Carnival Plays: Significance of the Priest

Heinz: "That priest is a shrewd man."  (The Farmer with the Blur)

In The Stolen Bacon, The Farmer with the Blur, and The Grand Inquisitor in the Soup, the priest character fulfills a different purpose than typically expected of a religious figure.  The priests have hidden agendas and are more focused on themselves than the lives of those around them.

Hans Sachs is making quite a statement with these character types.  He is portraying the church as deceitful and self-serving.  Although priests are usually depicted as upstanding citizens with high morals, Sachs is asserting that priests steal from those around them and are not interested in the welfare of others.  This could be commentary on the society at the time when these plays were written.  Perhaps Sachs felt strongly that the clergy were being deceptive, and instead of saying it outright, he disguised his beliefs as  carnivalesque plays. 

In The Grand Inquisitor in the Soup, Simon is described as a simple-minded man, and he manages to outsmart the Inquisitor and not pay a fine.  To me, this is representative of the common man overcoming the oppressive church.  (I’m not saying that the church in general is oppressive, but that is how I am interpreting Sachs’ portrayal.)  Sachs could have been encouraging his readers to not fall victim to a priest’s scheme for money, but instead to stand up for themselves.  On the other hand, the priests could be representative of the government and its lack of compassion toward the citizens.

These plays made me think about a few questions:  Why does society expect a priest to have higher morals than the common citizen?  Do the priests in these plays begin their profession with a selfless attitude, then slowly transition to one of selfishness, or is the selfishness present all along?  Are there any upstanding and honorable priests mentioned in other carnivalesque plays?

Lysistrata- Debunking the Presence of a Feminist Agenda

          As some have by now surely pointed out, Lysistrata might appear to the modern audience to have a somewhat feminist/pro-matriarchal agenda, as admittedly was also my initial impression. However, it surely cannot be so, and I would argue that the purpose of the play was surely more satire than feminist-agenda. There are two details in the play that, when they are compared with what I would consider the typical feminist agenda, reveal inconsistencies in the plot that don't allow for the presence of such an agenda. Let me clarify: these particular inconsistencies are not criticisms of the plot itself; on the contrary, I thought it was amusing. However, if one is looking at the play through the lens of the feminist agenda, the faults become increasingly evident as the play proceeds.

           In the ancient world, nearly all societies were considered patriarchal, which means that things were both run and done in a very masculine regard. Wars were a source of revenue, men were the only ones given the privilege of serving in the military, and in almost all cases, were the exclusive subjects of artwork, literature, and history. (There were a few exceptions, granted, such as in the case of Hypatia, the mistress of Pericles, but they were so few in number in comparison that little is left to doubt as to the presence of strong record-favorability.) The Greeks regarded the female forms as “defective males,” possibly even going so far as to suggest the birth of a woman the result of improper heating of the growing child in the womb of the mother. (Coincidentally, they could have attributed womankind’s seemingly eternal state of “It’s freezing in here” to this idea.) They even had a term for the perfection and idealization of the male existence, called Arȇte. It should be noted, however, that in Greek society, women had more rights than they had ever had before in almost the entirety of human history, but it still wasn't anywhere close to the level of modern-day gender-equality that we experience. The point to be made is this: even at this time in history, Greek playwrights certainly weren’t going to write for women. At the same time, they probably wouldn't seriously suggest, and to a largely male audience at that, that women could run the government better than the men; that suggestion wouldn’t fall in line with the opinions of the age, and certainly wouldn't have garnered much of an audience.

If that didn't convince you, let's take a look at the whole point of the feminine agenda. Most would argue that in a work designed to promote the favorability of women over men in the making of ancient-world political decisions, it would be unwise to give the audience any reason to believe that the smart, strong-willed women protagonists had any kind of defining trait, or motivation, that they shared with their baboon-like, sexually-driven male counterparts. However, in the play, the reasoning behind the beginning of the coup-de-etat spawned from what seemed to be a very masculine issue: sexual starvation. Now, don’t get me wrong, both men and women obviously have basic, biological desires for certain kinds of… relief… but the idea of sexual starvation is one that most people commonly associate with men, simply because men have a higher sex-drive, on average, than women do. (Don’t believe me? Comedians joke about this subject all the time, there are segments of the Bible that discuss the issue of wives denying their husbands, and so on and so forth.) In my opinion, to give the women this very masculine motivation for their scheme in the first place would seem to undermine their femininity, and by extension, also the potential for a feminist agenda.

