The Defense of Tradition in the Works of Aeschylus and Aristophanes

T.S. Elliot, a dramatist and literary critic, once stated, "A tradition without intelligence is not worth having." Was this also the belief of the ancient Greek dramatists? Aristophanes and Aeschylus, the most renowned playwrights of their time, believed that tradition was a vital part of society, but they were very wary of the tendency of their time: the tendency of people to rely on their own intelligence to make laws. Aristophanes, primarily known for his comedies, was a staunch defender of the old values. Aeschylus, too, believed in traditional philosophical ideas, his tragic plays based mainly on the political and social changes of his time. Both playwrights show their discontent with the modern views of their times; the threat of new scientific and philosophical ideas supplanting old, traditional values, reflected in their plays. However, one could question whether or not the ideas portrayed in their plays were adequate enough to change the views of their fellow Athenians. Aristophanes, who believed in the importance of criticism in Athenian society, not only criticized the new model of education, but also the old. It would not be convincing if one criticized his own beliefs! Similarly, Aeschylus, who believed in the reestablishment of the Titans and Olympians, as well as in humanity and nature, shows the unfortunate fate of Prometheus, a Titan god who represents the old values, from trying to help humanity. The notion of being chained to a rock while having one's regenerating liver be eaten daily by a vulture (rather unappealing) may not convert someone with modern values, but rather ward them off from trusting old values. Although both playwrights have solid beliefs in preserving their traditional values, their ideal examples of the tendency to trust in received tradition, represented by Aristophanes' feeble Superior Argument, and Aeschylus' defeated Prometheus, are neither sufficient nor convincing enough for one to find reason for trusting in tradition rather than people's power to make their own laws.

In Clouds, Aristophanes represents his traditional values through his portrayal of Superior Argument, a personification of the school of thought representing the traditional system of education (one that stresses obedience, respect, physical fitness, and the study of classical literature). Superior argues with his adversary, Inferior Argument (who represents all that is wrong with sophistry), about who would be the most proper model of education for Pheidippides. Not only does Superior have an overzealous sense of the physical, which inevitably results in his undoing, but he is easily defeated by his Inferior counterpart, who does not come up with his own arguments, but cross-examines his opponent's arguments by using very twisty logic, and irrelevant examples from myth and trivia. Superior is flustered by Inferior's techniques of argument and he admits his defeat by saying, "I have to admit that you fuckers have beaten me. Here take my cloak, I think I might give it a try myself!" (1102-5). This clearly shows Aristophanes' criticism of his own beliefs, on the weaknesses of traditional values, where one's morality is undermined by one's overdeveloped physicality.

One may argue that Aristophanes deliberately reveals the weaknesses of Superior Argument in order to place more emphasis on the absurdity of his rival's argument. This may be true, however, one cannot disregard the fact that Aristophanes criticizes both schools of thought. He knows there are problems with the traditional model, therefore he portrays Superior Argument as a pedophile, and allows him to utter such empty-headed statements as "He will have you believe that what should be shameful is beautiful, and what should be beautiful is made shameful" (1020-21). He believes that a traditional system that is left ignored, eventually loses sight of its beliefs and values upon which it was founded.

Strepsiades, like Superior Argument, represents the old system of education. He is a traditionalist at heart, yet he is attracted to Socrates' school, hoping to get rid of his debts in court, by learning the art of persuasion. He enrolls in the school, but fails to understand the teachings of Socrates, because of his overwhelming sense of physicality, and lack of intellect. He is unable to understand even the subtlest intellectual details, for example, when Socrates describes the Chorus of Clouds as the "whirling of the Celestial Basin" (380), Strepsiades thinks that he has discovered a new god called "Basin" (831). And when Socrates places him on the flea-ridden bed to comment on the nature of life, instead Strepsiades masturbates ("Well, my right hand has a good grasp on my prick at the moment" 734). Again, Aristophanes is criticizing the flaws of his own beliefs - he not only points out the absurdity of Socrates' way of thinking (the sophist's beliefs), but also the lack of intellect in those who stand for traditional values. This, in no way, convinces one to trust in tradition, rather than in the modern ways of thinking - it only shows the problems with both sides.

