A Critique and Synthesis of Commentaries and Interpretations of

Aristophanes’ Birds
 Since its first performance in the spring of 414 BC, Aristophanes’ Birds has

defied a full explanation from any commentary, either modern or ancient. Whereas his

previous plays (Acharnians, Babylonians, Knights, Clouds, Wasps, and Peace) clearly

target specific politicians, policies, or aspects of the Athenian polis, Birds focuses on

none of these in particular. In comparison with these earlier plays, and even later ones,

Birds is almost a pure fantasy where the story and setting take precedence over traditional

aspects of Athenian drama; there is no break in the illusion, and even in the parabasis

and choral odes, the chorus retains its identity as the birds within the play, and there is

never an aside where the dramatic setting is broken. What are we to make of this play?

Birds combines a variety of motifs, and seems to draw its inspiration not from

specific events or personalities, but is rather a critique of Athenian ideology during the

Peace of Nicias. That is not to say that no specific individual is either referenced or

lampooned during the course of the play, but rather that it is not the intention of the play

to lampoon specific Athenian figures (as per Knights, Clouds, or Acharnians) or specific

Athenian institutions or concepts (as per Wasps, Peace, and, to a lesser extent,

Acharnians), but rather to examine Athenian ideology and pride, and the Athenian system

as a whole and its manipulation by powerful and persuasive demagogues.

This paper will examine various interpretations of Birds by both modern and

ancient commentators, in an attempt to give an overall view of the variety of ways in

which the play has been interpreted over the years. These commentaries and

interpretations will be analyzed in comparison with the original text of Birds and with

each other, in order to present a synthesized view of the text. My conclusion will show a

commonality between the differing interpretations, and from this commonality I will

1
offer an interpretation of the text dealing with the growing number and power of

demagogues within the city of Athens.

The plot of the play is as follows: two Athenians, Peisthetairos and Euelpides

willingly leave Athens to escape from debt and litigation in order to find a city that better

suits them. Each one has purchased a bird in order to find the hoopoe Tereus, a tragic

character from a play by Sophocles who had been transformed into a bird, and, in the

words of Euelpides, are trying to “go to the crows”, or more figuratively, “find the road

to hell.”1 Tereus is a bird who was once a man, and seems to carry traits of both, hence

the Athenians search for him as he has “all the knowledge of both men and the birds” and

wish his advice.2

Tereus suggests several places, all of them unacceptable to the pair, until

Peisthetairos suggests a council of the birds to found a new city in the air,

Cloudcuckoopolis.3 Peisthetairos suggests that the birds use this city to starve out the

gods and return the birds to their “former” place of power over all creation. As the city is

founded, several envoys arrive, some wanting to live in the new city, others simply

wanting a donation, and are generally driven off by Peisthetairos. Peisthetairos begins

assuming more and more power throughout the play, eventually being acknowledged as

turannos over the city by the end of the play.4 An embassy from the gods, both Greek

and barbarian, arrives to attempt a settlement, and agrees to hand over Zeus’ scepter and

1
Aristophanes, Birds, 30-32 (Eulepides: ou) deino\n ou)=n dh=t' e)sti\n h(ma=j deome/nouj e)j ko/rakaj
e)lqei=n kai\ pareskeuasme/nouj e)/peita mh\ 'ceurei=n du/nasqai th\n o(do/n;)
2
Aristophanes, Birds, 114-120 (Euelpides: … o(/ti prw=ta me\n h)=sq' a)/nqrwpoj w(/sper nw\ pote/,
ka)rgu/rion w)fei/lhsaj w(/sper nw\ pote/, kou)k a)podidou\j e)/xairej w(/sper nw\ pote/: ei)=t' au)=qij
o)rni/qwn metalla/caj fu/sin kai\ gh=n e)pe/ptou kai\ qa/lattan e)n ku/klw|, kai\ pa/nq' o(/saper a)/nqrwpoj
o(/sa t' o)/rnij fronei=j)
3
Nefelokokkugi/a
4
Aristophanes, Birds, 1706-1708 (Chorus: …w)= pa/nt' a)gaqa\ pra/ttontej, w)= mei/zw lo/gou, w)=
trismaka/rion pthno\n o)rni/qwn ge/noj, de/xesqe to\n tu/rannon o)lbi/oij do/moij.)

2
Basileia (sovereignty personified) to the birds and Peisthetairos in particular. The play

ends with Peisthetairos riding in on a chariot, wielding the thunderbolt, and

acknowledged as the new sovereign over all the earth, with Basileia by his side.

Ancient commentators, besides being aghast at the impiety of the play,

universally viewed the play as a political allegory involving Alcibiades. Commentaries

from the 10th century onward dealt with the Birds almost exclusively as a political

allegory, culminating in Süvern’s 1827 analysis in which the Chorus was an analog for

the Athenian populace, Peisthetairos a combination of Gorgias and Alcibiades, and

Tereus the Hoopoe was an allegory for Lamachus. Süvern’s work was a culmination of

centuries of analysis, but also seems to have inspired the field to spiral out of control,

with commentators attempting to determine specific political events or agendas in the

vaguest of references within the text; by 1879 there were seventy-nine commentaries on

Birds that each attempted to justify various allegorical readings of the text.5 As a result, a

backlash occurred within the field against reading pure political allegory into the play,

and Süvern’s work is today used as an example of the problems in attempting to read

Birds as a pure allegory.6

A prominent example of a commentator reading an overt political message into

Birds can be found in E. G. Harman’s 1920 work, The Birds of Aristophanes Considered

in Relation to Athenian Politics. Harman places Birds in a historical context, tracing

Athenian politics all the way back to the tyranny of Peisistratus and the foundation of the

Cleisthenic democratic government. Harman specifically focuses on the divine embassy

of Poseidon, Herakles, and Triballus, sent to attempt to negotiate peace with Peisthetairos
5
Michael Vickers, Pericles on Stage (Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. 1997). 154
6
Works attempting to read an overt political message into the text include Goosens 1946, Turato 1971 and
1972, Arrowsmith 1973, Solomos 1974, Dalfen 1975, van Looy 1975, Katz 1976, Newiger 1957, and
Konstan 1990

3
and the birds in lines 1494-1692. Harman argues that the three gods correspond to the

three Athenian socio-political parties that played a role in the establishment of

Peisistratus as tyrant and the reformation of the government under Cleisthenes; Poseidon

is the aristocracy, focused along the coast, Herakles the “middle-class” farmers from the

hills of Attica who formed the bulk of the army, and Triballus represents the poor farmers

of the Attic plains. Harman concludes that the play is thus a call for a return to the

Cleisthenic reforms; a more limited democracy in which power was concentrated in the

hands of what Harman calls the “moderate conservatives” rather than including the

radical poor or oligarchic aristocracy. Whereas in the play it is Herakles, and by his

bullying, Triballus, that hand power over to Peisthetairos over the objections of Poseidon,

so too, Harman argues, Aristophanes is calling for the Hill faction to reassert its

dominance and focus political power back into the hands of the hoplites rather than the

general population.

