I can't pretend to love Aristophanes' plays, but I do find them entertaining at times. However, my issue with this book is the translation specifically. Roche leaves out lines for no apparent reason, and mangles many of the jokes. Maybe this is just my bias as an American, but his choice to make the accented characters speak in Cockney is jarring at best. He occasionally translates sections well, but half of THOSE are followed by a footnote crediting the translation to Henderson of the Loeb editions. His footnotes on historical context are often wrong, expounding anecdotes from his youth or giving incorrect history. The redeeming quality of this version is that it collects all of Aristophanes' plays and is available for a good price. That's it.

I think there will always be something slightly crazy and slightly unnerving about the bizarre plots of Ancient play-writers. Only 11 of 40 of Aristophanes (c.450-c.386 BC.) plays surviving wholly, and while they’re all influential in comedic scripts, it shows how interesting they must’ve been for the audiences since there were so many - and for that many to have been preserved is incredible.

This edition includes (as stated in the description):
-The Acharnians
-The Birds
-The Clouds
-Ecclesiazusae
-The Frogs
-The Knights
-Lysistrata
-Peace
-Plutus
-Thesmophoriazusae
-The Wasps

Not all of which I read to the extent I remember them thoroughly.

My favourite was Lysistrata, where women from many places but mostly Athens, decided to collide and deny their husbands sex in an attempt to calm them down - it didn’t completely work. Aristophanes’ phrases are translated in such a way you can’t really stop laughing at them, especially if you’re immature like I am while reading Ancient Greek playwriting. I wish I could see this performed.

This was great but I'm not sure of the translation. Definitely a must read.

Not only is this on the list of must-read classical literature, these plays are extremely funny and many are still quite relevant. Euripedes was a keen observer of human behavior.

wasn’t funny

This was one of Nietzsche's recommendations. In a typically enigmatic passage, he mentions the fact that Plato kept a volume of Aristophanes beneath his pillow when he died, out of all the books he might have chosen. He said that perhaps, given the state of Greek society at the time, Plato needed his Aristophanes.

I've been spending too much time in Russia lately anyhow. Off to the library!

So far, some of the best comedy I've come across in ages. While it's definitely cruder than I'm typically amused by, the execution is so brilliant it had me laughing harder than I've laughed at anything in years, and that was just the first dozen or so pages.

Reading it more slowly than necessary, the better to enjoy the way a few pages have of brightening my day. Both Nietzsche and the translators of this volume have my eternal gratitude.

--------------

And two years later...
The duration of the reading speaks in favor of this book, rather than against it. Aristophanes has been firmly installed as one of my go-to comedians; he never fails to raise at least a chuckle, no matter my mood. The only pity is that, being dead, he's unlikely to produce much in the way of new material at this late date, and most things can only be read for the first time once.

I'll leave the volume as a solid five, though honestly there was a fair amount of variation between the plays. Frogs was obviously an instant favorite. Ecclesiazusae packed the hardest punch, if you've ever read the history of Athens. Lysistrata rather failed to catch my interest, so that was the low point of the venture. Birds too, can't really explain why, but I didn't like it as well as the rest. The humor is far more irreverent and bawdy than I typically prefer, but it melds well with the social and political commentary. Fantastically good reading.

Norii
In comedia "Norii", Strepsiades, inglodat in datorii in special din cauza pasiunii fiului sau Phidippides pentru cai si cursele de cai, se hotaraste sa se duca la Socrate in Ganditoriu (Thoughtery) sa invete cum sa produca argumente false pentru a reusi sa scape de creditori. Atat Strepsiades cat si fiul sau ajung sa invete cum e cu argumentarea falsa, incat pana la urma ajung sa isi certe unul cu celalalt (Phidippides gasind un argument la intrebarea - Daca este ok ca fiul sa isi bata tatal) si Strepsiades infurit da foc la Ganditoriu cu Socrate in el cu tot.

Aristofan are o pozitie ironica vis-a-vis de filozofie si de diversele jocuri de cuvinte reprezentate de diversele argumente. Socrate este pus intr-o lumina mai mult decat haioasa. Cand Strepsiades intra in Ganditoriu, este dus de discipol la marele Socrate suspendat intr-un cos.


S: Socrates! my little Socrates!

So: Mortal, what do you want with me?

S: First, what are you doing up there? Tell me, I beseech you.

