Żaby

by Aristophanes, Arystofanes, Artur Sandauer (Translator)

Komedia Arystofanesa przedstawiająca polemikę o ideowym i artystycznym kształcie teatru starogreckiego, prowadzona w Hadesie między Ajschylosem i Eurypidesem.

Genres: Plays, Classics, Drama, Fiction, Theatre, Mythology, Humor

126 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 406

About the author

Aristophanes (Greek: Αριστοφάνης; c. 446 – c. 386 BC) was an Ancient Greek comic playwright from Athens and a poet of Old Attic Comedy. He wrote in total forty plays, of which eleven survive virtually complete today. These provide the most valuable examples of a genre of comic drama known as Old Comedy and are used to define it, along with fragments from dozens of lost plays by Aristophanes and his contemporaries.
Also known as "The Father of Comedy" and "the Prince of Ancient Comedy", Aristophanes has been said to recreate the life of ancient Athens more convincingly than any other author. His powers of ridicule were feared and acknowledged by influential contemporaries; Plato singled out Aristophanes' play The Clouds as slander that contributed to the trial and subsequent condemning to death of Socrates, although other satirical playwrights had also caricatured the philosopher.
Aristophanes' second play, The Babylonians (now lost), was denounced by Cleon as a slander against the Athenian polis. It is possible that the case was argued in court, but details of the trial are not recorded and Aristophanes caricatured Cleon mercilessly in his subsequent plays, especially The Knights, the first of many plays that he directed himself. "In my opinion," he says through that play's Chorus, "the author-director of comedies has the hardest job of all."

Reviews

[Henry Avila · Rating 4 out of 5]

In 405 B.C. Athens is about to lose what will be a 27 -year long grueling war to arch enemy Sparta surrendering the following year. Aristophanes play reflects the gloom a prolific writer with lots to say about their foibles and bold enough to do it, the comic genius amid the savagery can't help but continuously mock his fellow Greeks. Most of the scenes are in hell...Hades. A god travels there in order to bring back a poet to the city to cheer up the crowds, a dead man mind you. Imagine the fierce rivalries that produces. The action begins as Dionysus a minor local god visits his half-brother Hercules asking advise on how to get to Hades, not taken seriously he tells him to jump off a tower or hang himself and other unpleasant ways to get quickly there for sure. Nevertheless this doesn't seem the best entrance for him. He is wiser than he looks my friends, a good possibility a god yes not an intellectual type a buffoon; stating it mildly.
His slave Xanthias smarter and braver than his master Dionysus, his laughs annoy . Picture the scene the slave is riding the donkey the owner walking, believe it or not? Finally receiving directions and seeing Charon the ferryman ( not the moon) to take them across the river Styx except Dionysus does the rowing...Poor Xanthias has to find another route being a lowly slave. Where the first people they meet at a tavern have a huge grudge, his brother's unpaid bills causes hate they think he's Hercules and not being heroic men, shakes the duo especially the god, treated badly the boys persevere. Now enters the big difficulty choosing either Euripides or Anschlus to take home both are superb and arrogant. Soon sparks fly when these two playwrights start tearing each others work apart, so the better writer is revealed to Dionysus. Insults may be only words yet they will sting like a whip. This is the fun part and knowledge of either one isn't necessary. Entertainment is , I must warn the readers many names will be unfamiliar ignore, the important thing the uproarious exchange of scathing, no endearments put-downs the characters throw words against each... some sticking. Let the trash start. Almost forgot those pesky little frogs are so hilarious. Brekekekex, ko-ax, ko-ax, Brekekekekex, ko-ax, ko-ax ! If you want a translation look at the frog dictionary.

.

[Anthony · Rating 5 out of 5]

i think i would make more responsible decisions if i had a chorus of frogs with me at all times

[Piyangie · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Frogs by Aristophanes offers a satirically critical assessment of the Greek tragedies. Greek tragedy played an important artistic, social, and political role in Athens, and it was a major cultural part of the life of the Athenians. Aristophanes had two motives in writing this comedy. Athens was in a tight spot over their war with the Spartans. They have already suffered a catastrophic defeat in the Sicilian Expedition. To up the Athenian morale, they need old types of tragedies back in the theatre. Also, Aristophanes seemed dissatisfied with the present form of tragedy and wanted a platform to evaluate the progress of Greek tragedy. So far as to proving his point, Aristophanes has done a good job with The Frogs.

The play is of two parts (the first time I encountered that in a Greek play). The first part takes Dionysus, the patron god of theatre, to bring back Euripides from Hades to Athens. The second part includes a debate between Aeschylus and Euripides to determine who the greatest Greek tragedian is. Dionysus journeys to Hades with his slave, Xanthias, and in Hades judges the debate between the two tragedians (who in their real lives never competed against each other). He chooses Aeschylus as the winner and returns to Athens with him.

Aristophanes' reason for choosing Aeschylus over Euripides is self-evident. Athens needed the Aeschylean type of tragedies to boost the courage of Athenian citizens and to get them all united in the cause of war.

Aeschylus: I depicted men of valour, lionhearted characters like Patroclus and Teucer, encouraging the audience to identify themselves with these heroes when the call to battle came.

Aeschylus: Well, you dress your kings in rags.
You make pitiable creatures of them.
Euripides: But why shouldn’t I? What harm does it do?
Aeschylus: Well, nowadays you can’t get the wealthier classes to pay their naval-defence contributions.
They dress up in rags and tell you how poor they are.

The new type of Greek tragedies at the time of Aristophanes was a far cry from the day of Aeschylus. Aristophanes observed a decline in the grandeur of Greek tragedies with their commonplace setting, dialogues, and action.

How very uncommon it is to find
A man with a shrewd and intelligent mind,
A man with a sense of proportion!
If you look at the stuff that is written today
And the stupid things our statesmen say,
You would think that people had lost the knack
Of telling the white from the utterly black.

They don’t care whether their plays are art
But only whether the words are smart.

The idea of critiquing tragedy through a comedy fascinated and intrigued me. I had good fun, laughing at the hilarity of the play. I must say Aristophanes is a good comedian. I enjoyed Frogs even more than his Lysistrata.

More of my reviews can be found at http://piyangiejay.com/

[Praj · Rating 4 out of 5]

High thoughts must have high language.