Harman’s analysis displays the fundamental flaw in attempting to derive an overt

political statement from the content of Birds, namely that any political meaning is derived

from a small section of text rather than from the overall motifs of the piece, which in and

of themselves seem contradictory and inherently anti-democratic. Aristophanes reveals

in line 1585 that Cloudcukoopolis is a democracy and in line 1123 Peisthetairos is

referred to as “archon” over the bird-city.7 By the end of the play, Peisthetairos is

acknowledged as tyrant over the birds and the universe, and democracy is nowhere to be

seen. As Harman shows, it is possible to derive political meaning that is in agreement

with Athenian democracy from select passages of the text, however taken as a whole the

7
Aristophanes, Birds,1584-1586 (Peisthetairos: o)/rniqe/j tinej e)panista/menoi toi=j dhmotikoi=sin
o)rne/oij e)/docan a)dikei=n.), 1123 (Messenger: …pou= Pisqe/tairo/j e)stin a(/rxwn;)

4
play traces the fall of democracy and the rise of tyranny in glowing terms. While

Harman’s analysis may hold as a possible interpretation in regards to the passage in

question, it is in opposition to the overall scope and motif of the play.

Additionally, Birds was written and performed at a time in Athenian history

where overt political statements in drama were increasingly discouraged and prosecuted

through force of law. The pseudo-Xenophonic Consitution of the Athenians states,

“Again, they do not allow (one) either to satire (kwmw|dei=n) or to speak ill of the demoj,

so that they (the demoj) do not to have a bad reputation”.8 Aristophanes had already been

prosecuted in 426 BC by Cleon for Babylonians.9 A law had been passed in Athens in

415 BC, a year before Birds was first performed, which stated that individuals could not

be satirized by name in dramas; while this law clearly did not end references to

individuals within comedies, there is a notable shift in subject matter from overt satire to

a more subtle treatment of politics within Old Comedy.10 While there is little evidence to

suggest a state “crackdown” on satirizing politicians or important members of the city,

Cleon’s prosecution of Aristophanes, the passage of the decree in 415 BC, and the

possible involvement of several comedic writers in the scandals of 415 BC all indicate

that at the time when Birds was first performed comedic drama was undergoing close

scrutiny by those in power.11

This is not to say that overt political messages could not be found in

Aristophanes’ plays; in fact, all of Aristophanes’ extant plays prior to Birds are openly

built around a political statement. Babylonians was overt enough in its criticism of Cleon
8
[Xenophon], 2.18
9
Aristophanes, Acharnians, lines 377-382
10
Scholia on the Aves, 1297
J.E. Atkinson, “Curbing the Comedians: Cleon versus Aristophanes and Syracosius’ Decree,” Classical
Quarterly 42 (1992). 63
11
Atkinson 1992, 64

5
to evoke a legal response from Cleon. In lines 496-556 the political message of

Acharnians, the desire for peace and an end to the war, is clearly laid out by the main

character Dikaiopolos. Lines 1442-1466 contain the political message of Clouds

regarding both the criticism of rhetoric and escaping one’s responsibilities through

rhetoric, once again by both the main character and the chorus of clouds. Lines 1450-

1474 in Wasps praise Philocleon for his change of habit from his old dicastic ways, and

likewise Bdelycleon for having brought the change about, praising the simpler things in

life and lack of worry. Finally, Aristophanes’ Peace is the most overtly political of all of

his plays in that the plot of the entire play is a message to the Athenians to return to peace

and end the fighting.

Birds is the great exception to these other plays, and therein lies the primary issue

in attempting to determine what meaning the play was supposed to convey to the

audience. The fantasy of the play is never broken; unlike Aristophanes’ other works,

there is never an aside to the audience or a breaking of the “fourth wall” in which the

playwright expresses an idea or opinion to the audience. In the two parabases at 676-800

and 1058-1117 the chorus retains their identity as birds within the play; in the former, the

chorus presents a Hesiodic genealogy of the birds as well as arguing why the birds would

be superior deities to the Olympians, and in the latter the chorus ends by threatening to

defecate on the audience if the play is not awarded first prize and suggests the audience

wear white robes. Thus, in contrast with Aristophanes’ previous plays, Birds presents no

“moment of clarity” wherein the message of the play is made overt to the audience. The

only play which methodologically compares in this regard is Peace, where there is no

6
aside wherein the message is made overt to the audience because the message of Peace is

explicit throughout.

Therefore, if one were to assume an explicit political message within Birds, one

has no option but to follow the model of Peace and assume that the motif of utopian

tyranny is in fact the overt political message that Aristophanes’ was attempting to

convey. Aristophanes’ would thus be calling for the overthrow of the democracy and a

return to pre-Cleisthenic tyranny. In view of the legislation regarding Greek drama noted

above, one would have expected Aristophanes to have been arrested and tried shortly

after the end of the first performance of Birds, yet we know he was not, nor apparently

was there any attempt to prosecute Aristophanes for the play. It is similarly unlikely that

Aristophanes, who throughout his works is an ardent supporter of democracy, has

suddenly changed his political stance and become a supporter of tyranny. If one assumes

an overt political message is to be found within Birds, one can only assume that that

political message was that tyranny was good, and that Athenians should revert back to a

tyrannical government. Yet Aristophanes own politics were in opposition to this move,

and the play was performed in a time when drama was under close scrutiny by the

government and such a suggestion would have been met with reprisals. Clearly, the

intention of the play was neither to promote tyranny as a better form of government, nor

was the play received as such.

