This is Telò’s second monograph on Aristophanes, following his earlier study on the implications of the playwright’s self-presentations in Wasps and Clouds II for the canonization of Aristophanes’ Clouds.[1] In this new work, Telò addresses a question that should resonate with scholars interested in the philosophical dimensions of Aristophanes’ comedies: “Plato, Aristotle, and tragedy customarily figure in discussions of contemporary political theory. Why is there no comparable room for, or interest in, Aristophanes?” (p. 20).
However, historicism—whether contextual, biographical, or cultural-historicist (p. 16 and footnote 11)—has long dominated Aristophanic scholarship, often narrowing the scope of inquiry to historical specificity and thus restricting appreciation for the enduring aspects of his works. Telò challenges this historicist dominance through an approach termed “too-close reading”. This method uncovers what he describes as “hyperforms” in Birds, Frogs, Lysistrata, and Women at the Thesmophoria. Telò defines hyperforms as “a complex of phonetic, phonesthetic, graphic, morphological, and syntactical fractures that claim attention at the expense of jokes and funny nonsense” (p. 24), emphasizing features often overlooked in traditional discussions of Aristophanes’ formal elements.
By focusing on hyperforms, Telò transcends conventional literary analysis, engaging with the enduring political resonance of Aristophanes’ comedies in modern contexts. His approach also departs from the longstanding scholarly tendency to downplay the political dimensions of Aristophanes’ plays, a trend notably associated with A. W. Gomme. In his influential article, “Aristophanes and Politics”, Gomme sought to define Aristophanes primarily as an artist rather than a political commentator, signaling a partial shift away from strict historicism.[2] Telò builds on and moves beyond this perspective, presenting a methodologically reflective study that repositions Aristophanes’ comedies as central to political and cultural critique, with relevance that extends far beyond their original historical milieu.
In Chapter 1, Telò examines Birds through the lens of hyperforms—disruptions in phonetics, syntax, and visuals—that destabilize traditional comedic elements to craft a political commentary reaching beyond conventional humor. These hyperforms operate as moments of dissensus, challenging the perceived stability of Cloudcuckooland’s democratic structure. Rather than portraying a utopian ideal, the play reveals the city-state’s foundations as coercive, enforcing a normative hierarchy under the guise of democratic unity. Two analyses stand out in Telò’s discussion. First, he interprets the intruder episodes in the play as instances of dissensus, likening them to democratic crises. These persistent interruptions disrupt the narrative flow, exposing how consensus within a democratic state can mask coercion and conformity. By resisting resolution or closure, these moments reflect democracy’s inherent instability and its openness to dissent, questioning the durability of its ideals. Second, Telò focuses on the physically disabled character Cinesias, who represents an alternative to the conformist ideal of democratic “sameness,” encapsulated by the choral “we” (p. 72). Through his disabled body and unconventional art, Cinesias resists the enforced unity of the state. His presence disrupts traditional political and social norms, embodying dissent that challenges the hierarchical and homogenizing tendencies of the democratic order portrayed in the play.
Chapter 2 positions Frogs as a profound political allegory critiquing the relentless drive for productivity and the instrumentalization of individuals within hierarchical systems. Through its characters, form, and language, he argues that the play interrogates the socio-political and economic forces shaping ancient Athenian (and modern) life. Telò highlights Frogs as a text deeply rooted in crisis—not only the political and social upheaval of Athens during the Peloponnesian War but also aesthetic, ideological, and generational tensions symbolized by the poetic contest between Aeschylus and Euripides. Telò’s analysis focuses particularly on Aeschylus in the play as embodying resistant, “aristocratic” values, which contrast with Euripides’ “democratic” and utilitarian approach to art. Three particularly compelling aspects of Telò’s interpretation stand out. First, Telò highlights the repetitive, performative labor demanded of Xanthias, who endures constant calls for action, transformation, and comedy in an endless cycle of slapstick. This reflects the unyielding demands of a production-oriented society, where individuals are expected to perform continuous, alienating labor. Telò links Xanthias’ frenetic actions to broader themes of labor exploitation, drawing parallels with the pressures of capitalist overproduction. Second, by analyzing Aeschylus’ complex, layered language and the animal-like rhythm and imagery in the play, particularly the croaking chorus, Telò introduces the concept of “negative emancipation”—a type of resistance that halts the constant drive toward productivity. This concept is linked to Bartleby’s iconic stance in Herman Melville’s Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street (“I would prefer not to”, pp. 137-138), as both represent forms of passive resistance against the instrumentalization of human activity. Third, Telò proposes the concept of “batracho-politics”, or “becoming frog”, to describe how Frogs contrasts the speed and efficiency of capitalist productivity with the slow, amphibian temporality of the frogs’ world. The slowness and stubborn immobility serve as an oppositional force to the accelerationist demands of capitalist modernity, challenging the values of speed and efficiency. Telò argues that this critique of “malignant velocity” underpins Frogs, where characters like Xanthias and Dionysus perform exaggerated, high-paced slapstick to meet the insatiable demands of the audience for jokes and spectacle. The “zany” comic style reflects the precariousness and alienation of capitalist labor, where performance is endlessly repeated and pushed to extremes, disregarding individual well-being.
Chapter 3, entitled “Agitation and Necro-Reproduction”, provides a critical analysis of Aristophanes’ Lysistrata, examining themes of resistance, state control, and the socio-political dimensions of gender and power within the play. Telò compares the women in the play to refugees, arguing that they are portrayed as outsiders within their own society. Drawing on the theories of Hannah Arendt and Jacques Derrida, he frames the women as strangers in their homes and social systems, lacking full citizenship rights and relegated to restrictive roles. Telò contends that Lysistrata critiques societal structures that confine women to the private sphere while relying on their unpaid and invisible “care labor” to sustain public life. He argues that the play underscores the state’s exploitation of women’s bodies as resources for producing future citizens, with the sex strike symbolizing a withdrawal from both sexual and reproductive labor. Furthermore, Telò views the Athenian state’s reaction to the women’s protest as a portrayal of a “state of emergency”, deploying forms of “necropolitical” control—practices that devalue certain lives. This resonates with the theories of Giorgio Agamben and Achille Mbembe, which posit that governments manufacture crises to justify oppressive actions. Telò also highlights the symbolic significance of the Acropolis, occupied by the women, as a contested border. The state’s violent response to this occupation reflects broader societal efforts to control and exclude women from public life. He links this spatial boundary to contemporary issues of exclusion and surveillance, drawing parallels between the play’s themes and modern struggles for agency and citizenship. Finally, Telò argues that the women’s chorus disrupts the narrative flow of the play, embodying what he calls “agitation”—a persistent, restless resistance that transcends the individual. This “choral resistance” represents a continuous, boundless form of collective protest, challenging structural boundaries and societal norms that restrict gender roles and agency.
In Chapter 4, titled “Trans-Form”, Telò positions Women at the Thesmophoria as a radical comedic exploration of gender, identity, and societal norms. Through parody and linguistic innovation, the play challenges and resists fixed structures of power and identity. Telò draws connections between the play’s depiction of gender disguises and modern transgender theory, particularly the concepts of “un-becoming” and “trans-form”. These ideas signify resistance to rigid identities and societal norms. The concept of “trans-form” is presented as a manifestation of gender and formal fluidity, challenging binary notions of gender through parody and linguistic play. This framework highlights how language and identity in the play continuously shift and resist categorization. Meanwhile, the idea of “un-becoming” emphasizes the process of dismantling fixed identities, aligning the play’s themes with queer and transgender theories. Telò argues that by employing parody and linguistic experimentation, Women at the Thesmophoria critiques societal norms and creates space for challenging entrenched power structures. Aristophanes’ language, marked by its fluidity and creativity, embodies the instability of identity and gender. Words and sounds act as vehicles of transformation, destabilizing meaning and form. Additionally, Telò examines the play’s parodic engagement with Euripides’ tragedies, highlighting how it destabilizes traditional boundaries of genre, gender, and identity. He also interprets the transformation of Euripides’ in-law as a commentary on biopolitical control, where bodies are manipulated and disciplined to conform to societal expectations. This theme reflects broader concerns about state control and the exploitation of bodies for political purposes.
Chapter 5, entitled “Comic Form, Critical Theory: Aristophanes Beyond Aristophanes,” explores the intersection of Aristophanic comedy and critical theory as radical, resistant modes of expression. Telò argues that Aristophanic form—a blend of irony, parody, obscenity, and surreal imagery—shares an emancipatory potential with the critical theories of thinkers such as Gilles Deleuze, Achille Mbembe, and Jack Halberstam. Both comedy and critical theory, Telò contends, have the capacity to “de-form” conventional language and meaning, creating avenues for political resistance. This process of “de-formation” involves the disruption of syntax, grammar, and coherent narrative structures, cultivating a style that destabilizes dominant ideologies and amplifies marginalized voices. First, Telò draws on Deleuze’s concept of style as a “becoming-other of language”, where interruption and “dyslexia” act as tools of resistance. This approach parallels Aristophanic comedy, in which language escapes structured expression, offering political critique through destabilization. Second, Mbembe’s “aesthetics of vulgarity” critiques postcolonial power relations through grotesque, surreal, and exaggerated depictions. His writing performs a tragicomic critique of both colonizer and colonized, echoing the layered resistance found in Aristophanic satire. Finally, Halberstam’s work mirrors Aristophanic comedy in its challenge to normative gender constructs. Through surreal and farcical forms, Halberstam advocates a playful yet incisive deconstruction of fixed identities. Telò concludes by asserting that Aristophanic form, as reflected in the works of these theorists, represents an emancipatory “comic crisis” of structure. This transformative style critiques oppressive systems while fostering a playful and subversive use of language that destabilizes normative frameworks, opening space for alternative political expression.
Overall, this monograph on Aristophanes belongs to the category of works that take the playwright seriously. It compellingly highlights the socially and politically critical dimensions of Aristophanic comedy, which many have sensed or directly applied in their practical resistance to contemporary realities, as exemplified by Pan Wei Ju (潘韋儒, pp. 13–16). While some may find the language of this work somewhat inaccessible, I appreciate how the author strives to convey the serious, critical insights embedded in Aristophanes’ humor, which are challenging to express in straightforward prose. Therefore, I particularly recommend Telò’s new work to readers who tend to regard Aristophanes as a social and political commentator, a thinker, or simply as a comedian worthy of serious consideration.
Notes
[1] See Mario Telò, Aristophanes and the Cloak of Comedy: Affect, Aesthetics, and the Canon, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2016.
[2] See A. W. Gomme, “Aristophanes and Politics”, in The Classical Review, 1938, Vol. 52 (3), pp. 97-109.