Language is the supreme wordplay through which thoughts are communicable. Words can either impart worldly acumen or indulge in pompous buffoonery. The revered wordsmiths, the possessors of this dexterous artistry are no less than sly magicians removing implausible beliefs from their audiences like a mere pigeons from a hat. Actions may speak louder than words; nevertheless it is the medley of words that script that action. The written world and its residents can never be taken for granted, especially since a single word is omnipotent in either creating wars or hoisting the peace flag.

In 431-404BC Athens suffered a colossal naval defeat in the Peloponnesian against Sparta. Due to the death of three great playwrights – Euripides, Aeschylus and Sophocles, there was a scarcity of great staged tragedies that were necessary to convey the spirit of heroism sailing between the stormy waters of politics and morality. In Ancient Greece, playwright and poetry were essential in maintaining the societal status quo. Aristophanes had attentively attributed the decline of Athens’ power to the deficiency of concrete leadership, the vanishing traditional mores, the apologetic state of freedom of speech and above all the unavailability of acumen imparted by dramatized tragedies. Athens needed a poet to save it from its misery. Frogs, commences by Dionysus showing remorse to the mediocrity of recent tragic plays that were being staged. On reading Euripides’ Andromeda, nostalgia and repentance creeps in Dionysus and he immensely longs for Euripides’s theatrical wit. Thus, armed with obstinacy, the god of wine and revelry, along with his slave, Xanthias embarks on a journey to the Underworld to bring back Euripides back from the dead. Dionysus seeks the assistance of his half-brother Heracles to reach the gates of Hades; Heracles being already familiar with the infernal areas of Hades through his task of capturing Cerberus (the three-headed dog). Dionysus is quite certain about the incomparable genius of Euripides.

This is slavery, not to speak one’s thought –Euripides

In the initial phase of the ongoing raging debate between Euripides and Aeschylus, Euripides in his opening words asserts that in his plays, the woman, the master and the slave spoke out their minds because it was the a democratic thing to do and he had taught them to speak up. Aeschylus demanded a likely death sentence for such a dastard thing committed by the democratic oaf. When did speaking up became a felony? It is even today, in traditionalist societies, defying the norms of implemented morality code.

Euripides had died in 406BC, the year before Aristophanes wrote ‘Frogs’. Influenced by the writings of Socrates, Euripides tragedies were mainstream that were more appealing to masses making them ‘human’ in nature. The attachment to Socrates and the ‘sophists’ school of “thinkery” was perhaps the reason of animosity between Euripides and Aristophanes. In Clouds, one of the commendable works hovering over the raging debate of Aristophanes’ holistic teachings and the Socratic existentialist contemporary radicalism, Socrates is condemned by outright mockery and berated for his sophism adherence. Aristophanes loathed the thought that the sophists taught their students to question every aspect of educational norms and held certain privileges of getting paid to impart their teachings (barring Socrates who taught free of charge). The sophists were not exactly the fêted conservative philosophers and taught varied subjects ranging from science, politics, history and etymology, giving more weightage to rhetoric and common sense than ethically constricted attitude. The sophists were the new voice in the education system. They challenged the foundations of religion, truth and justice adhering to the principle of ‘one man’s virtue is another man’s vice.

Aristophanes always had a weak point when it came to dealing with the concepts of sophists which easily provoked his sensibilities in taking a defensive stand towards conservative school of thoughts, along with his other contemporaries as Plato and Aristotle. Similar display of attitude can be seen when during a roaring debate Aeschylus accuses Euripides for encouraging tales of incest and promiscuity on stage”, thus blemishing the reputation of an honourable theatrical art. This became the point of perversity that led Aristophanes to belittle Euripides by labelling him ‘immoral’ who depicted his heroes as beggars in rags whining about vulgar affairs of life. Furthermore, the caustic wit of Aristophanes subjects the genius of Euripides to the crass monotony of his dithyrambic chorus, his effeminate traits of meddling in women affairs and the celebratory depiction of eroticism or to put in Aeschylus’s astute words:-“creating whores like Phaedra and Sthenoboea.”

Speaking of Euripides’ dramatize characters, Aristophanes in his ongoing parody of Euripides , derides Dionysus by portraying him as a buffoon resorting to cowardice techniques by switching identities with his slave Xanthias and is a borderline cross-dresser preposterously primping himself in a yellow lion hide , club and buskin. Not satisfied by these meagre embellishment , Aristophanes further pushes the envelope by suggesting Heracles suggesting Dionysus the quickest way to Hades would be either to hang himself or get clobbered by a pestle, since the lengthy way would be too dangerous demeaning Dionysus’ gallantry and streaks of subtle homosexuality.

DIO. There as, on deck, I'm reading to myself
The Andromeda, a sudden pang of longing
Shoots through my heart, you can't conceive how keenly.
HER. How big a pang.
DIO. A small one, Molon's size.
HER. Caused by a woman?
DIO. No.
HER. A boy?
DIO. No, no.
HER. A man?
DIO. Ah! ah!

What travesty of tragic heroism for a God who was a far cry from being fierce representation of laudable heroism in The Bacchae, worshipped in the sanctimonious arena Athenian theater. In this battle of new education v/s traditionalists, what then becomes the defining truth of morality? Is it the old-age tyrannical convention that chalk the salient features of ethics or the logic of the sophists that suggests that morals and justice changes according to the societal evolution and what may be right in one place may not be appropriate in other. Aristophanes in his parody puts forth an intriguing stance on ethical sustainability. The moral laws never change, but what changes are customary circumstances and therefore the perception of the said morality. The case of Xanthias and Dionysus interchanging their identities to circumvent the wrath of Aeacus, simply suggest that the audacious Xanthias was a prisoner of societal mores and thus proclaimed the status of a slave. Thus, inferring that slavery was not moral at all, people just thought it was and this assertion stays true for other conservative norms of feminism, female infanticide, religious fascism, sexual abuse, freedom of speech and caste and class discrimination and other prevailing societal changes. In the clash between orthodoxy v/s modernism, the scales become the circumstantial victim to human fear and arrogance. There have been demographics of countries that rapidly swing between the two scales of rationality and irrationality due to the dodgy current affairs atmosphere. In the realm of tragic art oscillates the tensions between democratic ideologies and heroic legendary redefining institutions of morality and politics like repulsive droplets of oils and vinegar.

