Lucas Blogs About Lysistrata

Oh my! How ribald!

Eww. You're one of those people who reads plays?

I should have seen this one coming. Yes, I agree that, ideally, I would go to the theater and see actors performing plays, rather than read them. And I may have seen a production of Lysistrata before (it's been a while, it may have been some other Greek comedy). And I'm sure some drama society or another has uploaded their performance to YouTube. But, I saw this at the used bookstore and said, "Sure, why not."

A ringing endorsement. So, what's this book's deal?

The deal with Lysistrata (trans. Douglas Parker) is that it's a comedy by Aristophanes that was first performed in Athens in 411 BCE. You're probably familiar with the plot, Hypothetical Reader, but I'll humor you. Lysistrata convenes a meeting of the women of Athens with representatives from Thebes, Corinth, Sparta, etc. with the goal of ending the Peloponnesian War. Her plan: the women of Greece will all take a vow of abstinence. Oh, and in Athens they seize the Acropolis and the treasury therein. Hilarity ensues.

Care to be more specific?

You know, pratfalls, puns, goofy accents, topical references you have to look at the back matter to understand. Oh, and lots of guys running around in a, shall we say, discernibly turgid condition. It's all pretty broad comedy. And, as the translator points out in his introduction, not particularly transgressive which means the material is usually well received by modern audiences.

Eww. You read the notes and the translator's introduction?

I normally wouldn't read the intro, but it was short. So I gave it whirl after I'd finished the play. It's mostly about why the play is so popular, and the choices Parker had to make during translation. You may not know this, but surviving copies of Greek plays often lack such vital information as who speaks which lines. So a lot of the notes just explain why Parker attributes specific lines to specific characters.

Does he talk about the relationship between the seizure of the Acropolis and the sex strike?

Huh, it's almost as if you knew that I wanted to write about that.

Imagine that.

Imagine that. Yes he does. After all, it might seem unconnected, but as Parker points out, the chorus (at least, the chorus of old men) demonstrate their own impotence in trying to take it back. And while, I did kind of wonder about the significance when I first started reading, the more I went on the more it struck as making perfect sense for the plot. After all, the women of Athens aren't just expressing their displeasure at losing their sons, husbands, fathers, and brothers to the war, they're protesting the fact that they have no say in how the business of Athens is conducted. Also, just demanding an end to the war without cutting off Athens' ability to wage war wouldn't be as effective. So you know, two birds, one stone, that kinda thing.

So at the end of the play the men of Athens give in and allow the women to vote?

No. . . . In the end, it's sort of decided that the women will resume their place in Athenian society, and express their political will by. . . talking to their husbands, fathers, &c, about how to vote.

So back to the status quo?

That's usually how classical comedies are structured.

All right, so what do you think of the translation?

Well, as someone who can neither speak, understand, or read Attic Greek, I'm not quite sure how to answer that.

Sometimes I think you're being intentionally obtuse. Like, would you say that Parker's translation makes the the play accessible to modern audiences?

Oh, for sure. It still has parts that are stilted, like the chorus. But Parker renders the scenes between individual characters in a contemporary English vernacular that still doesn't seem dated even though it was translated in the 60s. For example, the Spartan characters have their Doric dialect rendered as a hayseed accent because the Athenians thought of them as bumpkins. There's also never the sense that he's bowdlerizing the material.

Oh?

Let's just say that it's the type of play where dudes are walking around commenting on each other's obviously erect penises.

You know usually when people say "let's just say" they follow it up with a euphemism.

Uh, sorry?

So, is there anywhere you think Parker fell short?

So, with the caveat that maybe they would work when set to music, I'm not sold on any of the songs. They feel intrusive and artificial and it's hard to get an idea of the thythm. They feel most of out of place when contrasted with scenes that feel more contemporary, like the scene between the young Athenian woman Myrrhine and her husband, Kinesias.

Oho, it seems like this review's about to get more ribald.

Well, no. Basically, the strike's been on for a while now (the play's timeline is vague), and Kinesias convinces Myrrhine to meet up with him for what he thinks will be a romantic rendezvous. Instead she just leads him on and keeps insisting that they need a cot or a blanket or various other things to get more comfortable before she runs back into the Acropolis. Anyway, while it's hardly new or groundbreaking, I could see it being quite funny when performed live.

Well, that is generally the issue when you read a play, isn't it? The experience is incomplete.

Agreed. But, you're at the mercy of whatever's being performed where you are. So, reading's the next best thing.

Should a book blog concede that there are things that are better than reading?

Uh. . .

Lysistrata by Aristophanes (trans. Douglass Parker), Mentor Mass Market Paperback edition, February 1970, 113 pages, pairs well with ouzo and other stereotypically Greek food and drinks

Links:

So apparently Lysistrata was adapted into a broadway musical called Lysistrata Jones in 2011. Only the twist is, hear me out, what if Athens was a college with a terrible basketball team.