[font=times new roman][size=150]Clouds[/size]
Nephelai
The play ‘Clouds’ is written by Aristophanes. He is considdered an important playwrite of ancient Greece because there are records of him having won several contests and having entered numerous more. It is unclear exactly how important he was in that day and age, because many things remain unknown. Aristophanes for instance ended third in such contests many times, but since it is unknown how many contestants there were there is no way of telling what a third place ment; It might mean he ended last for instance. It is clear that many of Athens’ prominents frequented such contests though, so most likely entering into these contests ment one was an accomplished playwrite regardless.
Aristophanes is one of the sources used to prove a man named Socrates actually existed. Because Socrates never wrote anything himself the question has been asked if he has existed at all. Plato and Xenophon, both claim to have been his ‘pupils’ (if one can speak thereof when the ‘teacher’ does not accept any payment for his services), but this may have merely been a rhetoric function, used to comment on certain topics. Aristophanes’ work is in that sense a confirmation of Socrates’ existence, because a comedy would not be writ of a rhetoric function.
A summary of the plot can be found on the internet. Perhaps the most detailed one can be found here. So as not to bore any one of you I will only include a very short summary below. Since there are several known variations on this play the summary that can be found below contains the storyline that I have read:
Faced with legal action for non-payment of debts, Strepsiades, an elderly Athenian, enrolls himself (or in some versions his son) in The Thinkery (the “Phrontisterion”) so that he might learn the rhetorical skills necessary to defeat his creditors in court. The ‘minor argument’ does not win the day however and Socrates lectures Strepsiades on morality, over which Strepsiades gets so mad that he sets The Thinkery on fire.
In the storyline Strepsiades sets out to learn about the major and the minor argument from Socrates because he desires the get himself out of his debt by means of the minor argument. It is said that the minor argument does not have to be true to win a discussion and Strepsiades plans to get his loan disputes to courtcases so that he may be cleared of paying the debts.
One of the things Socrates is known for is his ethical behavior. He continuously argued with men he called ‘sophists’, who used minor arguements as a means to win discussions and gain in a material way. Aristophanes merely depicts Socrates as teaching someone something that will be used in an immoral manner as a comical twist to the plot because Socrates himself is known for saying that nobody knows what ‘the good’ is.
Several versions of the play are known to us and it is unclear which version was actually acted out. In the storyline I read Socrates merely pretended to teach Strepsiades the minor argument because Strepsiades should have known better and as a means to teach Strepsiades the error of thinking that he could cheat his way out of his debts.
From this perspective it is doubtfull that Aristophanes had ill will towards Socrates. It seems he merely depicted certain well known things in a comical manner to entertain the audience, only to show Socrates later for what he really was: an example in moral behavior and a source of information for anybody who wanted to learn. However, there are also scripts known in which Strepsiades got out of his debt by means of the minor argument, which leaves Socrates in a much different position.
It is said Socrates himself had a good laugh at the original performance, bowing to the public now and again, but has always denied any of Aristophanes’ comical twists in the storyline when asked about it. All this leaves in question Wether or not Aristophanes intended his play as a comical relief with some sharp edges towards Socrates or not. Judging from his other works it is commonly believed that he wrote plays as a comical relief, but was also good at molding his plays in way so that current events in Athens were addressed.
As we all know Socrates came to his end by drinking poison from a cup after a trial. The charges were that Socrates was corrupting the minds of the young and the impious acts of ‘failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges’ and ‘introducing new deities’. Socrates’ defense was that he never recieved money for any explanations he gave to the young and that this proved that he was no teacher. The real argument was the impiety though. His defense against that was that the law was that worshipping no Gods was forbidden and the penalty for this was death. Not worshipping other Gods. In that sense freedom of religion was present in Athens at that time. Socrates was known for saying that his ‘Daemonion’ (spiritual being, also used for soul of man) told him answers. Socrates’ defense won half the jury in his favor.In situations like these it was common that the defendend was allowed to choose his own punishment. Ostracism was commonly chosen at this point. Socrates however argued that since the worst thing that can happen to a man is to not be able to sustain himself and that his wise words often made for a consciens for the city it would be appropriate that the city would pay for his existence as a punishment. This would come in handy because Socrates had never worried much about money and had spent all his families wealth during the course of his life. The jury got so mad over this proposition that they decided to give him the death punisment after all.
If we look at all this we see that Aristophanes addressed some major points that were used in the trial of Socrates in his play ‘Clouds’. The most important of which are the ‘clouds’ that were telling Socrates the insights that he tried to teach others. Aristophanes makes it clear that this viewpoint (from above instead of in it) is strange to the other Athenians. It refers to Socrates ‘Daemonion’ and in the trial it takes the form of worshipping other Gods. Apart from that Socrates’ moralising character is emphasized in the sense that after acting in a certain way, which Socrates does not directly contradict but only tries to argue against in the play (as was his way of discussing, if we should believe Plato’s dialogues), Socrates is reduced to saying: “you should have known better”. Since Strepsiades is of the opinion that Socrates told him these things he blames Socrates, while in reality Socrates had nothing to do with his ideas. Socrates has, in reality, always opposed Sophism, if you will recall with me.
These two point are the charges laid against Socrates in his trial. But the question is if Aristophanes addressed certain misunderstandings, if he ment to point out these strange characteristics of Socrates only for fun, or even if the charges laid against Socrates were a result of this play.[/font]