What do you think?
Rate this book
Greek and Roman Comedy: Translations and Interpretations of Four Representative Plays
Much of what we know of Greco-Roman comedy comes from the surviving works of just four playwrights—the Greeks Aristophanes and Menander and the Romans Plautus and Terence. To introduce these authors and their work to students and general readers, this book offers a new, accessible translation of a representative play by each playwright, accompanied by a general introduction to the author's life and times, a scholarly article on a prominent theme in the play, and a bibliography of selected readings about the play and playwright. This range of material, rare in a single volume, provides several reading and teaching options, from the study of a single author to an overview of the entire Classical comedic tradition. The plays have been translated for readability and fidelity to the original text by established Classics scholars. Douglas Olson provides the translation and commentary for Aristophanes' Acharnians, Shawn O'Bryhim for Menander's Dyskolos, George Fredric Franco for Plautus' Casina, and Timothy J. Moore for Terence's Phormio.
- GenresClassics
360 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2001
15 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 - 4 of 4 reviews
December 20, 2025
O’Bryhim’s Greek and Roman Comedy was the book I used for my—you guessed it—Greek and Roman comedy class. Although it was published in 2001, I still found it useful for learning about the subject matter in 2025, and I can’t imagine there are too many other books out there that teach the subject equally as well within a single cover. I read not only all of the plays that were included, but their introductions too (except Aristophanes’s), and the information provided in them proved to be as dense as what I heard in my lectures, if not denser. The plays themselves were also fascinating to study, and I think I learned a little bit more about my comedic tastes in the process.
The first play, The Acharnians, was the only one I did not enjoy reading. There are many implications of this, and I do not know which or how many are true. Maybe I did not like Aristophanes’s writing, maybe I did not like Olson’s translation, or maybe I prefer the humor in New Comedy over the humor in Old Comedy. Whatever the reason, The Acharnians had an interesting premise, but a poor execution of it. The plot feels like two unrelated segments stitched together, and while I am willing to excuse that as being due to the ancient Greek theatrical form, the individual events within them still felt too nonsensical. At one point, Aristophanes satirizes Euripides in a scene where Dikaiopolis asks for a tattered costume from him. I am all for satire, but mocking an actual playwright in a story about buying private peace from the Peloponnesian War seems out of place. Nothing in the plot is climactic, and it just ends after enough of these random events have transpired. I will give Olson credit and say that I appreciated some of his choices for translating the humor, such as using a Southern accent for the Megarian character. The majority of the humor, however, is likely lost in translation or the plethora of footnotes. Given my dislike for it, I am not convinced The Acharnians is truly representative of Aristophanes, because I have received Lysistrata much more favorably, and I am sure his other works like The Frogs and The Birds are better as well.
The second play, Dyskolos, was my favorite out of the four since it feels the most like a modern story. Similar to any other timeless novel, the play manages to capture the real, nonfantastical culture of its ancient Greek society while simultaneously revealing the broader aspects of human nature, in a way that no other classical literature I have read so far has. There is also greater psychological realism present due to the characters speaking their thoughts out loud often. This probing allows for more sympathetic characters, and indeed, the story can be a bit moving at times. Of course, because Dyskolos is a comedy, I had my fair share of smiles throughout it. One scene that made me feel other emotions, however, was when Gorgias told Sostratos more about his life, such as how he has never been in love since it is not an option for him. All of these elements result in there being actual themes in the play, including not only the explicit messages on community and isolation, but subtler ideas on class and the inherent kindness of humans too. Even the humor is written well, as much of it arises naturally from character interactions instead of constant joke-cracking, such as when Knemon forces Getas and Sikon off his doorstep. Again, the entire story is reminiscent of a modern romantic comedy novel or film the most out of the four plays in the book. Outside of that genre, however, I was reminded of Viet Thanh Nguyen’s short story “The Americans”, which follows a similar plot of a misanthropic old man being humbled after a catastrophe.
