Lysistrata 171Xanthias and Dionysus and between Aeschylus
and Euripides, which are empowered by direct dia-
logue. Euripides, on the other hand, is credited with
introducing the convention of the intelligent slave,
among other innovations, an influence that is also
seen in The Frogs with the character Xanthias.
Aristophanes exploits many conventions that
constitute the ancient Greek theater tradition. Clues
in the script point to the exploitation of costuming
for comic effect, in accordance with the comedic
tradition of exaggeration that involved such items
as ultra-short robes designed to reveal phallic pros-
theses. Also featured is the traditional chorus, who
in turn deliver the structural convention of the
parabasis (address to the audience), which imme-
diately follows Dionysus’s admission into Pluto’s
palace. Aristophanes’ characterization of Dionysus
as a lewd, pleasure-seeking god, whose predilec-
tions readily provide opportunities for the comedic
trope of crude sexual innuendo, is also highly con-
ventional. While such reproduction of traditional
elements consolidates the conventions they form,
Aristophanes also produces an innovation in The
Frogs by combining two forms of comic motif, the
journey and the contest (agon) structure, and giv-
ing them comparable weighting, with one act being
reserved for each. Despite this deviation, however,
the agon observes the structure’s own rules of tradi-
tion, whereby it is the second speaker in any contest
who emerges victorious; likewise, the journey motif
is sufficiently sympathetic to tradition to be clearly
recognizable as such, even if the comic approach
to it produces a twist on the more typically serious
convention of the katabatic myth or myths in which
characters travel to the underworld.
Aristophanes was a stern advocate of tradi-
tion—poetic and political—for the superior moral
rectitude and wisdom he considered it offered,
though its old-fashioned ways may lack the slick
appearance, novelty, or shock value of cleverness and
glib expression, which Aristophanes equates with
Euripides. The Frogs, with its unequivocal judg-
ment on the respective merits of the two tragedians,
presents a vehicle for expounding his aesthetic posi-
tion, which is dramatized by Dionysus’s selection of
Aeschylus and his poetic legacy over and above the
flashier Euripides. Aristophanes also leverages the
power of cultural tradition in its poetic and dramatic
forms to achieve his political purpose. By drawing
on the audience’s knowledge of Athenian mytho-
logical and poetic traditions while further expanding
them—that is, by referencing other plays and myths
by means of a vehicle that, as a poetic artifact in
itself, enriches the tradition it celebrates—The Frogs
functions as an appeal to the Athenians’ rich cultural
tradition, as accessed and expressed through theater.
Moreover, The Frogs can be interpreted as a rallying
instrument by which to motivate the Athenians to
take the political action Aristophanes envisages will
ensure the city’s viability, cultural and otherwise,
beyond its present point of threat.
Kate ConcannonARISTOPHANES Lysistrata
(411 b.c.)
The masterpieces of comedy produced by Aris-
tophanes, the sharp and lewd wit of fifth-century
Athens, may forever play supporting roles to their
tragic counterparts. However, Lysistrata, a fantasy in
which Greek women stage a sit-in/sex strike to end
the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta,
maintains a special place in dramatic and literary
history. Featuring a title character whose name
loosely translates as “she who disbands armies,” its
current popular recognition can be mostly credited
to perennial productions that use its theme of “love
not war” (or more precisely “no love until no war”)
to stage public challenges to military conflict. The
most significant recent example was the Lysistrata
Project, which presented thousands of readings of
the play as an action against the pending U.S.-led
invasion of Iraq. While Lysistrata is not specifically
an antiwar play (Lysistrata is no pacifist, as she
cheers efforts to destroy the Hellenes, depicted in
the play as barbarians), it is a play that depicts the
possibility of peace, forged unexpectedly by the
power of women’s chastity. Lysistrata is essentially an
act of hope driven by a fundamental gender power
reversal, which is fueled by the often underestimated
forces of sex and sexuality, sensuality, and eroti-
cism. It is for this reason that many audiences, crit-
ics, and scholars have reflected, to paraphrase, that it
is a play that will be pertinent as long as men and