Frogs and Other Plays

by Aristophanes

  Athenian comedy and tragedy were performed as part of separate competitions (albeit at the same festivals). In the comic competition rivalries were fierce. Aristophanes, for instance, described his venerable elder contemporary Cratinus as an incontinent, drunken has-been, and was himself accused of plagiarism by another contemporary, Eupolis. At the City Dionysia, where the primary focus was on tragedy, three tragedians competed, each offering three tragedies and a satyr-play (a relatively simple, humorous genre involving a Chorus of drunken, lascivious satyrs in a mythological setting). These plays were performed on the first three days of the festival. On the fourth and final day there were single plays by five comic playwrights. The Lenaea appears originally to have had just single comedies by five playwrights. But at some point around the end of the 430s, tragedies were introduced, with two tragedians each putting on two tragedies (but no satyr-plays); the tragedies were performed before the comedies. Evidence suggests that during certain years of the Peloponnesian War the comic competition was reduced from five competitors to three for financial reasons (comic choruses tended to involve elaborate and expensive costumes).

  The process by which playwrights were invited, or selected, to put on plays was complex. For the City Dionysia, the Eponymous Archon (the principal magistrate of the nine elected annually), upon taking up office, had to nominate wealthy citizens to be the sponsor, or chorēgos, of a comic or tragic chorus. For the Lenaea, this duty was performed by another of the magistrates, and it was possible to nominate wealthy resident foreigners (as non-citizens could participate as chorus members). The chorēgos was responsible for recruiting the twenty-four members of the comic chorus (the tragic chorus in Aristophanes’ day numbered only fifteen). He had to pay for costumes and masks, and also for professional voice trainers and choreographers. He would probably also have paid for any professional singers, musicians, dancers and minor actors or extras the play required. Sponsoring a chorus, while mandatory, was also considered a great civic honour. Nevertheless, if someone felt that another citizen could afford to fund a chorus more easily, the nominee could challenge this person either to be chorēgos in his stead or make a complete exchange of property and goods. Such exchanges, while not common, are attested.

  Playwrights wishing to compete in the City Dionysia or Lenaea had to apply formally to the appropriate archon to be ‘granted a chorus’. The archon would then see samples of their respective plays before reaching his decision. Besides being granted a chorus, successful playwrights were given a principal actor, or ‘protagonist’, at public expense; it is unclear how the other two main actors were recruited and paid. The granting of choruses took place shortly after archons came into office in July. This meant that playwrights and their chorēgoi had ample time to prepare and rehearse before the following January or March for the Lenaea or City Dionysia respectively.

  The playwright was known officially as the didaskalos (literally, ‘teacher’ or ‘instructor’), a role that falls somewhere between author and director. Playwrights before Aristophanes’ day also performed other roles including writing the music and choreography, and training the Chorus to sing and dance. By Aristophanes’ day, however, it was common to employ a special chorus master, or chorodidaskalos. In some cases, the whole play was handed over by the playwright to another person, who would act as didaskalos. Aristophanes did this with his early plays up to and including Acharnians, all of which had his older friend Callistratus as their didaskalos. Aristophanes also used another friend Philonides as didaskalos for his lost play Preview, which beat Wasps (produced/directed by Aristophanes himself) at the Lenaea in 422. Where someone other than the playwright acted as didaskalos, authorship would almost certainly have been an open secret.

  Actors were highly skilled professionals who were also capable of singing and dancing. The actor playing Philocleon in Wasps, for example, had to sing a solo aria (316–33) and perform an elaborate burlesque of tragic dance (1482–1515); and the actor playing Agathon in Women had to imitate, and parody, Agathon’s innovative singing and play solo and choral parts in alternation (101–29). Actors also had to perform elaborate ‘stage business’. Besides slapstick scenes, such as Philocleon popping up from various parts of the house in Wasps, there were scenes involving the use of stage machinery. In Women, for example, the actor playing Euripides (dressed as the tragic Perseus) has to swing across the stage aerially attached to a stage crane.

  Comedy, like tragedy, observed a three-actor rule.4 Aristophanic comedy is, for the most part, performable with three actors; although odd scenes do require a fourth actor, there is no play in which the fourth actor would have to speak more than a few lines.5 The general observation of the three-actor rule ensured that comic playwrights competed on level terms and kept a check on production costs. Conforming to the three-actor rule cannot have been easy, especially in comedies which often involved large numbers of minor characters. Typically, the principal actor would play the lead character. This would involve being onstage for the majority of the play, but when the lead character was not onstage the principal actor may also have had to play one or two minor characters. The second actor would usually play two or three other major parts, although again he may also have had to play the odd minor character (particularly in scenes where a string of characters come onstage only to be rebuffed by the hero, as happens in Acharnians, Peace and Birds). The third actor would play the majority of minor characters but possibly one major character as well.

