The Frogs by Aristophanes
"The Frogs" is a comedic play written by the ancient Greek playwright Aristophanes in 405 BCE. The narrative follows Bacchus, the god of wine, as he embarks on a journey to the underworld with his slave, Xanthias, in search of the great playwright Euripides. Their adventure begins with humorous exchanges and challenges, including interactions with Charon, the ferryman of the dead, and Aeacus, the doorman of Hades. A significant portion of the play centers around Bacchus's encounter with two deceased playwrights, Aeschylus and Euripides, who are engaged in a heated debate over their artistic merits.
The play is notable for its critique of contemporary Athenian drama and its exploration of themes such as artistic competition, literary legacy, and the nature of heroism. By blending mythology with social commentary, Aristophanes provides a rich tapestry of humor and satire that reflects the cultural context of ancient Greece. Ultimately, Bacchus's decision to bring Aeschylus back to the living world raises questions about creativity and the value of different artistic expressions in society. "The Frogs" remains an important work for understanding the dynamics of Greek theatre and the interplay between the divine and the mortal in classical literature.
On this Page
The Frogs by Aristophanes
First transcribed:Batrachoi, 405 b.c.e. (English translation, 1780)
Type of work: Drama
Type of plot: Satire
Time of plot: Fifth century b.c.e.
Locale: Underworld
Principal characters
Bacchus , the god of wine and revelryXanthias , his slaveHercules , the mythological heroCharon , the ferryman of HadesEuripides , a famous Greek playwrightAeschylus , another Greek dramatist
The Story:
Wishing to visit the underworld, Bacchus sets out with his slave, Xanthias, to visit Hercules, from whom the god of wine hopes to get directions for his visit to the lower regions. On the way, Xanthias grumbles and moans about his many bundles. Xanthias is actually being carried on a donkey, but he complains until Bacchus loses patience and suggests that perhaps Xanthias would like to carry the donkey for a while.
Hercules, when consulted, suggests that Bacchus allow himself to be killed in order to arrive in the land of the dead. Bacchus wants to go there alive because he is anxious to see and to talk to the great playwrights; the critics tell him that all good writers are dead and gone. He is particularly anxious to meet Euripides. Hercules advises him to be content with the playwrights who are still alive. Bacchus argues that none of them is good enough. After getting directions from Hercules, he starts out, Xanthias still complaining about his bundles.
They come to the River Acheron and meet Charon, who ferries Bacchus across, insisting, however, that Bacchus row the boat; Xanthias walks around the margin of the stream because he dishonored himself by not volunteering for a naval victory. Xanthias tries to excuse himself on the grounds that he has sore eyes, but Charon refuses to listen.
While Bacchus and Xanthias talk to Charon, a chorus of frogs sets up a hoarse croaking, imitating the noisy plebeians at the theater with their senseless hooting. Bacchus sprains his back with his rowing and the frogs think his groans quite amusing.
Safely on the other side, Bacchus pays his fare and joins his slave. The two meet a monster, which Bacchus takes care to avoid until it turns into a beautiful woman. With difficulty, they find their way to the doorway of Pluto’s realm, Xanthias still grumbling because of his heavy bundles.
At the entrance to Hades, Bacchus foolishly pretends to be Hercules—a mistake on his part, for Aeacus, the doorman, raises a clamor over the theft of Cerberus, the watchdog. When Aeacus threatens all sorts of punishments, Bacchus reveals who he really is. Xanthias accuses him of cowardice, but Bacchus stoutly denies the charge.
Bacchus and Xanthias decide to change characters. Xanthias pretends to be Hercules and Bacchus takes up the bundles his slave carries. When, however, servants of Proserpine enter and offer Xanthias a fine entertainment, Bacchus demands his legitimate character back.
Aeacus returns, eager to punish someone, and Xanthias gives him permission to beat Bacchus. Bacchus says that he is a deity and that he should therefore not be beaten. Xanthias counters by saying that since Bacchus is an immortal he need not mind the beating. Aeacus decides they both should be beaten soundly, and he finally decides to take them both to Pluto and Proserpine, to discover who is the deity. Aeacus says Bacchus is apparently a gentleman, and Xanthias agrees wholeheartedly, saying Bacchus does not do anything except carouse.
