THE FROGS by ARISTOPHANES

THE FROGS AS A POLITICAL SATIRE
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE POET

Aristophanes is a poet with political concern, and The Frogs, a political satire, proves the fact better than any other of his plays. The poet takes every possible opportunity of mentioning the painful realities of the day- whether in brief or in the long reasoned parabasis. The whole comic sequence of the slave, who changes places with his master is a political allegory, as the chorus reveals later. ‘Escapist literature,’ therefore, should not be the brand of The Frogs.

While composing The Frogs, inner-emptiness prevailed on the stages of tragedy as well as politics; the golden age of tragedy perished with the death of three great tragedians: Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides; politically, Athenians were constantly under the threat of Spartan invasion From Decelea. In such chaotic situation, Dionysus, the patron god of drama, resolves to fetch Euripides back on earth from Hades. When, later, he is asked the reason why, he answers, ‘To save the City, of course.’ Heracles shows him the route, and he sets out. In the perilous way, he encounters the chorus, a band of Initiates who chant the ‘parodos’ praising Demeter and Iacchos. This intricate song ends with a castigation of persons whose violation of morality has given public offence. After this parodos, it is in the ‘parabasis’ that their song deals aloud with political issues.

A parabasis is a traditional phase of classic comedy where the chorus addresses directly to the audiences on the social or political issues. Here in The Frogs, it expresses Aristophanes’ view on the prevailing discrimination regarding Athenian citizenship. In 411 B.C., a number of aristocrats made a terrible mistake bringing about an oligarchic revolution. However, in 410 B. C., democracy was restored, but many of the oligarchs, who were prudent politicians and fought many naval battles for Athens, were alienated from Athenian citizenship. In contrast, the slaves, who fought at Arginusae, were made citizens. This discrimination is well shown by Aristophanes with the allegory of Xanthias’ being master and Dionysus’ being slave. If slaves can be citizens, the chorus (or Aristophanes) wonders, why the former oligarchs should not be pardoned and allowed to profit the country with wise instructions at such a time of peril. Further, the chorus compares this discrimination with the current currency-problem in Athens. Their silver and gold coins have been withdrawn from market. Instead, silver-plated coppers are only in circulation. Likewise, the worthy sons of the land are alienated, and the silver-plated slaves have taken their place now. Its time, the chorus says, Athenians forgot the past and accepted those worthy people in order to bring peace, or else ‘In the days to come, when history is penned,/ they’ll say we must have gone clean round the bend.’

Reaching Hades, Dionysus becomes the judge between Aeschylus and Euripides in order to select the best tragedian ever. In his life time, Euripides, Dionysus’ first choice, has stricken the traditional attitudes of Athens and helped to create the modern outlook; moreover, he excels in poetic techniques. Aeschylus, on the other hand, has always been grand in his poetry helping people develop moral qualities, such as courage, integrity, justice and moderation. On moral issues points mount up to Aeschylus’ favour because to judge a work of art on its technical merits alone, without reference to its moral values, was sheer absurdity for Athenians. The role of a poet was that of a teacher, preacher and wise counselor, just as Aeschylus says, ‘Schoolboys have a master to teach them, grown-ups have the poets. Thus, Aeschylus is chosen to return to earth for his capability of counseling the Athenian people at the time of political unrest.

In no other play did Aristophanes insist so firmly on his conception of the poet’s proper function in society; in no other play did he endeavour so earnestly to fulfil it. In writing The Frogs, Aristophanes was more than usually conscious of the social and political responsibilities of a poet. The moral and political message, that underlie this brilliantly funny play makes, The Frogs one of the best political satires ever produced.

[PRERARED BY SHOURABH POTHOBASHI WITH REFERENCE TO THE ‘INTRODUCTORY NOTE TO THE FROGS’ BY DAVID BARRET AND ‘THE PARABASIS OF THE FROGS’ BY MAURICE CROISET]






THE ROLE OF CHORUS IN THE FROGS

The tradition of classic Greek comedy allowed one chorus to the dramatist; in this respect, The Frogs is unique because it has two unrelated choruses: the ‘frog’ chorus and the chorus of the Initiates. In contrast to the raucous song of the first chorus is the solemn and awe-inspiring entrance of the chorus of the Initiates.

Dionysus encounters the frog chorus while rowing the boat across Lake Acheron. Their monotonous song merely disgusts him, but they might be intended to symbolize the banal people gathered in the swamps of tragedy and politics of the day. In the perilous way to Hades, Dionysus encounters the chorus consisting of twenty-four Initiates who chant the ‘parodos’ praising Demeter and Iacchos. This intricate song ends with a castigation of persons whose violation of morality has given public offence. After the parodos, it is in the ‘parabasis’ that their song deals aloud with political issues.

A parabasis is a traditional phase of classic comedy where the chorus addresses directly to the audiences on the social or political issues. Here in The Frogs, it expresses Aristophanes’ view on the prevailing discrimination regarding Athenian citizenship. In 411 B.C., a number of aristocrats made a terrible mistake bringing about an oligarchic revolution. However, in 410 B. C., democracy was restored, but many of the oligarchs, who were prudent politicians and fought many naval battles for Athens, were alienated from Athenian citizenship. In contrast, the slaves, who fought at Arginusae, were made citizens. This discrimination is well shown by Aristophanes with the allegory of Xanthias’ being master and Dionysus’ being slave. If slaves can be citizens, the chorus (or Aristophanes) wonders, why the former oligarchs should not be pardoned and allowed to profit the country with wise instructions at such a time of peril. Further, the chorus compares this discrimination with the current currency-problem in Athens. Their silver and gold coins have been withdrawn from market. Instead, silver-plated coppers are only in circulation. Likewise, the worthy sons of the land are alienated, and the silver-plated slaves have taken their place now. Its time, the chorus says, Athenians forgot the past and accepted those worthy people in order to bring peace, or else ‘In the days to come, when history is penned,/ they’ll say we must have gone clean round the bend.’ The parabasis of the play merely act as the mouthpiece of Aristophanes to express his moral and political views.

In the second act or in the ‘agon’ of the, play the function of the chorus is so insignificant that we almost forget its presence. In this act, it rarely chants its songs; however, we here them commenting on the contest between Aeschylus and Euripides on a few occasions. For example it chants, ‘One is armed with words of might,/ And one the sword of wit doth wield.’ These comments illustrate the difference between the two great tragedians.

In a political satire like The Frogs, the significance of the chorus is undeniable for the function of representing the moral and political views of the dramatist. Aristophanes has made it exceptional and unique breaking with the tradition of comedy.

[PRERARED BY SHOURABH POTHOBASHI WITH REFERENCE TO ‘INTRODUCTION TO THE TWENTIETH CENTURY INTERPRETATIONS OF THE FROGS’ BY DAVID J. LITTLEFIELD AND ‘THE PARABASIS OF THE FROGS’ BY MAURICE CROISET]







LITERARY CRITICISM IN THE FROGS

The literary criticism in The Frogs is the most important critical literary document from the fifth century. The play was written after the death of all three great Greek tragedians: Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. Their absence made the stage void of creativity. Dionysus, the patron god tragedy can not bear this barrenness. Since he feels the want of a single ‘seminal poet’ in the theatre of the day who can coin a fine ‘resounding phrase,’ he goes to fetch Euripides back on earth from Hades where he is to be the judge between Aeschylus and Euripides. The two giants criticize each-other’s poetry which we can doubtlessly think Aristophanes’s own. It is part of Aristophanes’s greatness that, in spite of all his prejudices in favour of Aeschylus, he could see the greatness and attraction of both.

For the seat of the greatest tragedian, a contest is being held in the underworld between Aeschylus and Euripides, and Dionysus is glad to be the judge. This opposition extends matter, language and style. The grand manner of Aeschylus requires dignified, stately language; the realism of Euripides inevitably uses everyday speech. This is the subject of the preliminary skirmishes between the two after which they pray to the gods, and then, the real battle begins.

Euripides’s first point of attack is the slow tempo and choral nature. Some character, in Aeschylean tragedy, remains unveiled until the middle of the play, and when he speaks he speaks unintelligibly. On the other hand, Euripides claims that his characters remain busy from the very beginning. Aeschylus, in reply accuses of him the representation of petty characters and immoral plots. As a media of moral views, he says, Euripides fails.

From now on they are mainly concerned with artistic criteria on three specific points. Firstly, regarding parodos, Euripides brings two charges of obscurity and tautology against Aeschylus and proves them both. He shows that the first lines of the Libation Bearers can be interpreted in two different ways, and that there are two unnecessary word in three lines. Aeschylus’s counterattack is also twofold. The first point is Euripides should not speak of once happy Oedipus, for he was wretched from the birth. The second is much important. He gets Euripides quote the first lines of several plays and fits in ‘lost his bottle of oil’ in them all. The point is Euripidean drama begins with a straight narrative in which a half line consisting of a verb and an object can before long be fitted in. Secondly, Euripides criticizes the monotony of Aeschylean lyrics; they can almost be reduced to one, and he reduces the major part of a number of lines to the four-and-a-half feet of a Homeric Hexametre. Aeschylus replies condemning the modern variations in music. He composes a parody of a Euripidean lyric monody. The meaning of this seems to be that the younger dramatist wastes poetry on paltry subjects. The third and the last attack concerns the diction of the two poets, and it is judged by the comic device of bringing out scales and weighing the lines. Aeschylus’s lines prove to be weightier.

After all these, Dionysus declares that he will bring the best poet back to the earth in order to give people good counsel at the time of social and political unrest. But, now he admits that it is difficult to judge between the two greats. His first choice was Euripides, but at last he chooses Aeschylus. In his life time, Euripides, Dionysus’ first choice, has stricken the traditional attitudes of Athens and helped to create the modern outlook; moreover, he excels in poetic techniques. Aeschylus, on the other hand, has always been grand in his poetry helping people develop moral qualities, such as courage, integrity, justice and moderation. On moral issues points mount up to Aeschylus’ favour because to judge a work of art on its technical merits alone, without reference to its moral values, was sheer absurdity for Athenians. The role of a poet was that of a teacher, preacher and wise counselor, just as Aeschylus says, ‘Schoolboys have a master to teach them, grown-ups have the poets.

[PRERARED BY SHOURABH POTHOBASHI WITH REFERENCE TO ‘INTRODUCTION TO THE TWENTIETH CENTURY INTERPRETATIONS OF THE FROGS’ BY DAVID J. LITTLEFIELD AND ‘THE PARABASIS OF THE FROGS’ BY MAURICE CROISET]