Acharnenses. Cum prolegomenis et commentariis, edidit J. van Leeuwen

Οι κωμωδίες του Αριστοφάνη σε κόμικς #1

by Aristophanes, Jan Van Leeuwen

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.

This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.

As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

Genres: Plays, Classics, Drama, Fiction, Theatre, Ancient, Comedy

800 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 426

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

[Το Άθχημο γατί του θενιόρ Γκουαναμίρου · Rating 5 out of 5]

The judgmental paragons who seek attention,
the dubious folks of ill intention,

will make all shorts of faulty claims
but truth prevails and brakes all chains:

Democracy and Peace match well,
without them, everything goes to Hell!

Avoid the demagogues, they always lie
especially the ones who prophesy!

Dicaeopolis is an Athenian citizen who has reached his limits. He's no longer able to withstand poverty, over-taxation, the waste of public money, the sycophants, the foreign mercenaries who ransacked his garlic and makes a life-changing decision. No more war with the Spartans for him. He is going to make a peace treaty with them.

Ο Δικαιόπολις είναι ένας Αθηναίος πολίτης που έχει φτάσει στα όριά του. Δεν αντέχει άλλο τη φτώχεια, την υπερφορολόγηση, την κατασπατάληση του δημόσιου χρήματος, τους συκοφάντες, τους ξένους μισθοφόρους που του άρπαξαν τα σκόρδα του, τους ατάλαντους καλλιτέχνες που προκαλούν ραγδαία πτώση της θερμοκρασίας με τα κρυόπλαστα έργα τους, τους ατελείωτους πολέμους με την Σπάρτη, τον γείτονά του τον Ευριπιδούλη που επειδή έγραψε εκειχάμου μερικές επιτυχημένες τραγωδίες καβάλησε το καλάμι (ή πιο σωστά το εκκύκλημα) και ξέχασε πως η μάνα του πουλούσε λαχανάκια στην αγορά για να τον μεγαλώσει, και αποφασίζει να πάρει τη ζωή του στα χέρια του.



Αυτός μόνος θα κάνει συνθήκη ειρήνης με τους Σπαρτιάτες. Θα κρεμάσει την ασπίδα του πάνω από το τζάκι, θα αρχίσει να κάνει εμπόριο και θα γιορτάσει τα Λήναια, στα οποία τιμούσαν τον θεό Διόνυσο, με κοψίδια, κρασοκατάνυξη και θεκθ κι όποιοθ αντέκθ.

Η συνθήκη ειρήνης, η σπονδή, καταφτάνει με τον Αμφίθεο σε τρία μπουκαλάκια κι ο Δικαιόπολις διαλέγει την μακρύτερη (με το συμπάθιο), την τριαντάχρονη. Τριάντα χρόνια ηρεμίας, ησυχίας και ευημερίας για το σπιτικό του. Αλλά οι περιπέτειες του ταλαίπωρου Αθηναίου πολίτη δεν σταματούν εκεί.

Όταν οι ηλικιωμένοι Αχαρνείς μαθαίνουν για την πράξη του, αυτοί που πολέμησαν και έχασαν τα πάντα (εκτός από τα καμίνια τους στα οποία παρασκευάζουν κάρβουνα) από τις επιθέσεις των Σπαρτιατών, τον αρχίζουν στο πετροβολητό και δεν προτίθενται να ακούσουν κουβέντα, ώσπου ο Δικαιόπολις τους απειλεί πως έχει έναν συμπατριώτη τους σε ένα κοφίνι και θα τον σφάξει. Έτσι στανικά οι γέροντες Αχαρνείς θα συμφωνήσουν να τον ακούσουν και οι "Παρνάσιοι άνθρακες" θα γλιτώσουν από τη χατζάρα του Δικαιόπολι.