In Pluto’s realm, they find two dead dramatists, Aeschylus and Euripides, fighting for favor. The rule in Hades is that the most famous man of any art or craft eats at Pluto’s table until some more talented man in his field dies and comes to Hades. Aeschylus holds the seat Euripides is now claiming.
Aeacus says that the dramatists intend to measure their plays line for line by rules and compasses to determine the superior craftsman. The quarreling dramatists debate, accusing each of the other’s faults. Aeschylus says he is at a disadvantage because Euripides’ plays died with him and are present to help him, whereas his own plays still live on earth.
Bacchus offers to be the judge, whereupon each dramatist begins to defend himself. In the midst of their violent quarrel, Pluto appears. Bacchus orders each to recite from his own works. Euripides seems to have the worse of this contest, but Bacchus wisely refuses to judge so as not to make either playwright angry with him. Pluto wearily insists that he pick one winner and take his choice back with him to the upper world in order to stop needless rivalry in Hades.
At last, Bacchus votes for Aeschylus. Euripides complains at the choice. He is consoled, however, when Pluto says he might be sure of a good meal in the underworld, while Aeschylus will be burdened forever with the task of earning his living by his attempts to reform folly and evil in the world above.
Bibliography
Bowie, A. M. Aristophanes: Myth, Ritual, and Comedy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Presents criticism and interpretation of the mythic and ritualistic content of Aristophanes’ comedies. Drawing from examples such as Dionysus’s and Heracles’ presence in The Frogs, Bowie considers the importance of mythology in Aristophanes’ comedic plays in particular and in Greek drama in general.
Dover, Kenneth, ed. Introduction to The Frogs, by Aristophanes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Dover’s essay and commentary, which accompany Aristophanes’ original text, offer a comprehensive overview of the structure and significance of the play.
Edmonds, Radcliffe G., III. “Descent to the Depths of Comedy: The Frogs of Aristophanes.” In Myths of the Underworld Journey: Plato, Aristophanes, and the “Orphic” Gold Tablets. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Edmonds’s analysis focuses on how Aristophanes adapts the mythological tale of a journey to the underworld to create its satire.
Hall, Edith, and Amanda Wrigley, eds. Aristophanes in Performance, 421 B.C.-A.D. 2007: Peace, Birds, and Frogs. London: Legenda, 2007. A collection of papers originally delivered at a conference held in 2004. The papers discuss how Aristophanes’ plays were staged at various times in England, South Africa, France, and Italy, and analyze specified performances of The Frogs, The Birds, and Peace.
Harriott, Rosemary M. Aristophanes, Poet and Dramatist. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986. Offers criticism and interpretation of Aristophanes’ poems and plays. Sets The Frogs in the context of such other works as The Clouds, The Knights, and The Birds.
Lada-Richards, Ismene. Initiating Dionysus: Ritual and Theatre in Aristophanes’ “Frogs.” New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Lada-Richards uses literary and anthropological approaches to examine how a member of Greek society would have viewed the play and Dionysus as a dramatic figure.
Littlefield, David J., ed. Twentieth Century Interpretations of “The Frogs”: A Collection of Critical Essays. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968. A collection of analytical papers examining Aristophanes’ The Frogs in terms of style, characterization, dramatic theory, symbolism, and structure. Provides a spectrum of interpretations on the work’s position in literature from classical times to the present.
Rothwell, Kenneth S., Jr. “The Literary Fragments of Aristophanes’ Knights, Wasps, and Frogs.” In Nature, Culture, and the Origins of Greek Comedy: A Study of Animal Choruses. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Rothwell analyzes The Frogs and other comedies in which Aristophanes featured animal choruses. He maintains that these animal characters may be a conscious revival of an earlier Greek tradition of animal representation.
Silk, M. S. Aristophanes and the Definition of Comedy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Silk looks at Aristophanes not merely as an ancient Greek dramatist but as one of the world’s great poets. He analyzes The Frogs and the other plays to examine their language, style, lyric poetry, character, and structure.
Whitman, Cedric Hubbell. Aristophanes and the Comic Hero. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964. Explores Aristophanes’ construction of heroes in his comedic plays and provides an overview of Aristophanic comedy. Considers the dramatist’s lampooning of such contemporary figures in Greek society as the playwrights Euripides and Aeschylus in The Frogs.