Lysistrata

Lysistrata is simply a play to prove women are evil and the reason evil came on to this earth. Actually the play shows one of the most brilliant ideas of all time, make love not war. When you take away sex there is no more war. the staging of this play should be over the top I believe the enlarged genitalia are essential, especially when it comes to the Spartan messenger "Is that a spear under your cloak?" [or are you just happy to see me?], sorry that what always pops into my head. But to go for maximum comedic effect I think the bizarre costuming has to be there, without it it is still a very funny play. But with it the audience doesn't only find it funny, but its funny every once in a while to just make everything bigger, everything exaggerated. I would still want them to wear the masks, because even though it kind of cuts down on expression a little I still think the could do enough if they play it very broad. There is almost no need to be subtle with this play. Especially the scene where Lysistrata proposes the play to the women, that should be broad women should be noticeably shaking at the very idea of giving up sex. Their voices should be quaking at the notion. The shift from we'll do anything but not that should be as obvious as possible because it's damn funny. This was one of my favorite plays to read not only because it was funny, but because there was almost no fate, ony one oracle reading that said if the women keep doing what they are doing they will succeed. It's just a really good idea by a really smart woman.

comedy vs. tragedy

Up until this point in this class, we have focused on many different ancient tragedies. However, while reading Lysistrata, I quickly realized that this play is gravely different from the rest – it is a comedy. This made me wonder what makes Lysistrata so different from all the tragedies. Sure, the script is comical, but what specifically lightens the mood?

I have been able to conclude that there are two characteristics of the dialogue in this work that help to brighten the ambience of the play and essentially make this work so enjoyable. The first is the blunt of witty diction. On many occasions the characters in the play are sarcastic, vulgar, or even make brutal threats. “I’ll tear the living guts out of you with my teeth,” yells a woman at one of the men. “Come, you wretch, lie down and stop bringing me things,” demands Cinesias at one point. These are two instances in which the dialogue is so informal that it is considered funny. One might say that the audience laughs at these particular moments in time because it is uncomfortable to interpret these lines seriously; but either way, the bluntness in these lines evokes laughter and lightens the mood of the performance.

A second element that helps lighten the mood and adds to the comedy of the play is the quick moving dialogue. In other works we’ve studied, there are fewer actors on the stage. As such each actor usually speaks in long monologues and very rarely has a single line of dialogue at a time. An example of this is in Agamemnon, Lines 561-588. Clytemnestra takes twenty-seven lines to explain that she is anxious for her husband’s return from war. In Lysistrata, however, there are usually many characters on stage at one time. The dialogue seems to jump quickly from mouth to mouth as new information in the plot is rapidly introduced to the audience. Lysistrata Lines 1000-1013 display this nicely as each actor has only a phrase or two. With such an active dialogue, the audience’s attention is easily maintained by the actors; thus, they are more engaged throughout the play (ie, cognizant of jokes and subtle humor). In effect, this quick dialogue prepares the audience for a funny show.
Therefore, I find that it is not only a sad or funny plot that determines if a play is a tragedy or comedy. In the case of Lysistrata, we can see that the dialogue and its style can help to create a more comical or light-hearted play.

Ha HA!

