What do you think?
Rate this book
Clouds
This new paperback edition of Aristophanes' popular play includes the complete Greek text and extensive notes and commentary. Dover examines the two versions of the play, recounts the history of the text, and analyzes a number of problems surrounding the play's overall interpretation, including the Greek notion of right and wrong, the purpose of the chorus, and Aristophanes' sexual jokes.
416 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 424
About the author
Aristophanes
2,025 books646 followersborn perhaps 448 BC
died perhaps 388 BC
Comedies, including The Clouds (423 BC) and Lysistrata (411 BC), of Greek playwright Aristophanes satirize Athenian society, politics, and philosophy.
Only eleven fully known works of the only style of ancient Aristophanes ( Αριστοφάνης ) survived.
* The Acharnians
* The Birds
* The Ecclesiazusae
* The Frogs
* The Knights
* Peace
* Plutus (wealth)
* The Thesmophoriazusae
* The Wasps
People translated these works into many languages, and theatrical productions continue to stage or to adapt them.
Contemporary issues of Aristophanes include the ongoing Peloponnesian war, the structure of the city-state, the role of women in public life, and the influence of notably Socrates in shaping public opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristop...
died perhaps 388 BC
Comedies, including The Clouds (423 BC) and Lysistrata (411 BC), of Greek playwright Aristophanes satirize Athenian society, politics, and philosophy.
Only eleven fully known works of the only style of ancient Aristophanes ( Αριστοφάνης ) survived.
* The Acharnians
* The Birds
* The Ecclesiazusae
* The Frogs
* The Knights
* Peace
* Plutus (wealth)
* The Thesmophoriazusae
* The Wasps
People translated these works into many languages, and theatrical productions continue to stage or to adapt them.
Contemporary issues of Aristophanes include the ongoing Peloponnesian war, the structure of the city-state, the role of women in public life, and the influence of notably Socrates in shaping public opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristop...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 686 reviews
December 1, 2011
Sigh. I think I'm in the minority here, but for the most part, I just don't find Aristophanes funny. I found myself reading over passages thinking, Okay, I should be laughing, but probably ended up looking like this the entire time:
That is all.
That is all.
March 19, 2013
“Well, what do the slanderers say? They shall be my prosecutors, and I will sum up their words in an affidavit: 'Socrates is an evil-doer, and a curious person, who searches into things under the earth and in heaven, and he makes the worse appear the better cause; and he teaches the aforesaid doctrines to others.' Such is the nature of the accusation: it is just what you have yourselves seen in the comedy of Aristophanes (Aristoph., Clouds.), who has introduced a man whom he calls Socrates, going about and saying that he walks in air, and talking a deal of nonsense concerning matters of which I do not pretend to know either much or little—not that I mean to speak disparagingly of any one who is a student of natural philosophy...... As little foundation is there for the report that I am a teacher, and take money; this accusation has no more truth in it than the other... a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong—acting the part of a good man or of a bad."
Plato’s version of Socrates’ confession during the latter’s death trial (399BC) insinuates Aristophanes to be a conservative thinker, an affirmation later established during the play. Although several of Aristophanes’ works are a philosophical think-tank debating the validity of orthodoxy dogmas, his rebuttal to Socrates’ Western philosophy stemmed from the argument discourse on atheism (a grave offence in the 5th century) and deficient holistic theoretical rearing. Aristophanes’ dismissal of the ‘sophists’ philosophy outweighing traditional values by means of scientific reasons was acutely delineated through lampooning caricatures of Socrates and his school of reasoning. Thus, portraying Socrates as a dangerously hypnotic figure of modern values which could be detrimental to a just society; the complete idea of “one man’s virtue, other man’s vice” being ridiculed.
Despair, without which happiness would never be the nectar of the heart, is a demon mocking melancholic cries; a curse to human soul. The burden of his son’s gallivanting debts deprives Strepsiades from peaceful nightly reveries. He laments the day he got married, the root of his misery –Phidippides, his son. Anxious about his escalating financial woes, Strepsiades relentlessly pleads his son to acquire eloquent verbal skills as a plausible defensive method to escape the problematical debt. In a turn of unfortunate events, Strepsiades takes utmost responsibility of eradicating the prevailing misery by enrolling in the “thinking” school presided by Socrates himself.
Kierkegaard in his moralistically aesthetic tome articulates, “Aren’t people absurd! They never use freedom they do have but demand those they don’t have; they have freedom of thought they demand freedom of speech”. How truthfully one can assert these words to be, rightfully in the case of Strepsiades! A man ridden with monetary obligations to his lenders chooses to escape his moral responsibility by sheltering his shortcomings in the veil of eloquent orations; Strepsiades comes forth as a desperate man, yet, a coward to own up to his follies and chooses the art of glib as his weapon to envelop the quarters of corrupt thoughts. When questioned by Socrates on how would he win his case without any witnesses, Strepsiades resorts to the absurdity of abducting the moon through witchcraft; an obnoxious notion of lunacy and if vulnerably cornered he would kill himself as no can prosecute a dead man. Aristophanes satire screams the deviant tactics used by numerous scamming actors in various walks of life. The bankruptcy claims filed by corporate giants and public figures in bid to escape grave punishments are personified through Strep’s each irresponsible procedures. The question of suicide being the remedy of a defenseless acquittal however is debatable over humane grounds of self- sacrifice, though not escaping the cowardice stigma. On the other hand Phidippides, the carefree youth who initially mocks the Sophists for their preposterous sermons, ultimately succumbs to sophistry fluency exercising the training on his own father. Aristophanes’ handling of Phidi’s education as a metaphor exposes the intricacies of Socrates’ Western philosophy; the assault of Strep by Phidi rationalizing the violence as a equalized moralistic chastisement affirms Aristophanes’ fear of scholastic radicalism despite the fact that it implies the Aristophanes very proposal of challenging stagnated principles.
Soren Kierkegaard in Conspiracy of Irony esteems Aristophanes for his meticulous portrayal of a sardonic Socrates; " It is of importance first of all to be satisfied that the Socrates brought on stage by Aristophanes is the actual Socrates. Just as ancient tradition fortifies this conviction, there are various traits found in this play that either are historically certain or at least prove to be altogether analogous to what we otherwise know about Socrates." This seems a bit incongruous as both these thinkers stand under the same existentialists umbrellas. Further, the scene where Strepsiades derides Socrates for hanging mid-air cuddled in a basket questioning the validity of GOD ;uttering the inferential ‘Clouds’ to be superior (as events of thunderstorms, rains, etc...are scientifically proven to be the effects of evaporation rather than miracles) affirms the skepticism over Socrates ironical works. As Kierkegaard surmises, “The ironist, to be sure, is lighter than the world, but on the other hand he still belongs to the world like Mohammed’s coffin, he is suspended between the two magnets” ; a perfect case for Socrates mid-air illusion of looking down on Gods yet somehow he remains attached to the ground- earth. Speaking of ironical suppositions, one cannot overlook the emphasis on the Socratic Method used in the initial stages of Strepsiades enrollment in the “thinking” school; two opposite views pitted against in a series of debates to extract the beliefs and stance on an exacting issue.
Soc. And for what did you come?
Strep. Wishing to learn to speak; for by reason of
usury, and most ill-natured creditors, I am pillaged and
plundered, and have my goods seized for debt.
Soc. How did you get in debt without observing it?
Strep. A horse-disease consumed me—terrible at eating.
But teach me the other one of your two causes, that
which pays nothing; and I will swear by the gods, I will
pay down to you whatever reward you exact of me.
Soc. By what gods will you swear? For, in the first
place, gods are not a current coin with us.
Strep. By what do you swear? By iron money, as in
Byzantium?
Soc. Do you wish to know clearly celestial matters, what
they rightly are?
Strep. Yes, by Jupiter, if it be possible!
Similar concept is applied in the powering dispute between the ‘Just’ and ‘Unjust’ regarding the establishment of the education system. At this juncture, Aristophanes does not fail to impress the reader with his strong views on a holistic education. Rationalizing the need for a traditional yet, liberal education, he addresses his ideas through the ‘Just’ mouthpieces criticizing the “new unjust education” of slippery rhetoric and murky morals. Satirizing orthodox teachings Aristophanes elucidates the dire need to challenge longstanding societal decree, whilst adhering to moralistic virtues, an ignorant aspect with the sophist’s radicalism. Strepsiades setting fire to the school, the flea ridden bed onto which Socrates shoves Strepsiades, the thrashing of a father by his son on moralistic grounds, speaks volumes of Aristophanes’ disdain for scientifically rationalized atheist edification. Thus, it can be carefully deduced that the lampooning of Socrates and his methods was for the very reason of Aristophanes dreading that “know thyself” existentialism might take a sinister turn; a fear of sinners becoming saints. Aristophanes not only subjects Socrates’ philosophical teachings to logical reasoning, but criticizes his contemporary methods to impart the virtues of good and evil. The satire which now seems more to be a battle between the sophists and realists rather than a frantic solution to a father’s debt problems, encircles each controversial issue from religion, education and moralistic corruption.
Lastly, ‘The Chorus of Clouds’; the finality of Aristophanes’ hypothetical dogma. The symbolism of clouds bore utmost responsibility in diagnosis of Socrates atheist beliefs debating the eternal dilemma of religion v/s science as well become the voice of the writer; primarily being the voice of scientific validation, and in due course substituting as a virtuous mediator imparting the repercussions of ‘karma’; a boomeranging bitch that chants the "reap what you sow" hymn.
Cho. What a thing it is to love evil courses! For this
old man, having loved them, wishes to withhold the money
that he borrowed. And he will certainly meet with
something today, which will perhaps cause this sophist
to suddenly receive some misfortune, in return for the
knaveries he has begun. For I think that he will
presently find what has been long boiling up, that his
son is skillful to speak opinions opposed to justice, so
as to overcome all with whomsoever he holds converse,
even if he advance most villainous doctrines; and
perhaps, perhaps his father will wish that he were even
speechless.
“A choice is a radical one. And its radicalness still lies in the total redefining of the values of a human life. It is important to realize the compass of the redefinition. It isn't a matter simply of turning over a new leaf; the choice of oneself means rewriting the whole book.”
Taking Kierkegaard’s expressions in perspective I wonder if it is ever possible to live an aesthetically moral life or we as human are compelled to make a choice weighing the pros and cons that life throws at us. And, if undermining traditional values was detrimental to a well-organized social order then saints would eventually become sinners.
Plato’s version of Socrates’ confession during the latter’s death trial (399BC) insinuates Aristophanes to be a conservative thinker, an affirmation later established during the play. Although several of Aristophanes’ works are a philosophical think-tank debating the validity of orthodoxy dogmas, his rebuttal to Socrates’ Western philosophy stemmed from the argument discourse on atheism (a grave offence in the 5th century) and deficient holistic theoretical rearing. Aristophanes’ dismissal of the ‘sophists’ philosophy outweighing traditional values by means of scientific reasons was acutely delineated through lampooning caricatures of Socrates and his school of reasoning. Thus, portraying Socrates as a dangerously hypnotic figure of modern values which could be detrimental to a just society; the complete idea of “one man’s virtue, other man’s vice” being ridiculed.
