Leeds International Classical Studies 10.1 (2011) ISSN 1477-3643 (http://www.leeds.ac.uk/classics/lics/) © Michael Straus 1 Aristophanes’ Clouds in its ritual setting MICHAEL STRAUS (CAMBRIDGE) ABSTRACT: This article examines Aristophanes’ Clouds within the framework of the ritual events of the Great Dionysia, drawing parallels between those events and various textual and performative aspects of the play. It is argued that scholarship to date has largely subordinated the play’s ritual aspects, examination of which reveals that in fact Aristophanes has crafted a vigorous defense of polis religion against the ‘new thinking’ and ‘new gods’ represented by the play’s foil, Socrates. I. Introduction This article will explore ways in which comedy can function as part of the ritual experience of festival participants in fifth-century Athens. I use the term ‘ritual’ here to refer to a set of actions performed at specified times and in particular manners for the purpose of bringing the performer into contact or communication with a supra-human being or power. 1 In order to focus the issue, I will examine possible relationships between Clouds and the Great Dionysia with respect to the ritual events of the latter, with the goal of understanding ways in which the play itself might function as a ritual element of the festival. Among the comedies, Clouds has not often been considered from the point of view of its relationship to the events of the Great Dionysia. Rather, it is more often viewed as a critique or parody of new forms of philosophical and other speculative thought, where the character Socrates is not so much the historic individual as what Walter Burkert calls ‘an unholy alliance of sophistry and natural philosophy, of Protagoras and Diogenes of Apollonia... presented under the mask of Socrates’. 2 At the same time, it seems clear from the Apology that Socrates’ portrayal in the play affected the polis’ view of him. 3 From my perspective, however, the play’s depiction of Socrates and his ‘new thinking’ is relevant not so much as a seed for his later trial as for its critical response to such innovations in the context of fifth-century Athens’ polis religion. 1 See Larson 2007a:15-16; Burkert 1985:7-8; Seaford 1995:xi. 2 Burkert 1985:316. There is support for this view in the battle of the Stronger and Weaker Arguments. Compare, e.g. Nu. 114-15 (kてへkてすち k摂ち 推kiとてち kて宋ち そふけてすち, k摂ち 瑞kkてちg, ちすせ塑ち そ蹟けてちk赤 lgjす k刃hすせ説kiとg) and 889-1104 (the Arguments) with Prot. fr. B6a (k摂 k摂ち 瑞kkの h跡 そふけてち せとiかkkの ヾてすi宋ち) and with Pl., Ap. 19b5-c1 (ぇのせとうkさな 刃hすせi宋... k摂ち 瑞kkの そ折けてち せとi接kkの ヾてす蒼ち せg拙 甚そそてにな kg盛k責 kg漕kg hすhうjせのち). There is also support for such an interpretation given the students’ interest in k責 たik蹟のとg ヾと赤けたgkg, as well as their interest in logic and grammar. See ぇ Nu. 228 (ヾiと拙 kて窃kのち け責と kて宋な lすそてj折lてすな k責 こさk切たgkg); Guthrie 1969:3:27-51, 205 and 221; Kerferd 1981; see also Hubbard 1991:95, noting the play’s numerous variations on a theme of jてl接g. 3 Pl. Ap 19c1-4. For several possible relationships between the Socrates of the play and the historical figure, see Konstan 2011:75-88; Kanavou 2011:67-70; Gagné 2009:213; Price 1999:85- 7; see also Méautis 1938:97; Rogers 1930:32.