I – PRAXAGORA'S PLOT

In Ecclesiazusae a group dissatisfied with the present state of affairs makes secret plans to pass a motion in the assembly to alter the constitution and to obtain power for their own ends, going on to force citizens to hand over their property to the state. Yet, despite a plot that bears similarities to the oligarchic coups of the late fifth century,Footnote ⁴ Aristophanes takes care not to stress such elements too strongly. This is not surprising since the rule of the Thirty in 404 proved so divisive and traumatic that an official amnesty, μὴ μνησικακεῖν, was passed (Andoc. 1.90; Xen. Hell. 2.4.43; Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 39.6). As far as one can tell from the limited evidence of the early fourth century, few writers except historiographers and the writers of legal speeches mention the Thirty in the post-war years. Meanwhile, comic poets generally avoided the mention of particularly traumatic events such as the stasis or the plague of the 420s, and the same appears true of the events of 404:Footnote ⁵ for example, jokes in Aristophanes flippantly accusing characters of tyranny, so common in earlier plays, do not exist in Ecclesiazusae. Footnote ⁶ The Ecclesiazusae was performed at least ten years after 404,Footnote ⁷ so, although a reasonable amount of time had allowed the most painful wounds of stasis to heal and Athens to recover some external political influence, the disaster of defeat and the upheavals of the Thirty remained a relatively recent memory.

Of course, any perceptions of oligarchy would also be tempered by the fact that the plot of Ecclesiazusae was only revealed gradually during the course of the play. Praxagora's original speech only reveals that the women are planning to infiltrate the assembly and the full details of the plan emerge gradually over the next 250 lines of the play. Yet, as the plot is revealed, Aristophanes employs a mixture of language appropriate to democratic discourse in the assembly alongside more sinister phrases hinting at an oligarchic coup.

Praxagora's opening monologue immediately establishes the register of assembly-style speech, remarking that the plan ‘was decided by my friends during the Skira’, Σκίροις ἔδοξε ταῖς ἐμαῖς φίλαις (Eccl. 18).Footnote ⁸ This use of common formulae from assembly decrees such as ἔδοξε τῷ δῆμῳ has echoes elsewhere in Aristophanes, where festivals such as the Skira and the Thesmophoria function as female counterparts to the male assembly.Footnote ⁹ So far, so democratic, but the reference to Praxagora's φίλαι begins to suggest a certain degree of exclusivity for, while φίλαι is a fairly neutral term, it still denotes a close group of associates rather than the dēmos as a whole.Footnote ¹⁰ Praxagora then goes on to wonder where her ἑταῖραι are (Eccl. 23), a word that, as Scholtz points out,Footnote ¹¹ comes with significantly more sinister overtones than φίλαι.Footnote ¹² The oligarchic clubs responsible for the coups of 411 and 404 b.c.e. were known as ἑταιρεῖαι, and the term ἑταῖροι is used elsewhere to refer to the oligarchic conspirators of these coups (Thuc. 8.65.2, 8.92.4; Xen. Hell. 2.3.46, Hier. 3.8; Lys. 12.43).Footnote ¹³ Thus, Praxagora's use of ἑταῖραι in the context of plots and secret meetings seems to cast a degree of doubt over her democratic credentials.

Following this speech, the women then go on to describe their attempts at disguising themselves, making several botched attempts at practising speeches before Praxagora finally speaks and reveals her plan in a trial-run for her speech to the assembly. At this point, Praxagora states that ‘there was a time when we Athenians didn't call any assemblies’, ἐκκλησίασιν ἦν ὅτ’ οὐκ ἐχρώμεθα | οὐδὲν τὸ παράπαν (Eccl. 183–4). The majority of commentators have taken this as a joke about the emptiness of the assembly before the introduction of pay, basing their interpretation on the joke that follows about Agyrrhius, the man responsible for instituting a stipend for assembly attendance.Footnote ¹⁴ While this reading makes sense in light of the following line, ‘but we knew Agyrrhius was a knave then’, ἀλλὰ τόν γ’ Ἀγγύρριον | πονηρὸν ἡγούμεσθα (Eccl. 184–5), it misses what would be the most immediate instance in recent memory of Athens functioning without an assembly—the two periods of oligarchic rule at the end of the fifth century. Although the mention of Agyrrhius makes the preceding line palatable, Aristophanes’ text claims one meaning for the line while fully aware that another more sinister interpretation would have been the first conclusion the audience reached. As with the earlier references to ἑταῖραι, a more sinister interpretation flickers for a moment before, this time, being quickly explained away by the subsequent joke about Agyrrhius.

Despite these sinister hints, the speeches of Praxagora and her ἑταῖραι reveal a high familiarity with the democratic language of the assembly. Thus, Praxagora asks the assembled women, τίς ἀγορεύειν βούλεται; (Eccl. 130),Footnote ¹⁵ echoing the appeal of Aeschines’ assembly herald,Footnote ¹⁶ and also prefaces her own speech with the customary prayer to the gods and a declaration of her own interest in the state, τοῖς θεοῖς μὲν εὔχομαι | τυχεῖν κατορθώσασα τὰ βεβουλευμένα. | ἐμοὶ δ’ ἴσον μὲν τῆσδε τῆς χώρας μέτα | ὅσονπερ ὑμῖν (Eccl. 171–4).Footnote ¹⁷ Even her hapless accomplices have enough familiarity with assembly speeches to preface their own attempts with tropes such as the ‘I wish that one of the usual speakers had spoken’ line, ἐβουλόμην μὲν ἕτερον ἂν τῶν ἠθάδων | λέγειν τὰ βέλτισθ’ (Eccl. 151–2).Footnote ¹⁸ Yet, while the other women are needed in order to swing the vote at the assembly, there is also a constant risk that they will reveal their identity and thwart a scheme which is very much Praxagora's own. Praxagora's statement that she learnt to speak καλῶς by listening to the orators on the Pnyx when she lived there ἐν ταῖς φυγαῖς marks her out as different to the other women (Eccl. 241–4):