Αλλά όσα πολλά κι ενδιαφέροντα κι αν τους λέει ο Δικαιόπολις κατά την απολογία του, καταφέρνει να πείσει μόνο το ημιχόριο Βου. Το ημιχόριο Α΄, σπεύδει να ζητήσει την συμπαράσταση του στρατηγού Λάμαχου που είναι ήρωας πολέμου κι όπου όλα πάνω του είναι καμωμένα από ηρωική στόφα. Έχει τη Γοργόνα σχεδιασμένη επάνω στη θήκη του σπαθιού του, ξέρει να βγάζει περίφημες πολεμικές ιαχές, έχει και κράνος με φτερά. Βέβαια δεν έτυχε ακόμα να πάει σε κάποια μάχη, αλλά αυτά είναι λεπτομέρειες. Όταν η πατρίδα θα τον καλέσει στο καθήκον θα σπεύσει, αλλά από ένα παραπάτημα στη διαδρομή θα στραμπουλήξει τον αστράγαλό του, οπότε θα τον φέρουν πίσω σηκωτό. Δεν πειράζει. Σημασία έχει η πρόθεση.

Υπάρχουν πολλές ακόμη ξεκαρδιστικές σκηνές στο έργο, μικρότερα επεισόδια με τις εμπορικές συναλλαγές του Δικαιόπολι και είναι πολλά τα αστεία που δυστυχώς χάνονται στη μετάφραση όπως για παράδειγμα ο Δερκέτης που παριστάνει τον τυφλό για να αποσπάσει κι αυτός μια σταλίτσα ειρήνης από το φλασκί του Δικαιόπολι. Δερκέτης σημαίνει Ανοιχτομάτης (αυτός που έχει οξύτατη όραση).

Η μαγνητοσκοπημένη παράσταση που είδα (Εθνικό θέατρο, 2005) παράλληλα με την ανάγνωση του έργου ήταν εξαιρετικά επιτυχημένη και με βοήθησε να εκτιμήσω ακόμα περισσότερο το κείμενο.

Αυτά λοιπόν είχα να πω για να ελαφρύνω το βαρύ κλίμα και να διασκεδάσω την αγωνία μου για τους δικούς μου γερο- Αχαρνείς (γονείς) που ελπίζω να ζήσουν πολλούς ειρηνικούς χειμώνες και ειρηνικά καλοκαίρια ακόμα.

Κι αν κάνεις το θαύμα σου άγιε μου Διόνυσε κι όλα πάνε καλά και τη γλιτώσουνε, θα πάρω όλη την οικογένεια και θα πάμε το καλοκαίρι στην Επίδαυρο και θα βαστάμε κι από ένα ομοίωμα του θρησκευτικού σου συμβόλου στο χέρι (που για λόγους ευπρέπειας δεν θα το περιγράψω λεπτομερώς, αλλά θα φροντίσω να είναι μεγάλο και επαναφορτιζόμενο).

[Paul Christensen · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Peloponnesean War was a monstrosity
Which sapped the strength of Hellas - an atrocity;

So one can hardly blame Herr Aristophanes
For viciously attacking the Democracy

Which set Greece on this devastating policy
(This bawdy work is thus a kind of prophecy).

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Switching from tragedy to comedy is both a relief and a shock. After reading the works of tragedians such as Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, I finally decided to read the works of the comedian, Aristophanes. I was getting kind of tired of the soap-opera-ness of tragedy, so I figured that a bit of satire wouldn't hurt me. Boy, was I right about that!

The Acharnians is about a disgruntled farmer who has been impacted by the wars going on in Greece. While his laments are very real and understandable, the way that Aristophanes presents the issue is humorous as well. He also has absolutely no boundaries, directly satirizing and mocking real-life figures such as Euripides.

As is common with most comedians, Aristophanes' personality and views really shine through in a play like this. I would go so far to say that I even enjoy comedies better than tragedies just because there is a lot more personality that goes into the making of the play, although that can certainly be argued with. In Aristophanes' case, I just find it incredible that a play so old can make me react at all. Honestly, I've read a couple of his plays now, and never fail to find a place that makes me kind of chuckle- that's a really good sign, to be frank. I look forward to reading more from him to see if he can provide anything even better.