  The actors’ parts are relatively easy to determine in the case of Women. The protagonist must play Mnesilochus, who is onstage for almost the entire play. The second actor must play Euripides (in all his disguises) and the First Woman (Mica). This leaves the third actor to play Agathon’s servant, Agathon himself, the Second Woman, Cleisthenes, Critylla and the Scythian. There are two minor parts remaining. The first is the Magistrate, who comes on at 922, only one line after Euripides exits and while the other two actors, playing Mnesilochus and Critylla, are still onstage; this part must be played by a fourth actor. The other part is Echo. It is unclear how this part was played, and by which actor (the second or the fourth); still, the number of lines involved is small, and all the lines are repetitions, making them easy to perform. Frogs requires a little more of its fourth actor. The protagonist must play Dionysus, who is onstage throughout. The second actor plays Xanthias and either Aeschylus or Euripides. The third actor plays Heracles, Charon, Aeacus, a Maid, First Landlady, the Old Slave (who may be Aeacus) and either Euripides or Aeschylus. This leaves the fourth actor with the part of Second Landlady, when the three main actors are playing Dionysus, Xanthias and the First Landlady, and the part of Pluto, when the three main actors are present playing Dionysus, Aeschylus and Euripides.

  There were also conventions concerning masks and costume. Masks were grotesque. Most were generic – the old man (e.g., Philocleon, Mnesilochus), the young man (e.g., Bdelycleon), the slave, the old woman, and so on – but individual masks could be used for well-known individuals. Socrates in Clouds, for example, was probably recognizable by a mask portraying his well-known snub-nose and satyr-like features. It is also possible that the mask worn by ‘The Dog’ in the trial scene in Wasps was identifiable as Cleon. Mythological figures, such as Dionysus and Heracles in Frogs, would be recognized by traditional attributes – Dionysus by his ivy, fennel wand and effeminate clothing, and Heracles by his club and lion-skin. Conventions were sometimes deliberately infringed for comic effect (e.g., Dionysus dressed as Heracles in Frogs). Women’s masks were white, while men’s masks were darker and bearded, but it is clear from remarks made by other characters onstage that in Women the masks of Agathon and Cleisthenes, who are both portrayed as very effeminate, are beardless and, probably, paler than usual.

  The comic actor’s costume typically comprised tights worn over thick padding that exaggerated the stomach and buttocks, complementing the grotesqueness of the mask. He would also wear a tunic (or chitōn), which was short enough to reveal a l
arge phallus. An outer garment was often worn, which allowed the phallus to be shown or concealed as required. Aristophanic comedy is rife with comic business involving the phallus. In Women, for instance, the disguised Mnesilochus goes to great lengths to conceal his phallus when Cleisthenes and the women seek to expose him (643–8).

  Members of the Chorus were not specialists, as the actors and playwrights were. Still, between them the Chorus and Chorus-Leader usually had a sizeable quantity of lines, sung and spoken. The Chorus’s costume and appearance were also very important. Along with their dancing and singing they were significant factors in the judging of performances. The importance of the Chorus is evident partly from the fact that comic dramatists had to be ‘granted a chorus’ to enter a play. As ordinary citizens, the Chorus members also represented a strong link between the performers and the audience.

  What remains today of the Theatre of Dionysus belongs to the theatre rebuilt in the fourth century BC by Lycurgus. Any account of the theatre as it was in Aristophanes’ day therefore remains largely speculative. The capacity of the Theatre of Dionysus was approximately 14,000 to 17,000. It was outdoors, and performances ran from morning to evening. Prior to its rebuilding in stone by Lycurgus, the seating area (theatron) was not semi-circular but a more irregular shape, and the rows of seats were movable and wooden. Important officials sat in the front row, in seats of honour called prohedria, with the priest of Dionysus in a throne-like seat at the centre. At the foot of the seating area was a circular pit, the orchestra, where the Chorus performed. In the middle of this was the altar of Dionysus. Behind this was the stage-building, or skēnē, with a raised stage in front of it for the actors. In Aristophanes’ day the building was a long wooden structure with a painted facade. Inside it were rooms in which actors could change costumes, and in which props and costumes were stored. The stage-building contained central doors and two further doors stage left and right. The flat roof of the stage-building offered a higher level for actors and could, as in Wasps, represent the upper floor, or roof, of a house (this is where Bdelycleon is sleeping at the start of Wasps, and it is from here that Philocleon attempts his first ploy to escape). To each side of the stage were wings or side-entrances (eisodoi). By these the Chorus could enter the orchestra. There were also ramps, for actors, leading up from the wings to the stage.

  The composition of Aristophanes’ audiences may have been affected by various factors. One was place of residence. Many outlying parts of Attica were about thirty miles from Athens. The journey may have been too arduous for many poorer rural folk, who would have had to walk to the city (the better-off would probably have had a second home in the city). Assuming some plays were re-performed, such people may have preferred to attend rural Dionysia festivals instead. This said, during the war much of the rural population moved into the city, making it easier for them to go to the theatre. Cost was also an issue. Despite the theoric fund for those unable to afford theatre tickets, the money may not have covered the full expense; moreover, those who claimed the fund may have kept the money and not attended.