Despair, without which happiness would never be the nectar of the heart, is a demon mocking melancholic cries; a curse to human soul. The burden of his son’s gallivanting debts deprives Strepsiades from peaceful nightly reveries. He laments the day he got married, the root of his misery –Phidippides, his son. Anxious about his escalating financial woes, Strepsiades relentlessly pleads his son to acquire eloquent verbal skills as a plausible defensive method to escape the problematical debt. In a turn of unfortunate events, Strepsiades takes utmost responsibility of eradicating the prevailing misery by enrolling in the “thinking” school presided by Socrates himself.
Kierkegaard in his moralistically aesthetic tome articulates, “Aren’t people absurd! They never use freedom they do have but demand those they don’t have; they have freedom of thought they demand freedom of speech”. How truthfully one can assert these words to be, rightfully in the case of Strepsiades! A man ridden with monetary obligations to his lenders chooses to escape his moral responsibility by sheltering his shortcomings in the veil of eloquent orations; Strepsiades comes forth as a desperate man, yet, a coward to own up to his follies and chooses the art of glib as his weapon to envelop the quarters of corrupt thoughts. When questioned by Socrates on how would he win his case without any witnesses, Strepsiades resorts to the absurdity of abducting the moon through witchcraft; an obnoxious notion of lunacy and if vulnerably cornered he would kill himself as no can prosecute a dead man. Aristophanes satire screams the deviant tactics used by numerous scamming actors in various walks of life. The bankruptcy claims filed by corporate giants and public figures in bid to escape grave punishments are personified through Strep’s each irresponsible procedures. The question of suicide being the remedy of a defenseless acquittal however is debatable over humane grounds of self- sacrifice, though not escaping the cowardice stigma. On the other hand Phidippides, the carefree youth who initially mocks the Sophists for their preposterous sermons, ultimately succumbs to sophistry fluency exercising the training on his own father. Aristophanes’ handling of Phidi’s education as a metaphor exposes the intricacies of Socrates’ Western philosophy; the assault of Strep by Phidi rationalizing the violence as a equalized moralistic chastisement affirms Aristophanes’ fear of scholastic radicalism despite the fact that it implies the Aristophanes very proposal of challenging stagnated principles.
Soren Kierkegaard in Conspiracy of Irony esteems Aristophanes for his meticulous portrayal of a sardonic Socrates; " It is of importance first of all to be satisfied that the Socrates brought on stage by Aristophanes is the actual Socrates. Just as ancient tradition fortifies this conviction, there are various traits found in this play that either are historically certain or at least prove to be altogether analogous to what we otherwise know about Socrates." This seems a bit incongruous as both these thinkers stand under the same existentialists umbrellas. Further, the scene where Strepsiades derides Socrates for hanging mid-air cuddled in a basket questioning the validity of GOD ;uttering the inferential ‘Clouds’ to be superior (as events of thunderstorms, rains, etc...are scientifically proven to be the effects of evaporation rather than miracles) affirms the skepticism over Socrates ironical works. As Kierkegaard surmises, “The ironist, to be sure, is lighter than the world, but on the other hand he still belongs to the world like Mohammed’s coffin, he is suspended between the two magnets” ; a perfect case for Socrates mid-air illusion of looking down on Gods yet somehow he remains attached to the ground- earth. Speaking of ironical suppositions, one cannot overlook the emphasis on the Socratic Method used in the initial stages of Strepsiades enrollment in the “thinking” school; two opposite views pitted against in a series of debates to extract the beliefs and stance on an exacting issue.
Soc. And for what did you come?
Strep. Wishing to learn to speak; for by reason of
usury, and most ill-natured creditors, I am pillaged and
plundered, and have my goods seized for debt.
Soc. How did you get in debt without observing it?
Strep. A horse-disease consumed me—terrible at eating.
But teach me the other one of your two causes, that
which pays nothing; and I will swear by the gods, I will
pay down to you whatever reward you exact of me.
Soc. By what gods will you swear? For, in the first
place, gods are not a current coin with us.
Strep. By what do you swear? By iron money, as in
Byzantium?
Soc. Do you wish to know clearly celestial matters, what
they rightly are?
Strep. Yes, by Jupiter, if it be possible!
Similar concept is applied in the powering dispute between the ‘Just’ and ‘Unjust’ regarding the establishment of the education system. At this juncture, Aristophanes does not fail to impress the reader with his strong views on a holistic education. Rationalizing the need for a traditional yet, liberal education, he addresses his ideas through the ‘Just’ mouthpieces criticizing the “new unjust education” of slippery rhetoric and murky morals. Satirizing orthodox teachings Aristophanes elucidates the dire need to challenge longstanding societal decree, whilst adhering to moralistic virtues, an ignorant aspect with the sophist’s radicalism. Strepsiades setting fire to the school, the flea ridden bed onto which Socrates shoves Strepsiades, the thrashing of a father by his son on moralistic grounds, speaks volumes of Aristophanes’ disdain for scientifically rationalized atheist edification. Thus, it can be carefully deduced that the lampooning of Socrates and his methods was for the very reason of Aristophanes dreading that “know thyself” existentialism might take a sinister turn; a fear of sinners becoming saints. Aristophanes not only subjects Socrates’ philosophical teachings to logical reasoning, but criticizes his contemporary methods to impart the virtues of good and evil. The satire which now seems more to be a battle between the sophists and realists rather than a frantic solution to a father’s debt problems, encircles each controversial issue from religion, education and moralistic corruption.
Lastly, ‘The Chorus of Clouds’; the finality of Aristophanes’ hypothetical dogma. The symbolism of clouds bore utmost responsibility in diagnosis of Socrates atheist beliefs debating the eternal dilemma of religion v/s science as well become the voice of the writer; primarily being the voice of scientific validation, and in due course substituting as a virtuous mediator imparting the repercussions of ‘karma’; a boomeranging bitch that chants the "reap what you sow" hymn.
Cho. What a thing it is to love evil courses! For this
old man, having loved them, wishes to withhold the money
that he borrowed. And he will certainly meet with
something today, which will perhaps cause this sophist
to suddenly receive some misfortune, in return for the
knaveries he has begun. For I think that he will
presently find what has been long boiling up, that his
son is skillful to speak opinions opposed to justice, so
as to overcome all with whomsoever he holds converse,
even if he advance most villainous doctrines; and
perhaps, perhaps his father will wish that he were even
speechless.
“A choice is a radical one. And its radicalness still lies in the total redefining of the values of a human life. It is important to realize the compass of the redefinition. It isn't a matter simply of turning over a new leaf; the choice of oneself means rewriting the whole book.”
Taking Kierkegaard’s expressions in perspective I wonder if it is ever possible to live an aesthetically moral life or we as human are compelled to make a choice weighing the pros and cons that life throws at us. And, if undermining traditional values was detrimental to a well-organized social order then saints would eventually become sinners.
May 3, 2016
Les Nuées sont une pièce d'Aristophane, un auteur de comédie Athénien de la fin du cinquième siècle avant notre ère. A cette époque, la ville d'Athènes était au fait de sa puissance, à la tête d'une redoutable confédération maritime, et au début d'une lutte sans merci contre la confédération de Sparte. Mais ce conflit n’a en rien arrêté une tradition maintenant solidement ancrée dans la culture de la ville, celle des fêtes religieuses qui donnent lieu à des processions et des concours : parmi elles, les Dionysies, une sorte de carnaval où l’on transportait un phallus géant dans les rues de la ville. C’est lors de celles du printemps 423 qu’Aristophane, auteur comique alors déjà connu, qui avait gagné le premier prix les deux années précédentes avec les Acharniens et les Cavaliers, présente la première version des Nuées. Il n’obtiendra que la troisième place sur cinq, un peu moins bien que les autres fois ; il remanie donc la pièce en 416 : c’est le texte que nous avons.
Le personnage principal de la pièce est Strepsiade, un campagnard qui perd le sommeil à cause des angoisses que lui causent ses soucis d’argent : il s’est marié à la jolie fille d’un citadin riche qui se pique d’élever dans le luxe leur fils, Pheidippidès, un paresseux à cheveux longs, et de lui inspirer une passion hippique ruineuse pour notre homme, lequel ne peut soutenir cet engouement qu’à force d’emprunts. Il lui vient alors l’idée d’apprendre à emberlificoter ses créanciers par la parole, et pour cela, se rend au « pensoir », lieu où Socrate prodigue à des jeunes une éducation intellectuelle, dont il entend tirer parti. Comme il a l’esprit trop rustique et trop épais, et qu’il est surtout obsédé par ses ennuis financiers, Socrate le renvoie, et c’est propre fils qui prend le relai. Strepsiade se débarrasse de ses créanciers par des impudences ridicules inspirées par les leçons qu’il a mal assimilées, mais quand son fils revient, c’est lui qui fait les frais de l’effronterie de son fils, lequel devient raisonneur et rebelle. De dépit, Strepsiade incendie le « pensoir » de Socrate et de ses disciples.
La pièce d’Aristophane est truculente, et fait mouche. Il s’agit d’une satire pour corriger les Athéniens de leur manie hâbleuse et raisonneuse : on en est venu à estimer l’esprit de finesse à un tel point que chacun rêve bientôt de tirer parti la simplicité de son prochain pour le duper. Ceux qui exercent ces talents de bretteurs oratoires sont donc particulièrement recherchés au point de faire de rapides fortunes. Les prétentions ridicules et malhonnêtes de Strepsiade tournent à son désavantage, du fait de son incompétence et de l’impureté de ses intentions, et il est bien puni de son aveuglement par l’ascendant que son fils se met à exercer sur lui. De leurs côté, les intellectuels jouent leur rôle de cible habituelle de plaisanterie. Socrate se fait gentiment mettre en boîte par Aristophane, et son côté rêveur et décalé le couvre de ridicule, comme lorsqu’un lézard chie dans sa bouche alors qu’il regarde le ciel d’un air béat, ou qu’il s’entête à nier l’existence de dieux pour soutenir des théories encore plus invraisemblables et tirées par les cheveux, qu’il enseigne avec un appareil de mystères plein de simagrées et d’emphase exagéré.
Chacun sait que Socrate est mort suite à une condamnation pour impiété et corruption en 399. Platon, dans son Apologie de Socrate, laisse même entendre que la satire faite par Aristophane dans les Nuées a influencé puissamment le jury, car c’est en effet les deux reproches qui sont en filigrane dans la pièce. Il vient alors une question: Aristophane serait-il donc un gardien des traditions, un réactionnaire qui voudrait prévenir ses concitoyens de la perfide et mauvaise influence des nouveautés introduites par les dangereuses doctrines athées des philosophes ? Est-il responsable de la mort de Socrate? Pour ma part, je n’y crois pas.