If you pour oil and vinegar into the same vessel, you would call them not friends but opponents – Aeschylus.

The effeminate Dionysus judges a comical battle of wits between Aeschylus and Euripides. Unlike the battle of sexes in Lysistrata,the centrality of this ‘agon’ in Frogs is to establish poetic supremacy. It is not a peace satire but more on the lines of acquiring political and societal stability. The literary contest that commences raises questions about the social and political atmosphere in Athens. The initial light poetic and intelligent banter spiraled into juvenile antics of name calling and ridiculous labeling overturning rationality into sheer ludicrous chaos. Aristophanes is still rolling in his pomposity by ridiculing Euripides on the prospects of religion. Dionysus suggestive remark on Euripides atheist convictions falls through when he solicits Euripides on praying to private newly minted Gods. The amusing rebuttal of Euripides takes the point further as he prays to the sustenance of his tongue, intelligence and olfactory nostrils and stoutly refutes any captured words by his psyche. The preposterous debate views two literary resorting to silly slapping each other with the metaphoric acrimonious taunt of “a bottle of oil” being enough to rid of all the written works and Euripides rebuttal to Aeschylus proclamation on how he would never write about whores or any eroticism, to which Euripides smartly suggest that only if Aeschylus knew any woman would be able to write about it, stating the obvious.

Aristophanes puts forth a mêlée of “old ways v/s new ways” and the need to go back to one’s roots become essential when the chaos of modernity pollutes the status quo. The three greatest playwrights-Sophocles, Euripides and Aechylus who were responsible for the development of Greek tragic theatre were now mere pawn in the political game of morality. The failing of the Athenian society was blamed on the proliferation of the new school of sophisms. Why does it then become the need to go back to ethnic mores? We seen countries shuffling between conservative and democratic leaders with every fresh election? Is it that when societal fruition is seen as a threat by those who resist change, that the voices of opposition becomes stronger? And what about those, who want change in their country? Aristophanes emphasizes that traditional values become a naked truth that a country wants to witness. Dionysus who wants in the awe of Euripides now criticises the very ideologies that once he cherished to render nostalgia.

CHORUS:- But if you’re both afraid that our spectators lack a certain amount of knowledge,
So as, not to appreciate the fine points of what you say,
Don’t worry about that, since that is no longer the case,
For they are seasoned veterans and each one has a book and understands the clever stuff,
Their minds are superior anyway,
Out now they’re really sharpened. So far not, but,
Scrutinize every topic for the audience sake at least, since they’re so sophisticated.

This stanza outshines through the series of poetic line asserting the important of the political audience or spectators in general and how they are mistakenly granted the title of being a bunch of mere fools. Similar to the position of Dionysus as a judge who gets to vote and choose the valued candidate, masses have the final word through voting banks and cannot be taken for a ride by sovereign leaders. This holds true for the Presidential debates and other related conversations. Although, several political analysts conjecture that Presidential debates are not that influential when it comes to voting, but at the end of it all it becomes easy to select the wise from a buffoon. Unfortunately, politics is a dirty game and sometimes it is just a race between two masturbating monkeys.

AES:- You fiend! It is compelling power of the great thoughts and ideas to engender phrases of equal size.
And, anyway it is proper that demigods speak in grander terms
For they also wear finer clothes
What I so nobly exhibited you defiled.

In the pre-technological era, the written world was as powerfully influential like the monstrous media web of the present times. The words of poets, writers, musicians have the sharpness of a sword that can either dismember or restore mankind. Keeping in mind the words of Aeschylus, is the poets who have the compelling power of great thoughts and are spoken to be demigods, then what is the burden of their responsibility in order to sustain a stable society? Plato’s Republic illustrate the fright that Plato harboured towards poets and poetry, stating, "poetry feeds and waters the passions instead of drying them up; she lets them rule, although they ought to be controlled, if mankind are ever to increase in happiness and virtue". According to Plato, poetry plays with a man’s emotions signifying that poetry is indeed a learning institution. This confirms Aeschylus comment on how young boys have teachers and men have poets.

AES:- But, a pet should conceal wickedness,
Not bring it forward and teach it,
For little boys, have a teacher who advised them and grown-up have poets,
We have a serious obligation to speak of honourable things.

What can be termed as “honourable things”? If poets are teachers of the adults, then isn't a teacher’s prime job to teach to question the unjust and to different between the right and wrong? What ethics sets the teachers apart from poets who have the similar rank philosophical activity? Maybe, the fact that teachers work within a set of disciplinary censored syllabus while for the poets the world is their core curriculum. Now, that could be dangerous to politician lurking behind the egalitarian garb.

In Dionysus’s quest to find “a worthy poet to save Athens” one is then compelled to question the role of a poet/writer in the society? Do really high thoughts need high language? And if so, how far the significance of that grand vocabulary read the masses and become human in nature? After all, aren't nations mostly made up of common men trying to breathe a liberated political air rather than those few privileged who dream of becoming fascist leader and oligarchs? How far can the truth be stretched to expose the societal fallacies and how much fraudulence is required to prevent the exposure of a country’s thriving vulnerabilities?

Aristophanes' assertion on the conclusive result of Dionysus on choosing a poet who adhered traditional ways, illustrates the preference of conservative hard power over the modern usage of soft power. Many would not agree, but when a country is in turmoil and desperately needs a leader, ‘High thoughts need high language’. A leader is chosen to protect the country and its people. In a time where sowing the seeds of assurance weighs more than exposing weakening susceptibilities, the truth is then pushed to a dishonest grave and the winds of change are obstructed by the orthodoxy barricades. It may not seem right to a person sitting in the warm comfort of his house, but it seems the solitary alternative to a homeless man. Nevertheless the burning question that generates heat is the dominancy of a particular societal dogma that somehow acquires a self-imposed Godly status and spread its fascist wings in censoring every aspect of freedom speech. Books are banned due to egotistical orgies, movies are thrown out of the theater, poets and writers are penalized, news channels are expurgated and the democratic voices incarcerated bordering upon disgust. In a world, where most of the countries are plague by civil wars and revolution, what is the role of the written world?