Sorry this was a little late..it's just that...shit happens.
What is catharsis? It is a peak of emotion, the highest emotional charge generated in a context perhaps. With a tragedy there is probably one grand catharsis; the one that usually makes us cry. With a comedy, we are dealing with a completely different set of reactions- that of laughter. Of course, maybe laughter and weeping come from the same source. Either way they certainly are produced out of very different situations, usually. I’ll use a metaphor. Think of a teapot; can you imagine it with a bright color, cute, full of water in its fat stomach? Of course, maybe you’re teapot is skinny, either way, there it is on top of a fire; water is boiling. We are the water; we have been taken from the sink, the refrigerator, wherever we come from and we have been placed in a situation, a journey; we have been placed over fire to react. I like to think of humans as rubber tubes full of rumbling chemicals about to explode at any moment (this is paraphrased from Kurt Vonnegut’s wise words). Well the water boiling is a chemical reaction; it is placed over fire and the molecules start moving, increasing in rapidity until they create steam. This steam then starts to build up in the tea pot, then at bursting point it comes out through a little hole and creates a whistle to indicate that the water is ready. This whistle is the peak. It is the catharsis of boiling water. When we are placed in front of a play we go through very much the same process. However, in tragedy this happens once; of course, mini catharsis’s can occur, but only one great peak will. In comedy, it’s almost as though we have become addicted to boiling tea: we are repeatedly reaching the boiling point. In Lysistrata this happens; it happens in every scene. It actually happens in every joke. Except greater catharsis can be attained with the feeding of a joke until it is just too funny, and that usually produces a scene. At least, it seems this way to me; I could be wrong. Anyways, in Lysistrata, with each scene we reach a catharsis; in fact, we could reach several peaks of emotion. For example, the first scene where Lysistrata convenes all the women to talk about sex is ridiculous- there is joke upon joke, but they all follow the same idea, actually they all follow each other. One joke could not work necessarily if the joke before hand hadn’t been said. I must quote: “Women! Utter sluts, the entire sex! Will-power nil. We’re perfect raw material for Tragedy, the stuff of heroic lays. ‘Go to bed with a god and then get rid of the baby’- that sums us up” (26). Oh my god, this is hilarious, I reached a boiling point just now in fact. This is so funny on so many levels. First of all she says that women are perfect for tragedies, yet they are in a comedy; in fact, their low status makes them perfect for comedy. But her reasoning why they are made for tragedies is so tragic it’s funny. She is not covert about women’s’ sexual lust. They’ll even go to bed with a god, and here I think she is making a reference to a tragedy by implying that women will get rid of the baby. She is making fun of tragedies and of stupid decisions. She makes fun of all those tragic heroines; and although those heroines made us sad, they have made a complete turn around and made us laugh. And Lysistrata is a heroine, in the form of a tragic Greek female. And she’s making fun of them. I don’t know, I thought it was pretty hilarious. The scene between Myrhinne and Kinesias her husband is perfect to illustrate emotion building up, then bursting, just as the husband wishes he could. It is interesting though, because the catharsis is not reached with the development of the plot; in comedy, it is reached in spite of the plot. It is very dependent on spectacle; every character must make an absolute mockery of their self, it is with them that catharsis is reached. It almost doesn’t matter whether the women end up winning and manipulating the men; it matters how Myrhinne will keep up the oath while teasing her husband mercilessly. It matters how the chorus of old men show their bush, and in turn the chorus of old women show theirs. What does that have to do with winning the war?! It has nothing to do with it, yet is has everything to do with it. Oh man, my pot is boiling, gotta go.

meditation 7

I found Amphitryon to be much easier and enticing than the tragedies to read because of the quick wit and underlying humor involved. In the tragedies we have read many of them have an extensive amount of long monologues where most of the plot is found and I cannot focus on them to understand what is going on. I had the same difficulty in reading Amphitryon, but once the first monologues passed, the play was all back and forth between the characters and all very entertaining. In the comedies we have read there if you read something and think it might be trying to be funny, it is, while in a tragedy I was always unsure of the underlying meaning. I feel that Amphitryon is much more direct with its statements and they are much more understandable than tragedies, or even to Lysistrita. I think in this translation of Amphitryon especially it is written to make sure the audience understands what is going on, and for their enjoyment- with Mercury’s opening monologue and asides to keep you caught up and add a humorous comment from the audience perspective. I really enjoyed that it was easy to connect this play to today’s times because so many movies, plays and books involve all the characters but one knowing something, but they know something is up and are trying to catch them in the act. I found it easy to relate to, “Ten Things I Hate about You” during the scene where Kat is trying to get the guy out of detention so she uses several diversions, including flashing the teacher so her friend can escape unnoticed. Amphitryon is just another story that uses the diversion tactic to keep other characters from knowing a secret, which is a topic easily relatable to and enjoyed by society today.

