Known for his exceptional wit, distinguished satire and exuberant use of language Aristophanes certainly stands out in the dramatic field. His plays not only provide entertainment but they also serve a strong political undertone – educating both ancient and modern audiences alike on Aristophanes’ ideals. Aristophanes’ work embodies what comedy is, and what it should be, he, despite all the subtext, maintains the ability to make ancient and modern audiences laugh and therefore should be considered as funny, as that is the purpose of comedy, to allow one to escape the real world and loose themselves in laughter.
Comedy is a unique form of drama in the idea that it can be used as social glue, it creates a sense of comradery amongst an audience, people who may be total strangers to one another – relaxing them and creating social groups through joint laughter, creating social ‘in’ and ‘out’ groups. This idea that comedy creates ‘in’ and ‘out’ groups is supported by Hobbes’ superiority theory. This theory states that audiences laugh at the misfortunes of others, this can be seen clearly in Thesmophoriazusae, with the basis of the plot being women plotting to kill Euripides (quite a grave misfortune on Euripides’ part). The theory also develops the idea that audiences laugh at the flouting of conventional codes which can be seen in Lysistrata, where Aristophanes gives the power over to the women – going completely against the socially accepted standard of the time that women were the lesser sex. It is this point that may challenge one’s ability to label Aristophanes as ‘funny’ as modern audiences would not inherently grasp the breaking of conventional ancient codes and morals and therefore their laughter would be delayed. However, this does not rule out Aristophanes being labelled as ‘funny’ as modern audiences still laugh at other aspects of the plays. Every single aspect of a play doesn’t need to be found funny by everyone in order to be classed as ‘funny’ – this is unrealistic and even modern comedies don’t have this effect on audiences thus it is not fair to then expect this of Aristophanes.
Arguably, the main way in which we can decide if Aristophanes was funny or not is to look at, and analyse his plays. Aristophanes plays embody many of the characteristics of Greek Old Comedy including a comic hero (seen in Thesmophoriazusae), references to sex (seen in Birds) and attacks on prominent individuals (seen in Knights and Peace) – these characteristics are what add to the comedic value of the plays and ultimately make Aristophanes funny.
Thesmophoriazusae provides examples of imperfect mimesis and slapstick comedy as well as a hint of satirical humour. A scene which demonstrates these comedic elements well is the following, taken just after the women start to suspect Mnesilochus isn’t the woman he is presenting himself to be;
Cleisthenes: “Stand up straight. Ha ha! Stuffing your cock out of sight”
Critylla: “It’s here! Sticking out behind! Such a healthy colour too, sweethart!”
Cleisthenes: “Now where is it?”
Critylla: “Gone back in front”
Cleisthenes: “I don’t see it”
Critylla: “No, it’s gone behind again!”
Cleisthenes: “Man, you’ve got a better shuttle service for your prick than the Isthmus of Cornith has for its ships” (Thesmophoriazusae lines 643-8) .
This scene occurs as a result of Mnesilochus’ imperfect mimesis of a woman – the mimesis being imperfect as he has been discovered, additionally nonsensical humour makes an appearance as the idea that a man could infiltrate the Thesmophoria would’ve been ridiculous to a contemporary audience (an effect perhaps lost on modern audiences). In this section, Aristophanes uses multiple techniques in order to have comic effect. First, Critylla’s use of “cock” is explicit and has a shock factor to it, Aristophanes is breaking a taboo and this would’ve caused an ancient audience to gasp at the casual use of the word. Aristophanes then continues this shock factor by having Mnesilochus’ cock ‘stick out behind’ and Critylla describes it as “a healthy colour too” – further use of obscene language to reinforce this shock factor. The slapstick element arises out of the imagery the scene represents – Mnesilochus thrusting back and forth in order to keep his cock out of sight. Finally, Aristophanes adds elements of word play into the scene through his use of ‘isthmus’ which was also slang for ‘crotch’. Furthermore, Aristophanes adds a satirical note at the end of this section with reference to the causeway that linked the Corinthian and Saronic Gulf – in which ships were shunted across on rollers as it was quicker than sailing the journey. Another example of satire by Aristophanes can be seen in his references to Morsimus in Knights and Peace. Morsimus was a tragedian and Aristophanes considered him a bad one, hence the references and resulting satire.
One of the biggest issues when considering the idea if Aristophanes is funny or not is the fact he was writing thousands of years ago. Crossing modern cultural lines and still being found funny is tricky, but to have to survive crossing ancient and modern cultural lines as well as thousands of years of changing opinions and social standards is a near impossible challenge – one which Aristophanes manages to achieve. One reason for this is that modern audiences laugh at Aristophanes for different reasons (in comparison to an ancient audience). An example of this comes from Birds; “If any of you happened to be having an affair with a married woman and you’d seen her husband sitting in the seats reserved for the council members, you could have taken wing, flown off from among your ranks, fucked her – and then flown back again!”. The original idea being that women would’ve been left at home during theatre performances therefore they would’ve been able to take a lover during that time– not a far-fetched idea during ancient times as women were viewed as lesser, and morally corrupt enough to shag someone else whilst her husband was out. A modern audience would have a similar reaction to this as an ancient audience but for different reasons. Women are no longer viewed as inferior to men so this aspect is lost however the sheer shock factor and outright rudeness of the statement is what would make a modern audience gasp and then laugh.