[Ensiform · Rating 3 out of 5]

Translated, introduced and annotated by Alan H. Sommerstein. This play is about a farmer, Dikaiopolis, who in the midst of war, failed peace initiatives and crushing embargoes, makes his own personal thirty-years' peace with Sparta. It's got the usual Aristophanes jabs at his contemporaries: warmongers and rival poets get ravaged by his satire, which has lost its sharpness after 2300 years and require footnotes to be comprehensible. Still, the main point of the play is well taken, and there's something of a poignancy behind the plea for sanity amidst all the war.

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Has to be my favourite Greek play I've ever read. Combining dry sardonic humour with witty criticisms of society.

[Dragos C Butuzea · Rating 5 out of 5]

o critică amuzantă a războiului peloponesiac și nevoia de pace, chiar una privată :)
și o traducere foarte bună de liviu franga.

[Oblomov · Rating 2 out of 5]

A tale of how peace, at any cost, is better than war. I think...

Complaining about Aristophanes being silly seems rather redundant, not when his other plays have dogs on trial and literature battles in Hell. Aristophanes is silly and that's half the joy of him, but The Archarnians takes it too far.

If there's a plot to this, it happens in the first half: Good citizen Dikaiopolis attempts to end the Peloponnesian War by secretly making a treaty. He then tries to defend his actions with some nuanced arguments on the profiteering of war, and a slight detour as he takes the piss out of Euripides, Aristophanes' favourite hobby. Dikaiopolis wins the debate and we now have peace.

And then it doesn't stop, carrying on with pointless antics, all of which Dikaiopolis calls great examples of how wonderful this new peace is, such as:
-A solider and a citizen compare how good their day was to contrast peace time and war. The solider is bloody and injured from battle and the citizen is drunk, with two hot dancing girls in his arms. In terms of arguments, it's pithy at best.
-A new free market has opened, where Athenians and non-Athenians can openly sell their wares. This includes a penniless parent selling his adult daughters, who enthusiastically pretend to be pigs so they can escape starvation. It all sounds very lovely, truly...

The second half just feels incoherent and the whole play reminded me of that other bag of lunacy, Ubu Roi. It's more mean spirited zaniness than effective farce, and the highlight of the ridiculous for me was when a man tries to escape the wrath of an Athenian mob by claming he's took a hostage, their city's truest love: coal. And by that I mean he holds up a coal scuttle and threatens to stab it. The Athenians know it's just a coal scuttle. This plan actually works. The coal scuttle is also wearing a dress. It's Mighty Boosh levels of surreal, but I admit I laughed because it was just so dumb.

In his defence, this is one of Aristophanes' earliar plays and the oldest surviving, but I can't quite understand what he was saying here. Yes, it's anti-war, and some of the pro-peace arguments are quite valid, but the satire feels weak in the first half and nonexistent afterwards. Ultimately, I found most of The Acharnians too daft to appreciate.

[Emily · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've read this in translation before but, unsurprisingly, one really gets a better sense of what's going on in this annotated Greek edition. I don't think one could ask for more information about any aspect of the play. Olson doesn't shy away from explaining Aristophanes' obscenity, which is very helpful considering past prudish translators and even lexicographers who would translate euphemistically or in other languages what in Aristophanes is quite plainly profane. The play itself isn't my favorite of Aristophanes but it is an exemplum for Old Comedy's intersection with Athenian politics.

[Eye of Sauron · Rating 3 out of 5]

The more I think about it, the more I think The Acharnians is virtually the Greek equivalent of The Forever War.

Both of these fictional works come from authors writing in the political climate of national war, at a point in the war where the people are getting tired of fighting. Just as The Forever War criticizes the Vietnam War through allegorical parody, having those who seek peaceful resolution fare better than those who mindlessly seek war, The Acharnians shows a clever, peace-seeking man doing well, with the war general faring rather badly. In both cases, the war is depicted as unnecessarily prolonged, while a simple communicatory message could stop the atrocious war, which should have ended quite a long time ago.