Acknowledging Praxagora's leadership, the other women promise to elect her στρατηγός if the plan succeeds: καί σε στρατηγòν αἱ γυναῖκες αὐτόθεν | αἱρούμεθ’, ἢν ταῦθ’ ἁπινοεῖς κατεργάσῃ (Eccl. 246–7).Footnote ²⁰ The use of the title στρατηγός combined with the verb αἱρέομαι (often used to signify election to office, for instance Hdt. 1.96, Pl. Menex. 90b, Pl. Ap. 28e) further orientates Praxagora within the confines of democracy. Since the στρατηγός is one of the few elected offices in Athenian life, it is a perfect fit for Praxagora who needed to be chosen directly for her rhetorical ability and political leadership.Footnote ²¹ This formalization of Praxagora's role through election (albeit in the parallel assembly of the women) places her in a similar position to earlier democratic leaders. The most famous example of this is Pericles who derived his authority from his elected position by virtue of his exceptional abilities rather than as a potential oligarch.Footnote ²²

The role of στρατηγός was hardly limited to the military sphere either: Hansen lists several privileges and duties accorded to στρατηγοί including the right to attend and address the βουλή, presiding over the People's Court in cases under military law and disputes between trierarchs, and taking the oath (alongside members of the βουλή) on behalf of the state when signing treaties with other states.Footnote ²³ It is not surprising then to find that Praxagora's new role clearly encompasses assembly leadership, since, in the lines preceding her report of the assembly's activities, the chorus declare that they can see their στρατηγός coming back from the assembly (Eccl. 500–1). While the tactic of cementing one's domestic leadership in Athens by being elected στρατηγός was not as common in the 390s as it had been amongst the politicians of the fifth century, the practice had not died out completely.Footnote ²⁴

Thus, when Chremes describes Praxagora's assembly speech he describes how her supporters raised an uproar, ἐθορύβησαν (Eccl. 431), and how Praxagora (still in disguise and thus referred to with the masculine article ὁ) held her opponents in check with her shouting, ὁ δὲ κατεῖχε τῇ βοῇ (Eccl. 434). Praxagora's ability as a speaker of persuasive arguments has already been demonstrated in the play's opening scenes, but now her skill as a shouter and brawler is revealed as well. This further aligns her with Aristophanic descriptions of assembly leaders from the 420s, paralleling Pericles’ thundering or Cleon's loud voice in the 420s.Footnote ²⁵ Meanwhile, the phrase κατεῖχε τῇ βοῇ also recalls Thucydides’ famous description of Pericles’ political leadership, describing how Pericles ‘easily restrained the masses’, κατεῖχε τὸ πλῆθος ἐλευθέρως (Thuc. 2.65.8). Indeed, this passage of Thucydides, with its meditation upon the crisis in leadership in Athens following Pericles’ death, bears considerable parallels with the appeal to leadership in Ecclesiazusae. Athens needs a leader skilled in assembly speech and able to rise above self-interest. By virtue of her position as στρατηγός (later transformed into the feminine στρατηγίς, Eccl. 835, 870), Praxagora's language and rhetorical skill (as well as her very name) portray her not as an oligarch but as the type of popular leader no longer present in post-war Athens, evoking previous Aristophanic protagonists. Her skill with words (albeit with considerably less invective) and her reforming vision position her as a similar character to the Sausage-Seller in Knights or to Lysistrata, who states that she learnt rhetoric from her father (Lys. 1126–7).Footnote ²⁶

Further reassurance of Praxagora's democratic credentials is provided by her and Blepyrus’ social standing. Oligarchs were commonly thought of as wealthy individuals who were eager for a greater share of power than democracy allowed, yet, by contrast, Praxagora and Blepyrus seem to be struggling to make ends meet in Ecclesiazusae. Throughout the opening half of Ecclesiazusae, the language of poverty rather than wealth is used and it is clear that Praxagora's plan arises out of material need rather than a desire for power. Alan Sommerstein has highlighted post-war poverty as one of the central concerns in both Ecclesiazusae and Wealth,Footnote ²⁷ and much of Praxagora's dissatisfaction with the state can be boiled down to the relative poverty of the ordinary Athenian. Indeed, her plan to hold everything in common seems designed to win favour by eliminating the gap between rich and poor (Eccl. 588–94). Thus, one co-conspirator complains that her children are naked through lack of clothes (Eccl. 92), while Blepyrus, Praxagora's husband, seems to own only one cloak (Eccl. 333–4). Regardless of whether this indicates poverty or not,Footnote ²⁸ Blepyrus’ subsequent actions indicate a man who is not well off; he enthusiastically agrees with Euaeon's speech, anticipating Praxagora's plans by proposing that clothes be shared out equally amongst the citizens, and even adds that Euaeon should have gone further and proposed that grain dealers give food to the poor (Eccl. 408–26). In the self-interested Athens of the Ecclesiazusae, where people only vote in their own private interest,Footnote ²⁹ Blepyrus’ enthusiasm for Euaeon's suggestions betray his poverty. Although Praxagora herself makes no statements as to her own poverty, her husband's remarks reveal her lack of wealth. Praxagora's subsequent plans for redistribution confirm this reading since they are designed to ensure that everyone is able to eat and drink well rather than to be a property confiscation in the style of the Thirty.Footnote ³⁰

