http://www.columbia.edu/~eg48/protoc16.html
[ Home | Requirements | Books | Syllabus | Protocols | Further Comments | Discussion | Links
| Contact ]
Humanities C1001-014: Masterpieces of Western Literature and Philosophy
Prof. Eileen Gillooly
PROTOCOLS
#13: The Frogs
Written by Jessie Handbury; edited by Luis Saucedo
1. The controversy surrounding the study of The Frogs
The inclusion of Aristophanes’ text in the Literature Humanities course is a
highly debated topic. The pros and cons of this debate are as follows:
Pros:


There are too many tragedies in the course, showing only one side to Greek
theatre. Aristophanes’ plays are examples of the comedic element of Greek
theatre, which made up about half of what was performed. The addition of
The Frogs in the course presents a more realistic and well-rounded crosssection of Greek theatre, showing that Greek society was not totally dominated
by a fateful, bleak outlook on life.
The study of a comedy allows for an investigation of the different dramatic
techniques used in both tragic and comedic works. Though it becomes clear in
studying The Frogs that the aims and potential for their fulfillment are similar
in both styles of dramatic writing, the elements by which they are brought
about are very different. (See below)
Cons:



Comedic plays are difficult to appreciate since they include many allusions
and references that only a contemporary audience could appreciate. The
topicality of comedy, especially Greek comedy which is intensely political,
means that without an extensive knowledge of the social and political context
in which a play was written, the audience is unable to fully appreciate the
humor and themes of the play.
In any culture comedy is based on fine word choice that can be lost in the
translation. It is important to note, however, that Arrowsmith, Lattimore, and
Parker have not directly translated much of the humor in the text, and have
altered the language so that the intended meanings of the puns are still
conveyed.
Like the Cold War translation of the Peloponnesian War, the translation of The
Frogs is also problematic as it is roughly fifty years old. In reading The
Frogs, 1950s rhetoric and jargon need themselves to be “translated” to
understand Aristophanes’ intended meaning.
2. Historical Background to The Frogs
The Frogs was performed in Athens at the Lenaia Festival of 405BC. The
Peloponnesian War was in its final stages. Even though Athens was defeated in 404,
the writing was on the wall, so to speak, while Aristophanes was working on the play.
Therefore, in order to understand the many political allusions that exist in the play,
one must have a certain amount of knowledge regarding Athens’ situation in 405BC,
and the events that brought it there:



The “sea battle” which is referred to in Dionysos and Xanthias’ sophistic
argument about the latter’s load to carry (p482) is the battle of Arginousai,
fought in the summer of 406BC, just before the play was written and
performed. In this battle, slaves were used to fight for Athens and then
granted their freedom on victory. The battle was a success for the Athenians;
however, the collateral damage was great, with around 5000 men lost. The
demos was angry at this loss, and as retribution the generals, including
Pericles (son of Pericles), were executed. Socrates was president of the
assembly at the time and tried to keep the generals from being executed, but
failed. Socrates was executed himself in 399.
The “feast at Diomeia” referred to randomly on page 528, was unable to be
held because the Spartans had taken over Decalaeia, a military fort. This
allusion reminds the audience of the trapped position that Athens was in: they
were no longer in control of their own outlying areas, the Spartans were
almost at the gates of their city, and their own colonies and allies were
everywhere in revolt. Aristophanes is also alluding to the danger of
Alcibiades to Athens. Alcibiades was an Athenian who advised the Spartans
to take Decalaeia. The danger he presented to the Athenians in situations like
these came from his persuasiveness and his knowledge of the weaknesses and
thought-processes of the Athenian army and its generals.
Aristophanes also makes his opposition to the rule of Kleophon known
throughout the play. In the final lines, the chorus calls for “Kleophon and all
similar aliens” to “go home and fight”. Aristophanes did not support
Kleophon’s persuasion of the demos to continue fighting, after Sparta offered
them a truce following the Arginousai.
3. Elements of Old Comedy and its Power
Though tragedy is often viewed as the greater power in theatre the power of
comedic writing and its effects are greatly underestimated. Tragedy portrays
exceptional models of humanity from whose mistakes and experiences the audience
learns. It elevates society by discussing abstract principles, such as the god-like
qualities of humans and the struggles of the soul. Comedy, on the other hand, is
useful in conveying political ideas to the masses. Rather than elevating human figures
to heroic status, comedic writing reduces humanity and even great figures to the
lowest common denominator. While tragedy uses sophisticated irony and other such
linguistic techniques to communicate its messages, comedy uses everyday language
and humor that everybody can understand. Uneducated Greeks would not be able to
understand the complicated irony of some tragedies. Tragedies might be considered
as more aristocratic, and comedies as more democratic. Comedic writers can write
casually, with base humor almost exclusively discussing the physical side of
humanity, and have a license to state their controversial opinions though such license
was limited: Aristophanes, for example, was tried for treason as a result of the
slanderous political attacks he made on Cleon in his writing. Aristophanes trivializes
the individuals he is making fun of by constantly including base reminders of the
physical realities with which we live daily. The crudeness of the humor “breaks the
ice”, and makes the subtle, ironic humor by which he conveys his opinions much
more powerful. Despite problematic translations and the distance from the culture, it
is remarkable how much of Aristophanes’ humor that a modern audience can relate to.