The third play, Casina, is unique in style compared to the other three plays in the book, and I am all for it! Plautus as a playwright is known for emphasizing farce even at the expense of story. As a result, Casina has an overall sitcom-like feel to it, and off the top of my head, I would compare it to the “Steamed Hams” bit from The Simpsons. The play’s humor is a mix of joke-cracking and absurd story situations, both of which only land in the second half of the narrative after Cleostrata and the others . Casina in general is full of sexual jokes, and whether they were in the first half or second half, I tended to be amused by them. The writing is similar to the humor in that it only improves later in the play. I found the beginning parts confusing in terms of what exactly Lysidamus, Cleostrata, Olympio, and Chalinus wanted. Regardless of these issues, everything that happens in the second half of the story is so perfect that it makes enduring through the first half worth it.
The final play, Phormio, is the longest and very Menandrian in style. In fact, I would say it is even better than Dyskolos in all aspects, but I still prefer the latter because it can double as a piece of literary fiction, whereas the former is limited to being a romantic comedy. Dyskolos is mainly about one character, Sostratos. Phormio, in contrast, has events going on with three: Antipho, Phaedria, and Chremes. This results in a more complex plot, and like Casina, it can be a bit confusing to understand what is going on at times. Nevertheless, all of the characters’ events tie in with each other well, and I admire Terence’s ability to choose and order them in such a way that out of all the possible story scenarios that could have played out, the one he went with in the end felt like the “correct” one. I suppose he could have concluded Antipho’s arc better, since once he finds out that Demipho . However, I still stick to my opinion that Terence is a masterful plotter. Also, similar to Dyskolos, the play is heavy on psychology and philosophy. Even the more minor characters, such as Geta and Davus, feel like real people with desires of their own rather than two-dimensional stock types. In addition, while Phormio is a comedy, it is easy to forget that since much of its humor is only occasionally scattered throughout the text. It being a “comedy” in this case better refers to the word’s original definition of a play with a happy ending. The most significant humor comes from Phormio at the end, where I could not help but smile watching the scene unfold as he . Although that is the one notable funny moment in the play, it was worth reading through the whole story to get to that point, the same as it was with Casina.
Again, if there is any book out there that can be considered the definitive resource for learning about Greek and Roman comedy, then I can say without a doubt that O’Bryhim’s is the one that qualifies as that. Similar to how Greek mythology provided many fundamentals to Western literature, Greek and Roman comedy provided many fundamentals to the Western comic tradition, influencing everything from Shakespeare to Saturday Night Live. Thus, those who want to put an explanation to a phenomenon as unexplainable as comedy will do themselves a favor by picking up this book. If you do so, I promise you will not regret it.
The first play, The Acharnians, was the only one I did not enjoy reading. There are many implications of this, and I do not know which or how many are true. Maybe I did not like Aristophanes’s writing, maybe I did not like Olson’s translation, or maybe I prefer the humor in New Comedy over the humor in Old Comedy. Whatever the reason, The Acharnians had an interesting premise, but a poor execution of it. The plot feels like two unrelated segments stitched together, and while I am willing to excuse that as being due to the ancient Greek theatrical form, the individual events within them still felt too nonsensical. At one point, Aristophanes satirizes Euripides in a scene where Dikaiopolis asks for a tattered costume from him. I am all for satire, but mocking an actual playwright in a story about buying private peace from the Peloponnesian War seems out of place. Nothing in the plot is climactic, and it just ends after enough of these random events have transpired. I will give Olson credit and say that I appreciated some of his choices for translating the humor, such as using a Southern accent for the Megarian character. The majority of the humor, however, is likely lost in translation or the plethora of footnotes. Given my dislike for it, I am not convinced The Acharnians is truly representative of Aristophanes, because I have received Lysistrata much more favorably, and I am sure his other works like The Frogs and The Birds are better as well.
The second play, Dyskolos, was my favorite out of the four since it feels the most like a modern story. Similar to any other timeless novel, the play manages to capture the real, nonfantastical culture of its ancient Greek society while simultaneously revealing the broader aspects of human nature, in a way that no other classical literature I have read so far has. There is also greater psychological realism present due to the characters speaking their thoughts out loud often. This probing allows for more sympathetic characters, and indeed, the story can be a bit moving at times. Of course, because Dyskolos is a comedy, I had my fair share of smiles throughout it. One scene that made me feel other emotions, however, was when Gorgias told Sostratos more about his life, such as how he has never been in love since it is not an option for him. All of these elements result in there being actual themes in the play, including not only the explicit messages on community and isolation, but subtler ideas on class and the inherent kindness of humans too. Even the humor is written well, as much of it arises naturally from character interactions instead of constant joke-cracking, such as when Knemon forces Getas and Sikon off his doorstep. Again, the entire story is reminiscent of a modern romantic comedy novel or film the most out of the four plays in the book. Outside of that genre, however, I was reminded of Viet Thanh Nguyen’s short story “The Americans”, which follows a similar plot of a misanthropic old man being humbled after a catastrophe.
