The Mechanisms of Humor in Aristophanes. (original) (raw)
Related papers
Aristophanes' Comic Poetics: Τρύξ, Scatology, Σκῶμμα
Transactions of the American Philological Association, 1991
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. This content downloaded from 137.I While Aristophanes, particularly in Frogs, is one of our earliest witnesses for explicit literary theory and criticism, his plays, as comic texts, present difficulties beyond other sources for ancient views of poetry. Aristophanes' mixture of serious assertions with comic absurdities is exemplified by his coinage Txpuyc(85a, a comic play upon Tpaycoitc. The associations of Txp6 with the vine and Dionysiac revelry designate comedy through this compound as a ludicrous and vulgar twin of its noble sister tragedy. Yet, as Taplin has shown, through this comic expression Aristophanes claims for his genre the same prerogative to high themes of civic importance as that conceded to tragedy.1 The conflicting implications built into the word epitomize the general tension in Aristophanes' plays between comedy as low and vulgar, rustic buffoonery, and comedy as a sophisticated dramatic form utilizing public-spirited themes and offering timely political advice. The result is an apparent irony in Aristophanes' characterization of his genre. Is he being slyly coy in insincerely belittling his comic muse? Or are Aristophanes' protestations of high civic motives and themes made only with tongue in cheek? Certainly Aristophanes' coyness and irony cannot be overlooked as he comments upon comedy within comedy. Upon close examination, however, the humorous paradoxes plaguing Aristophanes' characterization of comedy appear to comprise not so much nonsense as a coherent conception of his comic genre.
De Ste. Croix famously argued that Aristophanes had a conservative political outlook and attempted to use his comedies to win over lower-class audiences to this minority point of view. The ongoing influence of his interpretation has meant that Old Comedy has been largely ignored in the historiography of Athenian popular culture. This article extends earlier critiques of de Ste. Croix by systematically comparing how Aristophanes and the indisputably popular genre of fourth-century oratory represented the social classes of the Athenians and political leaders. The striking parallels between the two suggest that Aristophanes, far from advocating a minority position, exploited the rich and, at times, contradictory views of lower-class citizens for comic and ultimately competitive ends. As a consequence his plays are valuable evidence for Athenian popular culture and help to correct the markedly fourth-century bias in the writing of Athenian cultural history.
The combination of fantasy and political satire determines the hybrid nature of Old Comedy — this idiosyncratic type of comic drama which flourished in fifth-century Athens, between the glamour of Pericles’ Golden Age and the tumult of the Peloponnesian War, between the marbles of the Acropolis and the quarries of Sicily. On one hand, we find marvellous adventures and unrealistic utopias, magical qualities and supernatural creatures, castles in the air and beasts talking with human voice — elements of fairytale and popular imagination, as though drawn from the pages of the Brothers Grimm or the Baron Munchausen. On the other hand, there is intense preoccupation with political actuality and caustic ridicule of the leaders and institutions of the democratic polis. This kind of comedy flies towards the clouds of phantasmagoria, and at the same time walks in the Pnyx and the Athenian Agora. From the tension between these two opposite movements arises the rough harmony of a unique poetic genre. Fairytale fantasy and political satire mutually function and are expressed via each other. The extravagant conceptions become the means for bringing on stage and ridiculing the public life of the city. And conversely, the issues and personalities of Athenian politics are the materials that are metamorphosed, as though with the touch of a magic wand, and become the bricks for the building of the fantastic world. Especially in Aristophanes’ oeuvre, the process of political signification is applied par excellence to the materials of fantasy and fairytale. What Cratinus repeatedly did with epic myth (e.g. in the Dionysalexandros and the Nemesis), Aristophanes attempts with motifs and patterns from the folk tradition of magical Märchen. This practice is the trademark of Aristophanic comedy, which reconstructs and retells political reality in the guise of a fairytale. Aristophanes takes over the genre of “fairytale comedy” (Märchenkomödie), which had been perfected by Crates and Pherecrates in the preceding generation; and he mixes it with the art of political allegory invented by Cratinus. A series of examples from the earlier comedies of Aristophanes (Clouds, Acharnians, Peace) illustrate the poet’s method of work.