Tout d’abord, le contexte politique : comme le rapporte Thucydides, la guerre du Péloponnèse a très mal tourné pour Athènes. Outre la peste qui va frapper la ville entre 430 et 426, l’expédition en Sicile 414 (dénoncée par Aristophane dans les Oiseaux) va tourner au désastre. La sombre affaire des Hermès (voir les Discours d’Andocide), dans laquelle Alcibiade, le disciple de Socrate haut en couleur, avait été impliqué, augurait mal de cette expédition, puisque de général de l’armée, il se retrouve proscrit et passe côté Spartiate. Au final, 40.000 morts côté Athénien et la destruction de la flotte font que Sparte reprend l’avantage. Les difficultés vont raviver les plaies mal cicatrisées entre le peuple et les plus riches, qui s’estiment vexés par des lois qu’ils estiment trop favorable à la plèbe. Comme on le voit dans les Helléniques de Xénophon, en 411, une première révolution, dite des Quatre-Cents, met le pouvoir aux mains des cinq mille citoyens les plus aisés et les plus âgés. En 404, lorsque le général Spartiate Lysandre force Athènes à se rendre, le pouvoir passe aux oligarques : c’est la tyrannie des Trente, à la tête de laquelle se trouve Critias, un disciple de Socrate et cousin de Platon. Les démocrates sont persécutés, tués, obligés de fuir sur l’île voisine d’Eubée. On compte des centaines de victimes. Finalement, les deux factions se réconcilient, mais au terme d’un accord qui stipule qu’aucune poursuite en justice ne pourra être faite par les démocrates contre les oligarques à propos des exactions survenues pendant la tyrannie.
Tout ça pour dire qu’au début du quatrième siècle, la situation est compliquée à Athènes, car les démocrates revenus chez eux doivent cohabiter avec ceux qui hier ont assassiné leurs amis et leurs parents sans pouvoir demander justice. On peut se reporter aux plaidoiries de Lysias sur ce sujet, comme à celles d'Isocrate. Comme Socrate a été lié avec des hommes comme Critias ou Alcibiade, il me parait clair qu’il a été une sorte de bouc émissaire, et que sa condamnation a été un moyen de faire du mal aux aristocrates pour soulager un besoin de justice qui n’arrivait pas à se résoudre du fait des conventions établies entre les deux factions. Aussi, les écrits hagiographiques de Platon et de Xénophon(Mémorables) à l’égard de Socrate doivent à mon avis être regardés à la lumière de ce contexte. Je pense donc que Platon essaie, en suggérant qu'Aristophane aurait tel un démagogue entrainé le peuple à mal juger Socrate, de détourner l’attention de l’attitude de ses amis et de ses proches pendant la tyrannie des Trente. S’en prendre à un homme qui dénonçait dans ces pièces les abus venant de toutes parts est aussi un moyen pour Platon de ne pas trop jeter de l’huile sur le feu, et de soutenir ses théories : le peuple Athénien aurait été abusé par un poète au lieu de s’en remettre aux philosophes et à la philosophie.
A mon avis, Aristophane n’a pas tant que ça cherché à jeter l’opprobre sur Socrate : il s’en est simplement moqué avec à-propos. La gaucherie et l’enthousiasme de l’intellectuel est un lieu du comique grec (Philogelos). Platon illustre cette idée dans le Théétète, lorsqu’il évoque Thalès tombant dans un trou alors qu’il regarde les étoiles, et dont se moque une putain Millésienne qui passe par là. C’est plutôt Strepsiade qui est véritablement fustigé. La manière brutale dont il se venge le ridiculise plus que Socrate, et participe au caractère outrancier de la pièce bien plus qu’il ne représente un appel à brûler le philosophe. Ce qu’il faut brûler, c’est le fait de croire que la science puisse servir à être injuste, et la caricature de Socrate et de ses disciples en illuminés débiles perdus dans leurs rêves est le moyen de montrer que leurs spéculations, réduites à des calculs de saut de puce, des considérations grammaticales tarabiscotées ou des histoires de vents n’ont aucun intérêt, qu’elles ne peuvent finalement que nuire à ceux qui s’en servent pour faire le mal.
Enfin, je ne crois pas non plus qu’Aristophane se pose en défenseur des traditions contre les innovations. Il me semble au contraire nettement équilibré, car le père n’est pas moins ridiculisé que le fils. Par exemple, un des morceaux de bravoure de la pièce est la lutte entre le raisonnement juste et le raisonnement injuste, pour convaincre Pheidippidès. Les deux sont parfaitement outrés, l’un dans le rigorisme le plus caricatural, et l’autre dans la plus risible impudence : le comble, c’est finalement le raisonnement juste qui, bien loin de s’avouer vaincu, se rallie plutôt au raisonnement injuste. L’un ne vaut pas mieux que l’autre. Aristophane renvoie dos à dos ces deux excès. Pour Aristophane comme pour Brassens, le temps ne fait rien à l’affaire(♫). Également, l'athéisme délirant de Socrate n'est pas plus révoltant que la servile superstition de Strepsiade qui retourne vers Mercure dès que les choses tournent mal avec les Nuées. Ce n’est pas par des raisonnements, mais par la lumière naturelle que l'on voit ce qui est juste, et cette lumière éclate dans le rire qui éclaire le visage des spectateurs aux grandes Dionysies.
Sans doute la pièce ne sera pas au goût des plus délicats, car elle est à bien des endroits franchement grossier, et Ménandre plaira plus par la finesse de l'humour de son Théâtre. Personnellement, je trouve que cette pièce donne une idée très avantageuse du caractère joyeux, gai et plein d’alacrité et de bon sens des Athéniens.
Le personnage principal de la pièce est Strepsiade, un campagnard qui perd le sommeil à cause des angoisses que lui causent ses soucis d’argent : il s’est marié à la jolie fille d’un citadin riche qui se pique d’élever dans le luxe leur fils, Pheidippidès, un paresseux à cheveux longs, et de lui inspirer une passion hippique ruineuse pour notre homme, lequel ne peut soutenir cet engouement qu’à force d’emprunts. Il lui vient alors l’idée d’apprendre à emberlificoter ses créanciers par la parole, et pour cela, se rend au « pensoir », lieu où Socrate prodigue à des jeunes une éducation intellectuelle, dont il entend tirer parti. Comme il a l’esprit trop rustique et trop épais, et qu’il est surtout obsédé par ses ennuis financiers, Socrate le renvoie, et c’est propre fils qui prend le relai. Strepsiade se débarrasse de ses créanciers par des impudences ridicules inspirées par les leçons qu’il a mal assimilées, mais quand son fils revient, c’est lui qui fait les frais de l’effronterie de son fils, lequel devient raisonneur et rebelle. De dépit, Strepsiade incendie le « pensoir » de Socrate et de ses disciples.
La pièce d’Aristophane est truculente, et fait mouche. Il s’agit d’une satire pour corriger les Athéniens de leur manie hâbleuse et raisonneuse : on en est venu à estimer l’esprit de finesse à un tel point que chacun rêve bientôt de tirer parti la simplicité de son prochain pour le duper. Ceux qui exercent ces talents de bretteurs oratoires sont donc particulièrement recherchés au point de faire de rapides fortunes. Les prétentions ridicules et malhonnêtes de Strepsiade tournent à son désavantage, du fait de son incompétence et de l’impureté de ses intentions, et il est bien puni de son aveuglement par l’ascendant que son fils se met à exercer sur lui. De leurs côté, les intellectuels jouent leur rôle de cible habituelle de plaisanterie. Socrate se fait gentiment mettre en boîte par Aristophane, et son côté rêveur et décalé le couvre de ridicule, comme lorsqu’un lézard chie dans sa bouche alors qu’il regarde le ciel d’un air béat, ou qu’il s’entête à nier l’existence de dieux pour soutenir des théories encore plus invraisemblables et tirées par les cheveux, qu’il enseigne avec un appareil de mystères plein de simagrées et d’emphase exagéré.
Chacun sait que Socrate est mort suite à une condamnation pour impiété et corruption en 399. Platon, dans son Apologie de Socrate, laisse même entendre que la satire faite par Aristophane dans les Nuées a influencé puissamment le jury, car c’est en effet les deux reproches qui sont en filigrane dans la pièce. Il vient alors une question: Aristophane serait-il donc un gardien des traditions, un réactionnaire qui voudrait prévenir ses concitoyens de la perfide et mauvaise influence des nouveautés introduites par les dangereuses doctrines athées des philosophes ? Est-il responsable de la mort de Socrate? Pour ma part, je n’y crois pas.
Tout d’abord, le contexte politique : comme le rapporte Thucydides, la guerre du Péloponnèse a très mal tourné pour Athènes. Outre la peste qui va frapper la ville entre 430 et 426, l’expédition en Sicile 414 (dénoncée par Aristophane dans les Oiseaux) va tourner au désastre. La sombre affaire des Hermès (voir les Discours d’Andocide), dans laquelle Alcibiade, le disciple de Socrate haut en couleur, avait été impliqué, augurait mal de cette expédition, puisque de général de l’armée, il se retrouve proscrit et passe côté Spartiate. Au final, 40.000 morts côté Athénien et la destruction de la flotte font que Sparte reprend l’avantage. Les difficultés vont raviver les plaies mal cicatrisées entre le peuple et les plus riches, qui s’estiment vexés par des lois qu’ils estiment trop favorable à la plèbe. Comme on le voit dans les Helléniques de Xénophon, en 411, une première révolution, dite des Quatre-Cents, met le pouvoir aux mains des cinq mille citoyens les plus aisés et les plus âgés. En 404, lorsque le général Spartiate Lysandre force Athènes à se rendre, le pouvoir passe aux oligarques : c’est la tyrannie des Trente, à la tête de laquelle se trouve Critias, un disciple de Socrate et cousin de Platon. Les démocrates sont persécutés, tués, obligés de fuir sur l’île voisine d’Eubée. On compte des centaines de victimes. Finalement, les deux factions se réconcilient, mais au terme d’un accord qui stipule qu’aucune poursuite en justice ne pourra être faite par les démocrates contre les oligarques à propos des exactions survenues pendant la tyrannie.