The voices of frogs that do not cease from a chaotic chorus even to the extent of it annoying Dionysus, one voice that hangs around throughout this slapstick satire is who would be a superior redeemer of the social order – the “honourable” egoistic Aeschylus with his traditionalists vision or the “corrupt scoundrel” Euripides with his democratic ideologies? And who is to decide the ultimate answer?

Frogs croak...... Word has it that when Dionysus reprimanded the frog for creating a croaking menace.... the frogs replied:-




Brekekekex koax koax!!!!

[Lynne King · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brekekekex koax koax – now what’s that? It’s a chorus of frogs, of course.

Well it wasn’t until I heard “Frogs” mentioned on Goodreads a few months ago that I thought, well from the comments made this play is really worth reading. I accordingly purchased it, and the book re-surfaced last night. Why did it re-surface? In fact I had forgotten all about it; the trigger being my neighbor Michèle who was telling me how noisy the tree frogs are at the moment.

I must confess my ignorance in that I’ve never heard of Aristophanes and can only go by the historical note included in this play:

“Aristophanes (c. 456 BC to c. 386 BC) was the foremost writer of comic drama in classical Athens. His surviving plays are the only complete examples we have of Old Comedy.

‘Frogs’ was first produced in Athens in 405 BC. By this time Athens had been at war with Sparta for over twenty-five years.”

I also don’t know if this is a definitive translation. Mine is by Ian Johnson from Vancouver University, British Columbia, Canada and so if someone knows which translation is preferable, do let me know. The translator does admit that he would “like to acknowledge the valuable help of W.B. Stanford’s edition of ‘The Frogs’ (London/Macmillan, 1963).” The translation is very modern in tone with some of its expressions. Is that the true translation? I thought a translator should translate according to the period?

Well, whatever the correct translation, I started this Greek comedy and I’ve never laughed so much in my life.

“The play opens on a street leading to Hades” and here we have Dionysus (also known as Iacchus), the god appearing in human form, (carrying a club, one that is commonly associated with Hercules) accompanied by his slave Xanthias, who is riding on a donkey and carrying a huge amount of baggage. There’s an immediate awareness of the audience as Xanthias stated:

“Look master, an audience! Shouldn’t I speak up? Tell them one of those jokes they always fall for?”

And Dionysus’ response:

“Oh, all right – say what you like. Only no jokes about how you’re dying to piss. I can’t stand those – they’re all so stale.”

And from this point, it’s fun galore, and continuous show time!

Dionysus gets the crazy idea that he must go down into Hades and bring back a playwright and after discussing this with Hercules, and tossing in various alternatives such as Euripides and Sophocles, he sets off for Hades in the hope of finding someone.

I’ve never even imagined having a conversation with a corpse but Dionysus does very well here and the corpse is so witty! The former tries to persuade the corpse to carry some luggage into Hades and you have to read the play to appreciate their conversation.

There’s something so invigorating about a play, especially with the various notes stating what individuals are doing on and off the stage, plus “the shouting and roaring” as is the case with the frogs here. The players are wide ranging including Charon, Hercules, Aeacus, Pluto, various playwrights such as Euripides and Aeschylus, and a splendid chorus of initiates but it’s the chorus of frogs that steals the “show” for me.

Also there are notes at the end of the book giving various explanations and it was interesting to see there that as regards the “chorus of frogs”, there was uncertainty as to whether they remained on the stage or not. On stage, I’m sure that would have been difficult to portray…

In all, this Greek comedy is excellent and is definitely to be reread in the future. I loved it!

I really must read more about mythology. I often get confused with the Roman and Greek Gods…

[Manny]

[Jess the Shelf-Declared Bibliophile · Rating 2 out of 5]

This plot SOUNDED a lot more interesting than it ended up being. It was not as exciting as some of the other plays I've read recently.

[Marti · Rating 3 out of 5]

Otra comedia más❤️ Todavía no me decido en la calificación🙁

No quiero decir que la premisa está buena, pero… sí. Es muy posible que la idea de la obra me haya gustado más que el proceso de leerla. Igual no me malinterpreten: Las Ranas es genial, soy yo la que no está a la altura.

Aristófanes agarra el caos político de Atenas y escribe una comedia cuyo objetivo es hacer reír, pero también tirarte palos que, si los pensás dos minutos, te dejan el estómago revuelto por lo posta angustiante del contexto.

Las Ranas arranca con Dioniso —disfrazado de Hércules— y su esclavo bajando al Inframundo porque, ante la carencia total de buenos poetas en Atenas, ¿qué mejor idea que buscar uno muerto? Eurípides ya no está y la ciudad necesita desesperadamente a un trágico que les diga qué hacer. Estamos hablando de una Atenas sumida en una crisis cultural y dirigida por políticos corruptos que la están llevando directo a la ruina.

Y Dioniso… bueno. Dioniso justamente no es el mejor líder. No brilla por su heroísmo ni por su nobleza (en ningún sentido de la palabra). Lo golpean, se asusta, se esconde y termina al mismo nivel que su esclavo, que encima es mucho más astuto que él. Nada está donde debería: ni en el Hades ni en Atenas la gente está actuando como corresponde.

El agón entre Esquilo y Eurípides… fue lindo de leer??? Sí. Pero me esperaba más. La idea igual es buenísima: una especie de batalla de gallos por decidir qué poesía es mejor, pero que termina siendo una discusión acerca de qué pensamientos pueden salvar Atenas.

La parte que sí me pareció gloriosa fue la parábasis. El corifeo compara a los ciudadanos dignos con las monedas antiguas y a los nuevos políticos demagogos con monedas recién acuñadas… y básicamente le ruega al público que dejen de confiar en oportunistas que aparecieron de la nada y vuelvan a apostar por la gente honesta y valiosa que todavía tienen.
Idk I just want to cry.

En resumen: Sófocles era mejor. Fuck Cleofonte. Atenas deserved more.