           My opinion as to the purpose of this play is possibly a little more sarcastic than it would appear in the modern world. I think the play served as a method by which the author wanted to show that things in the Greek government were getting so bad regarding war that a bunch of women could do things better. It would be like saying “A bunch of five-year-olds could run this university better…” In this case, the women merely serve as the placeholder for anything “less than” a Greek man and his Athenian government. The sexual motives in the play? Merely a vessel (and one that certainly everyone in the audience can easily understand) by which the point can be delivered to the audience: we want these stupid wars to end.

(Disclaimer: I happen to love women, and approach feminism the same way I approach masculism: they're both ridiculous and backward. Men and women were intended to exist in harmony. My pastor said once that "Women are better than men... at being women. And men are better than women... at being men." )

Misogyny in Lysistrata

In Aristophanes' Lysistrata, the idea of matriarchy, as well as female power as an independent force, is completely rebuked throughout the duration of the play. The idea that women are attempting to control the fate of Greece is inherently ridiculous to the male chorus members; their rebuttals dismiss women on the basis that their sex is inferior, and that women are refusing to fulfill their duties as wives. “What a catastrophe--MATRIARCHY...I’ll teach these women not to trouble us” Although these remarks are accurate, the blatant misogyny of Ancient Greece is as enlightening, as it is unsettling. The idea that women might actively seek to control one aspect of the governing forces in their world is hilarious to Aristophanes’ audience because the socially accepted norm for women in Ancient Greece was to remain in the home and exert their influence over their husbands in a slight, yet significant way, that might convince them to act differently in public. 

Even though this play is a comedy, it addresses serious issues, as many comedies tend to do, such as women's roles and the power vacuum between the sexes in Ancient Greece. Ultimately the entire play boils down to a humorous battle of the sexes, but this battle highlights the roles of women in Ancient Greece. Women were expected to remain in the home and leave political action to the men in society, even if they were leading their entire civilization over the cliff of destruction because of the lure of war and glory. 

The evolution of women’s rights and roles has shaped history, just as Lysistrata and her followers shaped the course of the ongoing, fictional war. Whilst men have attempted to withstand the development of active roles of women throughout history, clinging to their ‘traditions’ as the chorus of men cling to their creed: “I won’t be ployed to revise, re-do, amend, extend, or bring to an end my irreversible credo: Misogyny Forever!”

Lysistrata- Housewife and Sex Buddy

Lysistrata is a comedic play written by Aristophanes. During his time, all roles were played by males. That means female characters were played by males, too. Aristophanes seems to empower his women characters in Lysistrata, yet actors in his day were males. Did he empower the female characters to show that women have a voice and that he sided with having equal opportunities for females and males? No!

      The females­­­­ in this play, including Lysistrata, were just tools to help males mature. They’re not becoming independent and equal with males at all. This play implies that females are only useful for being good mothers and enticing, exciting sexual partners. It didn’t matter whether or not Lysistrata or any of the females wanted the war to end. The power is placed in the males to end the war.

Yes, Lysistrata and another female named Peace were there in the end to help delegate between the Spartans and the Athens, but Lysistrata acted like a mother over two quibbling boy-like men. To illustrate this, when the Spartan argues that Kinesias is taking too much land, Lysistrata (the mother-figure) says, “Don’t argue. Let the legs go (pg.448).” Kinesias agrees, and the Athens and Spartans conclude their truce. Lysistrata finishes off her role by saying “Now first attend to your purification, then we, the women, will welcome you to the Citadel and treat you to all the delights of a home cooked banquet…. And every man of you will take his wife and depart for home (pg.44).” Not only does this quote make her sound like a good house wife and hostess, but it also makes it sound like she and the rest of the women are content with just being housewives/mothers and nothing more. Also, another example on pg. 393, the Commissioner shouts,“I DO NOT WANT TO BE SAVED. DAMMIT!” Lysistrata replies, “All the more reason. It’s not only Sparta; now we’ll have to save you from you.” This scene is analogous to a mother calming a little boy with a tantrum.

Lysistrata may have came up with a great idea with ending the war by comparing her ideas to fleece on pg. 399-400, but ending the war for what? End the war so women can be rejoiced with males and still become housewives or mothers.