Tout ça pour dire qu’au début du quatrième siècle, la situation est compliquée à Athènes, car les démocrates revenus chez eux doivent cohabiter avec ceux qui hier ont assassiné leurs amis et leurs parents sans pouvoir demander justice. On peut se reporter aux plaidoiries de Lysias sur ce sujet, comme à celles d'Isocrate. Comme Socrate a été lié avec des hommes comme Critias ou Alcibiade, il me parait clair qu’il a été une sorte de bouc émissaire, et que sa condamnation a été un moyen de faire du mal aux aristocrates pour soulager un besoin de justice qui n’arrivait pas à se résoudre du fait des conventions établies entre les deux factions. Aussi, les écrits hagiographiques de Platon et de Xénophon(Mémorables) à l’égard de Socrate doivent à mon avis être regardés à la lumière de ce contexte. Je pense donc que Platon essaie, en suggérant qu'Aristophane aurait tel un démagogue entrainé le peuple à mal juger Socrate, de détourner l’attention de l’attitude de ses amis et de ses proches pendant la tyrannie des Trente. S’en prendre à un homme qui dénonçait dans ces pièces les abus venant de toutes parts est aussi un moyen pour Platon de ne pas trop jeter de l’huile sur le feu, et de soutenir ses théories : le peuple Athénien aurait été abusé par un poète au lieu de s’en remettre aux philosophes et à la philosophie.
A mon avis, Aristophane n’a pas tant que ça cherché à jeter l’opprobre sur Socrate : il s’en est simplement moqué avec à-propos. La gaucherie et l’enthousiasme de l’intellectuel est un lieu du comique grec (Philogelos). Platon illustre cette idée dans le Théétète, lorsqu’il évoque Thalès tombant dans un trou alors qu’il regarde les étoiles, et dont se moque une putain Millésienne qui passe par là. C’est plutôt Strepsiade qui est véritablement fustigé. La manière brutale dont il se venge le ridiculise plus que Socrate, et participe au caractère outrancier de la pièce bien plus qu’il ne représente un appel à brûler le philosophe. Ce qu’il faut brûler, c’est le fait de croire que la science puisse servir à être injuste, et la caricature de Socrate et de ses disciples en illuminés débiles perdus dans leurs rêves est le moyen de montrer que leurs spéculations, réduites à des calculs de saut de puce, des considérations grammaticales tarabiscotées ou des histoires de vents n’ont aucun intérêt, qu’elles ne peuvent finalement que nuire à ceux qui s’en servent pour faire le mal.
Enfin, je ne crois pas non plus qu’Aristophane se pose en défenseur des traditions contre les innovations. Il me semble au contraire nettement équilibré, car le père n’est pas moins ridiculisé que le fils. Par exemple, un des morceaux de bravoure de la pièce est la lutte entre le raisonnement juste et le raisonnement injuste, pour convaincre Pheidippidès. Les deux sont parfaitement outrés, l’un dans le rigorisme le plus caricatural, et l’autre dans la plus risible impudence : le comble, c’est finalement le raisonnement juste qui, bien loin de s’avouer vaincu, se rallie plutôt au raisonnement injuste. L’un ne vaut pas mieux que l’autre. Aristophane renvoie dos à dos ces deux excès. Pour Aristophane comme pour Brassens, le temps ne fait rien à l’affaire(♫). Également, l'athéisme délirant de Socrate n'est pas plus révoltant que la servile superstition de Strepsiade qui retourne vers Mercure dès que les choses tournent mal avec les Nuées. Ce n’est pas par des raisonnements, mais par la lumière naturelle que l'on voit ce qui est juste, et cette lumière éclate dans le rire qui éclaire le visage des spectateurs aux grandes Dionysies.
Sans doute la pièce ne sera pas au goût des plus délicats, car elle est à bien des endroits franchement grossier, et Ménandre plaira plus par la finesse de l'humour de son Théâtre. Personnellement, je trouve que cette pièce donne une idée très avantageuse du caractère joyeux, gai et plein d’alacrité et de bon sens des Athéniens.
September 13, 2018
La commedia “Le nuvole” che leggiamo oggi è una rielaborazione che Aristofane fece (presumibilmente tra il 418 e il 421 a.C.) in seguito alla sconfitta subita alle agóni teatrali del 423.
Si tratta di una versione incompleta sopravvissuta nella forma scritta ma, a quanto pare, mai rappresentata.
Lo scenario si apre con il vecchio Strepsiade insonne per i troppi pensieri: è sommerso dai debiti contratti per viziare il figlio Fidippide il quale non contento gioca continuamente ai cavalli. Insomma la catastrofe è vicina e Strepsiade non sa come uscirne.
L’unica soluzione sembra essere quella di entrare nella casa dirimpetto:
il pensatoio, luogo dove Socrate e i suoi seguaci si riuniscono.
L’intento è quello di carpire i segreti e apprendere l’arte oratoria per manipolare i discorsi a proprio vantaggio.
A quel punto la satira entra nel vivo centrandosi sulla figura ridicolizzata di Socrate che Strepsiade trova in una cesta sospeso per aria per meditare.
Da lì i discorsi si fanno sempre più strambi e questo ridicolizzare è strumentalizzato da Aristofane per fare una caricatura delle nuove filosofie eccentriche per quanto riguarda le loro ricerche e manipolatrici nel loro saper rivoltare i discorsi.
Così si arriverà ad una gara oratoria tra il Discorso Giusto e quello Ingiusto.
Una competizione che è essenzialmente tra il vecchio e il nuovo modo di pensare. Tutto sotto lo sguardo delle Nuvole che rappresentano i nuovi Numi, la nuova religione che permette ad un uomo del popolo come Strepsiade, rappresentante della tradizione, di essere aggirato facendo cambiare di posto il torto con la ragione.
” Rida la sorte all'uom, che poi che il bàratro
degli anni ultimi scese,
di giovanili imprese
tingendo la sua vita,
con la filosofia viene alle prese!
Si tratta di una versione incompleta sopravvissuta nella forma scritta ma, a quanto pare, mai rappresentata.
Lo scenario si apre con il vecchio Strepsiade insonne per i troppi pensieri: è sommerso dai debiti contratti per viziare il figlio Fidippide il quale non contento gioca continuamente ai cavalli. Insomma la catastrofe è vicina e Strepsiade non sa come uscirne.
L’unica soluzione sembra essere quella di entrare nella casa dirimpetto:
il pensatoio, luogo dove Socrate e i suoi seguaci si riuniscono.
L’intento è quello di carpire i segreti e apprendere l’arte oratoria per manipolare i discorsi a proprio vantaggio.
A quel punto la satira entra nel vivo centrandosi sulla figura ridicolizzata di Socrate che Strepsiade trova in una cesta sospeso per aria per meditare.
Da lì i discorsi si fanno sempre più strambi e questo ridicolizzare è strumentalizzato da Aristofane per fare una caricatura delle nuove filosofie eccentriche per quanto riguarda le loro ricerche e manipolatrici nel loro saper rivoltare i discorsi.
Così si arriverà ad una gara oratoria tra il Discorso Giusto e quello Ingiusto.
Una competizione che è essenzialmente tra il vecchio e il nuovo modo di pensare. Tutto sotto lo sguardo delle Nuvole che rappresentano i nuovi Numi, la nuova religione che permette ad un uomo del popolo come Strepsiade, rappresentante della tradizione, di essere aggirato facendo cambiare di posto il torto con la ragione.
” Rida la sorte all'uom, che poi che il bàratro
degli anni ultimi scese,
di giovanili imprese
tingendo la sua vita,
con la filosofia viene alle prese!
January 14, 2019
I'm not really sure how you're supposed to review a play that has been around since 423 BC but...y'all, this was really funny. I found it unexpectedly thought-provoking and entertaining. I'm sure I missed most of the jokes since I just decided to read it without doing any prior research, but standing alone it proved itself quite fun. Possibly it helps that I have no opinion whatsoever about Socrates and did not mind him getting mocked. I'm not sure I "agree" Aristophanes position, but I admire the way he "set up the punch line" (so to speak.)
May 6, 2021
3.5
The Clouds
I read The Clouds more as a historical source than as a drama. I have read in many texts that this play contributed to Socrates' conviction and death close to twenty years after its debut. I was curious to see what Aristophanes could write that could contribute to the demise of such an eminent philosopher.
The Clouds satirizes the " new learning" and its impact on the education of Athenian youth. His target was Sophists, who taught rhetoric to construct winning persuasive arguments regardless of their truth. They provided this service for hefty fees.
The play centers around Strepsiades, whose son's love of horse racing has placed him in crippling debt. To evade his creditors, he enrolls at the "Thinkpot," a Sophist Academy run by Socrates where he teaches how to prove "that wrong is right and right is wrong."
Aristophanes portrays Socrates as a pompous, irrelevant intellectual who spends his time contemplating such weighty issues as the cause of the buzzing sounds that emanate from the backside of knats; that is when he isn't teaching sophistic argument.
The problem with this portrait is that it is untrue. Socrates was not a Sophist. He did not teach rhetoric. Instead, his focus was on ethics, and he sought to identify underlying constructs of abstract ideas such as justice or piety. Moreover, Socrates did not charge for his teachings and lived very humbly.
Plato claims that Aristophanes' portrait reflects the prejudices of the times and that this image stuck and invariably hurt Socrates.
In Athens, theatrical performances were part of religious festivals and thereby viewed by all the male citizens who were eligible for a jury.
I don't know if Plato's claim is valid. However, I live in Post- Trump, America, where many people still believe that the presidential election was "stolen", despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary." I worry that a disregard for factual evidence and a belief in the relativity of truth is a symptom of a democracy in decline. In this sense, I found the play eerily relevant.
The Clouds
I read The Clouds more as a historical source than as a drama. I have read in many texts that this play contributed to Socrates' conviction and death close to twenty years after its debut. I was curious to see what Aristophanes could write that could contribute to the demise of such an eminent philosopher.
The Clouds satirizes the " new learning" and its impact on the education of Athenian youth. His target was Sophists, who taught rhetoric to construct winning persuasive arguments regardless of their truth. They provided this service for hefty fees.
The play centers around Strepsiades, whose son's love of horse racing has placed him in crippling debt. To evade his creditors, he enrolls at the "Thinkpot," a Sophist Academy run by Socrates where he teaches how to prove "that wrong is right and right is wrong."
Aristophanes portrays Socrates as a pompous, irrelevant intellectual who spends his time contemplating such weighty issues as the cause of the buzzing sounds that emanate from the backside of knats; that is when he isn't teaching sophistic argument.
The problem with this portrait is that it is untrue. Socrates was not a Sophist. He did not teach rhetoric. Instead, his focus was on ethics, and he sought to identify underlying constructs of abstract ideas such as justice or piety. Moreover, Socrates did not charge for his teachings and lived very humbly.
Plato claims that Aristophanes' portrait reflects the prejudices of the times and that this image stuck and invariably hurt Socrates.
In Athens, theatrical performances were part of religious festivals and thereby viewed by all the male citizens who were eligible for a jury.
I don't know if Plato's claim is valid. However, I live in Post- Trump, America, where many people still believe that the presidential election was "stolen", despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary." I worry that a disregard for factual evidence and a belief in the relativity of truth is a symptom of a democracy in decline. In this sense, I found the play eerily relevant.