The crudeness of Aristophanes’ humor is evident in:
i.
the “brekakakax ko-ax-ko-ax” of the frogs and Dionysos (this
competition between the chorus and the god is argued to be a
representation of both a singing competition and a farting contest)
ii. the homosexual jokes made with reference to Dionysos (p485: his
craving “for a boy”)
Other conventional elements of old comedy are as follows:



a journey: In this case, Dionysos goes to the underworld to bring back
Euripides, satisfying a craving or pothos. This journey is traditionally to bring
an inhabitant of Hades to the world to right a wrong. (N.B. the analogy
between Dionysos’s craving and one for baked beans: Euripides is said to be
“full of beans”.)
identity and paradox: Dionysos’s identity is multiple, changing, and
contradictory. The fact that he has a craving, when gods shouldn’t have
pothos (craving), brings up the question of how much of a god he is. He, like
Herakles, is half-man and half-god, though instead of his humanity taking
precedence over his divinity as in the character of Herakles, he is worshipped
as a god. In the Bacchae he defeats the expectations of what gods should be,
and here his fatness (symbol of his physicality), his irrationality, and his
effeminacy all make the audience question his identity. In the spirit of theatre,
Dionysos is often disguised. He first disguises himself as Herakles but then
switches outfits with his slave several times throughout the play so that we see
him as a god and a slave repeatedly, considering that he is the god of passions
to which me are often enslaved this frequent change of identity is appropriate.
Dionysos’ character is performed with a mask of a smiling face which
suggests mischievousness as well. Dionysos’ character fits with the topsyturvy quality and incongruity of the comedic theatre. Furthermore, his
changing of identities communicates another related state of being. He is the
god of wine which makes one drunk - like theatre, disguise, and passion –
another state of mind: ekstasis.
the agon: a contest, here between Euripides and Aeschylus, and Xanthias and
Dionysos.
i.
Euripides’ contest with Aeschylus is a parody of The Eumenides’ trial
of Orestes. The contestants use lines as evidence and present their
evidence in a courtroom-like scene.
ii.


They contest which poet would better advise Athens in 405BC.
Euripides’ plays toe fine line between tragedy and comedy: while his
stories are tragic, his subjects are not leaders, he gives a voice to
everyone, even the often dismissed, such as women, slaves etc. He
deals with the demos and the everyday aspects of life. His mode of
writing teaches the people of Athens to be critical of their leaders, and
he presents the faults in their society as examples of what to avoid in
the future. Like all art, comedy must educate as well as entertain. In
comedy though, because the majority of it is irony and satire, the
educational part of it is more easily perceived. Aeschylus, on the other
hand, presents models to emulate and covers up scandal instead of
illustrating it as does Euripides. The question at hand is whether to
accept the fate of Athens, as Euripides would, or to be optimistic and
emulate heroic models in hope of victory. Although Dionysos chooses
Aeschylus to bring back to Athens from Hades it is a peculiar choice,
because Aristophanes generally likes Euripides and put him in all his
plays. Aristophanes’ attitude that neither poet can save Athens is
suggested by the fact that no solutions are reached for the problem of
Alcibiades (p577-80): Euripides echoes the parabasis in advising to
rely on those leaders (ostracized for various reasons) who will do the
most good for Athens, but is unsure about what to do about Alcibiades,
while Aeschylus uses the example of the lion cub (relating it to Helen,
who being nurtured brought destruction to Argos), to advocate relying
on Alcibiades, and advises that Athens should rely on its navy, which
does not exist. The argument comes out with the sense that
Aristophanes’ comedy itself will save Athens, by creating distance
from the situation, accepting it, and appealing to the power of poetry to
help the people understand their losses.
the parabasis: the part of the play where playwrights states their view clearly,
Aristophanes does this through the leader of the chorus, the initiates of the
Eleusinian mysteries, which in reality constituted virtually all the citizens of
Athens. The parabasis shows the way in which Aristophanes feels Athens
should deal with its losses, and whom to blame for them. On pages 509-10, he
spells out who are to blame for the defeat, including Alcibiades as he “sells
out a ship or a fort to the enemy”, and Kleophon “who gets up to speak in the
public assembly and nibbles at the fees of poets”. On pages 530-1,
Aristophanes again uses the leader of the Initiates to call for “amnesty” for
those who supported the oligarchy camp of 411, since among these are some
of the best, wisest, potential leaders of Athens. It is thought that the unusual
honor of a second production of The Frogs can be attributed to the parabasis.
theatricality: while tragedy needs the audience to believe that the action is real
in order to be successful, comedy calls attention to its own theatricality.
Anything that breaks the illusion of reality in a tragedy diminishes its effects;
however, this fault in tragic theatre is a major element of comedy. Dionysos’
character involves the audience, speaking both to the audience as “criminal
types” and calling to the priest in the front row. Breaking the frame bridges
the distance between the audience and the dramatic action. If tragedy
emphasizes the distance between the tragic hero and the audience (which is
moved to fear and pity at what it witnesses), comedy emphasizes the
identification of the comic characters and the audience (which should be
moved to “think”, as Aristophanes says, about the similarities between their
own situation and the one they witness).