One factor remains to be considered—the status of women themselves. In a society like Athens where all citizens are male, is the transfer of power to women an inherently anti-democratic act?Footnote ³¹ While women were not technically citizens, it is noticeable that Praxagora's language and reforms are framed in a way that they are aimed to be beneficial only to Athenians themselves; for instance, Praxagora's sexual reforms forbid slaves and prostitutes from sleeping with citizens (Eccl. 721–4). This stands in contrast to Lysistrata, where the plans of the women are concocted in unison, alongside the women of other Greek cities.Footnote ³² Moreover, while women did not enjoy the status of male citizens, they were crucial to the continuing success of the state. Under Pericles’ citizenship law, a child was a citizen only if they were the child of both an Athenian mother and an Athenian father.Footnote ³³ Thus, while Praxagora and her friends do not have voting rights ordinarily, they are a crucial part of the Athenian democratic system. Their status as daughters, wives and mothers of citizens as well as the citizen-friendly nature of their reforms (it is noticeable that, unlike earlier plays, there is almost no discussion of the world outside Athens in Ecclesiazusae) means that, while male citizens are removed from power, the state continues to serve their interest since they are freeborn Athenians.

Moreover, as Ober points out,Footnote ³⁴ Ecclesiazusae engages in considerable blurring of gender roles. Not only do the women imitate male characteristics, both physically and linguistically, but the male members of the assembly are presented with feminine characteristics. Jokes about the links between clever speaking and sexual penetration are particularly common in Ecclesiazusae (for example, Eccl. 110–4), and Agyrrhius is presented as a former woman who is now a successful assembly speaker (Eccl. 103–4). Even before Blepyrus appears on stage in his wife's clothes, the division between male and female roles has been blurred in the play. While Ecclesiazusae makes considerable hay from the comic potential of what a gynaecocracy would look like, imagining how the polis would run if women ran it just like the oikos,Footnote ³⁵ the blurring of gender roles from the very startFootnote ³⁶ and the aggressively pro-citizen/anti-slave tone of Praxagora's reforms mean that the threat posed by Praxagora and her regime is not an anti-democratic one.

II – REMAKING THE ΠΑΤΡΙΟΣ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΑ

Rather than representing an oligarch, something that would be almost unpalatable on stage, Praxagora's language aligns her with an alternative form of political change, recalling the refining of the constitution and law-codesFootnote ³⁷ alongside the accompanying debates over the πάτριος νόμος (‘ancestral law’) and πάτριος πολιτεία (‘ancestral constitution’). These phrases had been adopted by a variety of political groups (including oligarchs)Footnote ³⁸ with wildly different interpretations of their meaning. The one constant was the stress on the pre-Cleisthenic origins of the constitution, as Solon, Draco and even Theseus were all invoked as lawgivers par excellence and arbitrators of ὁ πάτριος in Athenian public memory.Footnote ³⁹ The cataloguing and revising of laws was accompanied by a review of state sacrifices and the process lasted until 399/8 b.c.e.Footnote ⁴⁰ At the time of the performance of the Ecclesiazusae in the late 390s, therefore, these reforms would have appeared to be just the latest, most stable version of a succession of political revisions and experiments that had occurred over the past twenty years. Some proposals met with more success than othersFootnote ⁴¹ (and the actions of the Thirty had ensured that oligarchy was no longer a viable alternative), but in Ecclesiazusae’s depiction of post-war Athens, where the memories of the empire's prosperity are still prominent, there is a clear desire for change in an effort to recapture past glories.

In this context, Praxagora's long speech (Eccl. 214–40) about the conservatism of women takes on extra significance. The speech begins by declaring that Praxagora will show that women are superior in habit, the first example being that they dye their wool according to the ancient custom, κατὰ τὸν ἀρχαῖον νόμον (Eccl. 216). Unlike the city, which constantly strives for new things, they do things ‘just as they always have’, ὥσπερ καὶ πρὸ τοῦ. The speech continues with a long list of female comic stereotypes, all of which the women do ὥσπερ καὶ πρὸ τοῦ. This appeal to tradition appears to invoke the πάτριοι νόμοι many Athenian politicians and reformers claimed they wanted to recreate.

Moreover, Chremes’ description of why the assembly was so busy when Praxagora spoke, remarking that the assembly was packed since the Athenians were debating their salvation, περὶ σωτηρίας (Eccl. 396–7), also evokes an atmosphere of crisis and reform. Peter Rhodes, commenting on Athenaion Politeia’s quotation of a decree in the run-up to 411 (Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 29.2, 29.4),Footnote ⁴² has argued that the phrase περὶ σωτηρίας was a common formula for open debate in times of crisis; such a phrase is suitable therefore for Praxagora's Athens, where politicians like Thrasybulus have denied her anything more than a glimpse at σωτηρία peeking out (Eccl. 202–3). Chremes’ later comment on the assembly's decision to hand over power to the women adds further weight to this suggestion: ‘it seemed that this was the only thing which hadn't been tried’ (Eccl. 456–7). In other words, having tried and failed with every other form of government, why not hand over power to the women as a last resort? Such an attitude would only be possible in a situation where debates about what was πάτριος in relation to the constitution and the laws was still a recent memory.