[Ajeje Brazov · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Le rane", commedia teatrale di Aristofane, mi aveva incuriosito da subito per il viaggio negli inferi. Mi incuriosiscono sempre questi viaggi nel mondo dei morti, ma non mi sarei mai aspettato un'opera di questo tipo. Molto ironica e satirica, con un linguaggio, quasi da farsa, burla.
Dioniso ed il suo servo Xantia, si apprestano al viaggio nell'Ade. Dioniso vorrebbe riportare in vita Euripide, perchè vede nelle nuove leve nel mondo artistico un calo qualitativo, che accende un campanello d'allarme per il futuro, ma soprattutto per il presente declino culturale.
Così incontrerà per primo Eracle e...
Interessante divertissement mitologico/artistico, molto piacevole alla lettura. Mi ha fatto conoscere due drammaturghi greci (Eschilo ed Euripide), sotto quella patina burlesca tipica delle caricature, ma anche attraverso una serie infinita di note (282, per circa 100 pagine di opera), che hanno arricchito e non poco l'opera, soprattutto per uno come me che non conosce molto i classici greci, anzi sono proprio all'inizi.
Per contro, si potrebbe dire che tante note spezzetti troppo la lettura rendendola singhiozzante, ma l'aura giocosa dell'opera, ha mantenuto salda la linearità dello svolgimento.
Da recuperare per il tono simpatico e scherzoso, ma anche perchè ha dato adito al mio interesse a leggere altre opere di Aristofane ed anche di Eschilo ed Euripide!

[BAM doesn’t answer to her real name · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the first Greek play out of the theocratic age that has me laughing out loud 😂

[Александра · Rating 4 out of 5]

Генијално.
Ако желите да се упознате с овом комедијом како ваља, покушајте да узмете ону из Космос издаваштва, јер су објашњења темељна и занимљива. Предговор је такође савршен и на лаган и опуштен начин увлачи читаоца (поготово оног који се дуже време није бавио оваквим књигама) у свет Старе Грчке.

[David Sarkies · Rating 4 out of 5]

A satirical look at what makes a classic
16 June 2012

Before I start this commentary I must make reference to the translation that I am using, namely the 1987 David Barrett translation published by Penguin Classics. The reason that I am sourcing this book is because while the original text is not subject to copyright, the modern translation is. Even though I do have access to the original text (actually, I just checked my collection of Aristophanes plays in the original Greek and the Frogs is not included, however I am sure I can find it on the internet) it will take me a lot of time and energy to translate the passages that I want to quote, and as such it is better to cite Barrett's translation instead.
Anyway, enough of the legalese and onto the play itself. The Frogs was first performed in Athens in 405 BC, and that was a time of great distress for the city. The 30 year long Peloponesian War was coming to an end and Athens was on the losing side. Her allies had been overrun and captured, her fleet was in shambles, and the only person that could possibly save the city, Alcibaides, had been exiled (as is prone to happen in a democracy). Yet, despite all of the doom and gloom, the festivals were still held, and Aristophanes was still writing plays.
The Frogs is about how the god Dionysius and his slave Xanthias go down to Hades in an attempt to bring one of the old poets back. One of the most insightful aspects of this play is that it gives us a really good insight into who the Athenians considered to be the greatest of the tragic poets. At this time both Sophocles and Euripides had died (and Aeschylus was long dead), and it is interesting to note that it is these three playwrights that Aristophanes names as being the best. This is probably why we have retained their plays and lost the rest (including Agathon, who in a way was also considered a good playwright, but not to the extent of these three). In many ways, the productions of tragedies at this time were nothing compared to the great writers, and in many cases, we can see a reflection of this in our own times. In my own opinion, I am almost ready to suggest that the last work of literature that I have read was American Psycho, which was published in 1989. In my view, there has been nothing written since that I would consider to be a classic or a literary masterpiece. Many of the Athenians of this time were probably thinking the same thing. In a way, Aristophanes says it best:

HERACLES: But surely there are dozens of these young whippersnappers churning out tragedies these days: for sheer verbiage, if that's what you want, they leave Euripides standing.
DIONYSIUS: Small fry, I assure you, insignificant squeakers and twitterers (is this an ancient reference to a popular social media site), like a lot of swallows. A disgrace to their art, If ever they are granted a chorus, what does their offering at the shrine of Tragedy amount to? One cock of the hind leg and they've pissed themselves dry. You never hear of them again. I defy you to find a really seminal poet among the whole crowd of them: someone who can coin a fine resounding phrase. (Page 159)

If we look through the preceding lines, we note a number of famous poets by name, including Sophocles, Euripides, and yes, Agathon as well, but the concern is that they are all gone, all dead, and there is nobody to take their place. So, what is it about these poets that makes them so important, and what sets them out from the other ordinary citizens? Well, once again, Aristophanes says it best:

AESCHYLUS: That is the kind of thing a poet should go for. You see, from the very earliest times the really great poet has been the one who had a useful lesson to teach. Orpheus gave us the mysteries and taught people that it was wrong to kill; Musaeus showed us how to cure diseases and prophesised the future; Hesiod explained about agriculture and the seasons for ploughing and harvest. And why is Homer himself held in such high esteem, if not for the valuable military instruction embodied in his work? Organisation, training, equipment, it's all there. (Page 194)

So, as we can see the idea is that the poet is the teacher of many things, like a jack of all trades. It reminds me a bit of the role of the Bard in Dungeons and Dragons: the one who can do everything, but not all that well. Granted, in those days, pretty much everybody wrote poetically, and it is our understanding that it was Herodotus that first wrote in prose (though I would heavily dispute this because there are a lot of writings that we don't have, and if we look away from the Greek world we discover that the authors of the Bible were writing in prose long before the Greeks). I also wonder if at this time the role of the poet was being replaced by the philosopher. After Aristophanes we have only a handful of plays, but a bucketload of Plato and Aristotle (among others). However, that again is not strictly true since the philosophers were performing their roles as far back as Thales. However, philosophy changed from being a primitive form of scientific exploration to an exposition of morality. This is what philosophy has become these days, a discussion and exploration of morality.
I want to finish off with a few comments on a number of the lighter aspects of the play. We note that slaves seem to play a role in many of Aristophanes' plays as the butt of many of the jokes. It is almost as if slaves are viewed comically, and the fall guy for many of the pranks. It is not strictly true since Dionysius gets his fare share of beatings in this play as well, but it is interesting to see the view of slaves from an Athenian point of view.
There are also some quite humerous anecdotes in this play as well. The first person Dionysius visits is Heracles, namely because Heracles has been to, and returned from, the underworld. However, the only advice that Heracles has for Dionysius is that if he wants to go to Hades then the quickest way there is to kill himself. It is amusing because we are aware that people would go into and come back from Hades in legend, Odysseus did so, as well as Heracles, however Heracles' suggestions are not what we expect. The other amusing part is when Euripides and Aeschylus are competing against each other for who the better poet is. From this play it is suggested that Euripides could have been quite an arrogant person, putting a lot of value in his own works, and considering them to be more literally significant than the works of Aeschylus. It turns out that we have more of Euripides' plays than we do of Aeschylus. However, Aeschylus goes to show that he can pretty much demolish all of Euripides' prologues through the use of the phrase 'lost his bottle of oil'. I can almost imagine the entire audience breaking out in laughter at this, namely because we would do the same thing to our own filmmakers and playwrights (such as the Star Trek drinking gain, where we skull a glass of beer whenever Captain Picard says 'make it so').

