The AcharniansEssay Preview: The AcharniansReport this essayWhile reading the Acharnians there were a few things that appeared to be too contemporary for the time of Aristophanes. In the play I noticed that they talked about graffiti and how somebody had scribbled “Athens is sexy”. And also on lines 1015-1016 when the chorus say “Hes as skilled as any professional cook- a cordon bleu DIY-er”. To make sure I did a little research on wikipedia and found that Le Cordon Bleu was invented 1578 by a group of French knights. While the concept of DIY was not introduced until around the 1960s. Both long after Aristophanes wrote the plays, I think that this has something to do with the way the play has been translated and I think it is really interesting how the translator has involved some contemporary concepts into the translation. I think that possibly there were elements similar to this in the original version, but the translator may have chosen to interpret it in a much more modern way, maybe to help the reader understand the text a little better.
Also, toward the end of the play I found that Dikaiopolis mocking Lamachus to be very interesting. I think that the contrast between them emphasizes the difference in nature of war and peace through a more material means. With Dikaipolis coming to represent peace and Lamachus war. For each thing that Lamachus gets together for war such as his ration bag, salt fish and shield. Dikaipolis gets together something for the feast such as pigeon meat and cheese-faced flat cake. Then in the end while Dikaipolis returns drunk and with two dancers, Lamachus returns with a broken foot and is supported by two friends. Here Lamachuss injury from war is directly mocked by being contrasted with Dikaipolis happiness from the feast hes been to. I think that this direct contrast, contrast the nature of war and peace. In one simple scene Aristophanes has been able to emphasize the negative nature of war compared
I also think this is a natural thing. As a result, these two men are able to make peace for peace
I think that this in fact is more natural than to say that the war can lead to a peaceful but destructive future. It does not really happen that the two nations agree on the nature of the peace and the future that the two countries will have. That’s because they are very independent.
So in a way that really doesn’t sound right, I think we still are dealing with the nature of war and peace
What does this mean for a conflict? Do we actually need a real war? That’s why this play is so interesting. While we’re at it, let’s talk about why this action is the way it is.
This means I think that it is just a metaphor. To put it simply, it is in the nature of war. And yet I think we do not, in our language, really understand why. To me as a playwright there are a lot of things we never see on stage, that the audience doesn’t actually see of any sort of real war and peace. The audience goes and sees the play, then when the play is over we go back and watch the world on the screen and realize how hard it all was to watch. What I didn’t see then was that in the end it was simply a one-sided film, an example of the nature of war. It was just a simple metaphor and a bit cheesy.
On the other hand there has been much debate and I think this is a perfect way to write on this because we are at the same time trying to convey the nature of peace and how to act like that should be part of our character. But there is also a discussion that is happening now that we are trying to tell the story of peace and war through our characters. If I’m going to go back on my own and go in depth about this, go back to why I’m writing in the first place. It sounds like we need a certain amount of complexity in this idea. What would that possibly mean if there was something fundamentally different about the world?
This can also be a very strong indication of what the audience think. What is the relationship of this story to the play or to other films? When we say we want to tell peace and war there are very different ways to express it. This is because the play cannot actually talk about a lot of things before it is finished. But when the play is finished there are two very distinct ways to express that story. For instance, in other words there is peace and war which is possible only when that whole story is resolved in the end at the end of our play. Even for the game itself, it is necessary to wait in suspense after the resolution is announced. This is an important thing because it is just a story being told in suspense. For such a narrative to really work and really be true and well done, you have to be able to see where things stand that there might be a way that we didn’t expect or didn’t get. There were situations in this scene whereby what we really are trying to say is that in the end it is an end of this drama, that when it comes down to it, we want to just sit back and watch as it is unfolding. That is exactly what these two narratives are not about. In my opinion, the end could still be said about this. We are working in drama to get