(This review is written after reading The Acharnians, The Knights, The Clouds, and The Wasps. I’ll read the rest after a break.)These plays are guilty pleasures, but awfully important ones. Sure, you can analyze the elements of Old Comedy and how Aristophanes puts them to use, but it feels like you are spending more time analyzing the nice frame a painting is in, instead of the actual painting itself. The The Wasps and Old Comedy section on the Wikipedia page for The Wasps is so far from the joy and humor of everything about the play and its author to a frightening and almost pitiful extent. Its existence saddens me. The idea that this sort of extreme analyzation brings one any closer to the entity once known as The Wasps couldn't be more wrong.It’s a shame that Aristophanes is not more widely read (I have not spotted a single Barnes & Noble in the state of Arizona that sells any plays by the man. Getting these plays—which were not for school!—involved a long trip to the lonely top floor of the Phoenix Burton Barr library to check them out). I believe it is more beautiful and important to know that people found poop jokes, dick jokes, and general nonsense to be entertainment twenty-five centuries ago, than anything any disconnected metaphysician had to say about the nature of the universe and human consciousness twenty-five centuries ago.These plays are funny. The fact that human civilization is able to laugh— however guiltily it may be— at the same antics for over two and a half millennia, is important. In some shape or form. I can’t quite pin it down, but it feels comforting in a vague way. Maybe it makes us feel less lonely. This is beyond my scope.Here are my thoughts on……The AcharniansAristophanes balances the seriousness of his politics (or, anti-politics) perfectly with the absurd.It’s a wonder on how fourth-wall breaking started to be considered a modern phenomena, and how any example of it appearing in ancient literature has to be pointed out as being some great anachronism of the universe. Fourth-wall breaking, including long speeches to the audiences were expected in Old Comedy. It’s just what they did.The gag involving Dikaiopolis offering the Boeotian merchant an informant in a trade looks like to me an extremely early precursor to a modern racist joke, where the multi-cultural crew of a sinking ship (sometimes falling airplane) is instructed to throw off something they have too much of in their country, which punchlines with the member of a majority group tossing off a member of a minority group.…The KnightsOh boy, Aristophanes has axes to grind! The incessant, bordering-on-cruel harassment of political enemies in this play is humorous in its sheer overabundance— can one man really be that pissed off? This play requires the most necessary footnotes carrying historical tidbits for the play’s enjoyment, but it is still rewarding. To have seen this play performed with a steaming, enraged Cleon in the audience would have been priceless.…The CloudsAh, a favorite topic of mine: the mockery of philosophers! This is the most immediately funny play I’ve yet read.While “those crazy rebellious kids” is a universal and timeless predicament, some of the arguments and complaints brought up in this play fall into Blue and Orange Morality. It’s interesting seeing how different conservatism looked back in Ancient Greece compared to what it means in America, today. The argument to remain a follower of the “Good Reason” is tempting, when it means you get your very own girls and boys for your personal pleasures...…The WaspsThis play reminded me of The Acharnians, in how in the former, one sets up a private marketplace on one’s home, free from the bumbling inefficient government’s intrusion, and how in the latter, a private court is set up on one’s home, free from the bumbling inefficient government’s intrusion. A wonderful cascade of nonsense falls after each alternative is set up— here, with a lawsuit of one dog on another (allegorical, of course), holding various inanimate kitchen utensils as witnesses. Unfortunately, without any sort of visual, the final third of the play is a little chaotic and hard to follow. I’ll try seeing if there is a good performance of this one floating around online.Aristophanes arguments win a little too easily. Enemies give up, and the choruses (usually made out to be made up of stubborn straw men early on) are swayed to even their own disbelief halfway through each play. Aristophanes was probably a little over hopeful for the change he wanted to happen, knowing that history almost never followed the suggestions Aristophanes spoke so strongly about. Aristophanes was not the only ancient Anthenian with a straw man problem, however.Speaking of unrelentless cruelty, Aristophanes has a running joke of constantly picking at Cleonymus (who apparently had made the mistake of dropping his shield and running away in fear in the middle of battle). It’s humorous to see how big of a deal Aristophanes is making of an event that seems rather tame to modern eyes, and how it can be brought up in the most irrelevant of situations mid-play. I look forward to seeing attacks on him in the remaining seven plays.