The manipulation of ὁ πάτριος finds further echoes in the debate between Blepyrus’ neighbour and the Selfish Man, where both sides invoke different interpretations of Athenian tradition. The Neighbour supports Praxagora's plans, stating that it is traditional for the Athenians to be open to new ideas: ‘You shouldn't fear opening a new vein, for us disregarding the old ways is better than any other form of government’, περὶ μὲν τοίνυν τοῦ καινοτομεῖν μὴ δείσῃς· τοῦτο γὰρ ἡμῖν | δρᾶν ἀντ’ ἄλλης ἀρχῆς ἐστιν, τῶν δ’ ἀρχαίων ἀμελῆσαι (Eccl. 586–7).Footnote ⁴³ Meanwhile, the Selfish Man, trying to convince the Neighbour that self-interest will prevent the Athenians from turning in their possessions, says that he will not turn in his property since it is not πάτριον to do so: ‘Do you think anyone with any sense will hand over their goods? It isn't traditional to do this’, οἴσειν δοκεῖς τιν’, ὅστις αὐτῶν νοῦν ἔχει; | οὐ γὰρ πάτριον τοῦτ’ ἐστίν (Eccl. 777–8).

Τhe contrariness of these two statements neatly illustrates the problem of invoking ὁ πάτριος, since both sides are able to claim that they are the ones who are operating within tradition. The attitude of the Selfish Man displays another major stumbling block to Praxagora's reforms, as the self-interest of some citizens prevents them from fully contributing to the best interests of the state,Footnote ⁴⁴ a parallel to the self-interest of the male assembly-members who are motivated solely by their daily attendance fee (Eccl. 186–8, 192–203, 206–8). By contrast, the ambiguity of the Neighbour's statement that it is in the Athenian character to innovate hints at the non-traditional nature of Praxagora's reforms (as well as perhaps previous systems tried by the Athenians). Even if Praxagora's way of life as a woman is traditional, the reforms, like all other proposed reforms, are not. The line suggests that the Athenians are well aware of the misuse of appeals to tradition by the late 390s. Indeed, the reactions of the male characters, both the Neighbour and the Selfish Man as well as Chremes and Blepyrus in the previous scene, to Praxagora's suggestions reveal a degree of uncertainty and fatigue over the debate surrounding ὁ πάτριος. Moreover, their reactions highlight the chief problem Praxagora faces—the self-interest of male citizens.

The eventual fate of the Selfish Man is famously ambiguous in Ecclesiazusae, since the scene closes with him claiming that he will be able to sneak into the feast without giving up his property (Eccl. 872–6), and he is never seen or heard of again.Footnote ⁴⁵ Ironic readings of the play have seen the Selfish Man as embodying the inevitable selfish element of human nature that Praxagora's reforms cannot overcome.Footnote ⁴⁶ However, I would follow Sommerstein and Slater in suggesting that the Selfish Man would likely be unsuccessful in his attempts. Sommerstein remarks that the Selfish Man's failure may have been predicted in the choral interlude which follows the scene and provides several examples of other Aristophanic ἀλαζόνες who leave threatening trouble and are never heard from again (Nub. 1254–5; Vesp. 1332–4, 1441; Av. 1052; Plut. 944–50).Footnote ⁴⁷

Slater also sees the Selfish Man as playing the role of a typical Aristophanic ἀλαζών in this scene. Yet, Slater points out, in contrast to most comedies, the ἀλαζών is not confronted by the protagonist. Since the dismissal of ἀλαζόνες often requires force, it would be unsuitable for Praxagora to play that role, and a substitute is thus needed.Footnote ⁴⁸ Indeed, the Neighbour is hardly an idealistic pushover in the debate, he holds his ground and, as Rothwell notes, ‘turns the Dissident's technique of sarcastic interruption against him’ (Eccl. 862–5).Footnote ⁴⁹ Secondly, Slater adds, the goods that the Selfish Man hangs onto would become less and less valuable as more and more citizens handed in their property (Eccl. 805–6 suggests that the majority are following Praxagora's orders).Footnote ⁵⁰ The Selfish Man thus represents both another example of male self-interest as well as fulfilling the role of a typical ἀλαζών.

Once Praxagora's reforms are formally approved, two further words relevant to contemporary politics and reform feature prominently, νόμοι and ψηφίσματα. Alongside the cataloguing of laws, the difference between these two terms had also been formally enshrined after 403: νόμοι were now permanent laws, applicable to the whole citizen body and collected and ratified by the νομοθέται, while ψηφίσματα were decrees of the assembly which had a limited duration or scope. In fourth-century Athens, the assembly had no power over the legislating of νόμοι (decrees of the assembly were ψηφίσματα) and were merely able once a year to suggest a review or amendment of a νόμος by the νομοθέται.Footnote ⁵¹

Given these recently defined concepts, an examination of how Ecclesiazusae uses the two terms is revealing of attitudes towards Praxagora's reforms. νόμος occurs much more frequently in the play compared to ψήφισμα,Footnote ⁵² yet it is the latter that is used to describe official decisions. Thus, ψήφισμα is used when discussing the assembly's decision to turn over power to the women (Eccl. 649, 812–13), and the law the First Old Woman uses to force the Young Man to sleep with her is likewise a ψήφισμα (Eccl. 1013). νόμος, meanwhile, seems unmarked, used to discuss Athenian customs but also to refer more generally to Praxagora's reforms.