The third play, Casina, is unique in style compared to the other three plays in the book, and I am all for it! Plautus as a playwright is known for emphasizing farce even at the expense of story. As a result, Casina has an overall sitcom-like feel to it, and off the top of my head, I would compare it to the “Steamed Hams” bit from The Simpsons. The play’s humor is a mix of joke-cracking and absurd story situations, both of which only land in the second half of the narrative after Cleostrata and the others . Casina in general is full of sexual jokes, and whether they were in the first half or second half, I tended to be amused by them. The writing is similar to the humor in that it only improves later in the play. I found the beginning parts confusing in terms of what exactly Lysidamus, Cleostrata, Olympio, and Chalinus wanted. Regardless of these issues, everything that happens in the second half of the story is so perfect that it makes enduring through the first half worth it.
The final play, Phormio, is the longest and very Menandrian in style. In fact, I would say it is even better than Dyskolos in all aspects, but I still prefer the latter because it can double as a piece of literary fiction, whereas the former is limited to being a romantic comedy. Dyskolos is mainly about one character, Sostratos. Phormio, in contrast, has events going on with three: Antipho, Phaedria, and Chremes. This results in a more complex plot, and like Casina, it can be a bit confusing to understand what is going on at times. Nevertheless, all of the characters’ events tie in with each other well, and I admire Terence’s ability to choose and order them in such a way that out of all the possible story scenarios that could have played out, the one he went with in the end felt like the “correct” one. I suppose he could have concluded Antipho’s arc better, since once he finds out that Demipho . However, I still stick to my opinion that Terence is a masterful plotter. Also, similar to Dyskolos, the play is heavy on psychology and philosophy. Even the more minor characters, such as Geta and Davus, feel like real people with desires of their own rather than two-dimensional stock types. In addition, while Phormio is a comedy, it is easy to forget that since much of its humor is only occasionally scattered throughout the text. It being a “comedy” in this case better refers to the word’s original definition of a play with a happy ending. The most significant humor comes from Phormio at the end, where I could not help but smile watching the scene unfold as he . Although that is the one notable funny moment in the play, it was worth reading through the whole story to get to that point, the same as it was with Casina.
Again, if there is any book out there that can be considered the definitive resource for learning about Greek and Roman comedy, then I can say without a doubt that O’Bryhim’s is the one that qualifies as that. Similar to how Greek mythology provided many fundamentals to Western literature, Greek and Roman comedy provided many fundamentals to the Western comic tradition, influencing everything from Shakespeare to Saturday Night Live. Thus, those who want to put an explanation to a phenomenon as unexplainable as comedy will do themselves a favor by picking up this book. If you do so, I promise you will not regret it.
February 11, 2017
The reason I get this particular book was to have an opportunity to read Menander since I have diffuculties to found his play. But having this in hand (in Kindle...) I decided to read the whole book I was afterall curious to know more about development of ancient comedy.
The book has four parts (on for each author) and every part has two chapter and play itself.
The first chapter is dealing with more general backgroud - how were plays staged, about their history and so on - really an interesting piece, although somehow shallow. But to by fair there is not much known about history of comedy.
The second chapter was just neverending dealing with the plot of the play. What the...?! I am going to read the play so I do not need to read description of plot that is about as long as the third of the play itself. Yes, a short introduction is useful since sometimes these plays are easy to get lost in. But this was just desperate filling of paper to make book longer. There should rather be more elaborate footnotes or some short chapter added after play.
I'm glad I read this book, that I learned more about development of comedy. But it's a mediocore one with some pointless chapters about plot of the plays. And if you are not into a New Comedy (like myself) you're not gonna like most of plays here....
Acharnians 2/5
I'm afraid that this was too wierd for me. Too many allusions to contemporary issues, scenes too bizzare and too frequent changes of setup.
I can't say I did not enjoyed it, but for the great part of the play I was just confused. I prefer more mature Aristophanes - Clouds and later plays.
