This volume contains the three last surviving plays of Aristophanes. They may seem different at first glance, yet they share an interest in the question of how the decay of society, which Aristophanes seems to diagnose in Athens of his time, could be reversed or stopped. The first comedy highlights the importance of good tragedians for the moral education of people. The second comedy diagnoses as one of the core problems the fact that politicians focus on personal gain instead of the community. The third comedy elaborates on this problem by showing the lack of motivation to be just in a society in which deceitful and shrewd people benefit the most.
As with all the Aristophanes volumes in this collection, the Greek text and English translation are supplemented by an introduction to the individual plays, bibliographies, explanatory footnotes, and an index. Henderson's translation is easy to read and accessible to modern readers.


"The Frogs" is an ancient play about ancient plays—a comedy about tragedies. Here, Aristophanes tells of the great desire Dionysus, the god of theatre, has to read or see a new play by the recently deceased Euripides. So great is this desire that he embarks on a journey to the underworld to meet him and try to persuade him to compose something new. In the first half, we hear of Dionysus and his companions' adventurous travel to the house of Pluto, where Euripides resides. Once the god arrives there, he gets entangled in a contest. The newcomer in the underworld, Euripides, pretends to the throne of tragedy, which is held by Aeschylus. Pluto asks Dionysus, as the god of theatre, to judge between these two, determining who the better tragedian is. The winner, Pluto promises Dionysus, is allowed to return to the living world.
I won't reveal who wins the contest and why, but I can say that this play is tremendously fun to read, especially for anyone interested in (the history of) literary criticism and those who have read plays by Aeschylus and Euripides. The second half, where different criteria for judging plays are presented, might be one of the earliest descriptions of how to judge written and performed works, and Dionysus might be one of the first characters in the history of literature who reports on the joy of reading. But it is not only this typical Aristophanic meta-aspect of the play that is fascinating; the descent into Hades and the comedic characterization of Dionysus and his companions are also amusing and colorful. Another one of my favorite comedies by Aristophanes!


Like "Lysistrata" and "Thesmophoriazusae," "Assemblywomen" is a Aristophanic play about the unused political potential and wisdom of women in classical Athens. Praxagora, the comedy's heroine, persuades her fellow Athenian women to dress up in their husbands' clothes and penetrate the Assembly. Her goal is an Assembly vote that turns over the power in Athens to the females. She succeeds, arguing that as good housekeepers and worried mothers of soldiers, women would not look after their personal profit but be better able to actualize what is best for the whole of Athens. Once she is voted as a commander, Praxagora revolutionizes the state: property, food, work, sex - all should be shared equally and on fair grounds. Euripides sketches out who this system benefits—those who are usually at a disadvantage—while it's bad news for the young attractive man who, according to the new rules, must have intercourse with the old and ugly women first before he can lay down next to his girlfriend. The premise of this comedy is clever, but in my opinion, Euripides leaves some comedic potential unused and writes a less funny and less complex play than he could have.


Euripides' play "Wealth" centers around the question of whether wealth and justice do and should correlate in human societies. The protagonist of the comedy, an honest but unsuccessful farmer named Chremylus, meets Wealth, personified as a blind and old god. Chremylus realizes that if the god's eyesight could be restored, he would be able to see who rightly deserves his benefits so that, finally, just people instead of immoral ones would become wealthy again. The god is hesitant to agree to an eye treatment at first—he fears Zeus' wrath, who has blinded him. Chremylus persuades him, and they return to his home. Soon, people show up at the front door: the god's ability to see has affected the community in different ways. Although it becomes obvious that some problems arise with this new order, which makes unjust actions unprofitable, the comedic hero finds solutions to them. "Wealth" is like "Peace" in its allegorical nature. The question that underlies the comedy—how wealth contributes to human well-being—is presented in a simple form without being stripped of its complexities. Euripides points out that there is an argument to be made not only for the merits of wealth but also for the merits of poverty by having the goddess Poverty make an argument against the restoration of Wealth's eyesight. The play invites reflection upon what a good and just life in a community looks like and orients the reader toward the desirability of a state in which just and honest work is compensated justly. For the simplicity of this message and the serious problem that is addressed, I rate it one of Euripides' best comedies, even though the reader might not belly-laugh in this one.