It can thus be assumed that what was intended by Birds was not an overt political

message, or at the very least that the Athenian audience did not view the message of

Birds as being literal. Attempts by commentators like Harman to ascribe some type of

overt political statement or call to action within the play are thus flawed. While the plays

7
of Aristophanes contain a myriad of subtle references to Athenian politics, society,

literature, and leading politicians at the time, the plays preceding Birds all contain a

moment wherein the political message is crystallized for the audience and the political or

social point that Aristophanes is attempting to address is made explicit. No such moment

exists within Birds, and while political messages can be inferred from specific sections of

the text, to do so runs contrary to the methodology and style that Aristophanes has lain

out in his previous works.

This is not to argue that Birds is exclusively devoid of political allegory and

meaning. Michael Vickers argues in his 1997 work Pericles on Stage for an

interpretation of Birds that identifies Peisthetairos as Alcibiades, Tereus as Pericles, and

argues that both of these characters as well as others throughout the play reference other

Spartan and Athenian contemporaries such as Brasidas, Nicias, and Lamachus. Vickers

argues that Birds is lacking in a precise “moment of clarity” like other plays by

Aristophanes because of its subject matter. Vickers, and others, argues that since the law

of 415 BC banning satire on named individuals was clearly not enforced at face value,

that the true intention of the law was a ban on naming individuals in drama after those

accused of violating the Eleusinian mysteries and desecrating the Herms.12 This

distinction in the law is borne out by the fact that while at least 30 individuals are named

and satirized in Birds, none of those mentioned were associated with the charges of

impiety in 415 BC, and further by the fact that between 415 and the oligarchic coup of

411 no other extant dramatic source names these individuals either.

Vickers argues using a variety of subtle hints in the text and comparing these with

descriptions of Alcibiades from other sources that Peisthetairos is analogous to

12
Vickers, xix, Atkinson 62-63

8
Alcibiades, and it is here that his argument is most persuasive and seems to be firmly

grounded. However, Vickers goes on to insist that Tereus is symbolic of Pericles, and

that Cloudcukoopolis is analogous to Sparta. In Vickers’ analysis Birds is thus a play

both about the influence and impact Pericles and Alcibiades had upon Athenian politics

and Athenian society, as well as a reference and warning regarding the Spartan

occupation of Decelea, which Vickers argues mirrors the plan of Peisthetairos to starve

out the Olympian gods. While Decelea was not occupied until the spring of 413, Vickers

argues that the plan may have been known in Athens at the time Birds was written, and

bases his analysis on this supposition.

While Vickers’ argues persuasively that Peisthetairos is meant to be seen as

Alcibiades, and that the ambiguity in the play can be attributed to this characterization,

his analysis that Cloudcukoopolis is Sparta and that the play refers to Decelea serves as

an example of the political allegorists attempting to read text with too much subtlety.

Decelea was not occupied until at least a year after Birds was performed, and it is an

unfounded assumption that the plan was well known in Athens a year in advance, with

the Peace of Nicias still technically intact. Furthermore, the Athenian strategy against

Syracuse, the building of the “Circle” fortifications and siege of the city, provides a

contemporaneous situation from which the events in the play could be based, so that there

is no immediate need to search for other possibilities in determining whether or not

Peisthetairos’ strategy in Birds was analogous to then current events. Reference to the

“Circle” fortification can perhaps be inferred from the precise vocabulary used by

Peisthetairos to outline his plan.13 Additionally, not even a year before the Athenians had
13
Aristophanes, Birds, 550-552 (Peisthetairos- kai\ dh\ toi/nun prw=ta dida/skw mi/an o)rni/qwn po/lin
ei)=nai+, ka)/peita to\n a)e/ra pa/nta ku/klw| kai\ pa=n touti\ to\ metacu\ periteixi/zein mega/laij pli/nqoij
o)ptai=j w(/sper Babulw=na.), cf. Thucydides 6.98.2 (oi( )Aqhnai=oi, i(/naper kaqezo/menoi e)tei/xisan
to\n ku/klon* dia\ ta/xouj.)

9
used the same strategy to force the island of Melos into submission. Thus, if indeed

Peisthetairos’ plan is analogous to a contemporary Athenian or Spartan strategy there are

other more likely possibilities for Aristophanes to write about than a possible future

invasion of Decelea by the Spartans.

In fact much of Vickers’ analysis that the play deals with Decelea comes from the

analysis of minute details in the text to come to the conclusion that Cloudcukoopolis is

analogous to Sparta. This analysis in turn ignores several details in the text that blatantly

tie Cloudcukoopolis to Athens. In lines 826-832, in a discussion concerning who the

guardian god of the city is to be, Euelpides, or Peisthetairos in some versions, asks if

Athena is to remain the guardian of the new city on the Pelargikon.14 The Pelargikon was

a specific section of the Athenian acropolis, the north face, where the Erechtheon was

located along with Poseidon’s trident-strike and the salt water spring, Athena’s sacred

olive tree, the Palladion, and the tombs of Cecrops and Erechtheus, and was, in short, the

most sacred part of the Athenian acropolis; apparently, this area of the Athenian acropolis

is present in Cloudcukoopolis as well.15 Lines 1584-1586 reveal that Cloudcukoopolis is

nominally a democracy, with Peisthetairos functioning as archon in line 1123, and also

reveal that the birds use, if not Athenian law, then at least Athenian legal terminology. 16

14
Aristophanes, Birds, 826-832 (Tereus- ti/j dai\ qeo\j poliou=xoj e)/stai; tw=| canou=men to\n pe/plon;
Euelpides- ti/ d' ou)k )Aqhnai/an e)w=men Polia/da;
Peisthetairos- kai\ pw=j a)\n e)/ti ge/noit' a)\n eu)/taktoj po/lij, o(/pou qeo\j gunh\ gegonui=a panopli/an
e(/sthk' e)/xousa, Kleisqe/nhj de\ kerki/da;
Euelpides- ti/j dai\ kaqe/cei th=j po/lewj to\ Pelargiko/n;)

15
Ibid., Herodotus 5.64

16
Aristophanes, Birds,1584-1586 (Peisthetairos: o)/rniqe/j tinej e)panista/menoi toi=j dhmotikoi=sin
o)rne/oij e)/docan a)dikei=n.) “e)/docan a)dikei=n” is the phrase in question in regards to legal
terminology, which was a common term found in legal documents for one who had been duly convicted by
a dicastic court. Cf. Dem 47.2, 20.97, 31.2, 15.6, 45.65, Lysias 20.15, 6.14, 8.1, 8.12, 6.44, And. 3.13, et
alia. While falling short of what could be defined as “technical” terminology, the phrase would have been
a familiar one to a 5th century Athenian audience.