Amanda Mims Meditation

"Take sex for example. There's nothing funnier than the ridiculous faces you people make mid-coitus."-Dogma, written by Kevin Smith.
In class we were talking about sex, and how it is always funny; unless however you were the two prospective students sitting in on class, but them feeling uncomfortable made me think that everthing was that much more funny. And sometimes you do get the awkward laugh because it makes people feel uncomfortable, other times you get full out hysteria. Whether it be the act of sex or just talking about it, sex is funny. Sexual innuendos are always so fun to make and its usually quite simple to twist people's words around or to just change where the emphasis on the sentence is. And after reading Lysistrita it is easy to see that sex is quite universal, more than 2000 years ago they were joking about it just as we do today. It was suggested that we write on how to stage it, or rather how we would stage the play. I see it as very Saturday Night Live-ish. Original SNL, with slapstick and gimmics. Exaggeration is key, the Greeks exaggerated using masks and grotesque faces and bodies. I think it is important to keep the masks and the freakish bodies but make them more modern. I believe the play should also definately be performed for an audience of my peers because they would laugh at the same things that I would and I could enforce those more. The humor on sex is completely different with each generation, and as mature as we think we are, when it comes to sex...everything is funny.

meditation 7

When I think about how a comical play is staged I would believe that most everything is over exaggerated to make things seem comical. I could see there being weird or funny looking characters statues, and building. When I think of the type of props used in the play I think about the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The comedy used in the movie seems to be similar to this play and a lot of the things in the movie seem like they would fit. Through the movie I like how the men don’t have horses and make the sound of the horse while trotting around. When I think about what the costumes would look like I they would also be very goofy looking. The costumes would be very bright and very tight. Another way I figured the play could be staged is to make everything very serious. The movie Dr. Stranglelove has a very serious looking and believable set and the characters make the movie very comical. So I would either make the movie extremely goofy or extremely serious nothing in between.

Please, spare the eels!

Given the nature of this particular play, it's safe to say it would be well recieved by college students. It would also be interesting to have college students as the actors - God knows they've been exposed to such jokes, and therefore would get into the characters rather well. As for the set and costumes, I think it would be interesting to have things look serious - and then of course, the show is a comedy, and that dramatic illusion provided by the set and costumes is quickly lost in the din of giggles brought on by a plethora of penis jokes.

For an older audience, one less likely to collapse into fits of laughter at sex jokes, the play may need to be scaled down a bit. It might be good to take out a few of the rather blunt sexual references...just to give the impression that the play has an inkling of the concept of tastefulness - but not really. Sex sells, and even older people get a kick out of sex jokes - they just have to act all mature and not go into hysterics over them because they're supposed to be good role models and all that jazz.

blog 7

The play comes across as very comical and has little seriousness throughout each scene. If this play had some sort of serious or legit reason to be a tragedy of some sort, then I would stage it with dark curtains in the background and have the meetings between the women have a grim like feeling to it. This play isn’t anything like that though. Even the scene where the Old men are struggling while carrying wood, for the fire that they are making, is very calm like and there seems to be no commotion. Also the scene where the women who are not going to have sex with there husbands are to be arrested is very comical and there is very little physical contact. Therefore this play should have a calm comical feeling to it. The audience should feel as if nothing bad is going to happen. The stage should be well lit and there should be no dark spots. The audience should be able to see everything and nothing should be hidden from them.

Staging of Lysistrita

At my high school last year, I participated in senior directs, which is a contest among seniors as to who can put on the best performance. My codirecter and I put on a comedy and found it much easier to stage than previous dramas. Like we said in class, comedies contain characters and places that are accessible to the audience. I believe this allows the director to better understand how to stage certain aspects of the play. I can vividly see the Herald coming on from stage left in a bent over position, his tight clothing revealing everything. And the seduction scene? I think Aesechles wrote this in such a way that no matter who put this play on, at least parts of the same vision would be imagined. This is both bad and good. It is bad because it partially limits the creativity that the DIRECTOR gets to use, because of the set happenings that are going on that help make the scene funny. On the other hand, this aides in preservation of the play. We can learn a great deal about Greeks and their culture by the way plays are expected to be played by the playwright. (That's alot of "plays"). Personally, the characters in this play seem a bit over the top and charactiture. I would try to do my best to make everything in this play seem REAL. Characters, plot, scenery, everything. I believe this would heavily increase the shock value which means more laughs.