By referring to Praxagora's reforms as ψηφίσματα, Aristophanes appears to invite questions about the validity of the new regime. Is it legitimate to change the constitution through a ψήφισμα? Opinion among modern scholars is split, depending on their reading of the ‘hag scene’, where many of the uses of νόμος and ψήφισμα occur. On the one hand, Ober argues that the distinction between the two terms was vague and that the resulting confusion provides perfect material for comedy. For Ober, the variant uses of the two terms in the play serve as evidence that Aristophanes jumbled the two terms together for comic effect. Praxagora's reforms are thus acceptable, legitimized by ‘the public speech act that established women as politically male’ and by her appeal to the ἀρχαῖος νόμος (Eccl. 214–40).Footnote ⁵³ Fletcher, meanwhile, argues that Aristophanes’ use of the word ψήφισμα shows that the reforms of the women cannot legally carry long-term implications since they are not νόμοι. Moreover, by abolishing the courts (Eccl. 655–7), Praxagora has removed the means by which her reforms could be overturned through the use of a γραφὴ παρανόμων.Footnote ⁵⁴

The contrary readings of Ober and Fletcher both draw attention to the problematic nature of enacting constitutional change through an assembly that could only pass ψηφίσματα. Yet, Fletcher's argument that the Old Women turn the ψήφισμα into a νόμος by referring to the law as νόμος in the second half of the sceneFootnote ⁵⁵ takes this reading too far. The reference to the reforms as νόμοι is not an indication of constitutional slipperiness but a sign that, within the diction of Ecclesiazusae, νόμος is the unmarked term, used to refer to any sort of rule, decree or custom that is not attached to a specific ruling of the assembly. Only assembly rulings are specifically described as ψηφίσματα in Ecclesiazusae, everything else remains as a νόμος. The specificity of ψηφίσματα in Ecclesiazusae is demonstrated by the fact that there are only four mentions of ψηφίσματα in the play: two instances when Praxagora's decrees are discussed in the middle of the play (Eccl. 649, 812–13), a reference to the decree of Cannonus (Eccl. 1090), and the instance when the First Old Woman quotes directly from the text of a law (Eccl. 1012–20):

In the rest of the scene the word ψήφισμα is not used (with the exception of Cannonus’ decree, Eccl. 1090), and the law is referred to as a νόμος when the characters are arguing over the execution and implications of the ruling rather than the decree itself. For example, the Young Man claims that if the νόμος is enforced then the country will be filled with Oedipuses, while the Old Women claim (in very general terms) that it is the νόμος which is responsible for the Young Man's plight (Eccl. 1041–2, 1077). This last instance, claiming κατὰ τὸν νόμον, returns us to the language of Praxagora's original appeal to tradition where women carry out their lives κατὰ τὸν ἀρχαῖον νόμον (Eccl. 216). More broadly, κατὰ τὸν νόμον commonly appears in Classical Greek historiography and oratory with the sense of ‘according to the laws’ or ‘according to custom’ (for instance, Hdt. 7.2; Thuc. 5.66; Andoc. 4.14.6; Isoc. 9.33.4), and it is this more general use which is being employed by the Old Women at the end of Ecclesiazusae.

Despite disagreeing over the legality of the reforms, both Ober and Fletcher agree that the confused language and the competing appeals to tradition poke fun at the confusion between νόμοι and ψηφίσματα. The combination of Praxagora's claims about the place of women in the ἀρχαῖος νόμος with her reliance upon ψηφίσματα satirizes the use and abuse of ὁ πάτριος. In Ecclesiazusae someone who claims to be the ultimate traditionalist relies on ψηφίσματα to force through her reforms, upending the common conception of democracy by allowing women to vote and then make policy. Similarly, are the arguments of the Old Women examined above a final example of the abuse of appeals to ancestral custom or a legitimate argument? There is clearly a tension here and I will return to the discussion of the ‘hag scene’ at the end of this paper.

III – ‘SPARTAN’ ELEMENTS IN ECCLESIAZVSAE

Praxagora's role as constitutional reformer and νομοθέτης, however far-fetched her claims, sheds further light on the Spartan-sounding aspects of her reforms.Footnote ⁵⁷ These Laconian elements begin when the women are plotting their takeover of the assembly and Praxagora tells them that they have Spartan boots and staffs, Λακωνικὰς καὶ βακτηρίας, while another woman says that she has brought along a club, σκύταλον (Eccl. 74–6), an item often associated with Laconophiles.Footnote ⁵⁸ Although the first two are common items of clothing in Aristophanes,Footnote ⁵⁹ the combination of the two items of clothing along with the σκύταλον gives the lines a particularly Laconian feel, prefiguring Praxagora's later redistribution and echoing Lycurgan reforms in Sparta.Footnote ⁶⁰ Thus Praxagora institutes communal dining (Eccl. 681–6, 715), the sharing of land and possessions between all citizens (Eccl. 590–4), and holding wives and children in common (Eccl. 613–15), descriptions which parallel contemporary accounts of Spartan living standards in Xenophon's Constitution of the Lacedaemonians.Footnote ⁶¹ These Lycurgan-style reforms are given a hedonistic twist by Aristophanes, of course; the sharing of wives (and husbands) is not to ensure that stronger children and domestic harmony were produced as in Sparta but merely to satisfy the desires of those who were previously poor in looks as well as in money.

Ephraim David's explanation for this Spartan turn is that the idealization of the Spartan way of life had already emerged in some aristocratic circles in fifth-century Athens and underwent further growth after the restoration of the democracy.Footnote ⁶² Originally associated with supporters of oligarchy, philo-Laconianism had to be re-evaluated in Athens in the 390s, when the Thirty had ensured that oligarchy was no longer a viable political alternative and instead took on a more theoretical, philosophical approach.Footnote ⁶³ As in the case of the invocations of ὁ πάτριος, Aristophanes places contemporary thought of the time on stage. He takes both ideas to extremes, though in different ways, taking the idea of holding everything in common to a ridiculous conclusion when applied to sex, while suggesting that women, who of course would ordinarily have no say in the assembly, should have rights over ὁ πάτριος since they are the most traditional of all the Athenians.