Defining Comedy as Political Critique: Drawing the line between Aristophanes and contemporary comedy
This study is a discussion of the function of comedy as political critique and its role in the contemporary society, locating it back to its traditional historic origins and examining its development as mainly a form of entertainment combining the need to criticise and satirise current events, social issues and trends, as well as flaws and mistakes related to politics. According to the philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, all ideas have a historical essence. Therefore, in contradiction to Plato’s belief of ideas being eternal, timeless and ahistorical, Hegel suggests that an idea is a historical figure that is born and developed in a historically specific society. The reason I am choosing to agree with Hegel in this case is the fact that Plato’s opinion leads me to interpretive impasse. Agreeing with Hegel and thinking of an idea, in this situation comedy, as a historical figure, I am able to trace the reasons it was born and the causes for which it took the form of political satire and did not remain a simple source of amusement and laughter. For this reason, I need to underline from the very beginning that the research is focusing around Aristophanes, whose work has inspired his contemporaries as well as future theatre makers and artists in general. In addition to that and the main reason he is becoming a reference point throughout this study, based on the theory explained above is that he set the basis for the evolution of comedy as a form of entertainment to political satire. Firstly, I am aiming to understand the relationship between Aristophanes’ work and the politics of his time. I am meaning to identify the position of his comedy as a critique towards his society, the flaws and faults of the government, as well as the mistakes of the citizens. Consequently, this will lead me to recognise satire’s as well as the comedian’s position in a contemporary society. However, in order achieve this I am exploring the socio political and historical background in which Aristophanes lived and developed his work and identify his political scope through the examination of several contradicting opinions by theorists, such as E. Spyropoulos, F. Dekazou Stephanopoulos, N.G. Mpouras, M. Croiset, as well as the poet’s comic work. In this process I will also question and investigate the existence and function of political satire in a non democratic environment, which nonetheless will not be answered in this chapter, but will be concluded on a later chapter, as some further inquiry is considered necessary here. Carrying on I am investigating the role of indecency -in the context of ancient Greek comedy and in relation to humorous yet obscene incidents, such as sexual innuendos or even representations of sexual acts and scatological humor- in Aristophanes work and the contradiction to the poet’s acclaimed ethos. Through this I am intending to reach a definitive opinion on why the poet chose comedy as a theatrical form to address his political critique, and how he incorporated all its characteristics that traced back to its very origins and were often contradicting to the higher purpose of his work. I am realising this through the study of Aristophanes work locating the aspects where indecency appears, such as in scenography, costume, music and choreography, in addition to the comical scenes, the character’s behaviors and the language, and its forms, as well as tracing the contradiction to the poet’s acclaimed ethos. From then on, my target is using the above as a basis to analyse the way in which comedy has developed since Aristophanes time, as a form of entertainment, as well as in its relationship to politics. However, I am approaching this looking at two specific examples, that I have chosen because of the worldwide interest and impact they have had; Southpark episode 201 aired in 2010 depicting the prophet Muhammad, and the film The Interview produced in 2014 mocking the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. Finally, summarising everything that has been examined and discussed before and using that as foundation, I am attempting to site a clear definition of comedy as political critique, which will embody satire’s historical background, as well as the process of its transformation from a source of entertainment to a channel for political statement.
The Shadow of Aristophanes: Hellenistic Poetry’s Reception of Comic Poetics
M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit and G.C. Wakker (eds.) (2018) Drama and Performance in Hellenistic Poetry. Hellenistica Groningana 23. Leuven (Peeters): 225-271.
The significance and influence of Attic drama on Hellenistic poetry has been a topic of little consistent focus in recent scholarship, reflecting the dominant academic emphasis on Hellenistic poetry as a written artefact, allegedly detached from any immediate context of performance. This paper attempts to reverse this trend by setting out the continuing vitality and cultural importance of drama in the Hellenistic world, before exploring the role of Attic Old Comedy as both a precedent and a model for Hellenistic poetry. Much of what is often thought distinctively ‘Hellenistic’ can in fact be shown to have clear old comic precedent: Old Comedy, just like Hellenistic poetry, is heavily intertextual (even to the point of re-appropriating Homeric hapax legomena); engages in frequent generic manipulation; displays a strong interest in literary history; emphasises its own literary and metrical innovations; and displays a self-conscious awareness of the tensions between textuality and performance. Yet more than this, Old Comedy also offered a key paradigm of agonistic self-fashioning and literary-critical terminology which Hellenistic poets could parrot, appropriate and invert. Hellenistic poets’ direct engagement with Old Comedy extended well beyond the famous literary agon of Aristophanes’ Frogs.
Aristophanes' Thesmophoriazusae: Funny in Theory - or Only in Practice
An explained joke is no longer a joke-Voltaire Analysing comedy is like dissecting a frog. Nobody laughs and the frog dies-Barry Cryer Nonetheless the range and variety of Aristophanes' work makes it tempting to reach for explanations-albeit cautious and provisional ones 1. Its appeal seemingly transcends temporal and cultural barriers 2. Anatomising what makes comedy tick makes for a difficult balancing act: 'the study of literature is in various ways policed by a kind of ideology of seriousness' (Bennett and Royle, 2016, p. 116). On the other hand, 'comedy cannot universalise for long without falling over a heap of dung' (Taplin, 1986, p. 173).