In this essay I wish to describe how Aristophanes informs, educates and entertains his audience with special reference to The Frogs. I will outline Aristophanes’ technical aspects as a playwright and speculate on reasons as to why he made certain choices about the characters, scenes and settings. I will then write about how successful Aristophanes’ choices have been to inform, educate and entertain his audience.
When reading the plays of Aristophanes it strikes one clearly that this was a man who had things to say and immensely enjoyed saying them in the way that he wanted. It is also clear that he is also has considerable talents at saying what he wanted to say in the way he wanted to say it. Often called a comedic dramatist but a better definition of him would be that of a satirist. He not only wishes to display comic situations where characters only told jokes but he also wants to debate political opinions and political criticism. His stage is normally described as a fantasy but it is more likely that what he shows is not fantastical but merely a reality distorted by an off scale perception. It is this distorted reality that makes him surprisingly modern and accessible. He could be comfortable passed off as a contemporary of Eugene Ionesco or Samuel Beckett. His theatre is then not simply a theatre of fantasy but a theatre of absurdity. This makes him not just a comedian of laughter but a wit of thought as well. Being a satirist then it follows that he must have some opinions, preferably strong ones, about how people should and, more importantly, should not be governed. So how does he inform us of his opinion? This can be answered easily by looking at the penultimate chorus speech of The Frogs. There Aristophanes’ instruction is clear: To find ‘ A man with a shrewd and intelligent mind’ so that he may ‘save the city and the stage’.1 This is the essence of the play and the main motive of Dionysus who drives the plot forwards. In this way Aristophanes first shows his instruction and then plainly tells his instruction. In The Frogs the childish questions, foreshadows more serious questions.2 To demonstrate and develop this search for a saviour each scene involves the more general problem of discerning an authoritive identity: Dionysus is dressed as Heracles, he is mistaken for Pan by the frogs, he is not recognised as a god, and finally the identity of the greatest tragic authority is debated. Each image enforces the instruction of the importance of being able to recognise the true from the forged. Even seemingly arbitrary images, such as the Empusa, build up this picture of a world populated by shifting, changing and uncertain trust of figures. The instruction becomes clear: a lack of critical thinking in people can lead to manipulation and abuse of trust. To be able to judge between a wise leader and a foolish one is vital. In short for Aristophanes critical thinking is critical!
The first scene nicely illustrates this theme. Dionysus pays Hercules a visit to get advice about going to the underworld because though Dionysus is a demi-god his power alone is not going to be enough to get to Hades. He needs the wisdom and knowledge of someone
who has already has experience of the journey. He even needs instruction for using an oar. So advice is important. But Dionysus is also bizarrely dressed up as Heracles, which is unesscerry and unconvincing. Aristophanes presents an image of a fool imitating a hero giving us a laughable absurd situation and also a serious point. Imitations should be recognise for what they are and laughed at mercilessly. The next scene carries on to a slightly different but closely related theme. The frog chorus scene, from where the play gets it title, is a scene both funny but also a little disquieting. Why? Well assuming that the frogs are only heard and not seen ‘the image becomes one of an individual struggling against a group who are no less powerful for being invisible.’3 This can be read as the image of democracy, a democracy like Athens, making poorly informed decisions to the chagrin of an individual. An individual like Aristophanes.
Aristophanes has serious points to make but if satire is what another great satirist called the looking-glass that reflects all faces expect ones own then how sincere are we to think of Aristophanes’ message? How deep does the irony go? Ralph M. Rosen in his essay Aristophanes’ Frogs and The Contest of Homer and Hesiod thinks that Aescyus was chosen not because he was the better poet but that he was the better political leader for Athens’ current problems. He goes on to say;
‘The end of Frogs is hardly a solemn and systematic theoretical disquisition about poetry…the victory of Aeschylus over Euripdes raises as many questions about the nature of poetry as it pretends to resolve’
It is evident that Aristophanes spared no audience, for example by comparing them to murderers and purjurers as Xanithas does in The Frogs, so could it be that it was really the playwright having the last laugh at the expense of his crowd? Paul Cartledge admits in Aristophanes and his Theatre of the Absurd that this ‘cynical rejoinder’ seems ‘utterly appropriate’ but as he goes on,
‘it seems hard to maintain that that was all there was to Aristophanes’ defence of poetic didacticism: methinks he did protest both too much and too often’(p31)
Rosemary M. Harriott also points out in Aristophanes: Poet and Dramatist,
‘the comic dramatist wishes to keep his distance from the tragic poets: They speak to each other…interrupted and deflated by Dionysus…like a court jester’(p44).
From this it suggests that what Aristophanes really wants to do, and what is ultimatly worthwhile for him, is to entertain.