Meditation 7...Staging of Lysistrata

Title/Subject:Since the play Lysistrata is a comedy, I can picture the background as being somewhat bright and almost comical too. The brightness of the background will help to audience realize as soon as they walk in that this play will not be one that will get them down and depressed, like many of the Greek tragedies do. The background could have funny pictures of statues of men and women that represent how that gender is feeling at a particular time. Therefore the background would change as the story goes on.
I could also, and possibly even more, see the background as being very dull and just looking like a normal home or town. This probably makes more since to me because it would not take away from the humor in this play. Now the audience can focus fully on what the characters are saying and not worry with what the background is trying to say also. Here the lights would just be normal white, but I could also see dark colors coming into play when the men are craving sex with the women, and the women will not do it. The dark colors would represent how the men feel without their women. Then when a conclusion is met, a bright, bright white light would be shown to represent the mutual gladness of the men and women. This play could have several different backgrounds, but these are what strike me as what the staging would look like.

Sexual Innuendos Are Timeless

One literary device that will never lose its appeal is the power of sexual innuendos. Sex is timeless, it isn't like political satire, which you really need to experience to understand, or slang which cannot be understood without living during the time period. Whether the greeks are saying lines like "is that a spear under your cloak?" or Shakepeare is using a sexual pun to lighten the mood or Moliere, by placing characters in incredibly humorous and awkward situations, sex is funny. Someone said in class that no matter what the audience, sexual innuendos will spark a response; in an audience of church-going red hat ladies, it would induce shock and appaul the audience. In a group of college students, it would ensue chaotic laughter, hopefully. The reason sex is so commonly used in plays is because it is quick, easy, and always works. Sex is the quick fix to any writer's problem. Class on Monday is a prime example of sex lightening the mood and making everything that was said hilarious. Kirk's "up, down, up down," comment even caused hysteria. Innuendos also have a way of lightening the mood for the duration of the show, everything is taken sexually, even if there is nothing in the line implying sex. Sex fits into every show, whether the show is question is a Greek tragedy, a Shakespearean love sonnet, or a modern musical like Avenue Q, where puppets have sex on stage, sex is timeless.

Catharsis in Comedy

Title/Subject:Meditation 7

"Laughter and tears are both responses to frustration and exhaustion. I myself prefer to laugh, since there is less cleaning up to do afterward."
-Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

If there is anything we can learn from Oedipus, Agave, and the others it is that life is a fucking bitch. Suffering, humiliation, Bright Eyes’ songs, persecution, and desperation are only a few absolutely dreadful aspects included in the whole human experience package. And as tragedy so beautifully demonstrates, there is little or nothing we can do about it. I am inclined to believe that maintaining a sense of humor is one of only a handful of coping strategies we possess as a species to deal with this inconvenient truth.

As discussed in class catharsis in the Aristotelian sense is a purging of excess emotions. It is an intellectual experience that provides release from troublesome feelings of pity and fear allowing for true moderation in all things. However, there is also something very visceral about catharsis. It defies explanation and can often only be described in terms like squirmy gut and chills down the back. Catharsis is realizing that something beyond us has been evoked. It is this unexplainable beyond that can imbue us with a new passion to endure our sufferings as humans.

Comedy also possesses a cathartic quality. It is distinct from tragedy in that the emotional and physical responses are usually born from indulgence in the bizarre as opposed to strictly pity and fear for the doomed hero. The abandonment of social conventions also provides a sense of release. Tragic catharsis is a long, drawn out process while comedic catharsis is more like an explosion. Something that is funny strikes you immediately. Laughter is truly the best medicine.

"Is that a spear under your cloak?"

My initial reaction to reading this play was that it was very straight forward and right to the point. The sex references and jokes are very obvious, at least in my point of view. I know that would love to see this performed. There are, however, many groups of individuals who, if they even wanted to see it, would want it toned down a bit.
In the staging for a college audience, or rather, the typical college audience (this excludes the very conservative individuals), I see this being staged very close to what it is like in the script. The costumes would be very elaborate, and at the same time very scandalous. The set would be eccentric and over the top, to add to the comedic aspect of the show.
Now, for the more conservative group, who are brave enough to even consider seeing this show, I see the staging a little different than for the stereotypical college crowd. I see the set still being very large and elaborate, but I see the costumes being more conservative. There would be less skin showing, and less accented attributes on the women. There would also be some censoring of the lines, if possible, so they won’t be offended by some of the crude jokes.
Even though some of the jokes are a bit over the top, I think that is what makes this show so much fun to read. It’s the type of show that makes you wonder what on earth the author was on when they wrote it! At least, that’s what I was thinking. It’s a brilliant plot line, which, as we learned in class, people have actually tried. And it really makes you think about the effects women have on men, how we may, though we don’t think it, have a bit more control over them than originally thought.