July 19, 2020
(۱) عوام فریبی ، مغلطه و دروغ گفتن در روز روشن ، سوگند خوردن به روز در شب ، ناحق جلوه دادن حقیقی ترینِ حقوق انسانی ، به حاشیه کشاندن متن و به متن کشاندن حواشی نه تنها مهارتِ سوفیست های باستان بود بلکه سیاستمدارانِ امروزی نیز فرزندان خلف آنان هستند. ریشه ی عوام فریبی و پوپولیسم را میتوان در گذشته هایی بس دور ، در دلِ افتخارآمیزترین و نخستین شهروندسالاری ها مشاهده کرد. باز هم تکرار میکنم که نمیشود تصور نمود که اشتباه آریستوفانس از روی سوتفهام باشد بلکه بیشتر از روی سونیت است. او همعصر سقراط و همشهری سقراط بود. آریستوفانس در ابرها همچون دوستدار هومر و همه خدایان است و از آنجا که نمیتواند در قاموس زئوس در قواره ی سقراطِ حقیقی و تاریخی بیاویزد ، قبای دروغینِ زربفتِ سوفیست ها را به اندام سقراط میدوزد. این شعبده ی هنری آریستوفانس در تحریک افکار عمومی ، دقیقا من را یاد خبرنگاری می اندازد که روی پرده مُخبر است و پشت پرده بازجو. باری سقراط در محاکمه اش تن به عوام فریبی و مغلطه و مقابله به مثل نداد ولی هستی اش تا به امروز چراغِ راهِ خردمندان گشت.
(۲) در دو قطب فرهنگی عهد باستان ، یعنی شرق و غرب ؛ به مرکزیت ایران و یونان ، از نظر فعالیت های هنری و ادبی تحرکاتی ناموزون جریان داشته است. ایرانیان به رغم سرور بودن بر دنیایی بس وسیع – از دره سند تا خلیج فارس در جنوب تا دریای کاسپین در شمال و تا آخرین مرزهای شبه جزیره اناطولی در غرب و حتی در مقطعی مقدونیه و رمانی و بلغارستان ... – کمترین آثار ادبی ��ز خود به جا نهادند. ولی یونانی ها با آن وسعت ناچیزِ جغرافیاشان ، بدون شک دارای فرهنگ و تمدنی درخشان بودند. علاقه و جست و جوی آنان نسبت به ایرانیان ( در زمینه ی علم و فلسفه ) گونه ای دیگر بود. روح شرقی گویا با اعتقادات و خدایان جورواجورش اشباع شده بود. فرهنگ شرقی نسبت به مسائلی نظیر زن حساسیت نشان میداد. این را مورخین باستانی نظیر پلوتارخوس هم گزارش کرده اند. ولی روح غربی به عقل تکیه زد و میدانیم که عقل تکیه گاهی ایستا مانند ایمان شرقی نبود. عقل پویایی به همراه دارد و همه پذیرفته شده ها را بار دیگر به پرسش میگیرد ، سعی میکند پاسخی شایسته و بایسته ای بیابد. ایمان ��رقی گمان میبرد که خالص است ولی همانطور که عقل را سرانجامی روشن نمیتوان متصور شد ، برای ایمان هم سرآغازی مطمئن قابل تصور نیست. شاید یگانگیِ عقل و ایمان است که سرآغاز و سرانجام بایسته و شایسته ای را ببار می آورد. روح غربی با بروی صحنه ی نمایش کشاندن خود ، روحش را با تمامی پستی ها و لطافت هایش به آیینه ی خویشبین کشاند. رفتارش را ، تصمیماتش را ، وضعیتِ درهم بر هم دموکراسی و استقلالش را – در مقابل عنصر پیشتازِ شرقی – به رخ شهروندانش کشید. شهروندانی که سهمی بسزا از این وضعیت آشفته داشتند و خود را در آن همچون سوژه ای به پرسش های پنهان میگرفتند. نه تنها خود را بلکه خدایان حسود و آزمند خود را نیز می دیدند. همین تحرکات است که روح غربی را از ایمان هومرگونه اش جدا میکند و به سوی عقل میکشاند و در جرگه ی یاران پرومته در می آورد. تحرکات فلسفی و فکری شرق و غرب بی نهایت ناموزون است و تمام درگیری ها در طو�� تاریخ تا به امروز متاثر از همین ناموزونی ها بوده است. همین فقدان و ناموزونی است که سبب میشود شرق در یک به برهه زمانی واحد با غرب و حتی به رغم تماس با آن ، ادبیاتی غنی نداشته باشد. در شرق مجال این تحرکات احساس نمیشود ، روح شرقی در ایمانش غرق است ولی روح غربی نخستین قدم های عقل را بر میدارد. اما عقل به تنهایی همچون ایمان به تنهایی کفاف نمیدهد. باری این سیر تاریخی باید تا امروز کشیده میشد تا کارآمدی و یگانگیِ عقل و ایمان بر ما هویدا شود. ته مانده ایمان مسیحی بعد از رنسانس و به تدریج خشکید و به کنج دخمه های کلیسا خزید. ایمان شرقی در چند سده نخست هجری – بویژه در ایران – مجال پالودگی خردمندانه ای یافت و چه بسا میتوانست رنسانسی زودهنگام شود ولی استبداد شرقی اینبار در عبای خلفا آن را در نطفه خفه نمود تا صوفی در کنج عزلت به ریش عقل بخندد و سوار بر سیمرغِ تصوف و ایمان بی خاصیتش به منبع پرواز – خدا – بازگردد. و این یعنی یکسره دور افتادن از اجتماع و واقیعت و کنشگری.
(۳) اهمیت نمایش در یونان وابسته به عقل و عقل گرایی نیست. چه بسا بهترین مناظر را هومر از پهلوانان گرفته تا خدایان در ایلیاد و اودیسه پیش روی چشم یونانیان نهاد ولی این عقلگرایی و زمینی شدن فلسفه بود که سبب شد با نگاهی ریزبینانه تر به آن دنیای هومری نگریسته شود. چشمشان به اندرون خویش و وقایع مسلح گشت. علی رغم اهانت ها و مبالغه ها بیداری و وحدت را علیه دریکِ پارسیان تبلیغ نمود. برای نمونه نمایشنامه های آشیل آوانگارد بود و یونانیان را به اتحاد دعوت میکرد. بگذریم از تاثیراتی که همین عقل گرایی و فلسفه در هیات فکری ارسطو و با بازوان اسکندر ، آخرین ضربه ی مهلک را به هخامنشیان وارد کرد و فصل جدیدی را بروی شرق و غرب باز نمود.
۲۹ تیر۹۹
October 21, 2014
The Clouds may be the best play I've read so far from Aristophanes. It's the cleverest in satire as well as genuinely funny- I mean, if an ancient play can make me laugh as much as an Oscar Wilde play makes me laugh, that's a very, very good sign for what's to come in the future.
In this play, Aristophanes attacks and satirizes Socrates and his followers/students, making them seem ridiculous and illogical. In fact, Aristophanes includes Socrates as a character, who is portrayed as a great teacher who is actually a bit absurd in nature. As he attempts to educate the son of the main character, Strepisiades, more and more of that ridiculousness comes to light. Essentially, the main character wants his son to be educated in "The Thinkery" by Socrates to rid his son of expensive wants such as horses. When the son refuses, Strepisiades enrolls instead. However, the education doesn't really work out that well, ending with humorous chaos all around.
The Chorus is probably one of the best parts of this play, to be frank. Aside from the odd choice of making them literal clouds, Aristophanes really uses them to break the fourth wall. In one section, the chorus is basically telling the audience that the play they're watching is a clever play that desverves to win a competition. In fact, they even take off their cloud costumes to do this. Talk about fourth wall!
Now, I was definitely interested in learning what the real relations were between Aristophanes and Socrates. I was pleased to learn that they apparently got along fine and were good friends- Aristophanes never really meant for the portrayal in The Clouds to be taken too seriously. Knowing this, I can kind of see how this farce is basically a playful mockery that's meant to be taken with a grain of salt.
"STREPSIDAES: O! To be sure,
Truffles! You there, don't trouble about that!
I'll tell you where the best and finest grow.
Look! Why do those stoop down so very much?
STUDENT: They're diving deep into the deepest secrets.
ST: Then why's their rump turned up towards
the sky?
STU: It's taking private lessons on the stars."
In this play, Aristophanes attacks and satirizes Socrates and his followers/students, making them seem ridiculous and illogical. In fact, Aristophanes includes Socrates as a character, who is portrayed as a great teacher who is actually a bit absurd in nature. As he attempts to educate the son of the main character, Strepisiades, more and more of that ridiculousness comes to light. Essentially, the main character wants his son to be educated in "The Thinkery" by Socrates to rid his son of expensive wants such as horses. When the son refuses, Strepisiades enrolls instead. However, the education doesn't really work out that well, ending with humorous chaos all around.
The Chorus is probably one of the best parts of this play, to be frank. Aside from the odd choice of making them literal clouds, Aristophanes really uses them to break the fourth wall. In one section, the chorus is basically telling the audience that the play they're watching is a clever play that desverves to win a competition. In fact, they even take off their cloud costumes to do this. Talk about fourth wall!
Now, I was definitely interested in learning what the real relations were between Aristophanes and Socrates. I was pleased to learn that they apparently got along fine and were good friends- Aristophanes never really meant for the portrayal in The Clouds to be taken too seriously. Knowing this, I can kind of see how this farce is basically a playful mockery that's meant to be taken with a grain of salt.
"STREPSIDAES: O! To be sure,
Truffles! You there, don't trouble about that!
I'll tell you where the best and finest grow.
Look! Why do those stoop down so very much?
STUDENT: They're diving deep into the deepest secrets.
ST: Then why's their rump turned up towards
the sky?
STU: It's taking private lessons on the stars."
June 26, 2016
ο γνωστός κλασικός διαχρονικός Αριστοφάνης, για το πώς κάποια πράγματα μπορεί να σου γυρίσουν τούμπα, με εκπληκτικό debate ανάμεσα στο δίκαιο και τον άδικο λόγο, αναδεικνύοντας τα χαρακτηριστικά της ανθρώπινης φύσης!
June 25, 2015
ترجمه روان است.
مترجم در مقدمه می گوید که اسامی را مطابق تلفظ یونانی آورده، اما دست کم شش جور اشکال در این اقدام او هست.
1. سقراط را دیگر نباید سکراتیس نوشت
2. ذیاس و زئوس به تناوب تکرار شده اند و مراد از هر دو، زئوس است
3. خایرفون را خرفون آورده، با اینکه صورت یونانی آن را در یادداشت ها آورده
ΧΑΙΡΕΦΩΝ
4. دلتا را ذ می نویسد.