The Dyskolos 3/5
I am happy that I had opportunity to read the (Greek) New Comedy but frankly I miss the Old Comedy.
Menander is easier to read than Aristophanes because his style of writing is more modern. Instead of long and brutal rape of simple and hilarious premise Menander builds situational humour and character-comedy on quite complex yet not too unrealistic plot.
And here comes the sad conclusion. Ancient jokes are not funny anymore. The madness of Old Comedy is really beautiful and makes me smile and sometimes laugh but this piece for me looks like some family drama about relationships. Fortunately there are still some funny situations but jokes themselfs just fail to reach me.
Due some funny situations, entertaining style of writing and the fact that it is not longer than plot allows it is nice thing to read.
Casina 2/5
After having read whole greek comedy (which unfortunately nowadays contains only twelve plays ) I jumped to the Roman one with great expectations.
Oh boy what a dissapointment. Casina seems quite modern. If someone took Casina, put it before me and tell me that it was written in Renesance I would believe him. It has quite well work-out story with nice premise. But it is just simply a boring piece to read.
Here we have just some story (which is once quite sophisticated but from point of view of modern reader nothing unusual) full of stock characters telling jokes that are just not funny.
Phormio
I just feel that more modern ancient comedy is the more boring it is. Only story is now left in the book. And the story itself seems somehow inferior to The Dyskolos or the Casina
And jokes are no longer there. I used to smile throughout all Aristophanes' plays I even laughed few times but now It is just some story told. I got bored after the third. I survived one more third and than gave up.
The book has four parts (on for each author) and every part has two chapter and play itself.
The first chapter is dealing with more general backgroud - how were plays staged, about their history and so on - really an interesting piece, although somehow shallow. But to by fair there is not much known about history of comedy.
The second chapter was just neverending dealing with the plot of the play. What the...?! I am going to read the play so I do not need to read description of plot that is about as long as the third of the play itself. Yes, a short introduction is useful since sometimes these plays are easy to get lost in. But this was just desperate filling of paper to make book longer. There should rather be more elaborate footnotes or some short chapter added after play.
I'm glad I read this book, that I learned more about development of comedy. But it's a mediocore one with some pointless chapters about plot of the plays. And if you are not into a New Comedy (like myself) you're not gonna like most of plays here....
Acharnians 2/5
I'm afraid that this was too wierd for me. Too many allusions to contemporary issues, scenes too bizzare and too frequent changes of setup.
I can't say I did not enjoyed it, but for the great part of the play I was just confused. I prefer more mature Aristophanes - Clouds and later plays.
The Dyskolos 3/5
I am happy that I had opportunity to read the (Greek) New Comedy but frankly I miss the Old Comedy.
Menander is easier to read than Aristophanes because his style of writing is more modern. Instead of long and brutal rape of simple and hilarious premise Menander builds situational humour and character-comedy on quite complex yet not too unrealistic plot.
And here comes the sad conclusion. Ancient jokes are not funny anymore. The madness of Old Comedy is really beautiful and makes me smile and sometimes laugh but this piece for me looks like some family drama about relationships. Fortunately there are still some funny situations but jokes themselfs just fail to reach me.
Due some funny situations, entertaining style of writing and the fact that it is not longer than plot allows it is nice thing to read.
Casina 2/5
After having read whole greek comedy (which unfortunately nowadays contains only twelve plays ) I jumped to the Roman one with great expectations.
Oh boy what a dissapointment. Casina seems quite modern. If someone took Casina, put it before me and tell me that it was written in Renesance I would believe him. It has quite well work-out story with nice premise. But it is just simply a boring piece to read.
Here we have just some story (which is once quite sophisticated but from point of view of modern reader nothing unusual) full of stock characters telling jokes that are just not funny.
Phormio
I just feel that more modern ancient comedy is the more boring it is. Only story is now left in the book. And the story itself seems somehow inferior to The Dyskolos or the Casina
And jokes are no longer there. I used to smile throughout all Aristophanes' plays I even laughed few times but now It is just some story told. I got bored after the third. I survived one more third and than gave up.
November 22, 2022
This collection of classical comedies is a joy to read. The translations are funny and thoughtful. The translator writes extensive introductions to each play, creating a narrative that ties the four together.
April 24, 2017
So funny. The plays are very funny. Dick jokes from 2,500 years ago are still dick jokes.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews