Are some works now purely of historical interest only?

We have to study Aristophanes' Lysistrata for Drama, and I can honestly see no reason why anyone would bother staging it. Whilst Greek tragedy has been terribly influential on drama and prompted some great plays, Greek comedy (there is only one playwright's works surviving but still) just isn't funny. The translation is terrible- it reads like a bad Carry On film- and aside from that, it's boring. There isn't a plot and there's too much formal verse and convention for anyone who isn't a historian or theatre buff to find funny. Theatre's moved on, people have more sophisticated tastes, comedy's moved on.
The only thing it has to recommend it is an anti-war message but there are far better plays with that.

Can you think of any literature that now seems irrelevant?

I recently read, and enjoyed, The Faber Pocket Guide to Greek and Roman Drama by John Burgess. It's an account of these Ancient dramas from someone who actually puts them on in today's theatre. He recommends some modern translations.

Having finished with Homer I'm now trying to build up the courage to tackle the Greek dramatists. But there are so many different translators it's difficult to choose. I was thinking of going for Paul Roche's Complete Aristophanes 'cause he seemed more readable than most, at a cursory glance. But I've seen him accused of being a bit 'carry on' with his translations!

Anyone out there read one translation of Aristophanes that they would recommend above others? Anyone recommend Paul Roche? Anyone have reasons not to recommend him?

I'm looking most for readability, and therefore want to avoid literal & archaising translations, and I'm quite happy with radical modernisers. For instance, I bought Ted Hughes' version of Aeschylus and am tempted by Tony Harrison's version of Lysistrata - his verse isn't formal or conventional - he even mentions CND, so it's not a literal translation!

Note, I'm a common reader so I'm not bothered if I miss some subtle scholastic points, - but if you are studying it I guess you better stick to the set text. Quoting Harrison's line about CND might not go down well in the exam :-)

I love the Lysistrata -- and I recently assigned it to a rhetoric class that I was teaching and they enjoyed it more than almost any other thing that I assigned to them. Several even staged a portion of the play as part of a final project and it was the hit of the class. The play has blistering satire and sexual humor that could make a porn star blush. What's not to like? :-)

Yeah, I don't agree with the original poster either. Lysistrata is great. In many ways, it is the most modern of Aristophanes plays. I wrote my thoughts on it here. It is extremely sophisticated with whole scenes standing in as allegory for the larger themes of the play.

Mal4mac,

I read the Paul Roche translations. I can't say I loved them. I have nothing really to compare as I haven't read other versions, but it was a lot of little things that bothered me while reading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

I read the Paul Roche translations. I can't say I loved them. I have nothing really to compare as I haven't read other versions, but it was a lot of little things that bothered me while reading.

---

Can you expand on the "things"? He's been criticised for using accents, from another forum:

"I haven't read a lot of Aristophanes, apart from Lysistrata, but one thing I always watch out for in translations of that play is how they handle Lampito's dialogue. For some reason it really bothers me when they try to render her Spartan dialect into what they think is some contemporary "equivalent" in English. I've seen it done as everything from highland Scots to American "hillbilly" and it never fails to annoy the hell out of me."

If you do a search of Google Books for ...

"Lampito Corinth inauthor:aristophanes"

... you can see this in action. Lampito is from Sparta and the other women make fun of her for being a gym-obsessed babe. Roche actually states that he translates her into cockney, and even gives a synopsis of how to speak cockney! That certainly makes it feel like a carry on film. (Roche actually developed UK film scripts in the 1960s based on Ancient Classics so perhaps he was hoping to do "Carry On Spartans!")

I think the cockney could work, but Roche handles it badly. For instance, he translates the gymnastic exercises into exercises never heard of ("bumping my tail") in a strained effort at crude humour, while others (Zeiger) translate this quite straightforwardly.

Penguin (Sommerstein) take the Scottish route: "LAMPITO [indignantly]: I'd thank ye not tae feel me over as if ye were just aboot ..." Actually this is perhaps my favourite version. There's a description of the gymanistic move that makes it seem strange & funny (unlike Zeiger) while knowing what is going on (unlike Roche).

There are worse! Much worse!

Einhorn makes her sound like a cave woman crossed with a Russian discus thrower: LAMPITO: Yes, me can throttle bull! Me do gymnastics, make lots of muscles!

Campbell McGrath makes her sound like Rocky! And her friends like prom queens...

So far Sommerstein is definitely at the top of the pile! Also the "Oxford Guide..." gives it an honourable mention. But much more (amusing) research to do. Anyone who finds a recommendable translation please post to this thread...

Heh, I think Mortal Terror is going to pass a kidney stone over this one.


The play itself has been appropriated and genre setting, that is probably its main resistance to oblivion, in the sense that it is easy to transfer Athens to the modern day United States, and make it a play about ending the Iraq War (which has been done already).

I think, also as a political sort of satire, it works well as a genre setter, as it seems the first play we have that uses theatre as this sort of direct social commentary. It's not to hard to see a connection in genre between Aristophanes, and, lets say, Harold Pinter, but even perhaps more so in Roman Satire, which takes things to the next level, which I am sure you are well aware of, being a more accomplished theatre buff than myself.

I don't know - I'm not about to defend the text, or degrade it - I think we should take it as it is, as a contemporary satire. Staging to me seems silly, as it seems more time bound that most plays, given the nature of satire. In the same sense, I wouldn't stage Plautus for example either.


That being said, I think of it as a work similar to Swift's Modest Proposal - funny, satirical, but, at the same time, nothing to really fall in love with in the way one would fall in love with a book of poetry, for instance, but yet, still somewhat readable.

Who knows though - I wouldn't consider it an "essential work", though, perhaps a curious one. But then again, I am not particularly fond of classic comedy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Yeah, I don't agree with the original poster either. Lysistrata is great. In many ways, it is the most modern of Aristophanes plays. I wrote my thoughts on it here. It is extremely sophisticated with whole scenes standing in as allegory for the larger themes of the play.

---

Are we reading the same play?! Maybe it's a man thing because a friend of mine really likes it.

It's terrible! Yeah, I know it was written in the war times but that's like saying the Carry On Films were written in the 60's when there was lots of protests so that means it's sophisticated satire.

Having no plot, it's impossible to stage. There is nothing of interest to your average theatre member and I could either do a preachy anti-war one (Aristophanes accused Euripides of being misogynistic but at least Euripides wrote decent parts. What woman would want to play any part in Lysistrata? It's like a 15 year old boy wrote it in History class) or a totally campy one and then be accused of misreading it.

I am tempted to suggest doing an entirely male cast (apart from Lysistrata). If we're going to bash the sexes, let's do it properly.

is a reprint or copy of the famed one illustrated by Pablo Picasso. I also have some nice copies of The Frogs and The Birds. I haven't looked up the translator of the latter two, but Lysistrata was translated by Gilbert Seldes, probably in the 1930s. I have no problem with the older translations. In fact, when I read Homer, I prefer the translation in verse by Alexander Pope, rather than a modern free-verse translation.

The poster who says that Aristophanes is not relevant to the modern world is probably too young to have valid opinions. He should grow up a bit before subjecting others to his opinions. It is one thing to ask about the Greek playwrites, but another to state an invalid opinion which will probably change with age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfloyd

is a reprint or copy of the famed one illustrated by Pablo Picasso. I also have some nice copies of The Frogs and The Birds. I haven't looked up the translator of the latter two, but Lysistrata was translated by Gilbert Seldes, probably in the 1930s. I have no problem with the older translations. In fact, when I read Homer, I prefer the translation in verse by Alexander Pope, rather than a modern free-verse translation.

The poster who says that Aristophanes is not relevant to the modern world is probably too young to have valid opinions. He should grow up a bit before subjecting others to his opinions. It is one thing to ask about the Greek playwrites, but another to state an invalid opinion which will probably change with age.

---

I'm sorry but your preference for the Alexander Pope translation is an invalid preference. But it's okay, when you grow older you'll understand why Fagles is better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfloyd

The poster who says that Aristophanes is not relevant to the modern world is probably too young to have valid opinions. He should grow up a bit before subjecting others to his opinions. It is one thing to ask about the Greek playwrites, but another to state an invalid opinion which will probably change with age.

---

How dare I have opinions?! And I'm female, by the way, and you have spelt 'playwrights' wrong so your opinion on theatre is not looking as reliable as the others.

We can claim relevance for everything- the Teletubbies is relevant because they don't speak English and it's for children and we still have children.

Aristophanes actually teased Euripedes for being so concerned about plot and these days in theatre, we're discerning enough to like a plot or at least character change to reward us for wasting a few hours. It was probably amusing at the time and one could probably find some amusing lines but the amount of profanity and 'bawdy' jokes just makes it tiresome.

As theatre, it fails. As literature, it is of mild interest because it's an example of Greek comedy. People try so hard to force this play on the modern audience, updating it in various novel ways, but it just isn't funny.

Personally, I think that Lysistrata is the funniest play ever written. People who accuse Aristophanes of misogyny are often the kind of people who accuse Mark Twain of racism. However, those opinions could not be further from the truth. I can understand if the OP didn't think the play was funny. I've run into people who didn't think Catch-22 was funny either, but going a step beyond that and saying that none of the Greek plays are good is the height of ridiculousness.

The fact is, they are the only group of plays that can rival Shakespeare for greatness. In my opinion, as a whole, they surpass him. As much as I love The Lion in Winter, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, Fences, A Streetcar Named Desire, and Long Days Journey Into Night I honestly have to give preference to those heroic forebears who forged the genre as we understand it today, gave it a name, and its first masterpieces.

We have many great tragedies, so I can understand people wanting to tuck aside Aeschylus or Shakespeare in preference of others, but comedy is such a rare thing. You can count the true masterpieces on one breathe. Lysistrata, The Pot of Gold, Satyricon, Gargantua and Pantagruel, Don Quixote, Tartuffe, The Farce of Sodom, Gulliver's Travels, The Way of the World, The Importance of Being Ernest, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and Catch-22. We don't have enough truly great comedies to go chucking them out willy-nilly.

By the way, if anybody loved Aristophanes as much as I did and enjoys a bit of hyperbole and vulgarity in their humor, you might want to check out this forgotten gem of a play by John Wilmot 2nd Earl of Rochester, The Farce of Sodom. It's a bawdy satire about the incursion of Roman Catholic influence into Protestant England.

P.S. I was looking at Pope's translation of The Odyssey the other day and it's kinda' growing on me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

It was probably amusing at the time and one could probably find some amusing lines but the amount of profanity and 'bawdy' jokes just makes it tiresome.

People try so hard to force this play on the modern audience, updating it in various novel ways, but it just isn't funny.

---

I'm curious what you think is funny worthwhile theater. Most of the really good comedies these days are made for film instead of theater: Blazing Saddles, City Lights, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, Idiocracy, The Big Lebowski. I thought Noises Off was alright, but hardly in the same league as Lysistrata. I'm curious what you would replace this with, Jeeves and Wooster, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Oscar Wilde, or Terry Pratchett? Is Shakespeare another artifact, and if not when will it become so? I have grave misgivings about dropping the Greeks and the Shakeman for Chekhov and Ibsen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

I'm curious what you think is funny worthwhile theater. Most of the really good comedies these days are made for film instead of theater: Blazing Saddles, City Lights, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, Idiocracy, The Big Lebowski.

---

Indeed. Nowadays, the artifice of the stage is so transparent that it seems any attainable humour value rises inversely to its genuine comedic attempts. Alas, I’m so uncultured. :redface:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

I'm sorry but your preference for the Alexander Pope translation is an invalid preference. But it's okay, when you grow older you'll understand why Fagles is better.

---

How is it an invalid preference? Many serious, old critics like Pope's version.

IMHO Fagles is awful, like a bad imitation of Shakespeare. Mix that in with the severe, intrinsic problems Homer himself poses and you have unreadability. At least for me. I gave up after a few dozen pages! I managed to get through Homer by reading Rieu's lucid prose translations, but it was still a heavy plod.

I like to re-read classics, but I'm tempted not to re-read Homer! Peter France is very dismissive of all modern translator's and suggests I.A. Richards' abridgement or Picard's children's version... Maybe I'll try those next time. Anyone read these? Recommend them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

I'm curious what you think is funny worthwhile theater. Most of the really good comedies these days are made for film instead of theater: Blazing Saddles, City Lights, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, Idiocracy, The Big Lebowski. I thought Noises Off was alright, but hardly in the same league as Lysistrata. I'm curious what you would replace this with, Jeeves and Wooster, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Oscar Wilde, or Terry Pratchett? Is Shakespeare another artifact, and if not when will it become so? I have grave misgivings about dropping the Greeks and the Shakeman for Chekhov and Ibsen.

---

These days, hee hee- didn't some of those films come out in the 80's?

And I haven't dissed all Greek plays. Greek tragedy was basically the birth of theatre and we wouldn't have some great American plays without it.

Comic theatre? Well, I tend to find comic bits in not so comic plays (I cried laughing at Titus Andronicus with the cannibal and eating bits). I quite like some of Noel Coward's plays (Blithe Spirit is excellent), and Oscar Wilde wrote some good plays.

If you stage Lysistrata, you basically need to get by on gimmicks and reduce it to its mildly amusing 'plot'. I don't actually get why it would work either- surely the men would, um, find other ways of satisfying themselves, so to speak?

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing such remarks will be deleted without further notice.