5. اوپسیلون را ی می نویسد
6. اتا را ی می نویسد، مثلا آریستوفانیس و نه آریستوفانس
نکته جالب این نمایشنامه برای من اینه که حتی در یونان باستان هم آدم خر پیدا می شده. یعنی جز تهران خودمون، آتن هم خر کم نداشته.
دوم اینکه، سقراط رو علنا سوفیست نشون میده، کسی که ناحق رو حق جلوه می ده.
سوم اینکه میشه درک کرد که اشراف و اعیان آتن از کجای کار سقراط عصبی می شدن: از اینکه این آدم با استدلال و عقل ورزی می خواد آیین ها و سنت های قدیمی رو ��یر سوال ببره، ولو اینکه حرفش درست باشه.
ادعای عمده ای که علیه سقراط در محاکمه ی او مطرح شده، در این نمایشنامه هم مورد اشاره قرار گرفته اند. 1. رواج بی دینی، 2. فاسد کردن جوانان، 3. پرستش خدایان جدید و ...
ولی انصافا رفتار افلاطون با آریستوفانس در سمپوزیوم، منصفانه تر از رفتار آریستوفانس با سقراط در ابرهاست
مترجم در مقدمه می گوید که اسامی را مطابق تلفظ یونانی آورده، اما دست کم شش جور اشکال در این اقدام او هست.
1. سقراط را دیگر نباید سکراتیس نوشت
2. ذیاس و زئوس به تناوب تکرار شده اند و مراد از هر دو، زئوس است
3. خایرفون را خرفون آورده، با اینکه صورت یونانی آن را در یادداشت ها آورده
ΧΑΙΡΕΦΩΝ
4. دلتا را ذ می نویسد.
5. اوپسیلون را ی می نویسد
6. اتا را ی می نویسد، مثلا آریستوفانیس و نه آریستوفانس
نکته جالب این نمایشنامه برای من اینه که حتی در یونان باستان هم آدم خر پیدا می شده. یعنی جز تهران خودمون، آتن هم خر کم نداشته.
دوم اینکه، سقراط رو علنا سوفیست نشون میده، کسی که ناحق رو حق جلوه می ده.
سوم اینکه میشه درک کرد که اشراف و اعیان آتن از کجای کار سقراط عصبی می شدن: از اینکه این آدم با استدلال و عقل ورزی می خواد آیین ها و سنت های قدیمی رو ��یر سوال ببره، ولو اینکه حرفش درست باشه.
ادعای عمده ای که علیه سقراط در محاکمه ی او مطرح شده، در این نمایشنامه هم مورد اشاره قرار گرفته اند. 1. رواج بی دینی، 2. فاسد کردن جوانان، 3. پرستش خدایان جدید و ...
ولی انصافا رفتار افلاطون با آریستوفانس در سمپوزیوم، منصفانه تر از رفتار آریستوفانس با سقراط در ابرهاست
January 4, 2018
While this edition suffers from a too modern translation The Clouds resonates, all too self aware, castigating the audience, slurring them actually. This great farce takes aim at the secular university and the godless wiseasses it produces.
As Goodreads friend Sologdin noted, it is intriguing to see Socrates cast as a pre-Socratic. Much like Derrida’s post card.
A middle class father is deep in debt as a result of his son's lavish lifestyle. Father hopes education will allow the son to use logic and rhetoric to defeat these legal challenges. Son learns well and eventually canes his father.
The pale effeminate world of the sophists is ridiculed at every turn, though I wasn’t expecting the apocalyptic conclusion.
I recommend this satire at those who can still giggle with Deconstruction.
As Goodreads friend Sologdin noted, it is intriguing to see Socrates cast as a pre-Socratic. Much like Derrida’s post card.
A middle class father is deep in debt as a result of his son's lavish lifestyle. Father hopes education will allow the son to use logic and rhetoric to defeat these legal challenges. Son learns well and eventually canes his father.
The pale effeminate world of the sophists is ridiculed at every turn, though I wasn’t expecting the apocalyptic conclusion.
I recommend this satire at those who can still giggle with Deconstruction.
December 17, 2020
سقراط در دفاعیه (آپولوژی) به این نمایشنامه اشاره میکند و تلاش میکند خود را از گزند اتهاماتی که بر او وارد میسازد رها سازد. آریستوفانس در ابرها، سقراط را در کالبد یک سوفسطائیِ نمایش میدهد و صریحاً او را به سخره میگیرد. سقراط سوفسطائی نبود، گرچه با آنها اشتراکاتی داشت.
این اثر در فهمِ جوِ فکریِ قرنِ پنجم ق.م و دلایلِ بدنامیِ سوفسطائیان بسیار موثر است. گاتری در تاریخاش، در جلدِ مربوط سقراط، به شکلی همهجانبه در موردِ دلایلِ آریستوفانس برای گنجاندنِ *سقراط* در ابرها سخن میراند.
این اثر در فهمِ جوِ فکریِ قرنِ پنجم ق.م و دلایلِ بدنامیِ سوفسطائیان بسیار موثر است. گاتری در تاریخاش، در جلدِ مربوط سقراط، به شکلی همهجانبه در موردِ دلایلِ آریستوفانس برای گنجاندنِ *سقراط* در ابرها سخن میراند.
September 7, 2022
خوب بود علیرغم این همه فاصلهی زمانی،اجرای صوتی نمایشی این اثر بسیار من رو خندوند.
هرچند کنایات و هجو سقراط است،اما بهرروی هجو شرایط جامعهی دوران خودش هم هست.
هرچند کنایات و هجو سقراط است،اما بهرروی هجو شرایط جامعهی دوران خودش هم هست.
September 16, 2018
“Sempre cosí facciamo, a chi vediamo
che piglia gusto a fare birbonate,
finché poi lo cacciamo in qualche guaio,
sí ch'egli impari a rispettare i Numi!”
Un vecchio scaltro per colpa di un figlio spendaccione si ritrova pieno di debiti. Ecco che la sua idea è quella di diventare un bravo oratore per mettere nel sacco i suoi creditori e farla franca. E come riuscire nell’impresa se non affidandosi al grande Socrate?
Le nuvole sono i nuovi dei a cui ci si affida, dimenticandone i soliti e cari. Ma davvero basta cambiare i propri idoli perché la vita ci sorrida? Aristofane ne approfitta per mettere a confronto l’oratoria in un Discorso Giusto (la tradizione) e un Discorso Ingiusto (le nuove filosofie), ma non è tutto oro quello che in fondo riluce.
Una commedia piacevole che credo renda di più sulla scena.
che piglia gusto a fare birbonate,
finché poi lo cacciamo in qualche guaio,
sí ch'egli impari a rispettare i Numi!”
Un vecchio scaltro per colpa di un figlio spendaccione si ritrova pieno di debiti. Ecco che la sua idea è quella di diventare un bravo oratore per mettere nel sacco i suoi creditori e farla franca. E come riuscire nell’impresa se non affidandosi al grande Socrate?
Le nuvole sono i nuovi dei a cui ci si affida, dimenticandone i soliti e cari. Ma davvero basta cambiare i propri idoli perché la vita ci sorrida? Aristofane ne approfitta per mettere a confronto l’oratoria in un Discorso Giusto (la tradizione) e un Discorso Ingiusto (le nuove filosofie), ma non è tutto oro quello che in fondo riluce.
Una commedia piacevole che credo renda di più sulla scena.
June 26, 2023
Aristophanes found the teachings of the sophists absurd, and his play Clouds caricatures them with a sharp, funny dive into chaos. It’s a little puzzling, because he has Socrates as the head sophist, and Socrates was most certainly not a sophist, nor a fan of them. The translator of the Bantam Classic edition, Moses Hadas, explains that Aristophanes may have done this because he found Socrates’s mannerisms and behavior amusing enough to throw into a play that pokes fun at philosophy. It could be that Aristophanes was also mocking philosophy more generally, with its “impractical” studies.
Strepsiades the pragmatic farmer has found himself with various debts, and wishes for his useless son to go learn sophistry in order to get him out of having to pay them. His son refuses to go, so Strepsiades goes instead. Here he finds Socrates and other teachers doing all sorts of things that didn’t appear useful to a man with practical interests: measuring the jumping distances of fleas, learning about the farts of gnats, and using made up logic to win arguments.
Socrates explains some things to Strepsiades about weather that appear blasphemous but that carry a surprising level of scientific sophistication given the age. This is taken as mere philosophers challenging traditions and conventions. The clouds, or the chorus, keep the play pumping forward and splitting open the drama in poetic charm.
Right logic and wrong logic debate their merits through a rapid-fire exchange of verse, Strepsiades’s son is eventually brought in, and the twisting, arbitrary logic of sophistry is used to justify the son beating his own father, as events get out of control. Aristophanes managed to caricature both learning and those skeptical of learning, while sprinkling his play with amusing references to bodily functions, sodomy, sex jokes, language peculiarities, cultural oddities and misunderstandings, whimsical reflections on the employment of sophist logic, and criticisms of social norms like debt and interest and public attitudes toward philosophy.
It’s an amusing play that, like others of Aristophanes’s works, points to a lot of similarity between the modern and ancient world. I’d really like to see this one performed. I can picture a comedy that gets more and more out of hand, held together only by its poetic chorus and well composed sense of the absurd.
Strepsiades the pragmatic farmer has found himself with various debts, and wishes for his useless son to go learn sophistry in order to get him out of having to pay them. His son refuses to go, so Strepsiades goes instead. Here he finds Socrates and other teachers doing all sorts of things that didn’t appear useful to a man with practical interests: measuring the jumping distances of fleas, learning about the farts of gnats, and using made up logic to win arguments.
Socrates explains some things to Strepsiades about weather that appear blasphemous but that carry a surprising level of scientific sophistication given the age. This is taken as mere philosophers challenging traditions and conventions. The clouds, or the chorus, keep the play pumping forward and splitting open the drama in poetic charm.
Right logic and wrong logic debate their merits through a rapid-fire exchange of verse, Strepsiades’s son is eventually brought in, and the twisting, arbitrary logic of sophistry is used to justify the son beating his own father, as events get out of control. Aristophanes managed to caricature both learning and those skeptical of learning, while sprinkling his play with amusing references to bodily functions, sodomy, sex jokes, language peculiarities, cultural oddities and misunderstandings, whimsical reflections on the employment of sophist logic, and criticisms of social norms like debt and interest and public attitudes toward philosophy.
It’s an amusing play that, like others of Aristophanes’s works, points to a lot of similarity between the modern and ancient world. I’d really like to see this one performed. I can picture a comedy that gets more and more out of hand, held together only by its poetic chorus and well composed sense of the absurd.
July 14, 2015
Si mal no recuerdo, es la primera comedia clásica que leo. No sé si puedo decir que las prefiero por encima de las tragedias, pero sí que esta obra en particular me resultó entretenida... hasta cierto punto.