lost in translation

I wanted to explore the subject of translation. We have discussed in class various translations of the plays we have read, mostly the wizard’s opinions on the different editors and their styles as most students have not read other translations of the plays. I read a different translation of Lysistrata than was in our book and upon reading the version in the book felt I had a different experience as a result. The version I read employed various accents and speech qualities, such as rhyming and cadence for coral work. The result was very effective. Reading it out loud also helped, but the work felt much more like a ensemble work rather than reading a classical piece of text. The other thing I noted was that the Douglass version (not the one in our book) went into far more detail with the dialogue of Klyonike and Lysistata so when I read the textbook version I realized there were a large amount of lines and details that were left out. So how important is it to remain true to the text? I usually am more upset with translators who deviate from the more authentic or literal meaning of the words (I can be real elitist like that), but not only do I not speak Greek, I realized that the playing with the chorus made it more fun and bearable, especially for one who generally likes to skip the chorus monologues. I am starting to understand the need for accessibility of these older texts. For instance, Everest’s version of Amphitrion contains many plays on meaning and word games that I have a strong notion do not come from the original text. However, if a playwright’s lexiconic brilliance does not carry over into another language how much room should the translator have for imposing his own little nuances into the work. I just have no idea how one goes about this sort of work. For others translation of Shakespeare or Joyce must be equally difficult. A man once tried to translate Finnegan’s Wake into Italian once. It took him the better part of two decades to do and when finished he stated that it was a fool’s errand. In theatre purpose can be found performance when we both as performers and as audience engage in the act of creation. We must ultimately find some meaning or connection in the work; we must in some way have walked away from the performance a better individual either by causing us to question ourselves or have found connection to our fellow man. When this does not occurred, we have all of us failed There are no original stories, no original ideas, the only thing that changes over time is the way we tell them and who we tell them to. These adaptations are meant to achieve such ends.

blessings be
Lord Addison

Meditation Seven - Is that necessary?

Title/Subject: Staging Lysistrata


I think that staging Lysistrata would be a lot of fun. Like class demonstrated, most people find this play humorous. I don’t have a lot of history with comedy, but I think it would be a great experience. For the purpose of this meditation, I’m going to be staging Lysistrata for a college performance with a college crowd.


I think that this play lends itself to a more elaborate set than, say, Prometheus Bound, but in keeping with the times and within a college theater department’s budget and ability. The set for the first scene where Lysistrata first reveals her plan would be completely different from where it was set in the beginning, simply because I don’t see the necessity for the set it calls for, at least not for my performance. I would set the scene in a marketplace, simply because I see that as a pretty usual place for women to gather and with their men away at war, I don’t see that there would be anyone they don’t want to hear their plans. I would have a few tables set up with baskets of fruit and other kinds of produce, maybe some dirt scattered around to imitate the ‘streets’ it would be on, maybe some other wares they could be selling from that time – meats, clothes, etc. Each different woman or group of women would enter from different sides of the stage while Lysistrata would stay in the middle of the group.


For the transition from the marketplace to the fortress where the seduction scene takes place, the two choruses would step out of the marketplace and down stage to have their argument while the set was changed. The fortress would be a low wall of brick set in the middle of the stage with a platform behind it.


As for the costumes, I would not have the stuffed and over the top genitalia. I do not think the college would approve it and I also don’t find it necessary to the story, just like I didn’t find the set all that important. I realize that at the time these plays were originally performed all of this was needed to make the show a hit, but I think that the work speaks for itself now. I would focus more on physical and vocal comedy instead of the comedy behind the costumes. I would, however, keep the ‘taboo’ lines in the play – I think about the shows I’ve seen at Austin College so far and the shows I’ve heard that have been done in the past and I am sure they would be fine.