10
Finally, in 1549-1551, Prometheus seeks to leave the city unnoticed by Zeus by

disguising himself as a diphrophoros in the Panathenaic procession.17

Despite what would seem to be overt references that Cloudcukoopolis is Athens,

Vickers builds his analysis based on line 157 where it is stated the birds need no purse,

the phrase “e)j th\n tribh/n” in line 156, which Vickers argues is a reference to the

Spartan “tribwn”, or short cloak of the Spartans, the usage of dexomai as a reference to

the Spartan Dechas where capital prisoners awaited execution, and Peisthetairos’

violence as both an Alcibiadian and Spartan trait. Vickers fault here seems to be the

opposite of those like Harman. Commentators like Harman seek to find political

meaning and a “moment of clarity” where there simply is none, and are forced to focus

on an individual passage or isolated passages to attempt to derive meaning from the

overall play. Here, Vickers has sought to find a deeper allegorical and political meaning

in the text by analyzing isolated phrases and instances of vocabulary in order to interpret

Cloudcukoopolis as Sparta despite there being clear and blatant passages of the text

which paint Cloudcukoopolis as being analogous to Athens. While there may be some

truth to Vickers’ analysis of the language of the play, the text itself reveals that

Cloudcukoopolis contains the acropolis and Erechtheon of Athens, is guarded by Athena

at the outset like Athens, functions under a democratic government, utilizes Athenian

legal terminology, and celebrates Athenian festivals. Whereas Harman seeks to create

1123: Messenger: …pou= Pisqe/tairo/j e)stin a(/rxwn;

17
Aristophanes, Birds, 1549-1551 (Prometheus- …a)ll' w(j a)\n a)potre/xw pa/lin, fe/re to\ skia/deion, i(/na
me ka)\n o( Zeu\j i)/dh| a)/nwqen, a)kolouqei=n dokw= kanhfo/rw|.
Peisthetairos- kai\ to\n di/fron ge difrofo/rei tondi\ labw/n.)

11
overt references where there is none, Vickers likewise ignores overt references to support

his analysis that the play deals with Decelea.

Commentators attempting to discover a political message or analogy within Birds

are thus faced with multiple challenges in regards to the text. While the text contains no

“moment of clarity” like other plays of Aristophanes during this period, specific details

and characterizations put forth in the text make it clear that aspects of the play are meant

to be seen as analogs of then present circumstances and institutions. What remains

unclear, despite years of analysis, is what precise point or argument Aristophanes is

attempting to present in the play. Additionally, it must be kept in mind that the primary

purpose of all of Aristophanes’ plays is to entertain, and beyond that to win first prize at

the festival in question, in this case the Lenaea. Thus, while analogs may exist within the

play, whether they are meant for entertainment purposes or to convey a deeper meaning

is a matter of debate. Being unable to determine what precise political analogy the play

is attempting to convey, many commentators had concluded that the play is about

nothing, and that Birds is little more than a “flight of fancy” and either meant as pure

entertainment in a time of war or as a more esoteric piece of literature. 18

A prime example of the “esoteric” commentaries is Cedric Whitman’s 1964 work

Aristophanes and the Comic Hero. Whitman argues that the play is about nothing, and

even the chapter of his book which deals with Birds is titled “The Anatomy of

Nothingness”. However, the “nothing” which Whitman argues the play is about is in

itself a concept that Whitman grounds in the philosophical writings of Gorgias from

around 425 BC, specifically a pamphlet titled “On Non-Being.” Whitman specifically

18
See Mazon 1904, Croiset 1909, Norwood 1931, Gelzer 1960, Händel 1963, Murray 1964, Whitman
1964, Dover 1972, Maxwell-Stuart 1973, Torrance 1978, and Koelb 1984.

12
highlights Gorgias’ argument that reality is intellectually beyond the reach of mankind,

and as such it is incommunicable. In his writings, Gorgias goes on to apply this concept

specifically to rhetoric, arguing that language was the defining form of reality and was

therefore able to be manipulated through the use of either peitho (persuasion) or apate

(deception or illusion). Whitman sees this concept as the heart of Aristophanes’ Birds,

namely the use and manipulation of rhetoric to create a fantasy that, in and of itself, is a

reality. For example, the protagonist’s name, Peisthetairos, comes from the Greek peitho

and hetairos and literally means “persuader of the companions”, or in a more political

definition, “persuader of the hetaireia”, the hetaireia being a group of “political clubs” of

which Alcibiades and others accused of the asebeia of 415 BC had been members.

Whitman then goes on to highlight the usage of language within the play, and especially

by Peisthetairos throughout, highlighting the double meaning of words such as nomos

(law and custom, but with a different accent it means meadow, the place where the birds

feed), and especially the speech by Peisthetairos to the Sycophant on the power of words

and rhetoric in lines 1447-1451.19 The play is thus about the power of language and

rhetoric to create reality out of what is essentially nothingness.

David Konstan in his section titled “The Greek Polis and its Negations” in the

1997 anthology The City as Comedy presents what could be termed a synthesis of the

esoteric and political interpretations. Konstan takes a much broader look at the play itself

than the political commentators like Harman and Vickers. Konstan argues that the play is

a general commentary on Athenian social and political mores during the Peloponnesian

19
Aristophanes, Birds, 1447-1451 (Peisthetairos- fh/m' e)gw/. u(po\ ga\r lo/gwn o( nou=j te metewri/zetai
e)pai/retai/ t' a)/nqrwpoj. ou(/tw kai/ j' e)gw\ a)napterw/saj bou/lomai xrhstoi=j lo/goij tre/yai pro\j e)/rgon
no/mimon.)

13
War, and the inherent contradictions in Athens during this time. For example,

Cloudcukoopolis is open and benevolent towards the humans, yet also imperialistic in its

outlook. Cloudcukoopolis is ostensibly presented as a democratic city, yet is clearly

dominated by the person and policies of Peisthetairos. Cloudcukoopolis exists in a

utopian state of antinomy, where laws are unnecessary because the birds exist in a natural

state of harmony, yet the laws (nomos, as both custom and legislation) of the birds are

frequently attested, and during one scene Peisthetairos is seen roasting “certain birds who

opposed the democratic birds.”20 Konstan presents the play as a Greek model of a golden

age utopia, but in the process argues that the play incites the audience to question the

contradictions and fallacies inherent in the Athenian government at the time. The play is

thus an attempt to present the shortcomings of the Athenian system and cause a political

discussion.

