Acharnians, discourse analysis, and the construction of a panhellenic WE

The one passage of Acharnians that deserves the label of ‘political discourse’ without reservation is Dikaiopolis' speech in the guise of the tragic Telephos. Its crucial importance for the interpretation of Acharnians as a whole has been underlined by MacDowell (1995: 66–7): ‘That all this [= Dikaiopolis' speech] is meant to be taken seriously, as a convincing argument, is confirmed by what happens afterwards. Neither the chorus of Akharnians nor any other character contradicts what Dikaiopolis has said.’¹⁴⁸ Some

147 De Ste. Croix's appendix is a necessary reaction against Gomme (1938), whose concept of a quasi-photographic neutral playwright looks Chekhovian, not Aristophanic.

For further references supporting de Ste. Croix's position see Harvey (2000: 97, 119 n. 38).

148 Cf. Foley (1988: 39–43). Carey (1993: 251–8) wants to separate the war in Acharnians fromthe Peloponnesian War, but is it possible during a real war to stage a play on war and peace that will not be automatically understood as referring to the real war?

have denounced Dikaiopolis' peace as selfish (Dover 1972: 87–8; Newiger 1980: 223; Foley 1988: 45–6), but since his course of action is imagined as being open to everybody, the later refusal to share the blessings of peace with other men (not women, for women do not have the option of acting on their own) is didactic rather than cruel and does not invalidate the righteousness of Dikaiopolis' words (cf. MacDowell 1995: 75–7).

By analysing the use of person-deixis in Dikaiopolis' speech, I propose to show how ideology and persuasive power are enacted in a very concrete manner. Person-deixis is an ideal test case because it plays a central role in creating linguistic

‘subjectivity’ (Benveniste 1966: 261–3). In fiction, for example, ‘the choice of a first person narrator where the “I” is also a primary character in the story produces a personal relationship with the reader which inevitably tends to bias the reader in favour of the narrator/character’ (Leech–Short 1981: 265). The persuasive function of person-deixis in modern political speeches has been shown by Chilton–Schäffner (1997: 216–19).

Dikaiopolis defends himself for having concluded a private peace-treaty with the enemy after bellicose elements threw him out of the people's assembly at Athens. He argues that, although he too hates the Spartans, he must blame the Athenians themselves for the current war. In his first words he acknowledges that he has become an outcast from Athenian society. There is a clear opposition between the πτωχός as 1 (represented by the enclitic pronoun μοι) on the one hand and the Athenian addressees (ἄνδρες οἱ θεώμενοι, ἐν ᾽Αθηναίοις) as YOU on the other (Ach. 497–9):

μήμοιfθονήσητ᾽, ἄνδρες οἱ θεώμενοι, εἰπτωχὸςὢν ἔπειτ᾽ἐν ᾽Αθηναίοιςλέγειν μέλλω περὶ τῆς πόλεως, τρυγῳδίαν ποιῶν.

Be not indignant with me, members of the audience, if, though a beggar, I speak before the Athenians about public affairs in a comedy.

Instantly, the picture becomes more complex. It has often been noted (cf. A. M. Bowie 1982: 29–32; Slater 1993:

407–8; Foley 1988: 33, 37) that the 1 of Dikaiopolis begins to combine an 11of Dikaiopolis and an 12of Aristophanes (as it had done before, in Ach. 378–82). This is an important device to make the speech

acceptable both to the chorus and to the audience since the outlaw's 11is now inseparable fromthe 12of the officially elected poet.¹⁴⁹ In the interactional terminology of Goffman (1981; cf. Duranti 1997: 295–307), the fusion of the

‘animator’, i.e. ‘the one who produces or gives a voice to the message that is being conveyed’ (= Dikaiopolis), with the

‘author’, i.e. ‘the one who is responsible for the selection of words and sentiments that are being expressed’

(= Aristophanes), leads to a situation in which the role of the ‘principal’, i.e. ‘the person whose position or beliefs are being represented’, is taken up jointly by Dikaiopolis and Aristophanes.

At the same time a third groupTHEY₁(ξένοι) enter. The identification of the newly mentioned πόλις with the ᾽Αθηναῖοι (YOU) a few lines earlier is straightforward, but the individual Κλέων is singled out (HE). Linguistically it is not clear whether Κλέων is actually a member of the YOU (Ach. 501–3):

ἐγὼδὲ λέξω δεινὰ μέν, δίκαια δέ.

οὐ γάρμενῦν γε διαβαλεῖΚλέωνὅτι ξένωνπαρόντωντὴν πόλινκακῶς λέγω.

And what I have to say will be shocking, but it will be right. This time Cleon will not allege that I am slandering the city in the presence of foreigners.

The next line brings the first move towards integration. The 1 (as ‘Aristophanic’ 12no longer outlawed) and theYOU

become united asWEin the first-person plural form ἐσμέν. Also the identity of theTHEY₁(ξένοι) is specified: not all the non-Athenians are meant but only the ξύμμαχοι (Ach. 504–6):

αὐτοὶγάρἐσμενοὑπὶ Ληναίῳ τ᾽ ἀγών, κοὔπωξένοιπάρεισιν^. οὔτε γὰρ fόροι ἥκουσιν οὔτ᾽ ἐκ τῶν πόλεωνοἱ ξύμμαχοι.

For we are by ourselves and it's the Lenaean competition, and there are no foreigners yet; neither tribute money nor troops have arrived from the allied cities.

