What do you think?
Rate this book
The Complete Greek Drama: All the Extant Tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, and the Comedies of Aristophanes and Menander, in a Variety of Translations, 2 Volumes
Authoritative introduction to the history and form of Greek drama and the complete works of 5 major playwrights
2421 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1938
10 people are currently reading
125 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
November 10, 2017
A respectable two-volume set of the greatest works of Greek Drama. I thoroughly enjoyed it, with one exception. That being the treatment of Menander's works by one L. A. Post.
He first goes about informing you that large portions of the works have been lost to time, which is true. Next he proceeds to summarize, in a preface to each work, what is known of the work, and what he has supposed, from his reading of it, that exists in the now lost spaces between the remaining dialogue, in order to create a more complete summary of the plot. Okay, I get what you're trying to do. Now, lets see the text, and I'll form my own opinion.
At this point he gets to the actual text. At several parts he mentions that only "fragments" of the text still survive. However, instead of actually translating and printing those "fragments" for us to read, he continues with is own, opinionated, and now far more detailed, summary of the events of a section. He leaves out whole Acts of the play, and just tells you what he "thinks" happens here, without giving you the evidence as to what made him think this. Further, in the parts of Menander that do exist in mostly complete sections, he often treats any holes in the text as a cue for him to include his own suppositions as written stage cues for the actors, often without telling the reader that he's doing it. As a result, it is often difficult to tell whether or not what has been written was actually part of Menander's original work or an opinion by Post as to what Menander actually meant because there was a part missing here.
Further, Post takes several liberties with the actual translation of existing text by using idioms and certain allusions that the Ancient Greeks obviously wouldn't have known or understood. My personal favorite example of this comes from "The Girl from Samos" line 90, "Demas (alone): I imagine that fellow doesn't miss anything that goes on among the servants. He's a Paul Pry if anyone ever was." Because obviously the Greeks and Menander had access to a Farce play from 1825, and so thoroughly enjoyed it that they would allude to it's main character (Paul Pry) in their own comedies. Whatever actual allusion was written here has been subsequently lost to time, thanks to our good friend L. A. Post.
Finally, and in opposition to every other translator in this collection, Post does not attempt to explain in after notes, those Greek allusions that he does choose to translate literally. Don't know what the Tauropolia was? Don't expect Post to explain it to you beyond saying it was a "festival" in one of his opinionated summaries. Not sure what the one speaker was alluding to when he mentions Zeus turning into a "golden shower" and leaking through the roof? Yeah, Post didn't think that was important enough to warrant an explanation. Research it yourself.
In the final analysis, Post's translations of Menander are incredibly Frankenstein-esque. They are as much modern creation as they are original work, and it becomes difficult to determine what is original Menander and what has been added later by Post. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but a translation of an original work should be just that. Yes, there will be some instances where idioms won't translate well, but that doesn't excuse Post from adding his own where none should be required. Nor does it excuse him from translating them and then not explaining what they would have meant to the Ancient Greeks, or how to interpret them in 20th century terms. And it certainly doesn't excuse him from taking liberties with the missing parts by inserting his own ideas on how the play should read and not including the facts he used to lead him to his rationale.
Otherwise, the translations of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Aristophanes were well done. They were appropriately annotated, I felt, and while not always lyrical enough to make easy reading, were certainly understandable and appeared to be true to form. I particularly enjoyed Euripides "Orestes" for the sheer absurdity of Orestes solution to his problem. I realize that it was meant to be a tragedy, but I just had to laugh at how Orestes felt he could escape from being stoned to death by the good people of Argos. Aristophanes "The Frogs" was another excellent work. The comedy was easy to follow and most of the allusions will be obvious to anyone was a a layman's understanding of Greek mythology, Also, much of the humor was what some would consider to be low-brow, which I felt was refreshing to read after some of the heavier content. Overall, I enjoyed the collection, but a better translation of Menander's works needs to be found to make this a great collection.
He first goes about informing you that large portions of the works have been lost to time, which is true. Next he proceeds to summarize, in a preface to each work, what is known of the work, and what he has supposed, from his reading of it, that exists in the now lost spaces between the remaining dialogue, in order to create a more complete summary of the plot. Okay, I get what you're trying to do. Now, lets see the text, and I'll form my own opinion.