La historia parece sencilla al principio y tiene ciertas vueltas que no la dejan caer en lo simplón. Estrepsíades (cuesta pronunciarlo...) es un agricultor que tiene deudas, principalmente con Pasias, un acreedor. Con el fin de escudarse ante una posible demanda, quiere enviar a Fidípides, su hijo, a la escuela de los sabios, encabezada por el mismísimo Sócrates. Todo para que aprenda a hacer discursos que lo eximan de cualquier castigo frente a un tribunal.
Este argumento le alcanza y sobra a Aristófanes para ridiculizar a Sócrates y sus métodos y criticar a Eurípides y a Esquilo (como a mí me gustó mucho lo que leí de ambos autores, no compartí las risas). Los diálogos tienen un desparpajo que contrasta inmediatamente con cualquier tragedia. Aquí no hay ni héroes atormentados por su destino, ni heroínas sufridas. Los personajes, junto con las “personificaciones de”, cuentan otra clase de historia: la inutilidad del pensamiento, la peligrosa cercanía del abandono de los dioses, la pérdida del respeto por el otro. Esto no lo vuelca en un tono melodramático, sino que está potenciado por la comedia, que resulta ser una forma muy válida para advertir sobre ciertas cuestiones. Además, es un buen complemento de Apología de Sócrates: todas las acusaciones contra el filósofo están recopiladas aquí.
Entiendo que Aristófanes tuviera problemas con medio mundo y quisiera expresarlo, pero no me gustó demasiado esta obra. Los chistes soeces nunca me causan gracia y si le sumo que los personajes se comportan de manera odiosa, entonces no me llevo demasiado de la experiencia. El final se me hizo un poco brusco, sobre todo si lo interpreto como una forma de transmitir ideas. Me gustaría volver a Las nubes después de leer otras obras de Aristófanes, una vez que tenga el ojo más entrenado en la comedia como género.
La historia parece sencilla al principio y tiene ciertas vueltas que no la dejan caer en lo simplón. Estrepsíades (cuesta pronunciarlo...) es un agricultor que tiene deudas, principalmente con Pasias, un acreedor. Con el fin de escudarse ante una posible demanda, quiere enviar a Fidípides, su hijo, a la escuela de los sabios, encabezada por el mismísimo Sócrates. Todo para que aprenda a hacer discursos que lo eximan de cualquier castigo frente a un tribunal.
Este argumento le alcanza y sobra a Aristófanes para ridiculizar a Sócrates y sus métodos y criticar a Eurípides y a Esquilo (como a mí me gustó mucho lo que leí de ambos autores, no compartí las risas). Los diálogos tienen un desparpajo que contrasta inmediatamente con cualquier tragedia. Aquí no hay ni héroes atormentados por su destino, ni heroínas sufridas. Los personajes, junto con las “personificaciones de”, cuentan otra clase de historia: la inutilidad del pensamiento, la peligrosa cercanía del abandono de los dioses, la pérdida del respeto por el otro. Esto no lo vuelca en un tono melodramático, sino que está potenciado por la comedia, que resulta ser una forma muy válida para advertir sobre ciertas cuestiones. Además, es un buen complemento de Apología de Sócrates: todas las acusaciones contra el filósofo están recopiladas aquí.
Entiendo que Aristófanes tuviera problemas con medio mundo y quisiera expresarlo, pero no me gustó demasiado esta obra. Los chistes soeces nunca me causan gracia y si le sumo que los personajes se comportan de manera odiosa, entonces no me llevo demasiado de la experiencia. El final se me hizo un poco brusco, sobre todo si lo interpreto como una forma de transmitir ideas. Me gustaría volver a Las nubes después de leer otras obras de Aristófanes, una vez que tenga el ojo más entrenado en la comedia como género.
December 13, 2019
I love Greek tragedies, but have always struggled with the comedies. The tragic is tragic forever, but comedy is more subtle, more ephemeral, and it’s hard to laugh at anything more than a couple hundred years old. When I see Shakespeare comedies on the stage the audience always seems eager to laugh, but it’s almost as if everyone just wants to prove that they’re smart enough to get the jokes. But getting a joke and thinking a joke is funny are sometimes two different things. Shakespeare is great, but can’t make me laugh like, say, the Netflix show, I Think You Should Leave.
So, no, Clouds didn’t work as a comedy for me. It also didn’t really work as entertainment or literature. Part of the problem may be that I read a free, public domain version on my kindle. If I’d read a better translation with footnotes explaining a few things it might have been more enjoyable.
Clouds is still interesting to read as a historical document. I’ve been reading a lot of Plato and it’s really fascinating to see Socrates presented in a negative light here. Some of the blame for the condemnation of Socrates can be traced back to the false impression of him that is presented in Clouds.
So, no, Clouds didn’t work as a comedy for me. It also didn’t really work as entertainment or literature. Part of the problem may be that I read a free, public domain version on my kindle. If I’d read a better translation with footnotes explaining a few things it might have been more enjoyable.
Clouds is still interesting to read as a historical document. I’ve been reading a lot of Plato and it’s really fascinating to see Socrates presented in a negative light here. Some of the blame for the condemnation of Socrates can be traced back to the false impression of him that is presented in Clouds.
Read
December 23, 2016What's the deal with The Clouds? Things you should know:
1. This is allegedly the play that defamed Socrates so badly that Athens rose up and executed him.
2. This is a revised version of the original play, and contains speeches complaining that the play came in third place when it debuted.
3. This play is a brutal satire in the vein of Swift's A Modest Proposal, and it is more shocking than most modern comedies.
4. At its heart, this play is a debate between tradition and enlightenment/debauchery. Although the play is conceived with a traditionalist agenda, the non-traditionalist arguments are sometimes convincing. For example, the religion vs. science debate about precipitation and the debate over whether teenagers should toughen up by not wearing coats in the winter had me rooting for the new thinkers.
5. The play is also relevant because it parodies misdirection and ad hominem fallacies that are still used to (falsely) win arguments today.
6. I read the Moses Hadas translation, which is better than some, but far from perfect. Some of my thoughts on the more confusing points are found here:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
1. This is allegedly the play that defamed Socrates so badly that Athens rose up and executed him.
2. This is a revised version of the original play, and contains speeches complaining that the play came in third place when it debuted.
3. This play is a brutal satire in the vein of Swift's A Modest Proposal, and it is more shocking than most modern comedies.
4. At its heart, this play is a debate between tradition and enlightenment/debauchery. Although the play is conceived with a traditionalist agenda, the non-traditionalist arguments are sometimes convincing. For example, the religion vs. science debate about precipitation and the debate over whether teenagers should toughen up by not wearing coats in the winter had me rooting for the new thinkers.
5. The play is also relevant because it parodies misdirection and ad hominem fallacies that are still used to (falsely) win arguments today.
6. I read the Moses Hadas translation, which is better than some, but far from perfect. Some of my thoughts on the more confusing points are found here:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
September 15, 2022
اجرای صوتی این نمایشنامه به کارگردانی هاله رنجبر، که توسط «نوینکتاب» تهیه شده است، را گوش دادم و از آن بسیار لذت بردم. به احتمال زیاد برای مرور جزییاتش، نسخهٔ مکتوب آن را نیز تورق کنم. علیالظاهر این همان نمایشنامهای است که سقراط در «خطابهٔ دفاعیه» از بهتانگویی نویسندهٔ آن شکوه کرده است. در این نمایشنامه سقراط به صورت یک معلم سوفسطائی تصویر شده است؛ ادعایی که خود سقراط آن را انکار میکند و در مقام دفاع اینگونه به آن پاسخ میدهد: «تئاتر آریستوفانس [...] سقراطی نمایش میداد مدعی پرواز در هوا و دعاوی پوچ دیگر مانند آن، که روح من از آن خبر ندارد.» (شش رساله/ افلاطون، ترجمهٔ فروغی).
Read
March 27, 2016Read in the translation of William Arrowsmith.
November 2, 2021
Lektura, strasznie dziwna i nic nie zrozumiałam. :/
Read
October 11, 2022Bardzo się cieszę, że nie muszę oceniać lektur gwiazdkowo. Zawsze było to dla mnie problematyczne. Ciężko ocenić coś, co jest bardzo stare i jest napisane zupełnie innym językiem niż ten, którego aktualnie używamy. Tak samo fakt, że jest to komedia, a mnie raczej tutaj nic nie bawiło. Nie moje klimaty.
August 4, 2016
Ogni testo classico ha numerosi riferimenti al proprio contesto sociale e politico. Le commedie, che trattano di argomenti contingenti all'epoca di rappresentazione, sono ancora di più difficile lettura: perciò, è importante munirsi di una buona edizione con ampie note, capaci di contestualizzare le battute e fornirci informazioni sui vari rimandi ai fatti dell'epoca.
Questa commedia prende in giro la scuola filosofica dei sofisti, i quali sopravvivevano vendendo le proprie conoscenze. Infatti, erano ricercati per via delle loro abilità retoriche: essendo Atene una città democratica, imparare l'arte della parola era fondamentale per convincere il popolo e i propri avversari politici.
Purtroppo, alcuni iniziarono a nutrire troppa fiducia nell'arte retorica e iniziarono a credere che si potesse ottenere sempre ragione, nonostante i presupposti negativi, semplicemente parlando bene. Tale commedia prende in giro questa convinzione.
In più, è importante notare come la commedia metta in evidenza che con la sofistica appare il relativismo: infatti, ogni discorso può essere rovesciato attraverso dei buoni argomenti. La diffusione del relativismo mette in crisi la tradizione, perciò la commedia rappresenta anche il conflitto generazionale tra i vecchi che hanno una visione 'virile' e 'casta' della vita e i giovani che, invece, conducano una vita più gaudente e raffinata. E' il passaggio da una visione militare della vita a una più artistica e intellettuale.
In Aristofane si può notare una certa propensione per la tradizione e infatti rende le Nuvole le nuove divinità capaci di rappresentare la generazione più giovane. Le Nuvole, però, sembrano voler simbolizzare l'inconsistenza del nuovo che avanza. Di fatto, la sofistica con i suoi alambicchi retorici viene accusata di vacuità e malafede, fino a mostrarne la pericolosità autodistruttiva.
La commedia ha momenti esilaranti, soprattutto grazie alle lotte dialettiche strampalate che mettono in ridicolo la sofistica. Però, è più interessante in quanto documento che analizza la nascita e lo sviluppo di una nuova epoca del pensiero occidentale, attraverso gli occhi di un autore che difendeva il vecchio pensiero, la vecchia scuola.
Questa commedia prende in giro la scuola filosofica dei sofisti, i quali sopravvivevano vendendo le proprie conoscenze. Infatti, erano ricercati per via delle loro abilità retoriche: essendo Atene una città democratica, imparare l'arte della parola era fondamentale per convincere il popolo e i propri avversari politici.