I didn't really like the blunt message of The Forever War, nor do I really like the anti-war insinuations of The Acharnians. As cultural studies, they both have value, but I can't say I'll ever read either one again.

[denudatio_pulpae]

Jakie szczęście, że wydania Ossolineum opatrzone są opracowaniem, bo inaczej "Acharnejczycy" zupełnie by do mnie nie dotarli.

Przyznaję się, że zupełnie nie pojmuję zachwytu nad twórczością Arystofanesa. Podejrzewam, że stoi za tym brak wiedzy lub brak poczucia humoru, a najpewniej obydwa. Z "Acharnejczyków" najbardziej zapadła mi w pamięć scena sprzedaży córek kupca przebranych za świnie, do których ojciec mówi "Wolicie być przedane, alibo mrzeć głodem?", co dla mnie nie jest w żadnym stopniu zabawne. Trudny orzech do zgryzienia mam z tymi komediami.

[Sari]

rip dikaiopolis, you would have loved to dramatically recline on a diwan and call someone a bitch

[Kai Weber · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jokes that need to be explained are not funny. It's quite natural that 2500 year old jokes need to be explained. So ancient Greek comedy is not too appealing anymore to the nowadays reader. This piece here has another flaw, a more inherent one: There seem to be some little flaws of coherence or character motivation. However, this drama deserves to be re-read and re-discovered. Because the principal idea is great and calls for updates (on stage or in other works of literature): Imagine two states at war with each other (in this case: Athens and Sparta). The mainstream opinion in Athens is: You've got to be a good patriot and support the fight of our country. Then comes one guy, the main character Dikaiopolos and says: I'm sick of it. Actually, Spartans are not all wrong, can't you see they have plausible reasons for feeling offended by us? I'm going to make peace with them. And thus he does: As an Athens citizen he makes a private peace with Sparta and opens a market square where Spartans and their allies are allowed to enter and trade with him.

[Ryn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This review is really just an essay on the intentions of Aristophanes, you have been forewarned.

Under the guise of an argument for ‘peace’ Aristophanes criticises the apparatus of the Athenian democratic state. I feel confident enough to assert Aristophanes’ underlying intent because his authorial voice is particularly present in this play. For example, at one point Aristophanes hijacks Dikaiopolis’ speech by stating ”’If, though a beggar, I make bold to speak’ – before the Athenian people about matters of state – and that when I’m a comic poet” (495-500). The literal translation of this last clause would be “when composing a comedy” and as such, it only makes sense as having been said by Aristophanes (Dikaiopolis is an old country farmer and no poet). Aristophanes seems to speak through the Leader of the Chorus of Acharnians too, when it is said that “this splendid, valiant poet, whom danger could not fright, out of telling the Athenians what was true and fair and right” (645-650). At this point in history Aristophanes was being persecuted by the demagogue Cleon for slandering the city. These taunts about Aristophanes’ own affairs permeate the play and serve to remind us that Aristophanes used his comedy as a platform to express his critical political opinions.

From the beginning of the play Dikaiopolis blames the Council (named as the Executive in my edition), for the continuation of the Peloponnesian war - he exclaims that he will not be quiet “not until the Executive commit us to a debate on peace” (60-61). We hear of his frustration again when he asks “are the Executive going to sit by and do nothing while I’m maltreated like this by barbarians in my own country” to which he receives “[no answer]” (165-170). The Council in question was comprised of ten tribal delegations who managed the Council for one tenth of the year each. The members of the tribal delegations were chosen by lot, could only serve on the Council twice in their life, and the Council-leader was changed every day. The main function of this Council was to propose laws to the Assembly to be voted on. This complicated system was introduced to reduce the ability of people to become ‘career politicians’ and to stop them garnering too much of an influence within the system. The success of this is a subject of debate. Poorer tribe members were probably less likely to put their name forward in order to be chosen to serve on the Council since it required a sizeable time-commitment that they could not waste, having to tend to their farms/work for a living. So we see, the wealthy were already more likely to be members of the Council, and therefore more likely to serve their own interests. Dikaiopolis, an old farmer, being literally ignored by the Council is symbolic of the entrenched dis-interest in ‘lower class’ concerns from the Council.

