Great Books Ep 101. Aristophanes - The Frogs. On the Freedom of Speech
Does the impulse to defend a god through violence reveal underlying insecurities about one's own faith?
Dionysus. “I’ve done it: call the god.” \ Xanthias. “Get up, you laughing-stock; get up directly, Before you’re seen.” \ Di. “What, get up ? I’m fainting. Please dab a sponge of water on my heart.” \ Xa. “Here! Dab it on.” \ Di. “Where is it?” \ Xa. “Ye golden gods, Lies your heart there?” \ Di. “It got so terrified. It fluttered down into my stomach’s pit.” \ Xa. “Cowardliest of gods and men.”
~ ‘The Frogs’ by Aristophanes (Benjamin B. Rogers translation. GB5 - p. 569)
Brief Summary
The play begins with the god Dionysus and his slave Xanthias, who are on a journey. The slave is on a donkey complaining about the weight he is carrying while Dionysus is walking ( I briefly wondered about people who have backpacks on them while riding on a horse. They carry the weight, and the horse also carries the weight. They might as well place the backpack on the horse). They reach Heracles’ house and Heracles finds it funny to see Dionysus dressed up like him, wearing a lion skin and carrying a club. When asked why, Dionysus says that he is saddened to hear that Euripides is dead and would like to go to Hades and bring him back. He is dressed up as Heracles since he has gone to Hades and come back. (A reference to the events of Euripides’ play ‘Alcestis’, I think). Heracles describes various routes to Hades, and Dionysus chooses the one that Heracles used - crossing the lake to Hades with the ferryman Charon. While Dionysus is on the boat, Xanthias has to walk around the lake to reach the destination since Charon refuses to ferry slaves (showing that discrimination exists in Hell also!). A group of frogs (the Chorus) repeatedly croaks, “Brekekekex koax koax!”, mocking Dionysus.
They reach the shore, and Dionysus is reunited with Xanthias. As they walk towards the center of the Underworld, they encounter many people - some who are angry with Heracles and some who are friends. When they meet someone who is filled with rage, Dionysus makes Xanthias wear the costume, and he becomes the slave and changes when the reverse happens. Xanthias mocks Dionysus for being cowardly throughout this episode. In the end, when they meet Aeacus, the underworld judge who wants to punish Heracles for stealing Cerberus, they both get flogged.
Finally, they meet Pluto (Hades) and find that Euripides has challenged Aeschylus for the throne of tragedy. Pluto suggests that Dionysus, the god of theater, should judge the contest between the playwrights. The verbal contest between Aeschylus and Euripides is the highlight of the play and shows Aristophanes’ deep knowledge of the plays and styles of the famous people who came before him. Aeschylus’s traditional, patriotic, heroic style is contrasted against Euripides’s logical, democratic, philosophical approach. Aeschylus wins in the end, and Dionysus chooses him to return to Athens. As he departs, Aeschylus leaves his underworld throne to Sophocles (not Euripides).
My Thoughts
The play showcased the complicated worldview of Aristophanes, where he is opposed to the logical and rational approaches of Euripides (this play) or Socrates (The Clouds) and supports traditional plays of Aeschylus and Sophocles, but at the same time makes fun of gods.
The portrayal of Dionysus, who is a god, as a coward was one of the most interesting things about the play. In the play, when they are in the Underworld, where Heracles has many enemies, whenever they meet someone who seeks revenge against Heracles, Dionysus forces his slave Xanthias to wear the Heracles costume, but whenever they meet someone ready to give a feast to Heracles, Dionysus takes it back. I’m sure this portrayal upset the people of the time who worshipped the god. Dionysus was the patron of the theatre, and this play was performed at the religious festivals that were dedicated to him. Dionysus was also the god of wine, fertility, spirituality, and liberation. In fact, Euripides’ play ‘The Bacchantes’ warns people of the dire consequences of not giving due reverence to Dionysus. Two thousand years ago, Aristophanes had the freedom of speech to depict a god as a clown but even now, there are religions in the world where reverence to gods are taken very seriously and one could get killed for mocking any aspect of a god.
That makes one wonder about the degree of freedom of speech one can enjoy anywhere in the world. Freedom of speech is relative. It is different in different countries and many times different in various parts of the same country. It also makes one wonder about the impulse to use violence. Is it universal or is it in some people? Are some people inherently more violent that they just need a reason, and is the perceived blasphemy against their religion a convenient way to use aggression? The fact that people attribute special powers to gods itself should indicate that they don’t need to be defended by humans. People could let the comedians joke and let the god give out punishment as needed. But they don’t.