[Naopako dete · Rating 5 out of 5]

Aristofan je G E N I J E!

[Jesús De la Jara · Rating 3 out of 5]

"BACO.- ¡Muy bien, por Apolo! ¿Qué dices a eso, Eurípides?
EURÍPIDES.- Digo que Orestes no entró en su patria, porque vino secretamente, sin haber obtenido la competente autorización de los que entonces ejercían el mando.
BACO.- ¡Muy bien, por Mercurio! Pero no te comprendo ..."

Esta comedia me gustó más que las "Fiestas de Ceres" pero no tanto. El argumento es simple el dios Dionisios al ver la pobredumbre de su teatro ateniense actual decide bajar al Hades a buscar algún trágico y revivirlo para poder disfrutar de obras de calidad. Para ello inicia la travesía con su esclavo Jantias, pasará por distintas etapas, algunas un poco aburridas y en medio del Hades se encontrará con una multitud de ranas (que le dan el título a la obra) que en realidad sólo molestan y no tienen tanta importancia.
La parte más graciosa está al final cuando se produce la querella entre Eurípides y Esquilo por ver quién es el mejor (da risa ver parodiado a Sófocles tan humilde como se decía era en la vida real, que ni siquiera quiere participar). Me gustó pues se utilizan versos de sus obras más importantes (incluso perdidas) para parodiarse entre ellos mismos. Eurípides nuevamente es ridiculizado como un dramaturgo que gusta de frases sin sentido o enrevesadas pero responde muy bien tratando de hacer caer a Esquilo.

[alek · Rating 4 out of 5]

it was so dumb (yet intelligent, with its references to other works) and gay, basically Dionizos x poeta, Hadestown au with happier ending

[Amy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Amusing, but I did not enjoy it quite as much as Clouds. It is a bit like a celebrity memoir...I vaguely know of the people and places spoken of, but not really well enough to feel like I totally grasp what's going on. Still, as long as you possess a general idea of the key players in Greek mythology, you should be able to follow well enough! (At least, I did!)

[leidi · Rating 3 out of 5]

[ 3.5 Stars ]
this book/play is, on the surface, utterly silly, full of absurd humor, bickering gods, and an entire chorus of croaking amphibians, yet it’s also a sharp reflection on what art should be and what purpose it serves.

Dionysus and his slave Xanthias are especially funny throughout, their constant bickering, role reversals, and misunderstandings add a kind of down-to-earth humor that balances the more intellectual parts of the play. I found them genuinely hilarious; they keep the story lively and make the philosophical debate feel more human and approachable.

at the heart of the play is a debate between the tragedians Aeschylus and Euripides about what makes good poetry. Euripides argues that art should be realistic, human, and questioning, that it should reveal our flaws and make us think. Aeschylus, in contrast, insists that tragedy should inspire and uplift, that it should teach virtue and remind people of courage and greatness. It’s remarkable how current that argument feels, since we still talk about whether art should show life as it is or offer something higher to aspire to.

I don’t think either of them is entirely right or wrong. both perspectives feel necessary, just in different ways. sometimes we need the moral weight and vision of Aeschylus, and at other times, the honesty and questioning nature of Euripides. the play captures that tension beautifully.

overall, I liked how unserious the play was, full of jokes and strange scenes, yet it ended up being insightful at the same time.

[Anisha Inkspill · Rating 4 out of 5]

In reading classics, I discovered that comedy once had a different meaning, to have a happy ending. I’d already read Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard, subtitled a comedy in four acts, which turned out to be a light comedy and could easily be performed as a drama with little laughs. But I wanted to read something older to get a sense of what comedy first meant, that’s why I read - Frogs by Aristophanes, dated about 400 BCE. I wasn’t sure what I was going to find, it turned out to be a satire of two poets, Euripides and Aeschylus, battling it out to leave the underworld.

This doesn’t sound funny, and I was not expecting it to be funny but I was surprised. I was not expecting to find slapstick amongst the wordy exchange, which was broken up with gross out and smutty innuendos. So, it had elements that would be found in today’s movies, like Borat. And I realised that as I read this, unlike, Chekhov’s idea of comedy, this one was overt in its comedy, wanting the audience to laugh by poking fun at both poets and their work.

I don’t know enough about Euripides and Aeschylus or their works, so a parody of a line from their plays would just by-pass me. So, for me, most of this was like reading a document with interesting cultural facts. However, I can imagine Aristophanes’ audiences just listening to this and falling over with laughter – in its time this must have been a very funny and entertaining play. For that I am tempted to give it 5 stars, but I wonder if today most audiences would find all the jokes funny? I’m thinking probably not, which is not down to Aristophanes skills in comedy but culturally it’s just out of date. Hence, I am giving this 4 stars for having comical aspects that can be still recognisable today. Considering how old this is, to me this is impressive.

[beesp · Rating 5 out of 5]

Non capisco come per un solo istante io possa aver avuto la spocchia di ritenere che “Le Rane” non mi sarebbe piaciuta. È semplicemente geniale, non è che si possa dire molto altro. Il topos dello scontro tra autori classici non riuscirà mai più ad essere così divertente (“perse la boccetta”... dico solo questo!). Riscoprire classici che ho studiato da lettrice è tutta un’altra cosa, e questo mi fa pensare ancora di più a quanto sia importante la lettura, soprattutto nei nostri campi di studi letterari. Come si può amare e conoscere un testo senza leggerlo per intero, senza prima farsi trascinare in questo caso dalla genialità comica, scostumata, ironica e poco corretta di Aristofane?

[Susan · Rating 2 out of 5]

تنها بخش جالبش رقابت بین اشیل و اوریپید بود که دوستاره بهش دادم،ولی آن قسمت هم آنقدر جالب نبود که بخواهم توصیه اش کنم.
به هرحال این ها اولین ها بودند و انتظاری ازشان نمی رود.

[маја · Rating 5 out of 5]

invented comedy (almost literally)

[JK · Rating 2 out of 5]

An interesting play, which would have been made more interesting had I sufficient knowledge of the characters from Greek mythology whom Aristophanes was casting in this calamitous journey to Hades.

The comical slapstick was jovial enough, the dialogue and references to the audience surreal. I just wasn’t as engaged as I should be, and I can confidently justify that with my ignorance of background and references.

Another addition to the Little Black Classics range which I couldn’t fully enjoy simply due to lack of intelligence. Onwards.

[Saturn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Le commedie, a differenza delle tragedie, sono opere fortemente ancorate alla realtà in cui sono state scritte. Secondo me, per apprezzarle davvero bisogna riuscire a cogliere i vari riferimenti che per un contemporaneo dell'opera sarebbero scontati, ma a distanza di anni non è detto che lo siano. Sono molto contenta di aver letto Le rane dopo aver già affrontato buona parte del saggio di Robert Graves I miti greci, perché almeno da questo punto di vista mi sono sentita più preparata.
Le maggiori difficoltà le ho riscontrate nello scontro fra Eschilo ed Euripide, perché anche se ho letto alcune delle loro opere non sono così ferrata sull'argomento da afferrare pienamente le critiche che i due poeti si scagliano a vicenda.
Nella loro diatriba però ci sono dei leitmotiv che perennemente si affrontano nella critica letteraria o in generale nelle arti del racconto, anche audiovisivo, della realtà.
Prima di tutto c'è la contrapposizione fra la poetica elevata del passato, cioè di Eschilo, con la modernità del linguaggio di Euripide, ritenuto più semplice e dunque banale, di minor valore. Ma un'altra critica che mi ha colpito particolarmente è quella che riguarda la rappresentazione del male. Eschilo accusa Euripide di mostrare il male e quindi in qualche modo di diffonderlo e insegnarlo. Una critica che ho sempre sentito anche ai nostri giorni nei confronti di registi, scrittori (persino giornalisti!), anche se spesso con toni più polemici e strumentali. Un problema che mi sono posta anch'io molte volte.
La commedia ha un ritmo molto alto, è divertente, volgare, direi quasi spumeggiante. Aristofane ribalta le apparenti intenzioni iniziali del protagonista Dioniso che cambia completamente punto di vista, al fine probabilmente di portare un ribaltamento analogo anche nello spettatore. Non so se sono d'accordo con il punto di vista dell'autore, che predilige Eschilo. In parte propendo per l'uno e in parte per l'altro, e devo dire che il Prometeo di Eschilo è una delle cose più belle che ho mai letto.
Nel complesso credo che quest'opera sia un grande atto di amore nei confronti della poesia. Il suo messaggio fondamentale è che solo la cultura può salvare le nostre comunità, ieri come oggi. La cultura è lo strumento fondamentale per ricostruire una società in disfacimento, oberata dal conflitto, sofferente, perennemente in lotta con qualcuno. Se c'è un potere che può far uscire Atene dalla decadenza è quello della poesia e la ricchezza, la vera risorsa, della città sono i suoi poeti.

[Ana · Rating 4 out of 5]

(classificação: 3.5 )

Considero sempre um enorme privilégio poder ter acesso a obras escritas neste período. Acho incrível terem sobrevivido até aos nossos dias (muitas não tiveram a mesma sorte, como sabemos) e ser possível encontrar casualmente na biblioteca um exemplar para trazer para casa para ler.

Descobri as obras deste período por causa do meu blog/projecto de leitura «Linked Books» e cedo se tornaram favoritos meus, tendo sido "arrebatada" em especial pelas tragédias de Sófocles.
Fico sempre pois muito feliz, quando mais uma peça dos antigos gregos entra para a minha lista de livros a serem lidos. Estava assim muito expectante sobre esta leitura de Aristófanes, um autor cuja obra ainda desconhecia.

Fiquei bastante agradada com esta peça, proporcionou-me uma leitura muito agradável, mas não me arrebatou como as tragédias o costumam fazer. É, em minha opinião, bastante mais difícil escrever uma comédia que resista ao passar do tempo do que uma tragédia. Nas tragédias, podemos encontrar os grandes temas e questões intemporais da vida e da literatura (amor, amizade, lealdade, honra, bravura, e tantos outros) que facilmente transpomos para os nossos dias. Já nas comédias, o humor é algo que muda muito conforme os tempos e acontece-me muitas vezes acabar por considerar as comédias inferiores às tragédias (o mesmo me acontece também por exemplo com as tragédias e comédias de Shakespeare). É óbvio contudo que não são as obras que são inferiores, mas o prazer de leitura destes textos e a marca que deixam em mim é realmente menos forte do que quando leio tragédias.

As Rãs é uma comédia que foi pela primeira vez representada num concurso dramático de comédias : as Leneias (festival ateniense dedicado a Dioniso), no ano 405 a.c. tendo ganho o primeiro lugar no concurso desse ano. Estou a partilhar esta informação convosco pois é muito relevante para o próprio conteúdo deste texto. Aristófanes em minha opinião, criou aqui uma peça bem "à medida" desse festival. Lembremos que Dioniso era o Deus do teatro entre várias outras coisas (das festas, do vinho, da loucura, etc ... )

Ora reparem no enredo da peça: Dioniso (deus do teatro e de várias outras "cenas malucas" :) ) farto de não haver produção teatral como deve ser desde a morte de Eurípedes, decide ir ao submundo, ao Hades (pois claro, estão lá todos) buscá-lo. Leva o seu criado Xântias (um mortal), não vá a um Deus lhe faltar o serviço de criado na sua descida ao submundo.
Antes porém, vai a casa de Héracles (seu irmão, entre muitos claro, pois sabemos como era Zeus para fazer filhos...:) ) perguntar-lhe qual o melhor caminho para lá e se tinha alguma dica para lhe dar (uma vez que Héracles já havia descido ao Hades quando foi lá buscar Cérbero, o cão de 3 cabeças, guardião do submundo).
nota: Héracles e Hércules são a mesma coisa, ficou mais conhecido como Hércules.