Having established a criticism of the Council, let us turn to Aristophanes’ comments on the Athenian ambassadors. Throughout The Acharnians there is a sustained criticism of the Athenian envoys who Aristophanes presents as taking their pay of two drachma a day, enjoying the foreign luxuries and coming back having not even secured the assistance of the states they were despatched to flatter. Beyond simply pointing out the injustice of the lazy ambassadors Aristophanes is criticising another aspect of the Athenian state; the ambassadors were able to swindle public money because of the ill-informed “gawping” Assembly (130-135). The Assembly, who voted upon the laws proposed by the Council, was comprised of any 18+ male citizen of any income-level. The Assembly had the final say on electing officials and as such, must have agreed to sustain the lifestyles of these ambassadors. In this way, we see that the ambassadors can only manipulate the state because the state allows itself to be manipulated.

Dikaiopolis’ condemnation of demagoguery is another way in which Aristophanes points out the flaws within the Athenian democratic system. Dikaiopolis attributes the beginning of the Peloponnesian war to the intrigues of the demagogue Pericles and his concubine. Here Aristophanes must be careful. He explicitly states that “some Athenians, mind you, not Athens, remember that, not the City – but a bunch of good-for-nothing individuals, worthless counterfeit foreigners, bad coins through and through” are the ones who caused the war (515-520). He has to be careful not to criticise the state, as that could land him in more political trouble, hence the his enthusiasm in blaming individuals rather than the democratic city – by doing this his words can’t be used against him in a court of law. Nonetheless, it doesn’t take much to see that by criticising the demagogues Aristophanes is, again, criticising the system that allowed demagogues to take advantage of such a platform

Finally, we see that Aristophanes also portrays nearly all the Athenian characters as selfish. The Chorus lament that “no one is willing to help any-one else” (210); Dikaiopolis is only interested in securing peace for his own family; the ambassadors prefer the continuation of war for the continuation of their two drachma pay and informers are rife in Athens “in search of someone to denounce” in order to get a slice of their property (907). Indeed, near the end of the play Aristophanes has Dikaiopolis mimic Lamachus’ every line, which serves to show they are not so different as one may think. Lamachus (the General) got his continuation of war and therefore continuation of pay meanwhile Dikaiopolis has secured his personal peace, and “how peace wins him many a fine business deal” (974). In the end, Aristophanes shows us that even our protagonist is enveloped in self-interest. The point of the play was not, after-all, to promote peace but instead to turn a light on the institutions of Athenian democracy that were used by all to selfish ends, to the eventual demise of Athens.

[Edward Cheer · Rating 4 out of 5]

As I've recently been impressed by Aristophanes' better works, I wasn't surprised that I found Acharnians enjoyable. I really enjoyed the character of Dicaepolis and his witty banter he would have with the other characters. However, while some of the comedic satire moments were more based in issue that occurred during Aristophanes (as well as, shocker, another Euripides reference) they were still very entertaining to read. Probably my favorite part would be when Dicaepolis kept asking Euripides for more and more props for his character. If you like Aristophanes, it should be no surprise that you'll find this funny. This is definitely one of his more exceptional plays.

[Heidi · Rating 3 out of 5]

For whatever reason, I could not enjoy this play. Yeah, yeah, it's a satire of mob mentalities and average citizens paying the price of war. Objectively, it's good. But I didn't think it was very profound. It's a comedy, so seeing it actually played probably blows more life into it. I gave it 3 stars because I don't have the heart to give an ancient Greek play anything lower.
Ah well, back to tragedies for me.