Purtroppo, alcuni iniziarono a nutrire troppa fiducia nell'arte retorica e iniziarono a credere che si potesse ottenere sempre ragione, nonostante i presupposti negativi, semplicemente parlando bene. Tale commedia prende in giro questa convinzione.
In più, è importante notare come la commedia metta in evidenza che con la sofistica appare il relativismo: infatti, ogni discorso può essere rovesciato attraverso dei buoni argomenti. La diffusione del relativismo mette in crisi la tradizione, perciò la commedia rappresenta anche il conflitto generazionale tra i vecchi che hanno una visione 'virile' e 'casta' della vita e i giovani che, invece, conducano una vita più gaudente e raffinata. E' il passaggio da una visione militare della vita a una più artistica e intellettuale.
In Aristofane si può notare una certa propensione per la tradizione e infatti rende le Nuvole le nuove divinità capaci di rappresentare la generazione più giovane. Le Nuvole, però, sembrano voler simbolizzare l'inconsistenza del nuovo che avanza. Di fatto, la sofistica con i suoi alambicchi retorici viene accusata di vacuità e malafede, fino a mostrarne la pericolosità autodistruttiva.
La commedia ha momenti esilaranti, soprattutto grazie alle lotte dialettiche strampalate che mettono in ridicolo la sofistica. Però, è più interessante in quanto documento che analizza la nascita e lo sviluppo di una nuova epoca del pensiero occidentale, attraverso gli occhi di un autore che difendeva il vecchio pensiero, la vecchia scuola.
Read
July 7, 2016Μετά από την «Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους» δεν μπορούσα να μην διαβάσω και τις «Νεφέλες» του Αριστοφάνη, το έργο που έχει μια (μικρή, ίσως) ευθύνη για την άποψη του λαού για τον Σωκράτη (ταῦτα γάρ ἑωρᾶτε καί αὐτοί ἐν τῇ Ἀριστοφάνους κωμῳδίᾳ, Σωκράτη τινά ἐκεῖ περιφερόμενον, φάσκοντά τε ἀεροβατεῖν καί ἄλλην πολλήν φλυαρίαν φλυαροῦντα, ὧν ἐγώ οὐδέν οὔτε μέγα οὔτε μικρόν πέρι ἐπαΐω Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 19c). Αρκετά καλή κωμωδία που σατιρίζει χωρίς καμία αιδώ και τον Σωκράτη με όλους τους μαθητές του αλλά και άλλα πολιτικά πρόσωπα (Κλέων, Κλεώνυμος, Υπόβολος) και τάσσεται υπέρ της παραδόσεως και των χρηστών ηθών του παρελθόντος. Πολύ καλές οι σκηνές με τον Δίκαιο και τον Άδικο λόγο καθώς και οι «απόπειρες διδασκαλίας» του Στρεψιάδη από τον Σωκράτη. Η έκδοση από τον Κάκτο ήταν καλή και η μετάφραση του Βασιλείου Μανδηλαρά αρκετά ικανοποιητική και στο ύφος του κειμένου καθώς ήταν ελεύθερη και απέδιδε το ελευθεριάζον ύφος του Αριστοφάνη. Ακολουθεί μια σκηνή από την διδασκαλία του Στρεψιάδη.
ΣΩ: Ποιό μέτρο είναι το καλύτερο; Τι νομίζεις; Το τρίμετρο ή το τετράμετρο;
ΣΤ: Εγώ δεν βάνω τίποτα πιο πάνω από το τετράκιλο.
ΣΩ: Λες βλακείες, άνθρωπε.
ΣΤ: Άσε με τότε ήσυχο αν το τετράμετρο δεν ισοδυναμεί με ένα τετράκιλο.
ΣΩ: Άε στο διάβολο, χωριάτη, μπουνταλά. Ας πάμε στους ρυθμούς, να δω πώς θα τους μάθεις.
ΣΤ: Τί θα μ' ωφελήσουν οι ρυθμοί στο ζυμάρι;
ΣΩ: Πρώτα θα 'σαι καλός στις επαφές με το να ξέρεις ποιος είναι ο ρυθμός ο γρήγορος και ποιος γίνεται με το δάχτυλο.
ΣΤ: Με το δάχτυλο; Ναι, μα τον θεό, το ξέρω.
ΣΩ: Τί ξέρεις;
ΣΤ: Ποιό άλλο απ' αυτό το δάχτυλο; (άσεμνη κίνηση με το με��ιανό). Πριν απ' αυτό, παιδί σαν ήμουνα, αυτό (δείχνει το μικρό).
ΣΩ: Αχρείος είσαι και αισχρός.
ΣΩ: Ποιό μέτρο είναι το καλύτερο; Τι νομίζεις; Το τρίμετρο ή το τετράμετρο;
ΣΤ: Εγώ δεν βάνω τίποτα πιο πάνω από το τετράκιλο.
ΣΩ: Λες βλακείες, άνθρωπε.
ΣΤ: Άσε με τότε ήσυχο αν το τετράμετρο δεν ισοδυναμεί με ένα τετράκιλο.
ΣΩ: Άε στο διάβολο, χωριάτη, μπουνταλά. Ας πάμε στους ρυθμούς, να δω πώς θα τους μάθεις.
ΣΤ: Τί θα μ' ωφελήσουν οι ρυθμοί στο ζυμάρι;
ΣΩ: Πρώτα θα 'σαι καλός στις επαφές με το να ξέρεις ποιος είναι ο ρυθμός ο γρήγορος και ποιος γίνεται με το δάχτυλο.
ΣΤ: Με το δάχτυλο; Ναι, μα τον θεό, το ξέρω.
ΣΩ: Τί ξέρεις;
ΣΤ: Ποιό άλλο απ' αυτό το δάχτυλο; (άσεμνη κίνηση με το με��ιανό). Πριν απ' αυτό, παιδί σαν ήμουνα, αυτό (δείχνει το μικρό).
ΣΩ: Αχρείος είσαι και αισχρός.
May 28, 2010
If you don't laugh when you read this play, you simply don't have a pulse...
This play is "immediately-turn-you-into-an-actor-reciting-lines-while-walking-through-your-house-by-yourself-as-you-laugh" funny...
But one problem is, I suspect I will never see a live performance that lives up to the one portrayed in my imagination. Honestly a great play to read and probably an especially difficult play to pull off on stage. You need to be very reckless, loud, and have some eccentric, brilliant exaggerating performers... oh yes, and the right costume "props..."
PS. As the title suggests and as I recall, the play in this book is in GREEK, but the beauty of this edition is the English introduction... essential for anyone who needs a Greek contextual frame built around their understanding. Then you can pick up the play itself anywhere on the Internet for free... this book is highly recommended just for the intro on its own in any case...
This play is "immediately-turn-you-into-an-actor-reciting-lines-while-walking-through-your-house-by-yourself-as-you-laugh" funny...
But one problem is, I suspect I will never see a live performance that lives up to the one portrayed in my imagination. Honestly a great play to read and probably an especially difficult play to pull off on stage. You need to be very reckless, loud, and have some eccentric, brilliant exaggerating performers... oh yes, and the right costume "props..."
PS. As the title suggests and as I recall, the play in this book is in GREEK, but the beauty of this edition is the English introduction... essential for anyone who needs a Greek contextual frame built around their understanding. Then you can pick up the play itself anywhere on the Internet for free... this book is highly recommended just for the intro on its own in any case...
June 7, 2019
What follows is a transcript of an occurrence that transpired within my place of residence approximately a month before my destruction at the tiny, filthy hands of Frodo. An orc captain, Glumbarg, entered unbidden with a proposition of sorts.
Glum.: Oh great and wise Sauron, who speakest wisdom for and through all Ages, I beg of thee to hear my humble proposal, and to dignify it with no less than seven and one-half seconds of thoughtful contemplation! To have access to your great Ear, O Earless One, is beyond any honor I might have fant–"
Saur.: Speak.
Glum.: My gratitude, most magnificent Lord Sauron. Hast thou ever considered the military and tactical advantages bestowed by the great and heavenly enlightenment that accompanies deep and intricate knowledge of the digestive and intestinal systems of the common fly? It–"
I incinerated him on the spot.
Glum.: Oh great and wise Sauron, who speakest wisdom for and through all Ages, I beg of thee to hear my humble proposal, and to dignify it with no less than seven and one-half seconds of thoughtful contemplation! To have access to your great Ear, O Earless One, is beyond any honor I might have fant–"
Saur.: Speak.
Glum.: My gratitude, most magnificent Lord Sauron. Hast thou ever considered the military and tactical advantages bestowed by the great and heavenly enlightenment that accompanies deep and intricate knowledge of the digestive and intestinal systems of the common fly? It–"
I incinerated him on the spot.
July 8, 2016
Some things haven't changed much in 2400 years. What is a parent to do with a hard to raise kid? Send them to a good school, a thinkery. But to what end? So his kid can learn logic to outsmart his creditors and not be held accountable for his actions. #EducationGoals
Socrates provides evidence against a supernatural entity. Yet, no matter the scientific evidence, religion is hard to kill. The religious go against evidence and end up with stronger beliefs, no matter how illogical. All the while, the audience must praise the play as one would praise a god. Brilliant.
I felt at times like if this were written in the current day, Homer Simpson would be sent to Harvard, burn it down, and go back home to argue logic with his creditors in a comical and not quite right manner.
Socrates provides evidence against a supernatural entity. Yet, no matter the scientific evidence, religion is hard to kill. The religious go against evidence and end up with stronger beliefs, no matter how illogical. All the while, the audience must praise the play as one would praise a god. Brilliant.
I felt at times like if this were written in the current day, Homer Simpson would be sent to Harvard, burn it down, and go back home to argue logic with his creditors in a comical and not quite right manner.
April 20, 2017
I find it really funny how people think that "in the old days" everything was so much better and they were so much mature, but this play proves them so wrong!
I love the way Aristophanes got so offended by the third place that he re-wrote this play and made fun of how he did not win because of his dirty jokes. This comedy proves that even in the ancient Greece the humour were the same as now, and the presence of irony and mocking were ever so funny!
I love the way Aristophanes got so offended by the third place that he re-wrote this play and made fun of how he did not win because of his dirty jokes. This comedy proves that even in the ancient Greece the humour were the same as now, and the presence of irony and mocking were ever so funny!
August 4, 2022
Three plays by Aristhophanes:
Clouds: funny, coherent and often very clever.
Birds: pure blasphemy, sometimes very vulgar; has a complex structure but not coherent; sometimes long-winded.
Frogs: not too coherent structure, but lots of funny passages, sometimes flattened; also remarkably many references to current affairs.
Clouds: funny, coherent and often very clever.
Birds: pure blasphemy, sometimes very vulgar; has a complex structure but not coherent; sometimes long-winded.
Frogs: not too coherent structure, but lots of funny passages, sometimes flattened; also remarkably many references to current affairs.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 686 reviews