Socioeconomic oppression in Ancient Greece By Edyta Gesich
Ancient Greece is where democracy was formed for the very first time. That is also where The Frogs, a Greek comedy by Aristophanes was born. This play spoke about the power portrayed by the politicians who were invested in the country’s economic stature and how it also oppressed its people. Reading the play through a lens with today’s view on slavery and the corrupt work of the politicians, shows there has been a lot of change that took place over the years. In this play we meet Xanthias, a slave, who belongs to Dionysus, a god, and they go on a journey into the underworld in search of a great poet. Once there, they meet Euripides and Aeschylus, who fight it out, verbally, to be known as the greatest poet. In the end, Aeschylus was pronounced the winner. While all this action is taking place in the background we hear the chorus speaking about what is happening in the land of the living and how the Greek citizens are being treated. Aristophanes most likely wrote this play to bring light to the socioeconomic struggle and the powers of oppression that were taking place at the time this was written.
The gods seek power over others just as much as the mortals. The way they carry themselves, what they wear, and having a slave only proves it. Hercules is a great example “The door opens and Hercules steps out, wearing a lion’s skin and carrying a club. He’s amazed that someone is dressed up to resemble him”. To own a lion’s skin means that this god must be powerful enough to win in a fight against a very large, fast, and fierce animal. To carry a club, which in turn could be a very large piece of wood, also takes a very strong being. These details are significant because mortals look up to the gods for guidance, and if the gods indulge in this then the power play is only encouraged.
According to a democracy, the politicians in place were chosen by the people, hence they are leaders and elevated over the rest. When the hunger for power and oppression of their own people takes place then maybe it is best to not have any leader. According to Aristophanes, “the most corrupt of all the laundry types, those noble men who cut the soap with ash, dilute the mix, and use Cimolian earth won’t be with us long” This statement could mean that sometimes it’s better to be left with no leader than a bad leader. The mention of “laundry” could be the literal definition of money laundering and carelessness of what happens to it. The “soap” that is cut and diluted can stand, again, for the manipulation of money in the government. In a statement by Robinson, “According to Aristotle liberty is partly political participation by ruling in turn, partly freedom from political oppression by not being ruled but by living as one pleases” the modern lens on oppression really reflects its negative view. This statement can mean that the government needs to be in your life to give you a standard of life but with limitations. Just like in todays world, the government has civil liberties and civil rights. Civil liberties gives a person freedom and protection from the government while civil rights are laws enforced by the government to protect the person.
The mistreatment due to a socioeconomic status that the citizens of Greece must deal with would not be accepted in modern society. Slavery is no longer allowed and the oppression by powerful leaders is reigned in. Citizens, no matter, their income feel free to do as they wish. There is more to this play than just a socioeconomic view though. It can be evaluated from many angles because there is more than just leadership positions and currency in the words written by Aristophanes.
Work Cited:
Robinson, Eric W., ed. Ancient Greek democracy: Readings and sources. John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
Power/Political Lens Essay By Mary Serignese-Maier
At the base of several crucial relationships in Aristophanes “The Frogs”, is a clear struggle for power between characters. For example between Xanthias, the slave, and Dionysus his master and Greek god of fertility and wine. It is often difficult to tell who is more dominant. In one instance, they are even confused completely. Aeacus, a gatekeeper in Hades, beats the both of them to see which one is the god and which one is the mortal in the relationship. The slave, Xanthias is often times portrayed as smarter, braver, and cleverer compared to his Greek god master. From this portrayal, the question arises of how having power over one another affects their relationship in the play as well as what is the significance of this power shifting from character to character. It is important to test the abilities of people in power and analyze these people as well as their relationships. From a political point of view, it can be argued that throughout the play there is a clear hegemony between characters.