[Fiona · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Greek Comedies let us see history through the eyes of ordinary people, rather than only having the perspective of the great historians. As with many comedies, there is tragedy underlying the storyline and it is based on actual events. There are a lot of subtleties, many of which I know I missed because I just don't have the breadth of knowledge required, but that gives me good reason to keep returning to read it as I learn more.

[Ved Gupta · Rating 5 out of 5]

One thing that shines out is the peak of civil rights which was practiced in Athens. An artist is using real names of people around him and is mocking them savagely and is spreading anti-war sentiments but he is still under the protection of law and is allowed to practice his freedom. The play in itself is quite interesting and comical. The objects of mockery have been selected quite meticulously.

[Natasha Curulli · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love Aristophanes. I actually sat in the same spot and read this play giggling the while time. I have read a few of his other plays but this I r was a first for me. I'm writing and essay on politics and elites in Ancient Greece which prompted me to read this play and I actually loved it. Who thought homework could be fun? If your looking for a laugh and love the classics this is a must read!

[Ci · Rating 3 out of 5]

"The Acharnians" is the first of the war trilogy which leads to the more renowned play "Lysistrata". From my quick read (without checking all the footnotes to disentangle relationships or illusions), this play is a comic farce about a private property owner making a private peace during the War. It has some funny bits in it, but not very emotionally engaging.

[nizar · Rating 1 out of 5]

haha…

[David Sarkies · Rating 3 out of 5]

When it comes to War, very little has changed
(9 Nov 2012)

I sort of wonder about the date that this play has been set because it seems that they have dated this play to the early part of the Peloponesian War indicating that it had only been raging for about five years up to this point, however some of the internal evidence in the play does seem to point to an earlier rather than a later setting for this play. What I can notice is some of the things that the play does not mention: namely Pericles and the plague that swept Athens in the early years of the war. However was it does indicate is the idea that it was the farmers that suffered the brunt of the war, particularly in the early years.

I won't go into too many details with the beginning of the war with the exception that it had a lot to do with an alliance system that had developed in Greece after the defeat of the Persians. In a way this is quite reflective of the alliance system that had developed on the eve of World War I. Europe had effectively split into two camps, one headed by Britain and the other headed by Germany. Here we have a similar situation in that there was one group, the Delian league, headed up by Athens, and then a second, sort of non-aligned league, headed up by Sparta. In a sense it involved treaties that indicated that if one member of the alliance is attacked, then all of the members are attacked.

What we need to remember about the war is that it was Greek against Greek. Mind you there was still a lot of snobbery among the Greek states, and the Athenians were hardly the enlightened despots that we seem to think they are. Instead they are one of two superpowers, and if you allied with them you were expected to follow their rules. This was no pact of mutual co-operation and amity, but rather it was pretty much signing your sovereignty over to the superpower, and if you did things that the superpower did not like then you would be punished. In many ways nothing has changed in the last 2500 years, with the exception of the names. Some suggest that elections in the United States have no effect upon us in Australia, but the truth is that not only does it affect us, but it affects the rest of the world as well.

The war itself lasted about thirty years, and during much of that time it was a stalemate. Sparta was a land power and Athens was a sea power, and while Sparta pretty much dominated the Greek mainland, siege equipment was non-existent, and the Athenians were able to barricade themselves behind the Long Walls, and thumb their noses at the Spartans on the outside. However the people who were affected were the farmers whose livelihood existed outside of the walls of Athens. When the Spartans invaded Attica, they laid waste to the countryside and forced all of the farmers to take shelter in the city. Over time this led to overcrowding and in turn disease, which pretty much decimated the population (and as mentioned there is no mention of the disease in this play).

Understandably this play is about a farmer who has suffered more due to the war than have many of the city people, who seem to have the loudest voices in the assembly. The farmers have basically lost out, and since many of them were poor to begin with, only being able to survive on what they were able to grow as well as the excess that they are were to sell, while many of the city dwellers were able to sit back and relax and live off of their investments. Nothing has really changed in the nature of war, with the lower classes being the ones who fight the war while the upper classes are the ones who dictate the progress of the war from their mansions. However, this farmer decides that he has had enough, so he goes out and makes his own peace with the Spartans. Obviously he is fed up with all of this politicking because he knows that in the end he gets nothing out of it.

It is also interesting to see how nothing has really changed in relation to crudeness in the plays. We see base jokes here, we see base jokes in Shakespeare, and we see base jokes coming out of many of the movies that we watch these days. The interesting thing that I do note here, and in some of Aristophanes plays, is the issue of heterosexuality. I will probably say a bit more when I get to the Lysistrata, but it is interesting that many of us who know about the Ancient Athenian culture being orientated towards homosexual coupling see many heterosexual jokes in these plays, and in fact see mostly heterosexual jokes. In fact, it seems, that the Athenians did appreciate and enjoy heterosexual sex, though I also get the impression (and if you read between the lines with regards to the Megarian you will be horrified) that women are little more than pleasure machines with no voice whatsoever.

[Alies van der Ploeg · Rating 3 out of 5]

snap er vrij weinig van maar de droge stukjes zijn grappig

[Justin · Rating 5 out of 5]

First complete work I've read in Greek. Only took me 3 months.

[Abraham Tsoukalidis · Rating 5 out of 5]

An amazingly poetic, sensuous presentation of the blessings of peace!!!

[Illiterate · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fun, fast-paced, lewd satire on politics, populism, war.

[king bitchard 💜 · Rating 1 out of 5]

this makes no sense it’s vibes only. and the vibes aren’t even good

[ೄ Amets ⚢ · Rating 2 out of 5]

és la primera comèdia grega que m'ha fet riure en una (1) ocasió... that being said, la resta... 😬

[Reza · Rating 3 out of 5]

آخارنیایی ها اولین کمدی ایه که از یونان باستان میخونم و همزمان شگفت زده و عصبانیم کرد. شگفت زده از این نظر که نقش تقدیر و خدایان کذایی المپ و اساطیر به شدت کمرنگه و حتی تا مرز تمسخر هم پیش میره. و برام خیلی جالب بود که دغدغه های اجتماعی و سیاسی آریستوقانس و المان های کمدی نمایشنامه اش چه قدر امروزی و جذابه. چیزی که قبل از آشناییم با کمدی یونانی ازش میترسیدم و فکر میکردم با اثری در حد و اندازه ساتیر های پوچی مثل سایکلوپس اوریپیدس سر و کار دارم.
اما آریستوفانس (حداقل در این اثرش) نگاه به شدت محافظه کار و نژادپرستانه ای از خودش نشون میده، زن ها و دخترها فقط ابزاری برای ارضای جنسی ان، همجنسگراها اسباب تمسخرن (در نمایشنامه هایی از آیسخولوس و سوفوکلس رومنس های همجنس گرایانه مثل احساسات بین پاتروکلوس و آشیلس همتراز رومنس های دگرجنسگرایانه پرداخته شدن) و هر نژادی به جز یونانی وحشی و بربر و فروتر و احمق تر از یونانی. همین دلیلی میشه که آخارنیایی ها ارزشی که لیاقتشو داره برام نداشته باشه.

[Jairo Fraga · Rating 3 out of 5]

After reading many greek tragedies, I started with greek comedies.

This is an ok play, which the author, which has personal issues with Cleon, a pro-war leader. Aristophanes is against the Peloponnesian War, which is the main plot here, depicting his stance.

The end of the plot is the best part, when Dicaeopolis manages to trade privately with both sides. Lamachus must go to war and Dicaeopolis to a party with girls and wine. Lamachus returns almost dead, and Dicaepolis is drunk and happy, not caring about the war.

Estimated reading time: 2h

[J · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ehhhh