attainable, and is its pursuit sometimes counterproductive?