IV – PRAXAGORA AND THE ‘FOUNDING FATHERS’

This wholescale reform, along the lines of a famous reformer and using language current to the political climate of the 390s, creates laws and customs for a new constitution, thereby allowing Praxagora to assume leadership while still ensuring that the state remains notionally democratic. We have already noted that Praxagora bears significant similarities to previous Aristophanic protagonists when it comes to speaking in the assembly and leading the people. Yet, her proposals for change are far more radical than anything proposed by previous Aristophanic protagonists such as the Sausage-Seller. In the Athens of Ecclesiazusae, further reforms were still needed despite the changes made to the democracy in the aftermath of 403, and there appears to be a greater degree of frustration with the political status quo than previously. It is noteworthy that nowhere else in Aristophanes’ extant plays, even in Birds, is the possibility raised that the Athenian assembly of male citizens no longer exists. However, the abolition of the law-courts (Eccl. 655–60) and the repurposing of the Stoa Basileus for communal dining (Eccl. 673–86), along with the transfer of power to the women, dismantle the apparatus of the Athenian state, albeit while ensuring that democratic equality remains for the Athenians.

This radical suggestion is justified by tapping into the increasing interest in ‘founding father’ figures that seems to have arisen in the late fifth and early fourth centuries. Thucydides’ critique of the exalted status of Harmodius and Aristogeiton as tyrannicides who ushered in democracy (Thuc. 6.54–9) demonstrates that certain individuals were already being utilized as democratic heroes in the late fifth century. Meanwhile, the figure of a founding father in Sparta had already become prominent by the time of Ecclesiazusae; Herodotus credits Lycurgus with the founding of Sparta (Hdt. 1.65-6), while specific unnamed individuals in Sparta are credited with the responsibility for the reforms attributed to Lycurgus and Theopompus in Plato's Laws (Pl. Leg. 3.691e-692a). The foundation of Sparta was clearly associated with one individual by this time and may go some way to explaining the ‘Laconian’ elements in Praxagora's own plans. Yet, closer to home, it is the increasing profile of Solon that is of most interest for examining the portrayal of Praxagora.

Although studies of Solon's importance as a political figure in Athens generally focus on the latter half of the fourth century,Footnote ⁶⁴ it is clear that Solon was already a figure well known to Athenian audiences and, by the 390s, was already beginning to carry the associations he was famous for by the end of the fourth century. There are several instances where Solon appears in fifth-century comedy, and the comic playwrights seem to have employed his character in the role of legislator rather than poet.Footnote ⁶⁵ Thus in Eupolis’ Demes, Solon appears as one of four statesmen (alongside Miltiades, Aristides and Pericles) who are summoned to help advise the city in crisis,Footnote ⁶⁶ while Pheidippides in Clouds, displaying his new-found ability to wiggle his way out of law cases, references Solon's role as a legislator by stating that ‘old Solon was φιλόδημος in nature’ (Nub. 1187). Of most interest is the crucial scene in Birds, where Peisetaerus outwits Heracles by quoting Solon's law on the inheritance rights of νόθοι (‘bastards’) (Av. 1656–66):

Already before the events of 411, Solon appears as an authoritative legal voice. Solon's name possesses a certain cachet—for instance, in the passage from Birds quoted above, Peisetaerus’ assertion that the law is Solon's gives his argument extra legitimacy. However, the crucial step in anointing Solon as founding father came in the aftermath of the two oligarchic revolutions when the cataloguing and reform of the law-codes became intertwined with discussions about the constitution of Athens.

This change occurred in the aftermath of the Sicilian Expedition, when discussions about constitutional reform first emerged. We have already noted how Praxagora's language echoes the invocations of tradition, but it is important to note too that the language of the πάτριος πολιτεία quickly became linked to the figure of Solon. The primary method of restoring the πάτριος πολιτεία was legal reform and, since the process of cataloguing the laws was either first proposed in good faith by the 400 or begun shortly after the restoration in response to their rhetoric, legal reform (and thus, by extension, Solon) quickly became associated with the rhetoric of the πάτριος πολιτεία. The amendment of Cleitophon to Pythodorus’ decree in the run up to the coup of 411 (Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 29.3), proposing that the newly elected commissioners investigate the πάτριοι νόμοι of Cleisthenes in order to get back to a more democratic state of affairs, provides a good illustration of this connection and demonstrates how statesmen of the past became linked with constitutional and legal reform in late fifth-century Athens.

The enshrining of Athenian founding fathers and their links to legal and constitutional reforms became increasingly complex, as both oligarchs and democrats appealed to tradition.Footnote ⁶⁸ Instances such as the republication of Draco's homicide law (IG I³.104), Xenophon's report that the Thirty were appointed to catalogue the ancestral laws with which to govern (Xen. Hell. 2.3.2, ἔδοξε τῷ δήμῳ τριάκοντα ἄνδρας ἑλέσθαι, οἳ τοὺς πατρίους νόμους συγγράψουσι, καθ’ οὓς πολιτεύσουσι), Lysias’ statement that the Thirty called the assembly to debate περὶ τῆς πολιτείας before seizing power (Lys. 12.72), the claim of Andocides that, in the aftermath of the Thirty, it was decided to use the laws of Solon and Draco while the new law-code was being compiled (Andoc. 1.81), and the opening of Lysias’ Against Nicomachus, stating that Nicomachus had been appointed to catalogue the laws of Solon under the democracy and alleging that he had usurped Solon as law-giver (Lys. 30.2), demonstrate the connection between legal and constitutional reform and the subsequent appeals to tradition and deployment of founding fathers. Solon's later reputation as founder of the Athenian democracy was undoubtedly forged during this period and, as the opening of Against Nicomachus shows, by the 390s, legal and constitutional reforms were intertwined with the figure of Solon.Footnote ⁶⁹ Regarded as the Athenian legislator par excellence, Solon had thus become associated with the πάτριος πολιτεία and cast as founding father of Athenian democracy.Footnote ⁷⁰ The association between Solon and the founding of the Athenian democracy had been clearly established by the time of Ecclesiazusae’s production,Footnote ⁷¹ and it was this, along with a widespread interest in founding fathers elsewhere in the Greek world, that Aristophanes exploited in Ecclesiazusae. Praxagora's ideas and reforms cast her as a female lawgiver for the new Athens,Footnote ⁷² but why should Athens need a female Solon?

