Customer Reviews

Socrates and Aristophanes

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

While the introduction, conclusion and first essay (on "Clouds") is apparently anchored in an argument between philosophy and poetry, the further Strauss leaves "Clouds" behind, the more we see through his close reading of the plays, in a way we never do from the younger Plato, the cultural disintegration of Athens under the assault of the war. Euripides, not Socrates, emerges at the real opponent and comedy triumphs over both tragedy and philosophy as the best teacher. This brings us close to an historical experience so often lost in classical studies, particularly in political philosphy, the madness in the streets of Athens and the fully-formed, transcendent characters which emerge with the comic treatment. These are not the spoiled aristocratic youth clustered around Socrates or the sophists (Plato's real enemies - not the poets). These are the men and women at the corner bar. This book makes you wish Strauss had done a "Hobbes and Shakespeare." His evident enjoyment of his subject leaks through with increasing intensity the further he seems to drift from his dichotomy. Could it be Strauss wished to remind his followers, ever so gently, to, like, lighten up and read a good comedy, even in the Greek some labor so hard to acquire? The book at least raises two questions: how did the bold Aristophanes avoid capital punishment? why did the ironic, diplomatic Socrates accept his?

In this book Leo Strauss takes Aristophanes depiction of Socrates as a serious political attack. No longer is Aristophane's attack rationalized away as a mistake as it is ussualy done by many authors (e.g. that he mistook Socrates as a Sophist) or that Socrates was an easy target for riducule because of his 'ugly' looks. Strauss, writes that Aristophanes personally knew Socrates (unlike for example Aristotle), and as seen in the Platonic dialogue 'The Symposium' he was also a good friend of Socrates. Thus, Aristophanes attack on Socrates is not done out of hate, rather it was done in friendship. The same kind of friendship that we also see in Plato's Republic, where Socrates attacks Thrasymachus while at the same time becoming his friend. What Aristophanes depicts in his play 'The Clouds' is a "young" Socrates, one who does not know yet the wisdom of respecting a city's Gods. The Socrates that we all know and like, emerges much later and it is the Platonic Socrates, not the Socrates that Aristophanes knew. The Aristophenian Socrates had yet to learn his 'lessons'. Strauss is not biased against the profane language found in Aristophanes plays and does not view Aristophanes any less of a wise man for it. Indeed, Strauss seems to share some of the same convictions in regards to Aristophanes as Friedrich Nietzsche. In Nietzsche's book Beyond Good and Evil, one reads: "As for Aristophanes-that transfiguring, complementary spirit for whose sake one forgives everything Hellenic for having existed, provided one has inderstood in its full profundity all that needs to be forgiven and transfigured here-there is nothing that has caused me to meditate more on Plato's secrecy and sphinx nature than the happily preserved petit fait that under the pillow of his deathbed there was found no "Bible", nor anything Egyptian, Pythagorean, or Platonic-but a volume of Aristophanes. How could even Plato have endured life-a Greek life he repudiated-without an Aristophanes? (section, 28)

This book follows the typical Strauss pattern: In the first few pages he makes a blanket statement (in this case, Aristophanes is a reactionary; in Thoughts on Machiavelli it was, Machiavelli is evil), then follows it up will a torturous and nuanced analysis of the thinker's ideas until you begin to wonder: In what way is Aristophanes a reactionary or Machiavelli, evil. He tells you the picture is black and white, then he brings you in so close that it all turns gray. Be this as it may, Plato's Symposium and Republic (especially Republic X where Socrates bans the poets from his just city) tells only half the story (philosophy's side). In this book Strauss tells the other half (poetry's side). In essence, Symposium and Republic (and to a certain extent, Phaedo) make up Plato's case as to why philosophy should be the teacher of public morality instead of poetry. Strauss' book takes Aristophanes' eleven existing plays and presents his opposing arguments, his defence of poetry and attack on philosophy. Interesting read for we who sit the other side of Plato's Republic (i.e. Medieval Christendom, where there is no longer any contest between Thomas Aquinas and Dante Aligheri).

This book is a detailed analyasis of Aristophanes plays, their themes and their political, if we must say it- cultural, sigfigance on Athenians and the larger Greek world. This book is so interesting because a philosopher is anyalysis the works of art and then comaparing them with his intimate knowledge of classical political philosophy. The highlight is how well Aristophanes does in depecting accurately the life of 'the' philosopher, the philosopher par excellance- Socrates. If you have a favourable prejudice towards Socrates, you may not like this book because Strauss is rigourous in his insistence on detailing the real Socrates, the famous natural philosopher who is fascinated by insects and what they can tell him about the whole of life, even morality. Morality seems to be a distant, almost unimportant concern to the natural philosopher Socrates. But nay, it is this very point where Aristophanes' perspective on Socrates falters and it is why poetry cannot comprehend philosophy. Strauss subtly argues only a philosopher, like Socrates and Plato, can be the ultimate judge of good and evil. Where Aristophanes is dependent upon the city for approval, and looks to the city for his poetry, although he claims to be the originator of it, Socrates looks beyond the city, philosophy is concerned with the transpolitical.