So (pompously): I am traversing the air and contemplating the sun [...] I have to suspend my brain and mingle the subtle essence of my mind with this air, which is of the like nature, in order clearly to penetrate the things of heaven

In plus, la un moment dat the Chorus-leader il numeste pe Socrate great high-priest of subtle nonsense

Piesa de fata este extrem de utila pentru orice se simte intimidat de filozofia lui Platon (asa ca mine), unde Socrate este personajul principal, prezent in multe dialoguri. Aristofan ia in derandere toata aceasta filozofie, toata aceasta joaca cu cuvintele, incercand sa o foloseasca pentru niste scopuri concrete, pamantene (scaparea de datorii prin folosirea unor rationamente false menite sa ii incurce pe creditori).
In plus am avut ocazia sa intru in viata de zi cu zi a omului de rand din Grecia antica. Strepsiades este un taran nu foarte bogat, care sa casatoreste bine cu o nevasta obisnuita cu luxul. Fiul sau este pasionat de cai si de cursele de cai, motiv pentru care Strepsiades ajunge sa se indatoreze de foarte multi bani (plus ca trebuia sa ii asigure nevestei un trai cu care aceasta era obisnuita).

Norii sunt:
So: They are the Clouds of heaven, great goddesses of the lazy; to them we owe all, thoughts, speeches, trickery, roguery, boasting, lies, sagacity
Strep: Ah! that was why, as I listened to them, my mind spread out its wings; it burns to babble about trifles, to maintain worthless arguments, to voice its petty reasons, to contradict, to tease some opponent


all these idlers whom the Clouds provide a living for, because they sing them in their verses

Cearta finala dintre Phidippides si tatal sau este amuzanta iar argumentele fiului de ce ar trebui sa isi bata tatal, pornind de la argumentele tatalui de ce fiul este batut cand este mic dovedeste ca totusi invataturile lui Socrate au avut efect.

5 stele pentru invataturile care se pot extrage din carte, pentru faptul ca e distractiva, bine scrisa, intr-un ritm alert. In afara de asta, as reciti-o si maine din nou. Mi-a placut mult de tot.

PS: Oare de aici vine expresia " a fi cu capul in nori"?????

425 - 386 BCE (1st comedy plays)


The Acharnians 425 BC
The Knights 424 BC
The Clouds original 423 BC, uncompleted revised version from 419 to 416 BC survives
The Wasps 422 BC
Peace (Latin: Pax) 421 BC
The Birds 414 BC
Lysistrata 411 BC
Thesmophoriazusae first version c.411 BC
The Frogs 405 BC
Ecclesiazusae or The Assemblywomen; c. 392 BC
Wealth (Latin: Plutus) second version, 388 BC

Loved it. Far better than Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides etc. Especially The Frogs is hilarious.

Well, at first I was thinking of only giving this two stars, but it did grow on me. Other reviewers have commented on the weakness of the translation, and as they are familiar with Greek and I am not, I tend to defer to them. The main problem I had was Hadas' insisting on picking translations that rhymed, which may retain the sound of an original Greek play but sacrifices the meaning and context - in general the rhyming comes out sounding very amateurish also, although some of the translations are better than others. Hadas' introductions to each play are infuriatingly short, and there are no footnotes or other efforts to explain either the meaning or the translations to the casual reader.

There were some plays here I enjoyed in spite of these problems, however. Particularly "Lysistrata," "Birds" and "Plutus" were quite enjoyable, and some of the others were interesting in broadening my understanding of what the author thought, putting these into better perspective. The famous "Lysistrata," for example, in which the women of Sparta and Athens go on a sex strike to end a war, has led some readers to believe Aristophanes was an early feminist - but "Thesmophoriazusae" and especially "Ecclesiazusae" will put that misconception to rest. He was something of a pacifist, however, and people ending wars is a recurring theme. The "Birds" is a sort of Utopian fantasy - but simultaneously a parody of Athenian democracy - in which a couple of self-exiled Athenians establish an ideal city in the sky, peopled mostly by avian citizens. Hadas comments that "Plutus" was particularly popular in the Byzantine period because it required little comment for context, and this applies here also - it is easy to understand without the information Hadas does not supply. The god of Wealth is encountered on the road and captured by two well-meaning farmers, who restore his sight so that Wealth may be shared among the good people, but human weaknesses bring this ideal situation down.

The main advantage of this volume is that it cheaply collects all of these classic dramas in one place. In order to read them, however, one would need an expensive non-fiction book on Aristophanes and/or Greek drama to supplement this.

(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 Acharnians

Aristophanes 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 Knights

Oh 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 Clouds

Ah, 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 Wasps

This 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.

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 Translation

Oh 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 in execution it’s just 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 is able to translate with humor intact (that is, if it isn’t new invented lines), and his plays are extremely readable, but at their worst, anachronistic and distracting. 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? 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. This edition is definitely for lighter reading moreso than scholarly study— there aren't even line numbers. The best I can do is consult Wikipedia and other plot summaries to confirm that the Aristophanes I read is the same Aristophanes everyone else has read. Hurrah. But...it’d be nice to not have to worry.

By far, my favourite Classical comedian.