At this point he gets to the actual text. At several parts he mentions that only "fragments" of the text still survive. However, instead of actually translating and printing those "fragments" for us to read, he continues with is own, opinionated, and now far more detailed, summary of the events of a section. He leaves out whole Acts of the play, and just tells you what he "thinks" happens here, without giving you the evidence as to what made him think this. Further, in the parts of Menander that do exist in mostly complete sections, he often treats any holes in the text as a cue for him to include his own suppositions as written stage cues for the actors, often without telling the reader that he's doing it. As a result, it is often difficult to tell whether or not what has been written was actually part of Menander's original work or an opinion by Post as to what Menander actually meant because there was a part missing here.
Further, Post takes several liberties with the actual translation of existing text by using idioms and certain allusions that the Ancient Greeks obviously wouldn't have known or understood. My personal favorite example of this comes from "The Girl from Samos" line 90, "Demas (alone): I imagine that fellow doesn't miss anything that goes on among the servants. He's a Paul Pry if anyone ever was." Because obviously the Greeks and Menander had access to a Farce play from 1825, and so thoroughly enjoyed it that they would allude to it's main character (Paul Pry) in their own comedies. Whatever actual allusion was written here has been subsequently lost to time, thanks to our good friend L. A. Post.
Finally, and in opposition to every other translator in this collection, Post does not attempt to explain in after notes, those Greek allusions that he does choose to translate literally. Don't know what the Tauropolia was? Don't expect Post to explain it to you beyond saying it was a "festival" in one of his opinionated summaries. Not sure what the one speaker was alluding to when he mentions Zeus turning into a "golden shower" and leaking through the roof? Yeah, Post didn't think that was important enough to warrant an explanation. Research it yourself.
In the final analysis, Post's translations of Menander are incredibly Frankenstein-esque. They are as much modern creation as they are original work, and it becomes difficult to determine what is original Menander and what has been added later by Post. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but a translation of an original work should be just that. Yes, there will be some instances where idioms won't translate well, but that doesn't excuse Post from adding his own where none should be required. Nor does it excuse him from translating them and then not explaining what they would have meant to the Ancient Greeks, or how to interpret them in 20th century terms. And it certainly doesn't excuse him from taking liberties with the missing parts by inserting his own ideas on how the play should read and not including the facts he used to lead him to his rationale.
Otherwise, the translations of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Aristophanes were well done. They were appropriately annotated, I felt, and while not always lyrical enough to make easy reading, were certainly understandable and appeared to be true to form. I particularly enjoyed Euripides "Orestes" for the sheer absurdity of Orestes solution to his problem. I realize that it was meant to be a tragedy, but I just had to laugh at how Orestes felt he could escape from being stoned to death by the good people of Argos. Aristophanes "The Frogs" was another excellent work. The comedy was easy to follow and most of the allusions will be obvious to anyone was a a layman's understanding of Greek mythology, Also, much of the humor was what some would consider to be low-brow, which I felt was refreshing to read after some of the heavier content. Overall, I enjoyed the collection, but a better translation of Menander's works needs to be found to make this a great collection.
December 9, 2022
Where do you even start with something like this? Tragedy is fun and purely mythological. The frequent retelling of the Oresteia and The Seven Against Thebes are in no way simple repetitions, and it makes for great comparison between the three Tragedians.
The “Old Comedy” of Aristophanes is often crass and perverse, and much of it is almost completely meaningless when stripped of its historical context. Only a handful of decades later, Menander’s “New Comedy” gives us something seemingly akin to Shakespeare in its form and function, (though who can really say given the fragmented nature of what we have). I especially enjoyed The Shearing of Glycera for its sort of “pulling together of threads” or “how will it all end” kind of tension.
Far and away, my favorite play was Euripides’ Electra for its being completely drenched in dramatic tension leading up to Orestes’ revenge. The translator Coleridge did a fantastic job therein.
Overall I think Aeschylus truly remains the greatest of the Tragedians, if only because the scarcity maintains his purity; there’s so much of Euripides and Sophocles that it becomes easy to find faults in their work. Nonetheless! It’s all good fun here.
The “Old Comedy” of Aristophanes is often crass and perverse, and much of it is almost completely meaningless when stripped of its historical context. Only a handful of decades later, Menander’s “New Comedy” gives us something seemingly akin to Shakespeare in its form and function, (though who can really say given the fragmented nature of what we have). I especially enjoyed The Shearing of Glycera for its sort of “pulling together of threads” or “how will it all end” kind of tension.