V – RETURNING TO POST-WAR ATHENS

One explanation lies in the frustrations expressed by the women with the current political system of Athens: the men behave like drunkards in the assembly, trust only worthless leaders, vote according to their own personal interests rather than consider what is best for the city, and are fickle, changing their mind and policies too often (Eccl. 136–43, 186–8, 192–203 and 206–8 respectively). Despite a few references to contemporary politicians such as Agyrrhius (Eccl. 102–3, 183–5) and Thrasybulus (Eccl. 202–3, 356), it is the Athenian people themselves who are the chief targets of Aristophanes’ criticisms as Praxagora clearly states that ‘you, the people, are responsible for these things’, ὑμεῖς γὰρ ἐστ’, ὦ δῆμε, τούτων αἴτιοι (Eccl. 205). Unscrupulous demagogues no longer lead the Athenians astray (as happens to Demos in the Knights Footnote ⁷³ or to the jurymen of the Wasps), nor do their problems lie with the infestation of parasitic characters such as the informers and father-beaters of Birds or the war-mongering magistrate of Lysistrata. The problem in Ecclesiazusae is simply that the Athenians are incapable of governing themselves without a leader guiding them in the assembly.Footnote ⁷⁴ The chorus illustrate this best when they look back to the days of Myronides, the noble one (ὁ γεννάδας), when no one would dare to take money for taking care of the city (Eccl. 304–8). A good leader is essential for the city's success, but there are no suitable men left.

By the late 390s, Aristophanes had lived through thirty years of the Peloponnesian War, the rule of the Thirty, and the resumption of war with Sparta just a few years later. The chances of a new virtuous leader arising amongst the citizen body (as the Sausage-Seller did in Knights) now seem remoter and, despite the recent reforms and refinements of the constitution, the same old problems remained for Athens. In the Athens of Ecclesiazusae, further reforms are still needed and, by using the language of constitutional reform and the recent interest in founding figures like Solon, Aristophanes removes the one constant factor in all the mistakes of the past forty years—the assembly of male citizens.

Whether or not this experiment works is subject to considerable debateFootnote ⁷⁵ with commentators focussing particularly on the inconclusive nature of the debate with the Selfish Man (although, as discussed at the end of section II, his status as ἀλαζών and the fact that the Neighbour is not the only one handing in his property suggest that he is unsuccessful) and the subsequent scene with the Young Man (named as Epigenes in some manuscripts) and the three Old Women. This scene is certainly problematic and raises as many questions about the nature and effects of Praxagora's sexual reforms as it does concerning the use and abuse of written law. By the letter of the new law, the Old Women (except for the second woman who refuses to give up Epigenes) are in the right, while Epigenes is wrong. Those who tend towards the ‘ironic’ interpretation of the scene see the use of law as a forcing device and the inappropriate age of the women as evidence Aristophanes was passing judgement on the gynaecocracy,Footnote ⁷⁶ exposing the new regime as preposterous and thereby reassuring the watching audience that such a state of affairs could never happen. Yet, this interpretation ignores the play's criticisms of Athenian self-interest and the crisis in leadership that is displayed in the descriptions of the Athenian assembly prior to Praxagora's reforms.

It is important to note that, in a comedy about the reversal of gender roles within the city, the actions of the Old Women are on a par with the ending of plays such as Acharnians or Peace, where the successful protagonists are rewarded with women who are significantly younger than them (for example, Ach. 1198–232, Pax 1316–59). The fulfilment of sexual desires (often with multiple women) is closely linked with prosperity and comic endings, and so we should not be surprised to see a reverse of this motif at the end of Ecclesiazusae when women are in power.Footnote ⁷⁷ More generally, Aristophanic comedy often strikes a hostile tone towards young men (for instance, Pheidippides in the Clouds or Bdelycleon in the final scenes of Wasps),Footnote ⁷⁸ and the ‘hag scene’ can be read as a further triumph of old over young. Indeed, Ecclesiazusae as a whole seems to focus on the benefits for the older generation of Athenians. There is little discussion of how old Praxagora is (there is no mention that she and Blepyrus have any children either young or old), although Praxagora's leadership role suggests she must be older than some of her co-conspirators (albeit still of child-bearing age, since Blepyrus is concerned that she might be sleeping with another man [Eccl. 519–25]). Meanwhile, Blepyrus’ physical difficulties in the toilet scene (Eccl. 311–71) suggest that he is not a young man. Moreover, the sexual reforms instituted by Praxagora clearly favour the old over the young. Praxagora's reforms usher in a gerontocracy as much as a gynaecocracy.Footnote ⁷⁹

Does this mean that we should read the ‘hag scene’ as a vindication of Praxagora's reforms? Several further factors need to be considered. First, as Slater notes,Footnote ⁸⁰ the Young Woman must be a citizen (all the prostitutes have been put out of business, Eccl. 718) and, thus, would have had little contact with the outside world before Praxagora's reforms. In this way, rather than being Menandrian young lovers, the Young Woman and the Young Man are unlikely to have met before. As Slater notes,Footnote ⁸¹ ‘the girl and the First Old Woman are not respectively love and lust personified, but merely inexperienced and experienced lust’. Several scholars have noted that both the Young Woman and the Old Woman act like the now-banished whores, soliciting the Young Man,Footnote ⁸² while Angus Bowie provides the intriguing suggestion that the solicitation of the Young Man may also have drawn parallels with the Adonia festival.Footnote ⁸³ This produces a different interpretation, effectively bringing the Adonia festival into the official calendar of Praxagora's new state (whose origins lay in the New-Year festival at the Skira)Footnote ⁸⁴ and legitimizing the actions and religious rites of the women of Athens.

