Aeschylus Vs Euripides Analysis
When choosing a poet to give Athens much needed advice to save it from what seems to be the inevitable end to the Peloponnesian war, one might consider either Euripides or Aeschylus. Both are excellent tragedians. Based on one’s political beliefs, one will probably easily choose one over the other because they stand on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Euripides is for a more socially progressive state, whereas Aeschylus is for a more conservative form. However, there is a third, and in fact better option. Aristophanes is a comic who prefers comedy over tragedy. His works allow for discussion on more important issues such as the state of contemporary politics. His preference for relevant issues qualify him as the obvious candidate who
…show more content…
Euripides and Aeschylus have both implied that they believe that their interpretations of topics are correct by creating a definite end. They have leaned toward the opinion that Orestes and Electra were justified in their actions, although Euripides was not as one sided since he allowed Clytemnestra to explain her actions and had Orestes question the idea of matricide and consider the possible consequences. Based on how The Eumenides and Orestes end, with Electra and especially Orestes escaping punishment, it can be concluded that the audience is supposed to accept this end and the fact that they were not deserving of punishment (Aeschylus, The Eumenides, p.152). In The Knights, Aristophanes creates characters based on his observations. The sausage seller and the Paphlagonian use deception and lies so that Thepeople have a good opinion of them and allow them to do what they want. At the same time, the knights declare that they are in control while the people claim the same thing (Aristophanes, The Knights, p. 78). The knights represent the smaller but powerful aristocrats. This argument about who really controls who never comes to a definite conclusion, which creates an opportunity for people to discuss the relationship between the characters’ real world counterparts which in turn is a check on what has become the status quo. Aristophanes wants the audience to determine if the current system is fair, and if not, acknowledge it at the very least and hopefully do something about
Euripides and Aeschylus have both implied that they believe that their interpretations of topics are correct by creating a definite end. They have leaned toward the opinion that Orestes and Electra were justified in their actions, although Euripides was not as one sided since he allowed Clytemnestra to explain her actions and had Orestes question the idea of matricide and consider the possible consequences. Based on how The Eumenides and Orestes end, with Electra and especially Orestes escaping punishment, it can be concluded that the audience is supposed to accept this end and the fact that they were not deserving of punishment (Aeschylus, The Eumenides, p.152). In The Knights, Aristophanes creates characters based on his observations. The sausage seller and the Paphlagonian use deception and lies so that Thepeople have a good opinion of them and allow them to do what they want. At the same time, the knights declare that they are in control while the people claim the same thing (Aristophanes, The Knights, p. 78). The knights represent the smaller but powerful aristocrats. This argument about who really controls who never comes to a definite conclusion, which creates an opportunity for people to discuss the relationship between the characters’ real world counterparts which in turn is a check on what has become the status quo. Aristophanes wants the audience to determine if the current system is fair, and if not, acknowledge it at the very least and hopefully do something about