Far and away, my favorite play was Euripides’ Electra for its being completely drenched in dramatic tension leading up to Orestes’ revenge. The translator Coleridge did a fantastic job therein.
Overall I think Aeschylus truly remains the greatest of the Tragedians, if only because the scarcity maintains his purity; there’s so much of Euripides and Sophocles that it becomes easy to find faults in their work. Nonetheless! It’s all good fun here.
April 12, 2009
Though encompassing Aeschylus and Sophocles, I used this volume only for Euripedes' 19 existing plays. Starting with the cowardly grief of Admetus over his wife, Alcestis, Euripedes seems to stretch pathos' elasticity to almost absurd limits.
And for those who wish to engage in further debate whether Helen of Troy fled Menelaus or was kidnapped by Paris, just look to Andromache. (Actually, this is only for the one other person I know that remotely cares...)
[587-635:] PELEUS to MENELAUS: Is it any wonder then that ye fail to educate your women in virtue? Helen might have asked thee this, seeing that she said goodbye to thy affection and tripped off with her young gallant to a foreign land. And yet for her sake thou did marshal all the hosts of Hellas and them to Ilium, whereas thou shouldst have shown thy loathing for her by refusing to stir a spear, once thou hadst found her false; yea, thou shouldst have let her stay there, and even paid a price to save ever having her back again.
Miscellaneous thoughts-
__________
Electra [367-412:] ORESETES: Ah! There is no sure mark to recognize a man's worth; for human nature hath in it an element of confusion. For I have seen ere now the son of a noble dire prove himself a worthless knave, and virtuous children sprung from evil parent; likewise dearth in a rich man's spirit, and in a poor man's frame a mighty soul. By what standard then shall we rightly judge these things? By wealth? An evil test to use. By poverty then? Nay, poverty suffers from this, that it teaches a man to play the villain from necessity.
I'm sure a public defender can make use of this.
___________
Orestes [1231-1250:] PYLADES to ORESTES and ELECTRA: Ceasse, and let us about our business. If prayers do really penetrate the ground, he hears. O Zeus, god of my fathers, O Justice, queen revered, vouchsafe us three success; three friends are we, but one the struggle, one the forfeit all must pay, to live or die.
(Sort of like the Three Musketeers. That is, if they joined together to murder their aunt because, well, they were going to die anyway for killing mom. Ah, ancient honor. So fickle.)
And for those who wish to engage in further debate whether Helen of Troy fled Menelaus or was kidnapped by Paris, just look to Andromache. (Actually, this is only for the one other person I know that remotely cares...)
[587-635:] PELEUS to MENELAUS: Is it any wonder then that ye fail to educate your women in virtue? Helen might have asked thee this, seeing that she said goodbye to thy affection and tripped off with her young gallant to a foreign land. And yet for her sake thou did marshal all the hosts of Hellas and them to Ilium, whereas thou shouldst have shown thy loathing for her by refusing to stir a spear, once thou hadst found her false; yea, thou shouldst have let her stay there, and even paid a price to save ever having her back again.
Miscellaneous thoughts-
__________
Electra [367-412:] ORESETES: Ah! There is no sure mark to recognize a man's worth; for human nature hath in it an element of confusion. For I have seen ere now the son of a noble dire prove himself a worthless knave, and virtuous children sprung from evil parent; likewise dearth in a rich man's spirit, and in a poor man's frame a mighty soul. By what standard then shall we rightly judge these things? By wealth? An evil test to use. By poverty then? Nay, poverty suffers from this, that it teaches a man to play the villain from necessity.
I'm sure a public defender can make use of this.
___________
Orestes [1231-1250:] PYLADES to ORESTES and ELECTRA: Ceasse, and let us about our business. If prayers do really penetrate the ground, he hears. O Zeus, god of my fathers, O Justice, queen revered, vouchsafe us three success; three friends are we, but one the struggle, one the forfeit all must pay, to live or die.
(Sort of like the Three Musketeers. That is, if they joined together to murder their aunt because, well, they were going to die anyway for killing mom. Ah, ancient honor. So fickle.)
July 11, 2014
Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes. What brilliance! Of all playwrights, only Shakespeare is their equal. The pathos and humor portrayed in these dramas and comedies show that man basically has not changed much since ancient Athens.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews