Finally, some thoughts on The Frogs

Entry #9
Work: The Frogs - Aristophanes

I have been remiss in not making entries as I read, and then a virus kept me from even looking at a computer screen long enough to make an entry. Hopefully, I will be able to make up in quality what I lack in quantity.

I’ve found The Frogs to be the most difficult reading so far in this course. I have found much humor in it (though I won’t pretend to understand all of it), have only a vague grasp of what it's trying to say, and in the end, I don’t know that I could adequately offer a synopsis. One of the most interesting things, in my opinion, is its similarities to a comparative retrospective study of two writers of the past (at the time of Aristophanes’s writing, that is) that very well could have been written in modern times.

As I said, I found this to be the most difficult reading thus far. I don’t know if it’s the comedic element that is distracting or the references to works with which I’m not familiar, but it was difficult. Having said what didn’t work for me, I’ll try to tackle now the elements that have made an impression of the favorable or at least familiar sort.

First, the humor struck me as British—Monty Pythonesque, if you will. I’ve always felt that the Brits were more cultured (generally) in some ways that we Americans, so perhaps those feelings spring not from complete ignorance. Correction: perhaps my impressions are based upon good instincts. I have no real knowledge of the education of the British.

Second, and also regarding the humor, at one point I had to wonder if Arlo Guthrie had a classical education (and I will, at some point, investigate to find out for sure). As I read the lines:

“When Euripides came down, he showed off
to the clothes-grabbers, to the
purse-snatchers,
the father-killers, the house-breakers—“
(771-73)

I couldn’t help but think of Alice’s Restaurant. All that was missing was “veins in my teeth,” though if Aeacus, the gatekeeper’s rant is considered, I suppose that the sentiment was present.

As I said, I don’t exactly understand the social significance of the play, and I do find it strange, though not unreasonable, for one to wish that the talent of a deceased artist to return and carry on. In contemporary times, I think of James Dean, Jim Morrison (by virtue of his poetry rather than his eccentric rock and roll presence), Sylvia Plath, Pigpen from the Grateful Dead, Hank Williams, John Belushi, Stevie Ray Vaughn…I could go on. And on and on. All died young, all were incredibly talented in their respective disciplines, and many, I’m sure (myself included) would love to have seen how their talents would have developed. But those disciplines were not left barren. There were others to pick up the torch. Knowing nothing about the climate for artists in the time of Aristophanes, it may be perfectly reasonable for him to send Dionysus on a quest for “a skillful poet.” As Heracles grills him about those above ground, he has an argument for each and why they do not meet his needs (or wants). I suppose it tells me that art is important enough in the times to seek out at all costs, even if it requires a trip into Hades to get it.

I’m told that I missed a good lecture on the context of the humor on Thursday. I’m hoping that someone saw fit to take notes (not my strong suit). I’m not confidant about a quiz on this work, if only because it took me in so many different directions, I’m not sure I have a true understanding of the events. Before test time, I will need to have a re-read, but for this evening, commentary on what I think I understand is enough of a challenge!

Till later…