اوریپید همیشه برام اعجاب‌انگیزه. متاسفانه ساتیر کامل دیگه‌ای وجود نداره و ساتیرهای ناکامل رو هم نخوندم که بخوام مقایسه کنم. اما همچنان جایگاه سیکلوپ رو هم می‌شه در جهان فکری اوریپید به درستی پیدا کرد و بازم فهمید که چقدر نگاه پیشرویی نسبت به زمانه‌ی خودش داره. وقتی پس‌گفتار کتاب رو هم خوندم مفصل‌تر می‌نویسم چون می‌خوام شروع کنم به تمرین نوشتن ریویو. واقعا جزو چیزایی بود که وقتی فهمیدم ترجمه شده زیاد ذوق‌زده شدم.

The only surviving Greek comedy is a great adaptation of Odysseus’s revenge against cyclops Polyphemus. Learned a lot about the nature of satyrs and their love for Dionysus. It is interesting that they are a willing slave to Dionysus, but not Polyphemus. Overall, I enjoyed.

Απο εκδόσεις Στιγμή το διάβασα

Çok kısa bir oyun. Odysseus’un tek gözlü dev Kyklops ile karşılaşması ve sonrasında gelişen olaylar. Günümüze kadar gelen tek satyrikon drama olması onu kaçırılmaması gereken bir okuma yapıyor.

The sole complete and extant satyr-play, read in the translation of William Arrowsmith.

This is comic version of the Odysseus / Polyphemus story. With a chorus of satyrs, you better believe there are plenty of dirty jokes to go around. It's worth reading just to discover the unfortunate fate of the no-good Silenus. This short play's a bit ridiculous, but that's kind of the point, considering it was meant to send the audience home on a lighter note after sitting through three tragedies. This makes me wish there were more surviving Satyr plays.

Finishing the "Euripides - Ten Plays" compilation/translation by Paul Roche, brings this bad play at the end.

Here, Odysseus arrives at Mount Aetna with his ship, only to know that a Cyclops lives there with some satyrs. Cyclops doesn't care about anyone or the gods, and eats some members of Odysseus crew.

Odysseus with some satyrs develops a plan to blind the cyclops with fire, then scape, and it happens as they plan, blinding the cyclops after he is drank with too much wine offered by Odysseus, they manage to escape from the island safe.

Average reading time: 50 minutes.

la versió de les 3 bessones és més xula i icònica

La intención del cíclope era patética, si lo tomamos en el sentido complejo de la palabra claro, quería ser tomado en serio, quería formar conexiones, pero fue su carácter lo que lo condenó, al contrario de Ulises/Odiseo cuyo carácter fue su salvador

Hilarious. Euripides' Cyclops is a great twist on Greek mythology, full of wit and adventure. It's an engaging play that brings the ancient story of Odysseus and the Cyclops to life with its inventive storytelling.

First of all--if I can geek-out for a second--it was so refreshing to FINALLY read an ancient satyr play! For years, I've heard echoed again and again the symbolic value of Greek playwrights staging satyr plays--bawdy farces that served as short satirical finales to tragic trilogies--without having any concrete understanding of how said pieces played. While the concept always fascinated me, the unfortunate dearth of extant satyr plays--"Cyclops" is the ONLY one--has left the style exiled from the theatrical canon. After reading this, I can't help but ask: why? How else can fledgling theatre historians draw any tangible connection to the satyr play style if "Cyclops"--our one link to this world--is left off the required reading list?

Stepping down from my holy-shit-that's-nerdy soapbox, Heather McHugh's translation of "Cyclops" was outstanding! The contemporaneity of the translation was edgy enough to make the humor bite, without sacrificing the rich poetry to MTV-era "relevance." This, matched with the play's natural irreverence (drunken monsters, satyr's running around with erect dongs, etc.) would make this play an instant hit with a modern audience. Also, I'm willing to bet this show would sell to a modern crowd because the gulf between contemporary readers' ignorance of ancient geopolitics and classical tragedies' bevy of timely (aka: obscure) references is MUCH slimmer in "Cyclops" than in most Greek tragedies. (Most people know about Odysseus, right?)

Focusing on the titular character, I couldn't help but draw a connection between Euripides' "Cyclops" and John Gardner's depiction of the Dragon in "Grendel." Both characters live in solitude, spurn such societal institutions as religion and government, and opt to satiate what they consider the only truly worthwhile god: their appetite. For each character, gluttony assumes a unique form--Polyphemus feeds his belly while the Dragon hoards wealth. However, in both cases, the author creates gobs of ironic humor by upending readers' expectations of how such "monsters" would behave; the reader comes to the text assuming the Cyclops and Dragon will act as brutish as their infamous reputations' dictate, only to find the characters pontificating eloquently on such issues as law, religion, government, and human desire. ". . . from the mouths of brutes . . ."

While it's unsurprising that Euripides would write a killer funny satyr play (considering the already tragicomic style of his "tragedies"), I wonder how Sophocles & Aeschuylus pulled it off? The latter two tragedians--while wickedly skilled--are famous for their hyper-serious gravity. Could they cut loose like Euripides? Or was the humor in their satyr plays a bit. . . neutered? Might be worth tracking down the excerpts from their lost satyr plays to see how versatile they were.

an entertaining, fun (and short) satirical play by euripides based on the legendary story of the cyclops polyphemus ! definitely worth reading, loved this translation