Enjoyed Assemblywomen . A hoot.

Read this for class and it was actually really funny i liked it, particularly I enjoyed the use of comedy to create a political critique and commentary that Aristophanes employs.

4/5

Finally ticked this one off of my to-read. A little different to what I had expected but I'm not disappointed. I would have given this 5/5 but I felt the introductory parts to each piece were dull and didn't actually give much background to the work. Required a bit of extra reading but I can't complain too much.

Technically only 300 pages though as half the book is in Greek! (Bonus for those, unlike myself, who are familiar with the language)

Assemblywomen by Aristophanes
Ecclesiazusae
“Forget about it „in the words of the wise Donnie Brasco and his chums

This is not my cup of tea.
So a short version of my notes on this work would be: I did not like it
A longer alternative may be about anything but the play.
Trying to be fair- there were some funny bits, mixed with horrible proto-communist tendencies.
Yes, it is funny to read about the “first feminists „as they try to take over the power and the glory.
In fact it reminded me of Monty Python’s Life of Brian and the stoning scene.
There, women are dressed like men, because otherwise they would not be allowed at this “ancient show”. They all have beards, but they are given away, at one time by their female voices. In the end, with a morbid, but excellent sense of humor, the women end up killing…the executioner with stones, in a weird twist of fate mixed with “blasphemy”.
The same thing here- women take over and promote a Utopia.
There would be no more trials, because all money, everything will be in common.
-tWhat about thieves?
-tThere will no thieves- you can’t steal from yourself
The leader of the women is called “The Strategist”
Her husband achieves fame for being the spouse of the Strategist.
But in order to get that power, women had to organize a plot, and they had staged rehearsals.
Beforehand, they had practiced their lines and one could find some humor in the way they made the mistake of still thinking of themselves as women, even when they were trying to impersonate and pretend they were men.
But I am not all that keen on the play, as stated from the start.
I have a strong allergy to anything remotely connected with communism and its “ideals”.
People sometimes say that it all sounds great, or the idea is good, but it was not properly put into practice.
There is a joke here:
-tWho is not a communist (or lefty?) when young, has no heart
-tThe one who is still a communist after that (middle age and beyond)- has no brains

The ideas of communism do not work with human nature and they are nonsense.
This is well pointed out in Animal Farm:
-tAll animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
It may sound great to some people: an egalitarian society, with everything shared. In the perspective it was going to be shared according to needs. In the earlier stages the spoils were divided according to whatever each had contributed.
But how on Earth do you divide according to needs?
And then, one who just pretended to work will get a lion’s share, because of his “needs”
Another, who broke his back toiling, would get next to nothing, since his needs are smaller.

I have seen a comedy show; actually, I am watching them lately- on Comedy Central:
-tThis standup comedian was laughing at some holy texts, which people do not read, they just take them for granted, like the Terms and Conditions which come with so many online offers, services, whatever.
The same thing with communism and this Women’s Assembly- many agree, even acclaim them, but they don’t have any idea what they’re talking about.

On the one hand, this is an incredibly vulgar collection. Poop jokes and sex jokes abound. It almost makes South Park look mealy mouthed.
One of my students told me it was utterly offensive and of no educational value and, honestly, I almost don't blame him. It is pretty shocking.
But on the other hand, it is pure genius. Over 2,000 years later and still laugh out loud funny. Absurd. Satirical. Thought-provoking. I loved Poverty's monologue in Wealth.
Not, however, an easy collection to read uninformed. I honestly would have known what was going on if the professor did not explain it. Not even the introductions/footnotes in the text are particularly helpful.
If you do give it a try, be prepared to be shocked.

γελοιότερον