Konstan’s argument perhaps best summarizes the problem with attempting to

analyze the meaning behind the text, namely the contradictory nature of the play itself.

While Konstan treats these contradictions as a general view of Athenian politics and

society as a whole, I believe that the play has a specific target and specific ideology in

mind. The next section of this paper will deal with Birds as a critique of Athenian

ideology, specifically the ideology that lead to the launching of the Sicilian expedition in

415 BC, one year before the performance of the play, and Aristophanes’ treatment of this

ideology as one that is inherently contradictory and destined to lead the Athenians into

tyranny.

20
Aristophanes, Birds, 1584-1586 (Peisthetairos- o)/rniqe/j tinej e)panista/menoi toi=j dhmotikoi=sin
o)rne/oij e)/docan a)dikei=n.)

14
 As stated earlier, I believe Vickers’ argument that Peisthetairos is an analog of

Alcibiades to be persuasive. Lines 145-147 are a clear reference to Alcibiades recall the

previous year, the Salaminia having been the state trireme dispatched.21 Line 1403

contains another direct allusion by the dithyrambic poet Kinesias, who after receiving a

beating from Peisthetairos asks, “Is this how you had treated the chorus trainer?”22

Alcibiades had been tried for precisely the charge of assaulting a rival chorus trainer. 23

The analog between the two even includes physical descriptions. In line 806, Euelpides

comments that Peisthetairos’ head looks as though it “had been plucked”.24 Alcibiades

likewise was described as having his hair cut short.25 The Sycophant in lines 410-411

identifies Peisthetairos as a swallow; Vickers argues that Alcibiades particular speech

impediment, “lambdicization”, was known in Greek as “traulizdein”, the same word

which was applied to the twittering of a swallow.26 Likewise, Peisthetairos’ justification

for the naming of Cloudcukoopolis in Birds is described line 810 as being “something big

and famous”, a phrase that references Alcibiades on multiple levels.27 Alcibiades was

described as tending towards “great projects” (megalopragmosunen), and was described

in pseudo-Andocides speech against him as being greatly powerful or threatening (mega

dunamenon).28 The very wording of the phrase is justifiably an identifier of Alcibiades,

who was the son of Cleinias and thus “ho Kleiniou”, as well as a descendant of

Megacles.29
21
Aristophanes, Birds, 145-147 (Euelpides- oi)/moi mhdamw=j h(mi=n para\ th\n qa/lattan, i(/n'
a)naku/yetai klhth=r' a)/gouj' e(/wqen h( Salamini/a)
22
Aristophanes, Birds, 1403 (Kinesias- tauti\ pepoi/hkaj to\n kukliodida/skalon)
23
[Andocides] 4
24
Aristophanes, Birds, 806 (Euelpides- su\ de\ koyi/xw| ge ska/fion a)potetilme/nw|.)
25
Plutarch, Alcibiades, 23.3
26
Aristophanes, Birds, 410-411 (Sycophant- o)/rniqej ti/nej ou)de\n e)/xontej pteropoi/kiloi, tanusi/ptere
poiki/la xelidoi=;), Vickers 1997, 163.
27
Aristophanes, Birds, 810 (Peisthetairos- …ti me/ga kai\ kleino/n,)
28
Plutarch, Alcibiades, 6.4; [Andocides] 4.11
29
Plutarch, Alcibiades, 1.1; Vickers 1997, 164

15
 This is not to say that Peisthetairos is a direct and complete analog of Alcibiades.

Beginning in line 577, Peisthetairos lays out a point-by-point list of all the advantages the

birds have over the old Olympian gods, as well as reasons why men will worship the

birds and why the Olympians will surrender.30 In the speeches of Thucydides, Pericles

does the same in 1.140-1.144 as well as in the funeral oration from 2.34-2.46. Likewise,

in lines 1662-1663 Peisthetairos echoes Pericles’ line in Thucydides 1.144.231 that, “We

did not start the war.”32 Both Pericles at Athens and Peisthetairos in Cloudcuckoopolis

are described as being councilors and as being the primary planner and advisor to the

city.33 Additionally, both Süvern and Whitman note similarities between Peisthetairos’

philosophy and use of language and the writings of Gorgias.

Peisthetairos is thus a combination of aspects and references to several

contemporaries of Aristophanes. Rather than a direct analog of any of these individual

politicians, Peisthetairos, as his name implies, serves as an archetype of these demagogue

rhetoricians. Viewing Peisthetairos as an archetype rather than an analog can be

supported by Aristophanes’ use of characters in his other plays. For example, the

character of Philocleon from Wasps is not meant to be any specific individual that

supports Cleon, but rather an archetype of the individuals who are in support of the

30
Aristophanes, Birds, 577-643
31
At the time of Birds’ writing, Thucydides’ works would have been unavailable to Aristophanes, thus the
comparison here relies on Thucydides’ knowledge of discussion and debate in Athens during the
Peloponnesian War, as well as Thucydides’ own statement that while he did not record speeches exactly as
they were spoken, he kept to the general outline as well as “what was called for in each situation”. (1.22.2)
The comparison here is thus not between the specifics of the two texts, but a comparison between the idea
put forth by Peisthetairos in Birds and that same idea put forth by Thucydides and attributed to the
Athenians and Pericles in particular.
32
Aristophanes, Birds, 1662-1663 (Peisthetairos- a)ll' ou)/te pro/teron pw/poq' h(mei=j h)/rcamen pole/mou
pro\j u(ma=j.)
Thucydides, 1.144.2 (Pericles- di/kaj te o(/ti e)qe/lomen dou=nai kata\ ta\j cunqh/kaj, pole/mou+ de\ ou)k
a)/rcomen, a)rxome/nouj de\ a)munou/meqa)
33
Aristophanes, Birds, 637-638 (Chorus- a)ll' o(/sa me\n dei= r(w/mh| pra/ttein, e)pi\ tau=ta tetaco/meq'
h(mei=j: o(/sa de\ gnw/mh| dei= bouleu/ein, e)pi\ soi\ ta/de pa/nt' a)na/keitai.)
Thucydides 1.140.1 (o(rw= de\ kai\ nu=n o(moi=a kai\ paraplh/sia cumbouleute/a moi o)/nta)

16
policies and practices of Cleon. Like Peisthetairos, the name of the character itself

expresses this idea. The character of Demos in Knights is likewise not meant to be a

specific individual, but, once again, an archetype of the Demos as a whole.