…The TranslationOh dear. Aristophanes— as explained in Paul Roche’s introduction— is like the Shakespeare of Ancient Greece, when it comes to language creativity and manipulatioon. I’m always a sucker for translator’s woes and whines of their difficulties, but this is a special case. Aristophanes did coin the 171-letter whopper “Lopadotemakhoselakhogaleokranioleipsanodrimypotrimmatosilphio-karabomelitokatakekhymenokikhlepikossyphophattoperisteralek-tryonoptokephalliokigklopeleiolagōiosiraiobaphētraganopterýgōn” in his The Assembly Women, and credit must be given to any poor soul that dares attempt a crack at that one.Paul Roche’s translation is one of those “written yesterday” translations, similar to the controversial Seamus Heaney translation of Beowulf— but far, far worse. In The Acharnians, the word “frigging” is used. “Frigging.” Even though plenty of characters drop the F-bomb frequently… ”frigging.” I’m under the assumption that some creative (and very modern) cursing is necessary to fit in with the meter and rhyme (or as close as you can get in the English language), but sometimes it’s downright distracting. I’m sure the translation does replicate the initial feel and shock of the bawdiness of the plays for the modern reader, but at the same time it really does detract from the flow. Roche leaves in many obscure Ancient Greek references, with explanatory footnotes underneath. Which is fine! Perfectly fine! It's very questionable when he doesn't do this. In The Knights, the Athenians are accused of “humming pop songs while they sit by their Ouija boards.” (pg. 103). …what? I’m completely lost to what this could’ve been in the original. It would have been infinitely better to just leave whatever obscure ancient things were being mentioned by Aristophanes in, and just explain them at the bottom. Mentioning a board game invented in 1890 is absolutely bewildering. Roche translates the humor of Aristophanes perfectly, and his plays are extremely readable, but at their worst, anachronistic and distracting on occasion. The flow is overall intact, but there's a big "WHAT?!" reaction waiting on at least every three pages. When translations are this easy and entertaining to read, I always begin to doubt the faithfulness to the source. Is the work I’m reading really the work of Aristophanes, or instead the work of some British guy? (view spoiler)[Who, sadly, passed away two years after this was published— the NYTimes obituary makes no mention of his work with Aristophanes, but does however comment on his repeated exploration of “the almost unbearable immediacy of the human experience,” an honor reserved for only a select deserving few in this world. (hide spoiler)]
While I have not read all the plays contained in the book, I thought I would start a review page and add each play's review as I go. Aristophanes (henceforth 'A') wrote what is called 'Old Comedy' in Ancient Greece. He lived at the time of Socrates. If you like modern day Monty-Python, you will like A. His comedy is very frequent in dialogue, often juvenile, and sex or 'potty' related. Greek plays usually have 'choruses' where a group of people would turn to the audience and sing, usually foreshadowing events to come or even making a speech to the audience or the judges on the playwright's behalf. Actors were always male even if the character was female, and wore masks. A's plays are usually of satire on prominent figures in Greece, such as Socrates himself in 'The Clouds'. Hero-type characters also walked on stilts, towering over the audience (this is important to know while you're reading A, or Shakespeare, that reading a play is only half the intended experience: it is supposed to be a PLAY, so while you read you must imagine the stage and the visual, auditory presentation, the actors moving back and forth speaking their lines, exiting stage, etc).'The Frogs'This play I thought was OK, perhaps 3 stars out of 5. The main plot is that the characters (a man and his slave - hilarious duo!) complain that all the great Greek poets have died, and they must go down to Hades and ask him in the Underworld if they can have one back (Euripides or Aeschylus). The first half of the play is great, traditional A comedy which is like a modern Monty-Python style. In this part the main characters get ready for the journey. The second half contains the descent into the Underworld where a lot of Frogs are singing, and a debate between Aeschylus and Euripides on who was the better playwright (ie. who should be chosen to return to Earth). This section the comedy drops a bit and (I imagine if staged) would be more a spectacle part of the play (singing, dancing, flashyness, etc). Overall 3/5, which is an averaged of 4/5 for first half and 2/5 of last half.'The Clouds'This play is good, 4/5 stars. It maintains A comedy throughout (note English versions today are heavily censored and reduce or eliminate many of the original sex and potty jokes). The main plot is the main character's son and wife have put the family in debt and the father wishes to learn from the Sophists, Socrates included, in order to manipulate the creditors into relieving their debts. The play is basically a 'roast' of Socrates, portraying him as an atheist, an odd fellow, and as part of the Sophists which he historically was not. There is also some discussion of whether Socrates' portrayal as a teacher and radicalizer of the young (which was true in many ways) contributed to his indictment and later execution via hemlock in his famous 'Trial' as described in Plato's Apology. Choruses speak to the audience, especially the judges to attempt to receive a higher judgement prize on the play (it ended up being awarded 3rd place). The most interesting dialogue in the play is the ubiquitous and timeless debate of ethics, how should I live: between the traditional/conservative old ways of virtue, chastity, honour, moderation, etc., and the new ways where often youth rebel from the old ways and wish to live life unlimited, riotous, and hedonistic. The irony is the father himself abandons traditional values by sending his son to learn manipulation, a dishonourable trait, and the son in-turn betrays his father, causing the father to return back to traditional values and find a way to repay his debts (honourably).
What do You think about The Complete Plays (1984)?
At the end of junior year in high school a number of us were taken on a field trip to the University of Chicago by, I think, Eric Edstrom, sponsor of my club, Tri-S (Social Science Society). At this point I had already had some contact with the university, having attended my first political demonstration there over a year before and having gone to a Phil Ochs concert on campus, not to mention innumerable visits to the Science and Industry Museum on its east end. The ersatz Gothic look and the wainscotted interiors were all very impressively collegiate. The students there seemed quite studious. The area bookstores were numerous. I imagined that a disproportionate fraction of them were Jewish which, to me, meant intellectual and that was a plus too. For some reason I've always very much wanted to please my father and marrying a leftist Jewish academic would, I was sure, meet with his approval, particularly if she led me along to a law degree and a career with the A.C.L.U.In one of the area bookstores, perhaps the famous Coop, I picked up a used copy of Hadas' edition of Aristophanes' plays--a substantial paperback which seemed suited to the environment. I'd read Sophocles at this point and knew Aristophanes did comedy, but that was about it. While waiting for the group here and there I started perusing the thing, eyebrows raising. "Gosh, this is pornography!" I thought, somewhat embarrassed, somewhat excited, somewhat anxious to get home to get started.I didn't go to Chicago. Instead I went to another school, Grinnell College, with a disproportionate fraction of Jews--and scholarly leftists too. I did, however, read all of Aristophanes--well, not the fragments (available from Loeb)--to discover he was not so much pornographic or erotic as bawdy, both scatologically and sexually.
—Erik Graff
What I liked about it: The Birds, which is about two friends who get sick of living in Athens and convince a former king who now lives as a bird to build a whole bird city in the sky for them, is pretty good because it's not about arcane political machinations and you can imagine people today feeling the same. Lysistrata, which is about the women of Greece staging a sex strike in order to force an end to the Pelopennesian war, is also pretty funny, especially the scene where some of the ladies get horny and keep trying to make all these excuses for why they need to go home. Finally, Thesmophoriazusae or more easily pronounced The Parliament of Women, where the women go off to a festival by themselves. The playwright Euripides, worried they're talking about them behind his back, sends a friend in disguised as a woman to spy on them. Inside, he discovers a democracy, complete with voting, committees and action plans, debating how to punish Euripides for his negative portrayals of women in his plays. Of course the women quickly discover the cross-dresser and arrest him, only agreeing to release him when Euripides promises to stop treating them so horribly in his works.What I didn't like about it: I read the Bantam Classics edition, which not only uses anachronistic words like hamburger, it also translates all the parts for foreigners into a weird form of Scots English. Not only that, it completely lacks footnotes, so when someone or something unfamiliar is mentioned, not that surprising in a 2000 year old book of plays, you either have to turn to Wikipedia to figure it out or just skip over that bit. http://omnibrowbooks.blogspot.com
—Well-steered
admittedly i've only read clouds, wasps and lysistrata from this and i have no desire to read anymore aristophanes ever again. i can appreciate the significance of his works and what they reveal about athens and greek culture but i just find that this kind of humour is insulting to my intelligence. not only does this kind of humour irritate me but it makes me sympathize with the aristocrats - what a nauseating person aristophanes seems to have been and really, if the demos loved this stuff, i would look down upon them as well.and though i don't know anything about greek so cannot comment as to the accuracy of the translation or even the translator's intent, i don't like the style.
—Linda