  Another significant factor was status. Throughout the fifth century there were many non-citizens living in Athens (metics). While these people could attend the theatre, they could not claim the theoric fund. Some slaves seem to have attended; these presumably came from well-off families, as their masters would have had to pay for them. One imagines that if demand for tickets was higher than availability, citizens would get preference over slaves and, probably, metics; if so, it is unclear how such matters were handled. There are references in Aristophanes suggesting that some boys were among the audience. It is not known from what age they were allowed, or encouraged, to attend. Given that their fathers would have to pay for their tickets, we may reasonably suppose that only boys from relatively wealthy families attended.

  Evidence about whether women attended is inconclusive. The situation may even have been different for tragedy and comedy. In Aristophanes there are two remarks possibly suggesting that women went to see tragedy (Women 386 and Frogs 1050–51). As regards comedy, the often-cited remark in Peace 966 about women never getting the free food thrown to the audience is inconclusive: while it may mean that women sat towards the back, it may equally mean that they were not present. A more suggestive piece of evidence is the Chorus’s remark, in Birds 793–6, that having wings would allow a man to fly off and visit a woman whose husband was in the audience and return before the end of the day’s performances. This implies that women did not attend the theatre, at least not in significant numbers.

  A separate but related issue is whether the composition of the audience differed for the Dionysia and Lenaea respectively. One passage from Aristophanes’ Acharnians suggests a difference. The hero Dicaeopolis, seemingly speaking on behalf of Aristophanes himself, declares that he need have no fear of being accused by Cleon of maligning the city (something that appears to have happened after Aristophanes’ previous play Babylonians). Dicaeopolis says he can address the audience freely because there are ‘no foreigners present’ at the Lenaea, adding that Metics are de facto citizens. This clearly implies that some foreigners came to the City Dionysia, and it is not unreasonable to suppose, on this basis, that Greeks from other states may also have been in attendance. Still, despite the possible presence of Metics, slaves, boys, women, foreigners and other Greeks, the vast majority of the audience, at the City Dionysia and the Lenaea, would have been adult male Athenian citizens.

  The most important members of the audience, as far as playwrights were concerned, were the judges. Athenian drama was, it must be remembered, performed as part of a competition. The judging process for the Dionysia is known up to a point, and the procedure for the Lenaea may, in the absence of any evidence to suggest otherwise, be supposed to have been similar. Ten judges were chosen by lot, by the Archon, from a larger group of citizens chosen previously by the Council (the basis on which this prior selection was made is unclear). Before taking up their special seats at the front, these ten judges had to take an oath to vote for the best performance. After all the performances were over the judges wrote down their votes on tablets. These votes were then used to determine the victorious play and the second and third prizes.

  Aristophanes and Old Comedy

  Athenian comic drama began in 486 BC, half a century after the establishing of the tragic competition in 534. The genre may be divided into two strongly contrastive periods, Old and New Comedy. Old Comedy, as represented by Aristophanes, stands completely apart from other kinds of dramatic and narrative fiction in the ancient Greek world. (His surviving plays are our only complete examples of Old Comedy.) It flouts the principles of causality and probability; it disregards rules of space and time; it has little interest in creating or maintaining dramatic illusion; its action and characterization are neither consistent nor lifelike. By contrast, its older contemporary tragedy and its successor New Comedy share a common set of fictional conventions and practices which may be traced back to Homeric epic (this is pretty much what Aristotle does, with tragedy, in his Poetics): they are both plotted with strict economy according to rules of causality and probability; and they both strive to create characters who are convincing and lifelike in speech, reasoning and action.6 Old Comedy does not reject the rules to which tragedy and New Comedy subscribe in their entirety, but it does feel free to deploy or discard them at will. Aristophanes belonged to the third generation of writers of Old Comedy. Writing during the latter stages of the form, he arguably presided over its zenith, although his final surviving work reflects a decisive turn from Old Comedy’s spirit of cheerful irreverence towards the restrained spirit of New Comedy.

  Aristophanic Old Comedy is topical and satirical. In confronting socio-political and cultural issues of the day, it pokes fun at well-known figures onstage, sometimes benignly (e.g., Euripides in Women) but often with vitriol (e.g., Cleon in Wasps). It is unpredictable and readily embraces fantasy, contradiction and absurdity. Hence in Wasps it is possible f
or a dog to prosecute another dog while calling on kitchen utensils as witnesses. It is also self-consciously literary, with a fondness for parodying, imitating, assimilating and alluding to other texts – not only poetry (e.g., tragedy, epic or lyric poetry) but also songs and certain specialized uses of language (e.g., oracles, philosophical jargon, prayers and oratory). Thus in Women the women parody the procedural language of the Athenian assembly, while Mnesilochus and Euripides extensively parody Euripidean tragedy. Old Comedy also frequently draws attention to itself both as comic fiction and as a theatrical performance, paying little heed to the notional boundary between stage and audience. A memorable example of this is when a distressed Dionysus in Frogs appeals for help directly to the priest of Dionysus sitting in the front row of the audience, reminding him that he – the actor playing Dionysus – will be having a drink with him after the show. But for all its ridicule, abuse and absurdity, Old Comedy also engages with contemporary political, philosophical and artistic thought at the highest intellectual level: as a piece of sophisticated literary criticism about tragedy, the preposterous contest between Aeschylus and Euripides in Frogs is no less valuable than Aristotle’s Poetics.