Hegemony is defined as, ‘leadership or dominance’, especially by one social group over others. It would seem that Dionysus would be the clear master but he is quick to give up his power to even someone as inferior as a slave when it suits him, making it evident that he in some cases does not think of himself as someone with great power. Dionysus is supposed to be a powerful god but at the first sign of danger he quickly becomes afraid and even cowardly. In the play, Xanthias reports that he hears a noise behind the pair on their journey to Hades. To this, Dionysis responds telling Xanthias to get behind him putting Xanthias in direct danger of whatever he has heard. This is the first instance we see that paints Xanthias in a more powerful light. By cowering behind Xanthias he empowers him, making him feel like the stronger of the two. Feeling this empowerment, Xanthias blatantly calls him out on his shortcomings saying “Of all gods and men ; no one’s more cowardly than you.” This attitude is not in the typical nature of a slave.
The next questionable act we witness is when Dionysus allows Xanthias to switch places with him in playing the part of the great hercules which reveals his willingness to give up his power over his slave. He in fact offers up hercules club and lion skin for Xanthias to wear and offers to carry the bags instead.
“DIONYSUS
All right then, since you’re so brave, so valiant,
you can be me. Take this club and lion skin.
If you’re got the guts, I’ll trade places with you.
I’ll carry all the baggage.
XANTHIAS
All right.
I’ve got no choice. Quick, give me that.”
Of course Xanthias jumps at the chance eager as can be. Dionysus calls himself brave and valiant for wearing the coup and lion skin but, in the act of giving it away proves he is not as brave as he wants people to believe. Taking all these events into account Dionysus and Xanthias bicker often as each try to assert their dominance. Xanthias is trying to resist humiliation and the insubordination by his master, and Dionysus is trying to keep his slave in his place. The balance of power shifts all too frequently, destabilizing their identities.
Identity is a major concern in this first part of the play. As mentioned the first example of this power struggle has a focus on the costumes or disguises of the characters. Dionysus travels disguised as Hercules, trying, hopefully to attain the success Heracles has had. Allowing Xanthias to wear this costume that represents greatness as well as constantly switching disguises as it benefits him, could be proof that Dionysus is not yet sure of his own identity in the first part of the play. This confusion is illustrated and directly addressed when their identities are quite literally a mystery to Aeacus. Because the two of them are constantly switching roles as Heracles, Aeacus can not tell who is the slave and who is the god, and in order to tell they both volunteer to be whipped in order to see who will not feel the pain and is therefor the immortal. Dionysus yet again puts himself on the same level of his slave, proving he is not yet confident in his authority, power and hegemony over his slave. All of these actions could be foreshadowing that Dionysus may be on a journey not only to bring the great tragic dramatist Euripides back from the dead but to also come into his own and attain real authority as an immortal god should have.
Dionysus takes on a different role towards the end of the play. If he should end up reaching Hades is faced with the task of choosing one poet to bring back from the dead. Throughout his journey he reveals his flaws and limitations, and is tested several times. His biggest test though is wether or not he can wisely choose between Euripides and Aeschylus. Dionysus at first weighs the versus given by the poets and Aeschlyus is the winner. But then Dionysus gives one final task to decide the winner of the literary battle. Which poet can help save the city of Athens with their wisdom. Thankfully for Athens, Dionysus evolves, matures and comes into his own power throughout the play because he is forced to think about Athens’s needs instead of his own. He chooses the poet that will be best for Athens, making it clear that although he has many short comings and probably will forever, he can also be wise and thoughtful when it is most important.
In the end it is clear, the greek god Dionysus has proved that he will always have a clear hegemony over his slave, Xanthias even though at times he painted himself in an inferior light and made it very difficult to see he was dominant. Dionysus owns up to his power and is able to live up to his responsibilities as a god. He knows that his actions will be far greater and more impactful on the world, in particular, Athens, and makes a choice accordingly. It is important to ask these questions of wether someone in power is worthy of their power. It is also just as important to test these peoples abilities. By looking at the actions of Dionysus and Xanthias, and seeing how much emphasis is put on the relationship between them it begs the question of how slaves in this time period viewed their masters. Also the decision to choose the poet based on who can save the city of Athens could foreshadow more happening in Aristophanes life from a historical point of view. There are many more questions to ask but one thing is clear; from beginning to end the characters have evolved and come full circle, embracing the roles society had intended.
Historical Lens Essay By Diana Gosteva
I would like to look at the historical context of Aristophanes’ The Frogs. The play consists of several fundamental historical issues. To get an idea of the issues inside of the play, the reader must have the historical context of Athens during that time. Athens was a democracy held by the mass of the population. There was no government at that point to rule over the people. Decisions were made by the whole of society, or a group of a whole assigned into courts or council[1]. Politics consisted of the activities that concerned the governance of a city/state. There was no equality; politics was practiced by a few powerful aristocrats or families with money and intellect. Drama is analogues with politics, and the play speaks to contemporary listeners. The common Athenian was always preoccupied with the ordinary everyday problems, and comedy provided them with a type of day dream where everything is possible. The Frogs was written at the very end of the fifth century. The fifth century was considered the Golden Age for Greek Theatre[2]. This era was known as “old comedy”, when they would perform satire of the current news and politics. Six months after the play was written, the Athenian navy was destroyed at Aegospotami during the Peloponnesian War by Sparta. The play is made up of several parabasic where the actors come off stage and the chorus interjects talks directly to the audience. The play itself is about political decline in Athens during the fifth century.
Aristophanes intention to write The frogs, was to conclude that even though Athens loss the war to Sparta, they won within the theatrical realm. He used Dionysus who is the g-d of festivities to appeal to the general community, which no longer existed. This work seems to articulate despair toward politicians and would go on to look for some non political figures such as a writer or philosopher to lead the democracy. The Frogs is a fantasy about the recreation of the political structure. Dionysus in The Frogs is the g-d of Athenian people. He sets out to Hadas to bring back Euripides for whom he believes will bring Athens back to being victorious. In the last part of the play Dionysus has a change of heart and brings back Aeschylus. Dionysus asks the poets, for political advice on how to get Athens back on its feet. In the end he chooses Aeschylus because he connects to his strong sense of belief in power of community to dominate Sparta and its enemies abroad.
The play is a fantasy of what it would look like to have morality in politics.Throughout the play there are various references to battles, one of them is the sea battle which is mentioned by Xanthias “I should have gone away to fight at sea” line 40. Xanthias the slave is forced to carry a heavy load riding on a donkey, he is referring to the battle of Arginousai fought in the summer of 406BC [3], this happened just before the play was written and performed. In this battle, slaves were used to fight for Athens with very little chance of surviving, they were granted their freedom if they were victorious. The battle was a success for the Athenians however, the collateral damage out weighted the victory due to the loss of thousands of men. Majority of the people were infuriated at this loss, and as vengeance the generals were executed due to their poor planning skills [3]. Socrates was president of the assembly at the time and tried to keep the generals from being executed, but failed. In 399 Socrates was executed as well.
Aristophanes uses comedy to convey political ideas to the everyday uneducated working class, that aren’t Aristocrats. He uses comedic writing to promote and educate the uneducated democracy with historical context. He evaluates people anyone with political power. While tragedy uses sophisticated satire that the common man at that time would not know how to decipher, he uses comedy and humor to relate to the general public. Uneducated greeks would not be able to understand the complicated irony of tragedies. Tragedies might be considered more of Aristocratic leisure, and comedies more for the democratic class. Aristophanes wrote a casual comedy intertwining history and humor to discuss the controversial opinions. Aristophanes mastered writing about various figures and he proved it with The Frogs. Aristophanes patronizes the individuals he is making fun of by comparing them to the common man at that time. The blunt use of humor creates the subtle connection with his audience. His ideas are conveyed with vibrancy that are thought provoking and include numerous historical context.
Reference
[1] The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. “Peloponnesian War.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 15 Dec. 2016. Web. 24 May 2017.
[2] Cartwright , Mark. “Greek Theatre.” Ancient History Encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 May 2017.
[3] Rickard, J (31 August 2011), Battle of Arginusae, 406 BC , http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_arginusae.html