168 Aristophanes
functions served by poets; the other is to provide
entertainment:
“We chorus folk two privileges prize: / To amuse
you, citizens, and to advise” (l. 2). Humor is integral
to The Frogs’s entertainment value, which arises
from antagonistic relationships between the rivals
Aeschylus and Euripides and between Dionysus
and his slave, Xanthias; from repeated switching
of identities; and through the evocation of ancient
Greece’s rich poetic tradition. These three thematic
concerns—ambition, identity, and tradition,
respectively—also condition the text for the fulfill-
ment of its instructive function.
With its humor and pointed political message,
The Frogs is a lively and sharp work, the cleverness
and sophistication of which is elevated by self-
reflexive framing structures and devices.
Kate Concannon
ambitiOn in The Frogs
The force that drives the action within The Frogs
is ambition—namely, personal ambition. This force
directs the plot’s course and functions as a dramatic
catalyst, spurring contest and conflict as ambitions
clash. There are two main conflicts of ambition
within The Frogs: that between Dionysus and Xan-
thias and that between Aeschylus and Euripides.
Both conflicts produce humor to satisfy the play’s
entertainment function. But more important, the
conflict between Aeschylus and Euripides pro-
duces the play’s final take-home message, achieved
through reasoned argument revealed by dialogue, to
satisfy its higher function of imparting wisdom—in
this case political. Additionally, the play displays
self-reflexive qualities, through which it appears
conscious of itself as a literary text and creates
frames of texts within texts. This heightens aware-
ness of the existence of a further frame beyond the
play itself and within which it was written—a frame
shaped by Aristophanes’ own personal ambition.
Xanthias and Dionysus’s relationship is char-
acterized by the struggle for power that ensues as
each pursues his personal ambition. To attain self-
determination and autonomy, Xanthias must resist
the instances of subordination by which Dionysus
attempts to exert dominance over him. To secure the
optimal position for himself throughout the shifting
circumstances of the play, Dionysus frequently relies
on Xanthias to swap identities temporarily, often to
Xanthias’s own disadvantage. Dionysus invokes his
socially endorsed advantage as master in this mas-
ter-slave relationship to procure Xanthias’s obedi-
ence; however, Xanthias’s own ambition means he is
not always compliant, altruistic, and unquestioning.
In fact, Dionysus’s formal authority as master—as
well as god—is frequently undermined by Xanthias’s
insubordination and by his opportunistic attempts
to subvert this authority when the situation permits.
This quick-witted opportunism is in precisely the
same vein as his master’s self-interested maneuver-
ing around situations and is neatly described by the
chorus:If you want to be comfy just roll with the
ship!
Don’t stand like a fool with a stiff upper lip,
But learn from Theramenes, that shrewd
politician,
To move with the times and improve your
position. (1.2.522–588)Their struggle produces comical effects, such as
where Xanthias, dressed as Heracles while Diony-
sus is dressed as his slave, invites Aeacus to torture
Dionysus. The comedy escalates as Dionysus in
turn manipulates the situation such that Xanthias
is forced to defend the credibility of his assumed
identity by enduring this torture, too; if he is the
god he claims to be, Xanthias should feel nothing.
The result is literal slapstick as they are repeatedly
caned and struggle to conceal their pain. The turns
each takes in dealing (nonphysical) blows to the
other as they pursue their individual ambitions gives
the struggle the quality of a game, enhancing the
playfulness of their scenes and rendering amusing
both the oppression of the master-slave inequality
and the brutality of physical violence.
For Aeschylus and Euripides, their shared ambi-
tion to hold the title of best poet naturally results in
conflict, which is resolved through a witty, umpired
contest. Dialogue provides the dramatic structure
for exploring conflict through debate. This debate
reveals the contesting arguments—literary and
eventually political—and presents them for evalu-