Also, the girl named Peace was at the truce delegation. She had no voice. Her only purpose for being there was her body. Of all women, Lysistrata chose her because of her body. It’s most likely she knew Peace’s body would cause the males to come terms quickly and end the war to finally satisfy their hungering sexual desires. They even use her body as a map. The male Spartan said, “We’ll take that butte…. Sparta’s Back door (pg.447).” Kinesias chimed in with, “Let’s try Thessaly…. And down to Megara for the legs (pg. 448).” These words may not be as great as the action, but imagine these men ogling at a young girl with saliva coming down the side of their face as they talk. They treat this girl like an object and her function is to be some enticing sexual partner.

Another example of this degrading role is when Kinesias uses the baby to lure Myrrhine to him: “Where’s you maternal instinct? … How can you be so pitiless?... Come down here, dear. For the baby’s sake (pg.423-424).” He lures her to him and finally gets to his main problem: “You love me? So what’s the trouble? Lie down (pg.426).” He wants to have sexual intercourse with her. He doesn’t care about the baby. That’s what he really sought from her. He may be her husband, but there’s more lust than love in this play. On pg. 433, he does refer to Myrrhine as his “dove, [his] sweet,” but this so-called love is belittled every time his erection and horniness is mentioned.

In conclusion, this play does give women a voice/role. However that role is just being a housewife/mother and being an enticing sexual partner.

Lysistrata and Wordplay

There are a lot of wonderful themes that run throughout Lysistrata. Gender roles, the beginning of a feminist (or not-so-feminist) movement, the Peloponnesian War. But rather than delve into the social politics of 5th century Athens, I'd like to talk about the comedic aspect of the play -- namely, why is it funny?

"Is it butts? It's butts, isn't it?"

(img: source)

I'm a big fan of words. Words are nice. They happen all the time, so much that sometimes we forget words are even a thing. We base an entire civilization of communication (and this includes "comedy") around words, when they're really just mouth noises we eventually wrote down as a series of squiggly lines.

Behold, the English language.

(img: source)

Lysistrata, for all its humor, is the direct result of a biased interpretation based off the original text. So delving too deep into the wordplay of Aristophanes' piece will be fairly useless unless I have a degree in Ancient Greek lying around in my closet somewhere. Barring that, while talking about Aristophanes' play, naturally I'm talking about the translator's choice of words as well. 

And what sorts of squiggly lines were we treated to in this play? For now, I'd like to talk about two specific types of wordplay...

Innuendo

"The sap should rise eventually." (p 383)

"If you lay a finger on her, you won't be able to stop the swelling!" (p 387)

"TO EVERY MAN JACK, A CHALLENGE: ARISE!" (p 401)

For those with minds free from a tumble in the gutter, I'll tell you what's happening here: dick jokes. An acre of them. A field of jokes that end with uncomfortable words such as swelling and jack. I don't profess to know why Aristophanes morphed into a 7-year-old child and giggled at anatomy while writing this play, only that I laughed along with him.

My Hypothesis: Either the squishy parts on humans are hilarious no matter what time you live in, or there's something about the wording of an innuendo -- a cleverly disguised slander -- that incites comedy. In a way, the interaction between audience and actor becomes an inside joke between friends.

"You said 'wood' but you weren't talking about trees! We must be best friends!"

(img: source)

Consonance (???)

"If they start waving lumber, we don't want to be encumbered." (p 379)

"Well, look here, Lookout. I'd like to see Myrrhine. How's the outlook?" (p 420)

Aristophanes often uses a combination of syllabic sounds to push home the point of pointed humor. He plays with his words, like the above "lumber and "encumber" (a rhyme hiding an innuendo), or the way "look," "Lookout," and "outlook" dance around each other.

My Hypothesis: Honestly, I'm not sure if "consonance" is the proper term to identify what Aristophanes is doing here. It's obviously a play on words, but it's not quite alliteration, and it's not quite a rhyme. I'm not sure exactly what to call that. Regardless, the way he crafts sounds is meant to have a comedic impact.

"Hahahaha you said impact!"

Lysistrata - Involving the Audience

Throughout the play, the audience is involved at key points.  On pages 373 and 376, the audience becomes the target of attention, such as when the Koryphaios of Men are pointing out Lykon’s wife or when they ask the audience if there is a general in the house.  