Second, we must consider the age and societal status of the Old Women. HendersonFootnote ⁸⁵ argues that older women (i.e. those past child-bearing age) would have enjoyed considerably more freedom in Classical Athens than younger women and, moreover, are portrayed more positively than their younger counterparts by Aristophanes. In support of this point, Henderson notesFootnote ⁸⁶ a parallel to Ecclesiazusae’s ‘hag scene’ in Wealth (Plut. 959–1096), where a young man rejects the advances of his former older lover since he no longer needs her financial support. However, in the final scene of Wealth (Plut. 1197–203) the old woman and her lover are reunited. The positive portrayal of the liaison between young and old in Wealth should make us pause before condemning the Ecclesiazusae as a ‘dark and morbid protest against social change’.Footnote ⁸⁷

Finally, by resisting the Old Women, however foul they are, the Young Man does end up breaking the law. This is not to excuse the Old Women completely—their actions can certainly be interpreted as the need to protect those on the wrong side of revolution from overzealous enforcing of the law.Footnote ⁸⁸ Nothing prevents young Epigenes from fulfilling his desires with the Young Woman afterwards (except his own virility or lack thereof), yet he is still unwilling to comply with the law. Aware of the law, the Young Man attempts to evade the law and is subsequently punished.Footnote ⁸⁹ Like the Selfish Man before him, the Young Man attempts to circumvent the law for his own personal interest. His failure adds further evidence to suggest that the Selfish Man is unsuccessful,Footnote ⁹⁰ and yet again demonstrates the self-interest of the average male Athenian citizen.

I would suggest that both the episode of the Selfish Man and the ‘hag scene’ indicate the need for continuing leadership in Praxagora's newly reformed Athens. The two scenes demonstrate the continuing problem of self-interest among male citizens and Athens’ need for a lawgiver. However, the subsequent final scene, complete with invitation to the traditional comic feast ensures that Ecclesiazusae does end on an optimistic note as the audience are invited to go and share in the feast at their own home (Eccl. 1144–50). While this is a common enough joke in comedy,Footnote ⁹¹ the invitation to go home and share in the feast takes on new relevance for the ending of Ecclesiazusae. In an Athens where poverty and hunger are affecting large numbers of the population,Footnote ⁹² the closing invitations of Blepyrus and the Herald suggest that, in the world of Ecclesiazusae at least, the Athenians will no longer be hungry and that Praxagora's remodelling of the constitution has improved their lot. Aristophanes’ message is that there is a way out of the present predicament if the audience take responsibility for their actions and look beyond their own self-interest. Much of Praxagora's plan, satirizing ideas of reform current in the early fourth century, obviously could not be implemented beyond the comic stage, but there is a message that clear, long-term thinking and a willingness to act on behalf of public rather than private interest can help the Athenians out of poverty once they leave the theatre. In order to bring about these long-term thoughts and actions, an effective leader is needed to guide the Athenians away from short-sighted self-interest.

Aristophanes thus presents Praxagora as a protagonist in a further round of constitutional experimentation in Athens. This involves a certain amount of playfulness with the ambiguity of appeals to tradition and the sparse attendance of assemblies before the introduction of pay, hinting that Praxagora's plan may perhaps be another oligarchic plot. Yet, ultimately Aristophanes ensures that Praxagora is true to her reported word that women do not try to overthrow the democracy (Eccl. 452–3), and her reforms are very consciously designed to be inclusive to all citizens.Footnote ⁹³ This is in sharp contrast to the plans of a previous female leader, Lysistrata, whose agenda is much more antagonistic and threatens her citizen opponents with violence and death if they fail to acquiesce to her agenda.Footnote ⁹⁴

While Lysistrata's aims are centred solely around ensuring that she brings about an end to the war, Praxagora's plan is more wide-ranging. At the end of Lysistrata, an idealized peacetime status quo is restored (with male citizens in charge), but in Ecclesiazusae things are very different. Praxagora does not (and cannot after 404 b.c.e.) advocate another violent coup, but her words pick up upon the interest in founder figures, such as Solon and Lycurgus, as well as upon the invocation of tradition as a means to legitimize one's own reforms.

Praxagora's innovations ultimately reveal her as a new lawgiver rather than as someone attempting to revive older traditions. Despite the changes following the Peloponnesian War, Ecclesiazusae presents the current Athenian political system and its operators as dysfunctional. This is primarily down to the self-interest of the ordinary (male) citizen and the lack of any viable leadership rather than a criticism of democracy itself. The democracy needs further reform but the final two scenes of the play demonstrate, through the figures of the Selfish Man, Epigenes and the Old Women, that reform itself is not enough. Athens needs leadership, particularly someone who can operate within the speech and politics of the assembly, since, without continual leadership and guidance, the Athenians will lurch back into self-interest, showing little regard for the law. Yet, since men have revealed themselves to be universally governed by self-interest, this leader needs to be a woman. While contemporary politicians claimed to be attempting to return Athens to the old laws of Solon, Aristophanes creates a new female Solon to provide both reform and leadership, giving the state a fresh start.