Community Reviews

Rating(3.9 / 5.0, 100 votes)
5 stars
31(31%)
4 stars
31(31%)
3 stars
38(38%)
2 stars
0(0%)
1 stars
0(0%)
100 reviews
April 1,2025
... Show More
n  “Well, what do the slanderers say? They shall be my prosecutors, and I will sum up their words in an affidavit: 'Socrates is an evil-doer, and a curious person, who searches into things under the earth and in heaven, and he makes the worse appear the better cause; and he teaches the aforesaid doctrines to others.' Such is the nature of the accusation: it is just what you have yourselves seen in the comedy of Aristophanes (Aristoph., Clouds.), who has introduced a man whom he calls Socrates, going about and saying that he walks in air, and talking a deal of nonsense concerning matters of which I do not pretend to know either much or little—not that I mean to speak disparagingly of any one who is a student of natural philosophy...... As little foundation is there for the report that I am a teacher, and take money; this accusation has no more truth in it than the other... a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong—acting the part of a good man or of a bad."n

Plato’s version of Socrates’ confession during the latter’s death trial (399BC) insinuates Aristophanes to be a conservative thinker, an affirmation later established during the play. Although several of Aristophanes’ works are a philosophical think-tank debating the validity of orthodoxy dogmas, his rebuttal to Socrates’ Western philosophy stemmed from the argument discourse on atheism (a grave offence in the 5th century) and deficient holistic theoretical rearing. Aristophanes’ dismissal of the ‘sophists’ philosophy outweighing traditional values by means of scientific reasons was acutely delineated through lampooning caricatures of Socrates and his school of reasoning. Thus, portraying Socrates as a dangerously hypnotic figure of modern values which could be detrimental to a just society; the complete idea of “one man’s virtue, other man’s vice” being ridiculed.

Despair, without which happiness would never be the nectar of the heart, is a demon mocking melancholic cries; a curse to human soul. The burden of his son’s gallivanting debts deprives Strepsiades from peaceful nightly reveries. He laments the day he got married, the root of his misery –Phidippides, his son. Anxious about his escalating financial woes, Strepsiades relentlessly pleads his son to acquire eloquent verbal skills as a plausible defensive method to escape the problematical debt. In a turn of unfortunate events, Strepsiades takes utmost responsibility of eradicating the prevailing misery by enrolling in the “thinking” school presided by Socrates himself.

Kierkegaard in his moralistically aesthetic tome articulates,n   “Aren’t people absurd! They never use freedom they do have but demand those they don’t have; they have freedom of thought they demand freedom of speech”.n How truthfully one can assert these words to be, rightfully in the case of Strepsiades! A man ridden with monetary obligations to his lenders chooses to escape his moral responsibility by sheltering his shortcomings in the veil of eloquent orations; Strepsiades comes forth as a desperate man, yet, a coward to own up to his follies and chooses the art of glib as his weapon to envelop the quarters of corrupt thoughts. When questioned by Socrates on how would he win his case without any witnesses, Strepsiades resorts to the absurdity of abducting the moon through witchcraft; an obnoxious notion of lunacy and if vulnerably cornered he would kill himself as no can prosecute a dead man. Aristophanes satire screams the deviant tactics used by numerous scamming actors in various walks of life. The bankruptcy claims filed by corporate giants and public figures in bid to escape grave punishments are personified through Strep’s each irresponsible procedures. The question of suicide being the remedy of a defenseless acquittal however is debatable over humane grounds of self- sacrifice, though not escaping the cowardice stigma. On the other hand Phidippides, the carefree youth who initially mocks the Sophists for their preposterous sermons, ultimately succumbs to sophistry fluency exercising the training on his own father. Aristophanes’ handling of Phidi’s education as a metaphor exposes the intricacies of Socrates’ Western philosophy; the assault of Strep by Phidi rationalizing the violence as a equalized moralistic chastisement affirms Aristophanes’ fear of scholastic radicalism despite the fact that it implies the Aristophanes very proposal of challenging stagnated principles.