Moreover, Strepsiades' intentions are based on a naked self-interest - he wishes to deceive his fellow citizens to get out of the debts he owes them. When Socrates asks him why he's come to the academy, Strepsiades responds, "I want to learn to debate. I'm being besieged by creditors, all my worldly goods are under threat of seizure, the bailiffs are banging on my door!" (239-41). He makes it quite clear, that he wishes to learn the art of sophistic argumentation at the expense of his fellow citizens. He is naïve, deceiving, and like Superior Argument, his own physicality defeats him. Not only does he take advantage of Socrates' sophist education to defraud his fellow citizens from the money he owes them, but he proceeds to burn down the sophist school at the end of the play, when he finally becomes fed up with the teachings of Socrates ("I'm not going to fiddle around with lawsuits, no, I'll burn those babbling bastards out, that's what I'll do!" 1484-85). These unfavorable characteristics look quite bad for one who represents the goodness of traditional values. Although Aristophanes puts emphasis on the absurdity of Socrates and his school of thought, his criticism for his own beliefs, in the traditional ideas, makes the old values seem just as absurd.

Another character that represents the traditional values is Prometheus. One can easily mistake Prometheus as a character that represents the modern ideas, as he gives fire and hope to humans; fire representing "human progress" or technological advancements, and Zeus (the tyrant) representing the old ways of thinking. However, in Greek mythology, the Titans were the first race of gods who were overthrown by the younger gods, the Twelve Olympians, lead by Zeus. This is why Aeschylus meant for Prometheus to represent tradition, and for Zeus to represent the result of one taking the laws into his own hands. Prometheus Bound is about a titan being punished by an Olympian god for giving fire and hope to humanity. Aeschylus' intention is to show what happens when one takes the law into his own hands, as Zeus does in this play, which results in his new rule anchored by tyranny and force. But the tyranny of Zeus is rather unobtrusive in the face of Prometheus' punishment; the punishment of Prometheus, who represents the old values, is emphasized, rather than the tyranny of Zeus. It is certainly not convincing when the prize of one's efforts is punishment. Because of this, Aeschylus' attempt to show the tyranny of Zeus, is inadequate in convincing one to trust in the traditional values rather than people's power to make their own laws.

Prometheus changes throughout the play. He is first seen as an intellectual figure who accepts his fate, believing that he will be eventually be reconciled with Zeus (in lines 169-78 he says, "Yes, there shall come a day for ... when he shall need me ... he shall not cow me with his threats to tell him what I know, until he free me from my cruel chains"). But as the play progresses, he becomes more defiant, taking back his emphasis on his reconciliation with Zeus and focusing more on his own importance instead, and boasting about the gifts which he gave to humanity ("to my sorrow, where the devices which I found for men, but have no clever means to rid myself of the afflictions now oppressing me" 468-70). Towards the end of the play, Prometheus is no longer the representation of calmness and intellect, but characterized as one who rebels against authority, and boasts of his gifts to humanity. These unattractive qualities shown in Prometheus do not convince one to trust in tradition rather than on one's power to rule by his own laws.

Both playwrights situate their traditionalist characters in unfavorable positions in order to show them in a better light, at least when compared next to their villainous opposites who use force or sophistic language to defeat or outsmart their enemies. However, the unfavorable positions in these cases positively outweigh the desire of being morally correct, or courageous. Both playwrights hoped to enlighten the people of their time, by implementing their philosophical views in the plays. However, the traditional values, which they hoped to uplift in their plays, come off as weak and sometimes absurd. In some cases, their portrayal of the traditionalist values are so weak that one might question whether or not it was by their hands the plays were written. Interestingly, there is much debate on whether it was even Aeschylus who wrote the play of Prometheus. The debate hinged on the image of Zeus in the play, who is shown as a cruel and unjust tyrant, which is at odds with the wise and just Zeus that Aeschylus presents in Oresteia. Whether or not their beliefs were strongly displayed in Clouds or Prometheus Bound, their plays were certainly pivotal to our understanding of classical mythology.

Sources:

Dover: Dover, K. J., ed. Aristophanes' Clouds. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.
Aeschylus. Griffith, Mark, ed. Prometheus Bound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.