Animus Classics Journal, Volume 3, Issue 1

MINDYOURLANGUAGE,MISTER!1ACASESTUDYIN
ARISTOPHANICHUMOR
2M.I.Rehan,Univ.OfCalifornia,LosAngeles
F romKeats’saccusationthatNewtonhaddestroyedthe
beautyoftherainbowbyreducingittoprismaticcolors 1
toE.B.White’sclaimthat“humorcanbedissected,asa
frogcan,butthethingdiesintheprocessandtheinnardsare
discouragingtoanybutthepurescientificmind,” 2 skepticism
arounddestroyingthebeautyinpoeticphenomenathrough
scientificinquiryabounds.Yetwewillputthesedisagreements
aside,wheretheybelong,andmakeheadwayintoanalyzing
Aristophanic humor. 3 For that, we must first know what
Aristophanichumoractuallyis. 4 Iexaminethisbyanalyzingthe
agōnofPeisetairos,theAristophanicheroandmaincharacterof
Birds,withswift-footedIris,thegoddessfamiliartomostfrom
Homeric epic. In Aristophanes’ Birds—right after the birdmessengerhasannouncedtheendofconstructionworkonthe
bird-wallandPeisetairos,inametatheatricalcomment,has
comparedthewalltoa“packoflies” 5 —thearrivalofIrispassing
throughChaos,theplaceofthebirdcity,andherbreachofthe
bird-wallcreatecontinuouschaosonstageforahundredlines.
Inthispaperthen,Iexaminetheaccumulationofvariouscomic
elementsinthisscene(Av.1161–1261)—obscenities,disruptive
1.Dawkins,UnweavingtheRainbow:Science,Delusion,andtheAppetiteforWonder,x.
2.White,“Preface,’’xi–xxii.
3.Thispaperisheavilyinfluencedbythehumorousandinsightful
discussionsofHumorTheoryanditsapplicabilitytoAristophanes
andthereceptionofhiscomediesinAristophanicHumor:Theoryand
Practice.EditedbyPeterSwallowandEdithHall.(BloomsburyAcademic,2020).
4.M.S.Silk’sAristophanesandtheDefinitionofComedyisawholly
captivatingandthoroughlyinsightfulstudyofthedifferentcomedic
techniquesofAristophanes,andtheshiftylinguisticidiomsofAristophanes’characters.
5.Aristophanes,Aves,line1166.Translationsthroughoutaremyown,
exceptwhenindicatedotherwise.TheeditionusedisSommerstein,
Birds.Vol.6.(ArisandPhillips,1987).InblockquotationsofBirds’
text,Ihaveindentedthesentencestoreflecttheinterruptionsin
speech,andwhereverthemetricalschemaismaintaineddespitethe
speakerchange.
36MINDYOURLANGUAGE
andunstablelinguisticidioms,non-linguisticincongruities—to
argue that we can understand Aristophanic humor as an
interwovenmeshoflinguisticandnon-linguisticincongruities
thatreinforceeachotherforanexaggeratedcomiceffect.
DuringhisaggressiveinterrogationofIris,whohasstopped
mid-flight, 6 Peisetairos lets go a stream of foul language
ascending in depravity, from risqué to obscene. 7 Since
obscenityishardtoclassifyanddependsheavilyonitscultural
context,aworkingdefinitionofobscenitycanhelpusanalyze
thelanguage.JeffreyHendersonprovidessuchadefinitioninhis
seminalworkontheobscenelanguageoftheAristophanic
corpus:
Byobscenitywemeanverbalreferencetoareasofhuman
activityorpartsofthehumanbodythatareprotectedby
certaintaboosagreeduponbyprevailingcustomandsubject
toemotionalaversionorinhibition.Theseareinfactthe
sexualandexcrementalareas.Inordertobeobscene,sucha
referencemustbemadebyexplicitexpressionthatisitself
subjecttothesameinhibitionsasthethingitdescribes.Thus,
toutteroneofthenumerouswords,tobefoundinany
language,whichopenly(noneuphemistically)describethe
tabooedorgansoractionsistantamounttoexposingwhat
shouldbehidden.(Henderson,TheMaculateMuse,2)
AlthoughHendersonisinterestedonlyinobscenelanguage,I
willalsoanalyzetheeuphemisticvocabularythatbuildsupto
the obscene language and the non-euphemistic verbal
referencestotabooedareasofhumanactivitytoshowthatthe
interrogationofIrishassustainedsexualundertones.Thefoul
languageofPeisetairoscanbeclassifiedintothreecategories—
6.Aristophanes,Aves,lines1201–1202.
7.Aristophanes,lines1205–1256.Acriticalcaveathere:Thedefinition
ofobscenityanditsculturalcontextin5thcenturyAthensdoesnot
operateonthesameprinciplesofinhibitionasinmostmodernEuropeansocieties.Henderson
persuasivelyshowsthattheGreekdefinitionofobscenityrevolvesaroundtheconceptofaischros“shameful”
—theopenproclamationofactsinthepublicspherethatbelongin
theprivatesphereoflife.Hurlingobscenitiesisnotassociatedwith
guilt,butratherwithshame.SeeHenderson,5ff.
MINDYOURLANGUAGE37