Soren Kierkegaard in Conspiracy of Irony esteems Aristophanes for his meticulous portrayal of a sardonic Socrates;n  " It is of importance first of all to be satisfied that the Socrates brought on stage by Aristophanes is the actual Socrates. Just as ancient tradition fortifies this conviction, there are various traits found in this play that either are historically certain or at least prove to be altogether analogous to what we otherwise know about Socrates."n This seems a bit incongruous as both these thinkers stand under the same existentialists umbrellas. Further, the scene where Strepsiades derides Socrates for hanging mid-air cuddled in a basket questioning the validity of GOD ;uttering the inferential ‘Clouds’ to be superior (as events of thunderstorms, rains, etc...are scientifically proven to be the effects of evaporation rather than miracles) affirms the skepticism over Socrates ironical works. As Kierkegaard surmises,n  “The ironist, to be sure, is lighter than the world, but on the other hand he still belongs to the world like Mohammed’s coffin, he is suspended between the two magnets”n; a perfect case for Socrates mid-air illusion of looking down on Gods yet somehow he remains attached to the ground- earth. Speaking of ironical suppositions, one cannot overlook the emphasis on the Socratic Method used in the initial stages of Strepsiades enrollment in the “thinking” school; two opposite views pitted against in a series of debates to extract the beliefs and stance on an exacting issue.

Soc. And for what did you come?

Strep. Wishing to learn to speak; for by reason of
usury, and most ill-natured creditors, I am pillaged and
plundered, and have my goods seized for debt.
t
Soc. How did you get in debt without observing it?

Strep. A horse-disease consumed me—terrible at eating.
But teach me the other one of your two causes, that
which pays nothing; and I will swear by the gods, I will
pay down to you whatever reward you exact of me.

Soc. By what gods will you swear? For, in the first
place, gods are not a current coin with us.

Strep. By what do you swear? By iron money, as in
Byzantium?

Soc. Do you wish to know clearly celestial matters, what
they rightly are?

Strep. Yes, by Jupiter, if it be possible!


Similar concept is applied in the powering dispute between the ‘Just’ and ‘Unjust’ regarding the establishment of the education system. At this juncture, Aristophanes does not fail to impress the reader with his strong views on a holistic education. Rationalizing the need for a traditional yet, liberal education, he addresses his ideas through the ‘Just’ mouthpieces criticizing the “new unjust education” of slippery rhetoric and murky morals. Satirizing orthodox teachings Aristophanes elucidates the dire need to challenge longstanding societal decree, whilst adhering to moralistic virtues, an ignorant aspect with the sophist’s radicalism. Strepsiades setting fire to the school, the flea ridden bed onto which Socrates shoves Strepsiades, the thrashing of a father by his son on moralistic grounds, speaks volumes of Aristophanes’ disdain for scientifically rationalized atheist edification. Thus, it can be carefully deduced that the lampooning of Socrates and his methods was for the very reason of Aristophanes dreading that “know thyself” existentialism might take a sinister turn; a fear of sinners becoming saints. Aristophanes not only subjects Socrates’ philosophical teachings to logical reasoning, but criticizes his contemporary methods to impart the virtues of good and evil. The satire which now seems more to be a battle between the sophists and realists rather than a frantic solution to a father’s debt problems, encircles each controversial issue from religion, education and moralistic corruption.


Lastly, ‘The Chorus of Clouds’; the finality of Aristophanes’ hypothetical dogma. The symbolism of clouds bore utmost responsibility in diagnosis of Socrates atheist beliefs debating the eternal dilemma of religion v/s science as well become the voice of the writer; primarily being the voice of scientific validation, and in due course substituting as a virtuous mediator imparting the repercussions of ‘karma’; a boomeranging bitch that chants the "reap what you sow" hymn.

Cho. What a thing it is to love evil courses! For this
old man, having loved them, wishes to withhold the money
that he borrowed. And he will certainly meet with
something today, which will perhaps cause this sophist
to suddenly receive some misfortune, in return for the
knaveries he has begun. For I think that he will
presently find what has been long boiling up, that his
son is skillful to speak opinions opposed to justice, so
as to overcome all with whomsoever he holds converse,
even if he advance most villainous doctrines; and
perhaps, perhaps his father will wish that he were even
speechless.


n  “A choice is a radical one. And its radicalness still lies in the total redefining of the values of a human life. It is important to realize the compass of the redefinition. It isn't a matter simply of turning over a new leaf; the choice of oneself means rewriting the whole book.”n


Taking Kierkegaard’s expressions in perspective I wonder if it is ever possible to live an aesthetically moral life or we as human are compelled to make a choice weighing the pros and cons that life throws at us. And, if undermining traditional values was detrimental to a well-organized social order then saints would eventually become sinners.

t
April 1,2025
... Show More
If you don't laugh when you read this play, you simply don't have a pulse...