By providing Peisthetairos with characteristics that are identifiable with

Alcibiades, Pericles, and others, Aristophanes both broadens the archetype as well as

making that character identifiable to the audience. In an age before mass media, equating

the character of Peisthetairos with these politicians made the character immediately

identifiable to the audience as well as giving the character a degree of depth without

having to expound on the character at length within the play. This identification

immediately gave these individuals access to a pre-existing archetype and set of

characteristics which could be translated to the public at large, and which the public was

already familiar with.

Pericles had risen to prominence in the 460’s by courting favor with the lower

classes and opposing the leader of the aristocratic faction in Athens, Cimon.34 This was

done for the most part with grants of largesse from his own private funds as well as from

state funds, and generally manipulating the Athenian system in favor of the lower

classes.35 Pericles managed to remove his political opponents from power, and literally

from the city of Athens, by playing on the populace’s fear of Sparta and accusing his

opponents of conspiring with the Spartans.36 Having thus removed his opposition from

power, Pericles maintained his hold over the populace with further largesse, public

shows, banquets, and spectacles.37 Pericles moved the treasury of the Delian League

from the island of Delos to Athens itself, utilizing the funds of the League to build up and
34
Plutarch, Pericles, 7.2
35
Plutarch, Pericles, 9.2-4
36
Plutarch, Pericles, 9.4, 10.2
37
Plutarch, Pericles, 11.4

17
beautify the city of Athens.38 These actions inspired political opposition to him again in

the 450’s and 440’s. After another round of ostracisms, culminating in the ostracism of

the politician Thucydides in 441, Pericles found himself virtual tyrant over the city of

Athens and its allies.39

Pericles had risen to power by catering wholly to the lower classes, however once

in a position of power his political style changed. Plutarch records that whereas

previously Pericles had changed and shifted his position based on the demands of the

populace, once Thucydides had been removed and Pericles was wholly in a position of

power, he instead took to leading, controlling, and advising the people rather than

catering to popular opinion.40 The historian Thucydides likewise presents Pericles as

advising and guiding the people of Athens, and often going against popular opinion for

the greater good.41 Pericles thus represented a model of demagoguery wherein the

demagogue plays to popular opinion and popular will to gain power, and then uses his

position for his own gain and to institute his own will over the populace. Plutarch

estimates that due to his background and upbringing, Pericles was always of an

aristocratic mindset and pandered to the people only to gain power.42 The Periclean

demagogue is thus one that dissimulates concern for popular opinion and popular will in

order to place himself in a position of power and thus guide and control popular will and

opinion as he sees fit.

With Pericles’ death in 429 BC, Athens was left without clear, central leadership

and a number of individuals rose and attempted to lead and influence the city-state.

38
Plutarch, Pericles, 12.1-2
39
Plutarch, Pericles, 14-15.1
40
Plutarch, Pericles, 15.2-3
41
Thucydides, 1.39, 2.21-22
42
Plutarch, Pericles, 7.1-3

18
Thucydides’ characterizes these successors to Pericles as “demagogues”, in that rather

than leading and guiding the state, as Pericles had done, the successors each tried to

pander to the populace for their own personal aggrandizement, and were thus lead by the

people rather than leading them.43 This characterization is at odds with the

characterization of Pericles later provided by Plutarch, where Pericles is presented as

having pandered to the people before being put into a position of power, and likewise

contradicts the characterization of demagogues such as Cleon within the works of

Aristophanes.

Cleon was the first of these demagogues to rise to power after the death of

Pericles, and is first introduced by Thucydides in the debate over the fate of the rebellious

city Mytilene, which through a resolution presented and supported by Cleon had been

condemned to death, where he is described as remarkable both for his violent nature and

for the amount of influence he held over the assembly.44 He is presented by Thucydides

as being a “hyper-democrat”, stating that the common Athenian is a better ruler than any

intellectual or statesman.45 It is this call to violence and vulgarism that seems to

characterize Cleon throughout the works of both Thucydides and Aristophanes. In

Aristophanes’ Knights, it is Cleon who leads Demos into debauchery and vice, and the

plot revolves around a contest between Cleon and the sausage-seller over who is the most

depraved and thus the best able to lead Demos. Wasps likewise characterizes Cleon as

the leader of those obsessed with lawsuits, sycophants, serving on juries, and finding all

defendants guilty. While only fragments of Babylonians survive, the content was

apparently inflammatory enough that Cleon felt it necessary to charge Aristophanes with

43
Thucydides, 2.65
44
Thucydides, 3.36
45
Thucydides, 3.39

19
a crime after its performance. Thucydides presents Cleon as the main opponent to

peaceful settlement with Sparta; it is Cleon who urges the Athenians to reject the offer of

truce during the siege at Pylos, who puts forth a motion to reject a truce and recapture

territories lost to Brasidas in Thrace, and whose death finally allows a break in the

fighting in 421. Thucydides in fact ascribes the failure of any peace before 421 to

Cleon’s fear that in a time of peace the people would be less apt to ignore his corruption

and listen to his slander and persecution of his political enemies.46

Thus, even in his own record, Thucydides’ characterization that the demagogues

that followed Pericles all pandered to the populace seems to be lacking. Cleon, like

Pericles before him, panders to the populace at large, yet does so in order to bolster his

own position and his own ability to lead and influence affairs. Despite his earlier

statement, Thucydides notes the influence of Cleon and his ability to direct and lead the

affairs of the Athenian state rather than simply pander to the populace. Similarly,

Aristophanes criticizes Cleon because of the control he holds over the government and

the presumed affects that this control has on the populace. Nowhere does either author

question whether Cleon is influencing the people or vice-versa; instead, each criticizes

Cleon for his style of leadership and a presumed lack of morality in his leadership.

Despite this lack of morality or emphasis on vulgarity, Cleon’s position as demagogue is

roughly analogous to that of Pericles. Cleon initially gains power by presenting himself

as a champion of the lower classes and emphasizing the role of the common people in the

government over the aristocracy. This position then allows him to guide and influence

the state as he sees fit.