Most of this entertainment we get out of his main protagonist Dionysus by way of his sidekick slave Xanithas who gets the best lines and therefore jokes. The character of Dionysus in The Frogs has such a mixture of qualities it is difficult to know how to react to him as a whole. He treats Xanithas badly but he is no villain, he follows in the footsteps of Heracles but is far from heroic. He is more like a Don Quixote being both laughable and determined to satisfy his need of poetry. He is a character of grand ideas but ineffectual practice. He is as Rosemary M. Harriott describes
‘A figure whose motives makes sense but whose plans will not bear scrutiny ie; it makes sense to consult Heracles but not to impersonate him’
However inept as he his he still has to judge between two poets and come to a decision, which is time consuming because of his indecision. In this way Dionysus represents a citizen of a confused and misguided Athens that, confused and misguided they are, still has to make an important decision. Like an Athenian citizen he is both a master with power and a person in need of guides in order to make good use of their power. As Aeschylus says in the play: ‘Schoolboys have a master to teach them, grown-ups have the poets’.
The chorus tend to do the most overt political educating. Particularly the end of act one chorus as it is them who have the privilege ‘to amuse you…and to advise’. The chorus advises to ‘pardon and forget’ and to ‘treat these men as brothers’, to beware of Cleigenes and to metaphorically change their ‘silver-plated coppers’ for the old ‘noble silver drachma’.
However the most educating section is the poets’ debate as it involves a blow-by-blow criticism of their works. A strange idea for a play even now but this plot was seen more odd when first performed as David Barrett writes in the introduction to The Frogs;
‘The idea of literary criticism as a purely intellectual activity…simple did not exist in Aristophanes’’ day…To judge a work of art on its technical merits alone, without reference to its moral value, would have been regarded by every Athenian, whether he happened to be an expert or not, as the height of absurdity’.
Dramatic devices, speech, content, the role of the poet, characters, prologues, lyrics and substance are all discussed. Aeschylus is in favour of Silent characters, grand words, noble themes, moral instruction and heroic figures. Euripides prefers engaging dialogue, sophisticated sentences, energetic scenes, unconventional lyrics and exciting personas. Each argues the good qualities their plays provide while criticising the other’s method. This is good education for the audience as it allows them to consider with scepticism the merits and defects of poets in a way that other plays of this time could not give. This is also good entertainment since there are plenty of jokes making fun of the two tragic poets, jokes the original audience would admittedly find funnier, and of tragedy itself. Dionysus also gets to have a chance at some funny comic asides as well. Whether the audience at the time thought that such objective criticism of art was worthwhile we cannot say but Aristophanes seems to be certain that this is. This comes back to his initial instruction that runs throughout of critical thought needed to discern good, strong advice from weak, misleading advice. In the end it is shown that Euripdes’ drama though entertaining lacks substance of literal as well as figurative weight. Aeschylus is finally chosen to be the better poet to guide Athens out from the path of destruction.
Aristophanes provides three intertwining services by letting his education inform his entertainment. By using jokes, songs and absurd scenarios Aristophanes gets across a serious message relatively painlessly and palatably; but without the serious instruction there could be no comedy of such high quality that raises Aristophanes from a good poet to a great one of masterpieces such as The Frogs. If the biggest sin in writing is to be boring than Aristophanes has to be one of the most virtuous and wisest writers. As David Barrett observes in the Greek plays;
‘True wisdom we begin to see, is not the same thing as cleverness. Wisdom is bound up with moral qualities…old-fashioned virtues perhaps, but of more value to Athens than the ability to talk them out of existence.’
Notes:
1. The Frogs. Act II: Scene II.
2. ‘Aristophanes: Poet and Dramatist’ by Rosemary M. Harriott.
3. ‘Aristophanes: Poet and Dramatist’ (p16) by Rosemary M. Harriott.
Bibliography:
Aristophanes, The Frogs, in ‘The Wasps, The Poet and the Women and The Frogs’, translated by David Barrett. Penguin Books Ltd: Cox and Wyman Ltd, 1970). Pp 156-212 an incredibly useful introduction to The Frogs that helped me to structure my own essay.
Carttedge Paul, Aristophanes and his theatre of the absurd, (Bristol Classical Press: Billing & Sons Ltd, 1990) A slightly misleading title as it has nothing to do with the movement of The Theatre of the Absurd as defined by Martin Esslin but has some useful paragraphs about Aristophanes sincerity.
Harriott Rosemary M., Aristophanes: Poet and Dramatist, (Crook Helm Ltd: Billing & Sons Ltd, 1986) A very useful book that has a lot to say about Aristophanes stagecraft.
McLeish Kenneth, The Theatre of Aristophanes, (Thames and Hudson: The Pitman Press, 1980)
Rosen Ralph M. ‘Aristophanes’ Frogs and the contest of Homer and Hesiod’. Transactions of the American Philological Association, Volume 134, Number 2, Autumn 2004, pp. 295-322. An original reading differing from the traditional interpretation and adding yet another layer of irony to the play.
Zimbardo Rose A. ‘Comic Mockery of the sacred: “The Frogs and The Second Shepherd”’. Educational Theatre Journal, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Oct., 1978), pp. 398-406. Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press. A helpful and interesting essay about character taking journeys of wisdom ‘which all comedy celebrates’.
http://www.facebook.com/FreeHetherington
ReplyDelete