This play is "immediately-turn-you-into-an-actor-reciting-lines-while-walking-through-your-house-by-yourself-as-you-laugh" funny...

But one problem is, I suspect I will never see a live performance that lives up to the one portrayed in my imagination. Honestly a great play to read and probably an especially difficult play to pull off on stage. You need to be very reckless, loud, and have some eccentric, brilliant exaggerating performers... oh yes, and the right costume "props..."

PS. As the title suggests and as I recall, the play in this book is in GREEK, but the beauty of this edition is the English introduction... essential for anyone who needs a Greek contextual frame built around their understanding. Then you can pick up the play itself anywhere on the Internet for free... this book is highly recommended just for the intro on its own in any case...
April 1,2025
... Show More
Aristophanes was an Athenian conservative, and here he illustrated his dislike for those that taught the new way of knowledge, all of whom he identifies as sophists. The clouds are a lovely metaphor for the shifty and subjective nature of sophistic reasoning--one sees what one wishes to see. Socrates (although not actually a sophist) is caricatured and mocked, and dies miserably at the end. All throughout, the clever and crass jokes work superbly, even 2,500 years on. The moral can't be taken seriously today, since it's a defense of traditional Athenian religion against skeptical thought, but the beauty and ingenuity of this play makes it a treasure.
April 1,2025
... Show More
3.5

The Clouds
I read The Clouds more as a historical source than as a drama. I have read in many texts that this play contributed to Socrates' conviction and death close to twenty years after its debut. I was curious to see what Aristophanes could write that could contribute to the demise of such an eminent philosopher.
The Clouds satirizes the " new learning" and its impact on the education of Athenian youth. His target was Sophists, who taught rhetoric to construct winning persuasive arguments regardless of their truth. They provided this service for hefty fees.
The play centers around Strepsiades, whose son's love of horse racing has placed him in crippling debt. To evade his creditors, he enrolls at the "Thinkpot," a Sophist Academy run by Socrates where he teaches how to prove "that wrong is right and right is wrong."
Aristophanes portrays Socrates as a pompous, irrelevant intellectual who spends his time contemplating such weighty issues as the cause of the buzzing sounds that emanate from the backside of knats; that is when he isn't teaching sophistic argument.
The problem with this portrait is that it is untrue. Socrates was not a Sophist. He did not teach rhetoric. Instead, his focus was on ethics, and he sought to identify underlying constructs of abstract ideas such as justice or piety. Moreover, Socrates did not charge for his teachings and lived very humbly.
Plato claims that Aristophanes' portrait reflects the prejudices of the times and that this image stuck and invariably hurt Socrates.
In Athens, theatrical performances were part of religious festivals and thereby viewed by all the male citizens who were eligible for a jury.
I don't know if Plato's claim is valid. However, I live in Post- Trump, America, where many people still believe that the presidential election was "stolen", despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary." I worry that a disregard for factual evidence and a belief in the relativity of truth is a symptom of a democracy in decline. In this sense, I found the play eerily relevant.

April 1,2025
... Show More
I'm really impressed with the combo minds of Aristophanes and William Arrowsmith, who together are wonderful satirists. I'm not sure how much of the text was true translation of the original Greek and how much was the interpretation on the part of Arrowsmith, so I must attribute my liking of the bulk of the play to both men.

I love the following passage and what it's saying about people who buy into false trends:

Koryphaios: ...Sir, complete your course with us and you shall win a glory that towers to heaven.

Strepsiades: Could you be a little more specific?

Koryphaios: You shall pass your entire existence up in the air, among us, strolling about with your head in the Clouds...

The one thing I'd say I disliked and Arrowsmith pointed this out in a footnote as well, is the change of the purpose of The Clouds, aka The Chorus. Their original motivation seems to prove themselves the all-powerful and convince Strepsiades to give himself to sophistry. In the end, they have morphed into moral entities showing Strepsiades the error of casting off his morals and giving into the sophist mindset. This is of course inconsistent, if only because there is no hint that The Clouds are initially testing Strepsiades to see if he is weak and stupid enough to follow sophist thought.
April 1,2025
... Show More
It is a bit unsettling that many of the characters and themes in the play could easily fit into modern times with virtually no changes. Hace we really advanced so little in 2,500 years?
April 1,2025
... Show More



