![]() ![]() 2 Consequently, in his edition Aristophanic obscenity remains unadulterated. 1 Henderson’s translation is remarkably close to the Greek. ![]() There is a selected bibliography, as well as an index to the commentaries.įor the purposes of this review, I will be comparing Ruden’s translation with that of Jeffrey Henderson in Staging Women (1996), and Douglass Parker’s 1961 translation (in Four Comedies by Aristophanes edited by William Arrowsmith). Athenian democracy, ancient Greek warfare, Athenian women, and Greek comedy are the topics addressed. She writes, ” Lysistrata offers by far the best odds of getting Greek comedy while getting some fun out of it.” Four commentaries, each about ten pages long follow the translation. The translation is preceded by a very short preface that gives a few basic facts about Aristophanes and offers Ruden’s explanation for her choice of this particular play. I describe the cover in some detail because for me, it captures the spirit of Ruden’s translation perfectly: fun, brash, not afraid to be bawdy, but not always clear in intention. ![]() A few hold distinctly phallic sticks three of them peer at us from between the legs of Lysistrata. In it we see a more or less nude Lysistrata standing in a defiant position (although looking somewhat alarmed) in front of the chorus of old men, some of them ghoulish, some simply old, but all of them naked. Sarah Ruden’s translation of Lysistrata comes packaged in a hot pink cover featuring a slightly salacious line drawing. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |