نمره را به متن نمایشنامه میدهم و نه صرفاً به این ترجمه و این کتاب.
نمایشنامه‌های کلاسیک یونانی را باید و تاکید می‌کنم باید به انگلیسی خواند تا حق مطلب به طور کامل ادا شود.
اما اگر دیوانه‌وار عاشق درامای یونان باستان هستید و جزئیات و سبک به روی صحنه بردن نمایشنامه‌ها بر��یتان جالب است و توانایی خواندن مطالب را به زبان انگلیسی یا هرچیزی جز فارسی ندارید، این کتاب برای شما عالی‌ست.

در يونان باستان علاوه بر ژانرهاي كمدي و تراژدي، يك ژانر ديگر هم وجود داشته به عنوان 'ساتير'.
'ساتير' در واقع نوعي تمسخر روايات موجود و شناخته شده(burlesque) بوده كه هم-سرايان اش رو ساتيرها تشكيل ميدادند و يحتمل به دليل نقش محوري 'ديونيزوس' در هنر نمايش آتن موجوديت يافته.
عنصر نقيضه(parody) در مقايسه با هجويه( farce) محوريت طنزآميزي اين آثار رو تشكيل مي داده است. در انتهاي كتاب يك پس-گفتار ارزشمند وجود داره كه به تفصيل تمام اين موضوعات رو توضيح ميده.
خود نمايش به شكل غافلگيركننده اي خنده دار و لذت بخشه.

Interesante y divertido acercamiento al mito de Polifemo mediante un drama satírico.

(tr. Arrowsmith)

I prefer the story the way that Homeros wrote it.

The main story is Odysseus and his men come to an unknown land, we’re talking really uncivilised, Odysseus observes that no food is grown and wonders what kind of people would live here. After meeting a group of Satyrs and their father, Selenus, he meets the host and finds out. The host is Cyclops, Odysseus learns quickly how he applies the hospitality rules and has guests for dinner.

This play could be read as a comedy but really in strict Greek drama terms it is a satyr, the one that exists in its complete form. At times it’s bawdy but not as brash as movies like American Pie, as it does not lose its bearings from being a tragedy but it’s a tragedy with wit.

Based on the ninth book of The Odyssey, this loosely follows the same story, Odysseus makes his escape after telling Cyclops he is called no name and injures him after he gets him drunk on wine. The first one of the two big differences between Homer and  tale of Cyclops are the action of Odysseus’ men happen off-stage are reported by Odysseus. The second difference is the satyrs and Selenus step in for other characters for Odysseus and Cyclops to exchange words with, this is done with comical affect.

This is the second book I’ve read to help me understand Homer’s The Odyssey better;  Lang’s Tales of Troy: Ulysses, the sacker of cities was my first one. Until now these concepts were alien to me, I’ve been comprehending the hospitality rules (and the importance of food) in works by Homer through modern eyes. So, reading this is a beginning for me to grasp this concept better.

This translation was by Heather McHugh, and included an intro and notes by David Konstan, explaining what satyr plays are and how they fit into the annual drama festival, also touching on the importance of it. Also, it gave a comparison between Homer and  Cyclops, and suggested how this play would have been staged. All of which further added to my reading experience, where I walked away with a broader understanding than I was expecting.

But the biggest surprise for me was -- Euripides writes comedy!!! Having only read his weighty dramas I had no idea he did this. It was so neat to discover this.

Literally just read the Polyphemus chapter in the Odyssey and you get the same information in a shorter amount of time, but somehow more compelling. This was supposed to be a comedy?? Nope, not even a hint of comedy.

Satyr plays were lighthearted and lightweight comedies designed to be performed after a triptych of tragedies during the City Dionysia. Ancient Greece's three great dramatists - Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides - would likely have written hundreds of these between them, but only Euripides' The Cyclops survives to this day. It's fascinating to note just how bawdy and uncouth a satyr play is - references to giant erections and bodily functions are shockingly direct - and one wonders just how racy this genre would have gotten back in its heyday. But our extant example doesn't really offer us much beyond puerile humour: the meeting of Odysseus and the Cyclops is a retread of the more notable encounter in n  The Odysseyn, and the continuing misogyny (again directed towards Helen: ...when you got hold of that little piece of fluff, / did you all line up to run her through / in a gang-bang fuck - / give her for once her fill of a man? / The slut!) is disarmingly gross, especially in what's otherwise a very short, breezy piece of work. Perhaps these things are better best forgotten after all.

The Cyclops' only claim to fame is that it's the world's only complete surviving Satyr play. In Athenian drama festivals, each playwright submitted four plays: a tragic trilogy and a concluding satyr play, which is a retelling of a classic myth with the addition of a bunch of dudes dressed as satyrs. With boners. Boners were an integral ingredient of the satyr play.

Euripides' luckily-saved satyr play is, as you may have guessed, a retelling of the famous episode from The Odyssey where Odysseus fools the Cyclops and gets half his crew eaten in the process.

It's fairly entertaining, I guess. I mean, I think we can all agree that most stories would be improved by having a bunch of drunks prancing around in the background with their boners out, whether or not that has anything at all to do with the plot.

But it's not at all the best work Euripides did; it all seems pretty tossed off.

It also includes, by the way, a rape joke that gathered some attention a while back. (Context: Polyphemus the cyclops gets Silenus the satyr drunk and then rapes him.) Not because it's unusual - Greek drama is chock full of rape, both jokey and not - just because, I guess. Here's a piece about it. The author concludes,

I decided that Euripides, like Amy Schumer, was punching up. The Cyclops scene can be read as a trenchant joke digging into the intensely creepy origins of Athenian rape culture. It subtly calls into question the ethics of a common custom in Athens: the sexually-inflected mentorship of adolescents by older men. And the fact that the rape is preceded by a mock-symposium goes even further, skewering the common sympotic custom of singing songs about desirable young boys.

In other words, Euripides’ rape joke works for me.

So anyway, a) ten points for comparing Euripides to Amy Schumer, b) trigger warning, and c) let's just confirm that this is the official progenitor of this.

I've been getting super sick of Paul Roche's translations, so I switched over to William Arrowsmith's for this one, and I liked it much better. I even skimmed Roche's afterwards for comparison. Arrowsmith wins, although Roche's having ten plays in the same volume is still a pretty big advantage.

Divertido. Tiene toques de humor muy graciosos. Me gusta cuando Sileno dice que el vino le dio un besito por guapo.

فضای این کتاب با بقیه‌ی کارای اوریپید متفاوت بود. چون اینجا با یه نمایشنامه‌ی ساتیر مواجهه‌ایم که رگه‌هایی از ریشخند و مضحکه رو در خودش داره.
نقطه‌ی قوت این سری نمایشنامه‌های بیدگل پس گفتارهای عالی‌شونه که بنظرم به اندازه‌ی خود نمایشنامه حرف برای زدن دارن.

Another great play by Euripides. This one is definitely a comedy and zooms in on the story of Odysseus and the cyclops during the Odyssey. It’s super short and sweet and funny. If you like the Odyssey and you like slapstick comedy, you’ll love this play.