Após esta "visita" ao seu meio-irmão, desce então com Xântias ao submundo disfarçado de Héracles (o que lhe vai originar várias peripécias e sustos, pois parece que Héracles não se "havia portado lá muito bem" na sua visita anterior :) ). Após as trocas de identidades resolvidas (onde assentou uma boa parte da componente humorística desta peça) , finalmente encontra Eurípedes, mas encontra também uma animosidade "aguda" no submundo entre Eurípedes e Ésquilo. Ésquilo que havia morrido antes de Eurípedes ocupava no submundo o trono de maior poeta e escritor de tragédias. Constava que Eurípedes ao chegar, havia usurpado o trono de forma injusta (pelo menos segundo Ésquilo). Dá-se então uma verdadeira "batalha literária" no submundo, entre Eurípedes e Ésquilo , de que são juizes Dioniso e também Plutão (o maior lá do sítio, deus do submundo). O vencedor da batalha literária poderia então voltar com Dioniso à terra dos vivos, pelo que um e outro batalham atacando as obras um do outro alternadamente, para tentar provar qual dos dois é o maior poeta e escritor.

Como dizia anteriormente, é um enredo muito apropriado para as Leneias. O enredo é muito bom e surpreendeu-me. Aristófanes faz ironia sobre a obra de outros escritores da sua época, aproveitando sempre que pode para satirizar também a política, a economia e a sociedade em geral da altura.
Existem os elementos de comédia mais "básica", como por exemplo a figura do criado "desbocado", a inversão de papéis, a caracterização de Dioniso como o um deus cobarde com menos coragem que o seu criado mortal, de Héracles como um deus comilão. Essas partes achei engraçadas, bem como algumas frases mais irónicas.

Às partes em que Aristófanes goza com os seus colegas escritores já não achei grande graça e a batalha literária, quase épica, pareceu-me ocupar uma grande parte da peça, tornando-se aborrecida para mim. Foi um discorrer de citações das obras de um e de outro e de ofensas mútuas, que seriam para ter graça mas às quais não consegui achar piada. Faltou-me para esta parte um maior conhecimento das obras destes escritores, já que de Ésquilo só conheço duas obras (Os Persas e Prometeu Agrilhoado) e de Eurípedes não conheço ainda nada.
Também não achei muita graça quando Aristófanes tentar provocar o riso com obscenidades, mas confesso que me surpreendi ao encontrá-las nesta peça.

Para mim e nesta altura teria mais interessante se Sófocles tivesse participado na batalha literária. Foi estranho ele não estar lá pois já tinha morrido e juntamente com Ésquilo e Eurípedes eram os três grandes tragediógrafos da época. Uma pequena pesquisa revelou-me que quando Aristófanes começou a escrever esta peça, Sófocles ainda era vivo, que morreu durante esse periodo e que Aristófanes ainda o colocou no submundo na sua peça, mas mais quase como um "remendo" . Daí o papel pouco preponderante de Sófocles nesta peça de Aristófanes.

Resumindo, uma boa leitura, com alguns momentos de riso, mas que não chega para recomendar a obra de uma forma geral a todos os leitores. No entanto, se já gostam de teatro clássico grego não deixem passar esta obra! Por mim, vou continuar a querer ler mais desta época e a descobrir melhor a obra de Aristófanes :)

Queria deixar ainda uma nota à edição das Edições 70 que está maravilhosamente bem feita, com notas excelentes e explicações sem as quais dificilmente entenderia a obra no seu todo.

[Natan · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.6 ⭐️

Naprawdę mi się podobało! Jak na dramat antyczny, był to tekst naprawdę zabawny, szczerze się świetnie bawiłem, choć zupełnie się tego nie spodziewałem. Życie byłoby łatwiejsze gdybym na co dzień miał przy sobie chór żab lol

[Tamires · Rating 4 out of 5]

Adoro férias, sempre sou muito leitora nas férias ksksks

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Frogs is another of Aristophanes' plays that is just top-notch for me as a Greek drama and as a general comedy- the plotline is just hilarious to behold, especially if the reader has understanding of the inside jokes like I did.

I read a post somewhere on Tumblr that described the plot of this play as follows: "Aeschylus and Euripides have a rap battle in the underworld while Dionysus croaks with a chorus of frogs". And I'd say that that's essentially it. I know that Aristophanes is known to mock real-life figures, but I've never read a more hilarious case of this. If one has read the plays of Euripides and Aeschylus before, the situation that comes up is just so funny to read about, especially since I used to really see these two tragedians as very serious figures. I love Aristophanes' strange use of a frog chorus as well- he has a tendency to make very odd choruses.

All in all, this play is just great. Just one word of caution, however- it's hard to underatand this play at all if you haven't read any other works of Greek drama, so I'd say that reading a bit of Euripides and Aeschylus would be recommended in this case.

[Brent · Rating 2 out of 5]

In reading a two-thousand year old satire of specific Greek poets, it might help to be familiar with the two poets, Greek culture, or even poetry in general.

Or you can just plunge in on the recommendation of other humorists, claiming that his guy still has the goods two Millennia after his prime.

I chose option two. And as such, most of the subtleties were wasted on me and I totally didn't get the ending. But the bit about the passive-aggressive servant is timeless and is still in use, in one form or another, today.

It is always interesting to find the first instance of a joke or trope and a couple seem to find their origin here.

Unless of course Aristophanes was also re-interrupting the work of earlier humorists.

Which is entirely possible, and given his view of writers in general, would not be surprising.

[Steve]

Read in the Bollingen Poetry Translation Prize winning version of Richmond Lattimore

[Elyse Hdez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Necesito un coro de ranas que me ayude a tomar mejores decisiones en mi vida.