I wish people could see that though most religions are based on heroic figures with divine powers, what really keeps the believers, the agnostics, and the non-believers in a religion are the values that enable them to live virtuous lives and expect fairness from others. A religion is a unifying force to go beyond the notion of blood relations and share things with strangers, a moral framework for living well, to feel grateful, to give meaning to a short life on a tiny planet in a vast universe with no other known life forms yet, to have a sense of connection to something larger than oneself, etc. In addition to all this, most religions have a historical, cultural and local context. So, even though we can say that one way of life is not better than the other, we can always say that violence is not right. Violence is a tool of the ego and the will to power. It is a way to silence and control rather than a true expression of faith.
I guess one can extend this to political leaders too. In how many countries can the general public or a comedian criticize the leadership and live to see the next day? I think this is at the core of why even well-to-do rich people migrate to other countries. Once authoritarianism takes control of a place and if people are silenced for speaking their minds, generally people yearn to move away.
AI Response to the Post (Gemini)
1. Expanding on Religion, Mockery, and Violence:
The Psychological Roots of Offense:
You’ve astutely noted that the impulse to defend a deity violently often stems from insecurity. It’s not about the god’s vulnerability, but the believer’s. The mockery challenges their sense of identity and belonging, which are often deeply intertwined with their religious beliefs.
The fear of social ostracism plays a significant role. In some communities, questioning or mocking religious tenets can lead to isolation or even expulsion. This fear can drive individuals to aggressive defense of their faith.
The concept of “sacred space” is violated. Mocking a god is seen as a desecration of something holy, triggering a strong emotional response. This response can easily escalate to anger and violence, especially when combined with a sense of righteous indignation.
The Social Function of Blasphemy:
Historically, blasphemy has served as a tool for social control. By defining certain beliefs as untouchable, societies reinforce their power structures.
However, blasphemy can also be a form of protest, a way for marginalized groups to challenge dominant ideologies.
Aristophanes’ play itself is a form of controlled blasphemy, performed within a sanctioned religious festival. This highlights the complex relationship between religious expression and social critique.
The Cycle of Violence:
Violence in the name of religion often perpetuates a cycle of retaliation. It creates a climate of fear and distrust, making it difficult to find common ground.
True faith, as you suggest, should be about promoting peace and understanding, not violence.
2. Deeper Analysis of Themes and Symbolism:
The Nature of Comedy:
“The Frogs” explores the power of comedy to critique and challenge societal norms. Aristophanes uses humor to address serious issues, such as the decline of Athenian culture and the role of art in society.
The play’s comedic structure, with its reversals and absurd situations, serves to highlight the contradictions and absurdities of human behavior.
The Decline of Athenian Culture:
The contest between Aeschylus and Euripides symbolizes the broader cultural anxieties of Athens. Aristophanes mourns the loss of traditional values and the perceived decline of artistic excellence.
The choice of Aeschylus represents a yearning for a return to a more heroic and morally upright past.
The Role of the Poet:
The play raises questions about the responsibility of the artist to society. Should art inspire and uplift, or should it challenge and provoke?
Aristophanes suggests that in times of crisis, art should serve a civic purpose, providing moral guidance and inspiring patriotic fervor.
Symbolism:
The Frogs themselves: The chorus of frogs, with their repetitive and disruptive croaking, symbolizes the chaotic and unsettling nature of the journey to the underworld. They also reflect the noise and disorder of Athenian political life.
The costumes: The constant switching of costumes between Dionysus and Xanthias highlights the fluidity of identity and the instability of power. It symbolizes how easily people can adopt different roles and masks.
The weighing of the verses: The literal weighing of the poets’ words on a scale symbolizes the importance of substance and weight in poetry. It also serves as a comedic exaggeration of literary criticism.
The journey to Hades: The journey itself is a symbolic descent into the depths of Athenian society, where the problems and anxieties of the city are laid bare.
3. Thought-Provoking Questions for Modern Readers:
What is the role of art in a time of crisis?
How do we balance freedom of speech with the need to respect religious beliefs?
What are the dangers of cultural nostalgia?
How do we distinguish between genuine faith and religious extremism?
What constitutes true leadership, and how do we hold our leaders accountable?
How can we utilize comedy as a tool for social commentary in a respectful and effective manner?
To what degree should we allow public figures to be mocked?
Is it always better to stick to traditional values, or is it necessary to adopt new ideas?