(۱) عوام فریبی ، مغلطه و دروغ گفتن در روز روشن ، سوگند خوردن به روز در شب ، ناحق جلوه دادن حقیقی ترینِ حقوق انسانی ، به حاشیه کشاندن متن و به متن کشاندن حواشی نه تنها مهارتِ سوفیست های باستان بود بلکه سیاستمدارانِ امروزی نیز فرزندان خلف آنان هستند. ریشه ی عوام فریبی و پوپولیسم را میتوان در گذشته هایی بس دور ، در دلِ افتخارآمیزترین و نخستین شهروندسالاری ها مشاهده کرد. باز هم تکرار میکنم که نمیشود تصور نمود که اشتباه آریستوفانس از روی سوتفهام باشد بلکه بیشتر از روی سونیت است. او همعصر سقراط و همشهری سقراط بود. آریستوفانس در ابرها همچون دوستدار هومر و همه خدایان است و از آنجا که نمیتواند در قاموس زئوس در قواره ی سقراطِ حقیقی و تاریخی بیاویزد ، قبای دروغینِ زربفتِ سوفیست ها را به اندام سقراط میدوزد. این شعبده ی هنری آریستوفانس در تحریک افکار عمومی ، دقیقا من را یاد خبرنگاری می اندازد که روی پرده مُخبر است و پشت پرده بازجو. باری سقراط در محاکمه اش تن به عوام فریبی و مغلطه و مقابله به مثل نداد ولی هستی اش تا به امروز چراغِ راهِ خردمندان گشت.


(۲) در دو قطب فرهنگی عهد باستان ، یعنی شرق و غرب ؛ به مرکزیت ایران و یونان ، از نظر فعالیت های هنری و ادبی تحرکاتی ناموزون جریان داشته است. ایرانیان به رغم سرور بودن بر دنیایی بس وسیع – از دره سند تا خلیج فارس در جنوب تا دریای کاسپین در شمال و تا آخرین مرزهای شبه جزیره اناطولی در غرب و حتی در مقطعی مقدونیه و رمانی و بلغارستان ... – کمترین آثار ادبی از خود به جا نهادند. ولی یونانی ها با آن وسعت ناچیزِ جغرافیاشان ، بدون شک دارای فرهنگ و تمدنی درخشان بودند. علاقه و جست و جوی آنان نسبت به ایرانیان ( در زمینه ی علم و فلسفه ) گونه ای دیگر بود. روح شرقی گویا با اعتقادات و خدایان جورواجورش اشباع شده بود. فرهنگ شرقی نسبت به مسائلی نظیر زن حساسیت نشان میداد. این را مورخین باستانی نظیر پلوتارخوس هم گزارش کرده اند. ولی روح غربی به عقل تکیه زد و میدانیم که عقل تکیه گاهی ایستا مانند ایمان شرقی نبود. عقل پویایی به همراه دارد و همه پذیرفته شده ها را بار دیگر به پرسش میگیرد ، سعی میکند پاسخی شایسته و بایسته ای بیابد. ایمان شرقی گمان میبرد که خالص است ولی همانطور که عقل را سرانجامی روشن نمیتوان متصور شد ، برای ایمان هم سرآغازی مطمئن قابل تصور نیست. شاید یگانگیِ عقل و ایمان است که سرآغاز و سرانجام بایسته و شایسته ای را ببار می آورد. روح غربی با بروی صحنه ی نمایش کشاندن خود ، روحش را با تمامی پستی ها و لطافت هایش به آیینه ی خویشبین کشاند. رفتارش را ، تصمیماتش را ، وضعیتِ درهم بر هم دموکراسی و استقلالش را – در مقابل عنصر پیشتازِ شرقی – به رخ شهروندانش کشید. شهروندانی که سهمی بسزا از این وضعیت آشفته داشتند و خود را در آن همچون سوژه ای به پرسش های پنهان میگرفتند. نه تنها خود را بلکه خدایان حسود و آزمند خود را نیز می دیدند. همین تحرکات است که روح غربی را از ایمان هومرگونه اش جدا میکند و به سوی عقل میکشاند و در جرگه ی یاران پرومته در می آورد. تحرکات فلسفی و فکری شرق و غرب بی نهایت ناموزون است و تمام درگیری ها در طول تاریخ تا به امروز متاثر از همین ناموزونی ها بوده است. همین فقدان و ناموزونی است که سبب میشود شرق در یک به برهه زمانی واحد با غرب و حتی به رغم تماس با آن ، ادبیاتی غنی نداشته باشد. در شرق مجال این تحرکات احساس نمیشود ، روح شرقی در ایمانش غرق است ولی روح غربی نخستین قدم های عقل را بر میدارد. اما عقل به تنهایی همچون ایمان به تنهایی کفاف نمیدهد. باری این سیر تاریخی باید تا امروز کشیده میشد تا کارآمدی و یگانگیِ عقل و ایمان بر ما هویدا شود. ته مانده ایمان مسیحی بعد از رنسانس و به تدریج خشکید و به کنج دخمه های کلیسا خزید. ایمان شرقی در چند سده نخست هجری – بویژه در ایران – مجال پالودگی خردمندانه ای یافت و چه بسا میتوانست رنسانسی زودهنگام شود ولی استبداد شرقی اینبار در عبای خلفا آن را در نطفه خفه نمود تا صوفی در کنج عزلت به ریش عقل بخندد و سوار بر سیمرغِ تصوف و ایمان بی خاصیتش به منبع پرواز – خدا – بازگردد. و این یعنی یکسره دور افتادن از اجتماع و واقیعت و کنشگری.