46
Thucydides, 5.16.1-2

20
 The death of Cleon thus left a vacuum for a short time in Athenian politics, one

that was temporarily filled by Nicias and was eventually seized by Alcibiades, who plays

a pivotal role in the events immediately surrounding Birds. Thucydides first presents

Alcibiades as the leader of the group opposed to peace and urging a renewal of the

conflict after the treaty in 421. According to Thucydides, Alcibiades’ family had been a

representative for Sparta in Athens and had looked out for Spartan interests in Athens,

even caring for the Spartans captured on Sphacteria.47 Alcibiades is credited with being

the main supporter of an alliance with Argos, urging on and prosecuting the proxy-war

that occurred between Athens and Sparta during the peace of Nicias from 221-218 BC.48

Likewise, Alcibiades is presented as the main supporter of the Sicilian expedition of 415,

just prior to the first performance of Birds. It is in a recounting of Alcibiades’ support of

the Sicilian expedition that Thucydides presents him as most ambitious, most influential,

and likewise most power hungry, stating that it was believed that what Alcibiades was

really aiming for was tyranny over Athens.49

Alcibiades more than any other individual had dictated politics in Athens from the

death of Cleon and the Peace of Nicias in 421 BC to the performance of Birds in 414 BC;

it us thus no surprise that most commentaries have dealt with Birds as an allegory of the

Sicilian expedition and Peisthetairos as an analog of Alcibiades. Yet, as has been noted,

Peisthetairos is not solely an analog of Alcibiades, nor is there enough of a

characterization to state that Peristhetairos is intended to be a direct analog. The

influence of Alcibiades on the work of Aristophanes is best determined not by studying

who Alcibiades was, but rather what he was. In Aristophanes lifetime, the supposedly

47
Thucydides, 5.43
48
Ibid., Thucydides 5.52
49
Thucydides, 6.15-18

21
democratic Athenian government had been lead and influenced by a series of powerful

demagogues and their respective parties. Perhaps the greatest theme that can be drawn

from all of Aristophanes works is his desire for peace and an end to the Peloponnesian

War; no play makes this point more than the play Peace itself, performed in 421 BC after

the death of Cleon and the conclusion of a truce between Athens and Sparta. Yet despite

this wish Aristophanes had witnessed demagogue after demagogue rise to power by

promoting war and claiming Athenian superiority and an Athenian right to rule.

A synthesis of interpretations can thus be created by viewing Peisthetairos as an

archetype of these various demagogues rather than a direct analog. Peisthetairos, the

demagogue rhetorician, convinces the birds both of their innate superiority and to follow

his plan to build a new city and starve out the gods. The city that Peisthetairos and the

birds create is itself an analog of Athens. As the plan unfolds, Peisthetairos assumes

more and more power, going from advisor to Archon to tyrant, with the birds praising

him and his eloquence every step of the way. As his power increases, Peisthetairos

drives out from the city the poets, the dythrambicists, the geographers, the bureaucrats

charged with maintaining the Athenian empire, and finally the sycophant informers and

those desiring to exist in a state of antinomy. Peisthetairos begins his rule by appealing

to the birds and pandering to them, even creating a farcical genealogy to support his

claims, but in the end this pandering is nothing more than a way for Peisthetairos to put

himself into power.

Cloudcukoopolis becomes a type of “sophistocracy”, where Peisthetairos is able

to either justify or condemn any action, even the overthrow of the gods, based solely on

rhetoric. Thus, both Whitman’s and Konstan’s interpretation of the work has

22
applicability. As Whitman argues, the entire world of Birds is created out of nothing and

is dependent solely upon the rhetoric of Peisthetairos. Likewise, Konstan argues that the

work is replete with contradictions, contradictions that can be seen in Athens at the time.

These contradictions emerge from the rhetoric of Peisthetairos, and shift and change

depending on his needs at the given time. The world of Birds is thus a constantly shifting

morass dependent on the will and rhetoric of Peisthetairos; it is a world created by and for

Peisthetairos, and it is his to control and change as he sees fit through his use of speech

and rhetoric. Peisthetairos becomes the ultimate demagogue, whose rhetoric and

pandering not only allow him access to power, but change the very fabric of the reality of

the play itself.

This interpretation of the text does not preclude reading the text as a direct

political allegory. The final prize of Birds, Basilea, is described by Prometheus as,

A beautiful girl, who stores the thunderbolt and everything else of Zeus-
wise council, good order, wisdom and discretion, the dockyards, railing
diatribes, treasurers, the “three-obol” account”…50

There would be little doubt in the Athenian audience’s mind as to whom Basilea was

supposed to be, for Athena was charged with guarding the thunderbolts of Zeus as well as

being the goddess of wisdom in all its various forms expressed by Prometheus.51 The

final scene is thus much more than simply a celebration of Peisthetairos’ triumph, but a

re-enactment of the return of Peisistratus as tyrant, with Athena at his side.52

50
Aristophanes, Birds, 1538-1541 (Prometheus- kalli/sth ko/rh, h(/per tamieu/ei to\n kerauno\n tou= Dio\j
kai\ ta)/ll' a(paca/panta, th\n eu)bouli/an th\n eu)nomi/an th\n swfrosu/nhn ta\ new/ria, th\n loidori/an to\n
kwlakre/thn ta\ triw/bola)

51
Cf. Hesiod, Theogony, 885-900, Plato, Cratylus, 407b, et al.
52
Herodotus 1.60.4

23
 It is perhaps this final scene that places the entire play into context. Birds is not

the first of Aristophanes’ plays to deal with the issue of demagoguery, or the power and

influence that demagogues and rhetoricians wielded in 5th century Athens. Peisthetairos

however serves as an archetype of the ultimate demagogue; the reality of the play itself

responds to Peisthetairos’ rhetoric, and while contradictions abound throughout the new

city of Athens, they are, at all times, subservient to the will of Peisthetairos. While the

birds follow Peisthetairos in the belief that they will benefit themselves, in the end it is

Peisthetairos who emerges as the sole victor and tyrant over the universe. The plight of

the birds, expressed in lines 517-538, is all but ignored, and in fact Peisthetairos himself

engages in the execution of some of the birds and then cooks and prepares them in the

same way as the humans he had previously decried. The final result is the collapse of the

democracy of the new Athens and the rise of tyranny in a scene that in and of itself

invokes images of the fall of Solon’s democracy to Peisistratus.