As aforementioned, a major challenge that threatens Aristophanes’ attempts at comedy is crossing not only cultural lines but also thousands of years of social upheaval and change in attitudes towards all sections of society. What was once funny and socially acceptable may have a drastically different affect on a 21st century audience. Aristophanes, however, is one of the few comics whose works survive this test of time and still result in laughter. James Robson put it well when he wrote; “His [Aristophanes] plays are extraordinary accessible – so accessible that a modern production can not only make audiences laugh heartily but also lead them to see startling parallels between today’s world and that of Athens 2,500 years ago”. It is relatively easy to draw modern comparisons between Aristophanes methodology behind his satires – he reacted to the audience. His choice of satirical target would’ve been someone from the city who was unpopular at the time – an obvious comparison here would be the American programme Saturday Night Live’s (SNL) sketches targeting one of the most controversial men in the world at the moment: Donald Trump. These parodies pull material from real life situations (such as the recent G20 summit) and present them in a way that makes them more entertaining and less depressing – as this is a common consequence of Trump’s political decisions. The comparisons here between SNL’s representation of Trump and Aristophanes’ representation of Cleon in the Acharnians demonstrate a continuity between different times – the idea that even when an audience’s world feels like it is going to shit, they still have the ability to laugh about it.
Another modern comparison that can be made is between the previously looked at scene from the Thesmophoriazusae and a scene from the 2004 movie ‘White Chicks’. A brief synopsis of the plots is that two black, male FBI officers replace a set of white, female twins – disguising themselves accordingly. The comparative scene is when the other FBI officers work out what has been going on and attempt to reveal the imposters. Unfortunately for the officers the pair have in their custody are the real sisters – when they pull down their tops, lift their skirts and attempt to pull their ‘masks’ off they’re left in an unfortunate situation. The difference between the scenes is that Mnesilochus actually is the imposter when he is searched whereas in the movie the real twins are the ones ridiculed – leading to a double headed effect (as the literal embarrassment is funny as well as the fact the actual imposters managed to allude the situation).
One may form the opinion that Aristophanes’ plays have the ability to translate into modern settings well. This opinion can be proven as a theatre company (Northern Broadsides) did a production of Lysistrata in 2007, under the adapted name Lisa’s Sex Strike (adapted and written by Blake Morrison). Rather than withholding sex as a result of the continued war being fought between the Greek states (as in Lysistrata) Lisa’s reasoning is the racial tensions bubbling over in the Northern English town where the play is set. Both pieces have references to contemporary issues that their respective authors stand in opposition to, Lysistrata’s being the ongoing Peloponnesian War and Lisa’s Sex Strike can be linked to the American-led invasion of Iraq (2003) and the War on Terror. This contemporary piece was hailed “faithful to Aristophanes in that it is hysterically funny” by the Guardian and thus the translation from ancient to modern audience was successful – proving Aristophanes’ ability to translate well across cultures and time periods.
Reading between the lines is a key skill required when reading ancient works – both comedies and tragedies alike are rife with hidden messages and meanings. These messages can be mere allusions or bluntly presented to the audience within the parabasis. Aristophanes is no exception to this fact. It was no secret that Aristophanes loathed the recklessness and sheer destructiveness of war – it was in his most popular plays that he pleaded against it, he also revealed his political standpoint in these plays. Whilst it is not a comic authors place nor main focus to lay out their political ideals it is near impossible for them to avoid revealing where they stand on such matters. This is because “unless one is the kind of satirist who denounces and ridicules everyone and everything indiscriminately – and Aristophanes is most definitely not that – one cannot help betraying, by ones choice of personal and institutional targets, what aspects of the existing system one perceives as being in need of drastic change, and in what directions one sees it as desirable to change them”. Aristophanes makes no attempt to hide the fact he weaves political messages throughout his plays, he openly admits it in the Acharnians;
“Condemn me not, you in the audience
If, whiles I am a beggar, among us Athenians
I talk affairs of state in a comedy.
You see, comedy has a sense of duty too” (the Acharnians, lines 497 to 500).
Aristophanes’ comedies have a strong political undertone – with satirical elements appearing in the majority of his plays. The plays are full of allusions to contemporary situations and people, for example, Aristophanes criticisms of Cleon in Knights, Wasps and the Acharnians. These political allusions made by Aristophanes were acknowledged and, to an extent, appreciated by contemporary audiences. This can be seen by the ancient anecdote that when Dionysius I of Syracuse decided he wanted to learn about Athenian politics he was sent Aristophanes’ plays by Plato. One must, however, remain aware of what is being read and remember that in a comedy full of comic configurations and jokes that it would be unwise to take the simplest of statements at face value.
These political undertones do not detract from the comedic value of the plays, rather, they enhance it. As Hewitt put it; “happy he who can at once lash the vices and foibles of a society or an individual and soothe the sting of the blows by the play of a genial humour”, or, as I like to put it, Aristophanes got away with ripping the piss out of people as he managed to distract the audience with easy going jokes and physical humour.
Eleven of the forty-four plays that are known to have been written by Aristophanes survive in full, a fact which speaks volumes to his popularity and consequentially the idea that he was indeed ‘funny’. The fact that there would’ve been no shortage of people wanting to be comic authors back in ancient Athens, yet it is Aristophanes’ works that have survived the test of time, arguably demonstrates the idea that he was the best of the them all. Darwin’s theory of evolution best explains this point with his ideas surrounding ‘survival of the fittest’ – Aristophanes’ works were better than those of his competition and therefore it was his that survived to be studied thousands of years later. Considering that these plays are comedies, one can assume that this meant ancient audiences found them funny, as do modern audiences for them to still be of interest now. I have a typically British sense of humour in the sense that I love sarcasm and wit, and Aristophanes successfully delivers this in his plays. Alongside this comedy, Aristophanes manages to both educate on and attack politics in ways that don’t detract from the overall humour of the piece – which adds testament to his ability as an author and demonstrates the pride he put into his work. The best example of this is his words; “Comedy too can sometimes discern what is right” (from Knights). Therefore, to conclude Aristophanes was funny to an ancient Athenian audience and is still funny to a modern audience today.