Dikaiopolis-Aristophanes then goes on to explain the composition of theWEin greater detail:WEcomprises both ἀστοί and μέτοικοι.

149 E. L. Bowie (1988: 184) suggests that the name ‘Dikaiopolis’ was modelled upon ‘Eupolis’, but even so the identification holds: the difference between the names implies that another comic poet is speaking—Aristophanes.

What had looked so far like an exclusively Athenian category imperceptibly acquires a first international aspect through this inclusion of the μέτοικοι as ‘ratified participants’ (Ach. 507–8):

ἀλλ᾽ἐσμὲν αὐτοὶνῦν γε περιεπτισμένοι^. τοὺς γὰρμετοίκουςἄχυρατῶν ἀστῶνλέγω.

This time we are alone, ready hulled; for I reckon the immigrants as the civic bran.

After the 1 is firmly established in theWE (so that he can address the audience/YOU as fίλοι), a new outside group

THEY₂ (Λακεδαιμόνιοι) is introduced (Ach. 509–14):

ἐγὼδὲ μισῶ μὲνΛακεδαιμονίουςσfόδρα … κἀμοὶγάρ ἐστιν ἀμπέλια κεκομμένα.

ἀτάρ, fίλοιγὰροἱ παρόντες ἐν λόγῳ, τί ταῦτατοὺς Λάκωναςαἰτιώμεθα;

Now I hate the Spartans intensely … I too have had vines cut down. But look—for there are only friends here listening—why do we blame it all on the Laconians?

The following lines look again at theWE. It is now subdivided into a πόλις fraction, easily identifiable as a continuation of the WE, and a fraction of people who are set apart as THEY₃, the ἀνδράρια μοχθηρά. It is not made explicit, but perhaps the audience are meant to include among theTHEY₃the oneHEwho had been separated fromthe πόλις earlier:

Κλέων. Also, there are the Μεγαρῆς, in theory as THEY₄, but since they represent, like the Laconians, the enemy from outside and are neither ξύμμαχοι (THEY1) nor ἀνδράρια μοχθηρά among the citizens (THEY3), they can be included in the group THEY₂ (Ach. 515–19):

ἡμῶνγὰρ ἄνδρες, οὐχὶτὴν πόλινλέγω—

μέμνησθε τοῦθ᾽, ὅτι οὐχὶ τὴν πόλιν λέγω—

ἀλλ᾽ἀνδράρια μοχθηρά, παρακεκομμένα, ἄτιμα καὶ παράσημα καὶ παράξενα, ἐσυκοfάντειΜεγαρέωντὰ χλανίσκια

For it was men of ours—I do not say the city; remember that, I do not say the city—but some bent, ill-struck pieces of humanity, worthless counterfeit foreign stuff, who began denouncing the Megarians' little woollen cloaks.

Dikaiopolis adds a description of how the sycophants (THEY₃) heap provocation upon provocation until the THEY₂

(Μεγαρῆς) react—and thus, rather paradoxically, trigger their own integration. All the Greeks (῾´Ελληνες πάντες) are united in their suffering fromthe ἀνδράρια μοχθηρά, who have stirred up the ‘Avenging God’ (Περικλέης). In other words, theWEand theTHEY₂(and implicitly also theTHEY₁who are, as ξύμμαχοι, involved in the war) have been melted together and Dikaiopolis' rhetoric has managed not to oppose Athenians (WE+THEY₃) and non-Athenians (THEY₁+

THEY₂), but good Greeks (WE +THEY₁ + THEY₂) and bad Greeks (THEY₃) (Ach. 526–31):

κᾀ̑θ᾽οἱ Μεγαρῆςὀδύναις πεfυσιγγωμένοι ἀντεξέκλεψαν ᾽Ασπασίας πόρνας δύο.

κἀντεῦθεν ἁρχὴ τοῦ πολέμου κατερράγη

῾´Ελλησι πᾶσιν, ἐκ τριῶν λαικαστριῶν.

ἐντεῦθεν ὀργῇΠερικλέηςοὑλύμπιος ἤστραπτ᾽, ἐβρόντα, ξυνεκύκατὴν ῾Ελλάδα.

After that the Megarians, garlic-stung by the smart, stole two whores of Aspasia's in retaliation. And from that broke forth the origin of the war upon all the Greeks: fromthree prostitutes. Then in his wrath Olympian Pericles lightened and thundered and threw Greece into turmoil.

Through the skilful manipulation of person-deixis, Dikaiopolis (or Aristophanes) first establishes himself as the spokesman of the polis and subsequently does not allow his audience to construct different categories. If they want to find themselves at the end on the good side, as innocent sufferers, they have to accept their prime enemies as companions. The speech of an individual first widens into an Athenian discourse but ends up in the same panhellenic mood that will characterize a few years later the next peace-play, Peace.¹⁵⁰Every Athenian, Aristophanes teaches, has (a) an identity as an individual, (b) an identity as an Athenian, and (c) an identity as a Greek. An Athenian national comedy therefore does not, or cannot, exclude a positive attitude towards the panhellenic idea.

150 Cf. Dover (1972: 136–9), Newiger (1980: 227), and also Cassio (1985a: 142–5), despite his focus on the ‘panionic’ ideology of Peace (pp. 105–18). On the emergence of panhellenismsee E. Hall (1989a: 8–9).

3.3. Lysistrata, sociolinguistics, and the cultural impact of language