(۳) اهمیت نمایش در یونان وابسته به عقل و عقل گرایی نیست. چه بسا بهترین مناظر را هومر از پهلوانان گرفته تا خدایان در ایلیاد و اودیسه پیش روی چشم یونانیان نهاد ولی این عقلگرایی و زمینی شدن فلسفه بود که سبب شد با نگاهی ریزبینانه تر به آن دنیای هومری نگریسته شود. چشمشان به اندرون خویش و وقایع مسلح گشت. علی رغم اهانت ها و مبالغه ها بیداری و وحدت را علیه دریکِ پارسیان تبلیغ نمود. برای نمونه نمایشنامه های آشیل آوانگارد بود و یونانیان را به اتحاد دعوت میکرد. بگذریم از تاثیراتی که همین عقل گرایی و فلسفه در هیات فکری ارسطو و با بازوان اسکندر ، آخرین ضربه ی مهلک را به هخامنشیان وارد کرد و فصل جدیدی را بروی شرق و غرب باز نمود.



۲۹ تیر۹۹
April 1,2025
... Show More
1.5
Miejscami humor wręcz obrzydliwy. Książka tak naprawdę o niczym, poza próbą wyśmiania nauk Sokratesa. Oczekiwałam dobrej komedii, a dostałam śmieszny wypierdek.
April 1,2025
... Show More
اجرای صوتی این نمایشنامه به کارگردانی هاله رنجبر، که توسط «نوین‌کتاب» تهیه شده است، را گوش دادم و از آن بسیار لذت بردم. به احتمال زیاد برای مرور جزییاتش، نسخهٔ مکتوب آن را نیز تورق کنم. علی‌الظاهر این همان نمایشنامه‌ای است که سقراط در «خطابهٔ دفاعیه» از بهتان‌گویی نویسندهٔ آن شکوه کرده است. در این نمایشنامه سقراط به صورت یک معلم سوفسطائی تصویر شده است؛ ادعایی که خود سقراط آن را انکار می‌کند و در مقام دفاع اینگونه به آن پاسخ می‌دهد: «تئاتر آریستوفانس [...] سقراطی نمایش می‌داد مدعی پرواز در هوا و دعاوی پوچ دیگر مانند آن، که روح من از آن خبر ندارد.» (شش رساله/ افلاطون، ترجمهٔ فروغی).
April 1,2025
... Show More
Good and at times laugh out loud funny. Just goes to show one can learn complex ideas while being entertained. I would favorably compare this play to the recent movies of Woody Allen.

Librevox has a free audio version available.
April 1,2025
... Show More
مشکل من با مقدمه مترجم بود که سقراط رو سوفیست برچسب زده بود که این صرفا نظر آریستوفانیس هست و دیالوگ های سقراط از طریق افلاطون چیز دیگه ای میگه ، حالا یا مترجم اثار افلاطونو خونده یا نخونده ، اگه خونده که واقعا چیزی برای گفتن بهش ندارم اگرم نخونده چطور این برچسبو به کسی که نمیشناسه میزنه
Leave a Review
You must be logged in to rate and post a review. Register an account to get started.