The most blatant breaking of the fourth wall, however, is when the chorus of men actually tell the audience that “We’re not about to introduce the standard personal abuse – the Choral Smear Of Present Persons (usually in every well-made comedy, inserted here).  Instead, in deed and utterance, we shall now indulge in philanthropy because we feel that members of the audience endure, in the course of current events, sufficient hell.” (439)

These occurrences are used to enhance the comedic effect of the play, by revealing the disorganization of the men with their absent personnel on page 376, when even the audience can’t produce the general they are looking for.  Additionally, it is used for dramatic effect when the women show off their new attire to the audience and stating that their qualifications are met, looking to the audience for rhetorical approval.  It’s almost as if the audience is being treated as a mass of Greek citizens, looking on the events and almost being able to interact with the actors.

The last break is complete and almost at the end of the play.  While this is a relatively short play that wouldn’t take too long to perform, it seemed to be in the best interests of the playwright to maintain his audiences attention just a little longer, and to comically inform them that they aren’t going to conclude the play in the typical manner, which signals to the audience that the jokes aren’t over and that the play isn’t about to get boring as it finishes.

Lysistrata-The Woman Is The Neck

The full quote that I reference in my title is “Ah, the man is the head, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants.” This is a quote from another popular Greek story, My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Though the movie came centuries after the play, the quote still goes with it pretty well.

This whole play is pretty much summed up in this quote, actually. The Athenian and Spartan men are constantly fighting each other and trying to prove dominance, and all it takes is some action from their wives to end the conflict. Then again, the women knew how to hit them where it hurt. Women may have been in a more subservient role back then (and still do in a lot of modern cultures), but they still knew how to get their way and be an influence in most situations.

I know that most people see the feminism (or parody thereof), but I feel like the women weren't really striving for that. They just wanted an equal say in the war. They were tired of losing their men to war (literally and metaphorically), and they wanted to put an end to it all. Everything they did was to influence the men, not to overpower them. They basically played them like a fiddle and then went back to being their loving, devoted wives.

                So, in the end, they all got what they wanted without actually upsetting the status quo. Sure, a few tail feathers were ruffled, but the results outweighed the means. Plus, like I said, the social situation didn't actually change. I’m sure the men would keep this stunt in the back of their minds for the next time there was a conflict so they’d know what to look for, but there was not real change of power. 

-Andrea B (signing in case my actual name doesn't show up)

Lysistrata - The Spartans

Perhaps one of the things that stuck out to me most when I was reading Lysistrata was the portrayal of the Spartans. Honestly, my first thought about the way Lampito and her fellow Spartans was Why are they talking like rednecks?  For example:

"I calklate so. Hit's fitness whut done it, fitness and dancin'." -Lampito, page 356.

Whoa, Lampito sounds like she's from backwoods Tennessee!

I tried to reason why our playwright Aristophanes would write the Spartans in such a way that they would seem rather stupid, while the Athenians used perfect grammar and articulation.

Ancient Greece was not the unified country we now know as Greece. Greece was not unified at all, but consisted of several different city-states, which functioned much like separate small countries. Each had its different culture, and as evidenced  from the ongoing wars talked about in the play, did not always get along. The cities of Athens and Sparta were two of these city-states.

Athens had a much more art-filled culture than Sparta. Named for the goddess of wisdom, Athena, Athens gave us such things as drama, the Parthenon, and most importantly democracy. Citizens of Athens were well learned and directly decided their laws  When you think ancient Greece, you probably think of Athens, which is still very much alive today.

Sparta, however, left no ruins for us to admire. The Spartans were extremely war like people, and they did not build their city to last. For the citizens of Sparta, duty to the state was much more important than expressing any individuality. The only real "citizens" of Sparta were the soldiers. Luxury was banned, and Spartans did not make or create anything to trade with (unless you counted warriors.)

Probably because these differences were so stark and apparent, Athens and Spartans were usually at odds with each other, though as Lysistrata tells us on page 446, they had occasionally allied together for their mutual benefit. Athenians thought of Spartans as barbaric, and it is important to note that Aristophanes was an Athenian. He couldn't help to think of Spartans as barbarians and a bit backwards, even if he was writing a play that preached a united and war-free Greece. He certainly did not have to worry about offending any Spartans with his play, because no Spartan would waste his time with such a silly thing as a play when there was fighting to be done.