While this analysis may serve as an interpretation of the work, the overall

meaning remains mysterious, perhaps purposefully so. Is the audience meant to celebrate

the triumph of the demagogue at the end of the play, or to view the scene with

apprehension? Is Aristophanes calling for the overthrow of the democracy and a return to

the tyranny of the Peisistradae, or, despite the celebration at the end, is the play meant to

serve as a warning? No clear meaning can be derived from the text itself, and thus

Konstan’s analysis that the play was intended to raise questions rather than answer them

is perhaps the most accurate. In a period dominated by demagogues like Pericles, Cleon,

and Alcibiades, perhaps a play centered on the rise of a demagogue from poneros to

tyrranos needed no explication.

24
 The plan of Peisthetairos within the play shares similarities with Alcibiades plan

for Athenian dominance which he presented to the Spartans in 415/14. Thucydides notes

that there was a fear at the launching of the Sicilian expedition that Alcibiades sought to

become tyrant.53 Peisthetairos similarly uses his plan to elevate himself to the position of

tyrant. Thus, while a direct political analogy can be derived from the text, the play deals

with far more than simply the rise of Alcibiades. Aristophanes’ Birds uses the political

context of the Sicilian expedition to explore the issues of rhetoric and demagogues. As

Aristophanes puts forth in his play, the eventual result of demagoguery was the loss of

freedom and democracy, and the subversion of the state to the singular will of the

demagogue who was best able to sway the populace. The democratic assembly of Athens

had likewise surrendered to and continued to surrender to the will and influence of self-

interested demagogue after demagogue. Whether or not this was the outcome the

populace desired is an issue that Aristophanes leaves to the audience to decide, both

within the play itself as well as within the populace at large.

53
Thucydides, 6.15

25
Bibliography:

Primary Sources:

Aristophanes, “Birds” in Aristophanes Comoediae, F.W. Hall and W.M Geldart, editors.
Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1907.

Aristophanes, “Acharnians” in Aristophanes Comoediae, F.W. Hall and W.M Geldart,

editors. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1907.

Aristophanes, “Knights” in Aristophanes Comoediae, F.W. Hall and W.M Geldart,

editors. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1907.

Aristophanes, “Wasps” in Aristophanes Comoediae, F.W. Hall and W.M Geldart, editors.
Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1907.

Aristophanes, “Clouds” in Aristophanes Comoediae, F.W. Hall and W.M Geldart,

editors. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1907.

Aristophanes, “Peace” in Aristophanes Comoediae, F.W. Hall and W.M Geldart, editors.
Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1907.

[Xenophon], “The Athenian Constitution” in Xenophontis Opera Omnia, volume 5, E.C.

Marchant, editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1920.

Thucydides, Historiae in two volumes, Henry Stuart Jones, and Johannes Enoch Powell,
editors. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1993.

Herodotus, Histories, Carolus Hude, editor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1927.

Plutarch, Plutarch’s Lives, Bernadotte Perrin, editor. Cambridge: Harvard University

Press. 1914.

Hesiod, Theogony, Hugh G. Evelyn-White, editor. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

1914.

Plato, “Cratylus” in Platonis Opera, John Burnet, editor. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. 1903.

Andocides, Minor Attic Orators in two volumes, K.J. Maidment, editor. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press. 1968.

Lysias, Lysias, W.R.M. Lamb, editor. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1930.

Demosthenes, Demosthenis Orationes, S.H. Butcher, editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

1903.

26
All translations are the author’s.

Secondary Sources:

Vickers, Michael, Pericles on Stage. Austin, Texas: The University of Texas Press.
1997.

Atkinson, J. E., “Curbing the Comedians: Cleon versus Aristophanes and Syracosius’
Decree,” Classical Quarterly 42 (1992). 56-64. <www.jstor.org>

Harman, Edward George, The Birds of Aristophanes Considered in Relation to Athenian

Politics. London: Edward Arnold. 1920.

Konstan, David, “The Greek Polic and its Negations: Versions of Utopia in Aristophanes’
Birds”, in The City as Comedy, Gregory Dobrov, editor. Chapel Hill: The
University of North Carolina Press. 1997.

Whitman, Cedric H., Aristophanes and the Comic Hero. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press. 1964.

Scholia on the Aves of Aristophanes, Compiled and Edited by John Williams White.
Boston and London: Ginn and Company, Publishers. 1914.

Additional Sources:

Goosens, R., “Autour de l’expédition de Sicile”. AC 15 (1946). 43-60

Turato, F., “Le leggi non scritte negli ‘Uccelli’ di Aristofane.” Atti e Memorie
dell’Academia Patavina di Scienze, Lettere, ed Arti 84.3 (1971-72). 113-143.

Arrowsmith, William, “Aristophanes’ Birds: The Fantasy Politics of Eros.” Arion, n.s., 1
(1973). 119-167

Solomos, Alexis, The Living Aristophanes. Translated by M. Felheim and Alexis

Solomos. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. 1974.

Dalfen, Joachim, “Politik und Utopie in den Vögeln des Aristophanes.” Bolletino
dell’Instituto di Filologia Greca 2 (1975). 268-287.

Van Looy, H. “Les ‘Oiseaux’ d’Aristophane: Essai d’interprétation.” Le monde grec:

Homages à Claire Préaux, Edited by J. Bingen, G. Cambier, and G. Nachtergael.
Brussels. 1975.

Katz, Barry, “The Birds of Aristophanes and Politics.” Athenaeum 53. (1976) 353-381.

27
Newiger, Hans-Joachim. Metapher und Allegorie: Studien zu Aristophanes. Munich:
Zetemata. 1957

Mazon, Paul, Essai sur la composition des comedies d’Aristophane. Paris. 1904

Croiset, M., Aristophanes and the Political Parties at Athens. Translated by J. Loeb.
London. 1909

Norwood, Gilbert, Greek Comedy. London. 1931

Gelzer, Thomas, Der epirrhematische Agon bei Aristophanes. Munich. 1960.

Händel, Paul, Formen und Darstellungsweisen der aristophanischen Komödie.

Heidelberg. 1963

Murray, Gilbert, Aristophanes: A Study. New York. 1964

Dover, K.J., Aristophanic Comedy. Berkeley. 1972.

Maxwell-Stuart, P.G., “The Dramatic Poets and the Expedition to Sicily.” Historia 22.
(1973) 397-404

Torrance, R. M., The Comic Hero. Cambridge. 1978

Koelb, Clayton, The Incredulous Reader: Literature and the Function of Disbelief.
Ithaca. 1984

28