Wisdom is Mortality

“Knowledge is not wisdom: cleverness is not, not without awareness of our death, not without recalling just how brief our flare is” (16). The Chorus describes wisdom as the elucidation of our mortality. By knowing this we gain power almost of immortality; we at least can live our life simply, humbly, without fear perhaps of the unknown (since we would know). Pentheus is young; perhaps this is why he cannot fathom death as a possibility in his life; this is the folly of youth- we are invincible for a few short years. This is such a contrast to Cadmus, who is aged, wizened, hoary; he understands such that he prepares for his death: he has made Pentheus his successor, he is concerned with his legacy (a form of immortality), and he properly fears the Gods because they have the power over his life. He frets over Pentheus and his daughter, knowing that they might bring ruin on themselves since they are unbelievers. They cannot know the power of the Gods, who do not know death and therefore do not empathize with those who are mortal. Respecting the Gods is respecting death, and life; it is respecting the frail balance of chance, teetering each day with dangerous possibilities. It’s interesting though to have a God wreaking havoc. Dionysus does not know death, even though he is associated with it. He cannot know the inevitable threat, since it does not hang over his life; in fact, his life is a non-life, since life exists only with death. “What is wisdom? What is nobler than to hold a dominating hand above the bent head of the enemy? The fair, the noble, how we cherish, how we welcome them” (37). To be aware of one’s own death must bring one to the realization of everyone’s death. Is that perhaps why it is nobler, to hold your hand over your enemy’s head, as opposed to having a bent head under your enemy’s hand? You have triumphed in wisdom! You have avoided that which your enemy is fated to! You also know death, without having to experience it. You have caused death to come, not on your own life, but on another’s unfortunate soul. You see it happen; you witness the last shuddering breath yet you live. It is almost as though you have fooled death and life together. Perhaps this is why we cherish the noble: they have possessed wisdom; they are the heroes of our cultures. However, when it is not an enemy killed, as in Agave’s case, then the outcome is banishment and suffering. Unless you are a God. Does Dionysus obtain wisdom? He cannot die, therefore how can he know how precious life is? Dionysus’ actions seem cruel, merciless; he is unbound by death yet he takes advantage of beings, which are. He causes a mother kill her son; he causes a faithful old man to lose his kingdom, all for the sake of his name. To Dionysus, his name and honor are far more valuable than human lives. He would kill them all if it brought honor to his name! This to me seems not wisdom. It is immaturity. Though the Gods may have more power, and are therefore to be revered, they do not have wisdom. They cannot care about their own lives; hence they must care about their names. With each human death, that they may cause, they only further the process of life in another species. They are forced to watch or perhaps manipulate life. They cannot partake in it. They are sad beings; they will never know value, importance, beauty because they cannot know the risk in loving these things. They can never truly taste the nectar as a human might because they cannot imagine a moment without it, because it will never come to them. For a few moments of glory, is the destiny of humans; it seems far more preferable than an eternity of boredom.

Meditation 3/7

In class we discussed whether ignorance truly is bliss. I agree with the cliche. Think about the reprocussions that were to happen if you knew when your own death would take place, or when you would find your soulmate or any other thing in life. Knowing that would ruin the days, weeks, months, years, leading up to it because you would not be able to live in the moment and fully enjoy every day because you are looking foward to something that isn't happening right that moment. Even knowing little things we look foward to them so much that we forget about other things, like everyone looking foward to spring break, but we're still in school and there is still stuff that needs to be done. Don't relax yet! Yes there is always a yearning to know and to learn, just like is shown in the play. But he would have been much much better off if he had just left the crazy women on the mountain be. It wasn't necessary for him to know about them, it did not expand his knowledge or make him a better person. It only weakened him as a person and in the end destroyed him. This only goes to show that ignorance is bliss.

Ignorance is bliss

Going back to my words on Oedipus Rex, the concept of blissful ignorance once again rears it's head in the Bacchae. I found it amusing how Dionysus was among the people the entire time, yet none of them realized who he was. Of course, if his identity had been known, the play would not have actually happened, and he would not have been able to play his games. I found him putting Pentheus into a dress to be particularly humorous, and that scene is a wonderful example of something that could not have happened had Dionysus been revealed as Dionysus beforehand. As for knowing thyself...the only person who seemed terribly sure of their identity and what they wanted was Dionysus. The women were Bacchic, and therefore not exactly in their right minds, if you want to get technical about it. Pentheus's mind was clouded by rage towards Dionysus. The joke was on him, because Dionysus was the one who got his way. (Just one thing I want to point out here - does it not spark feelings of unease when a stranger tells you to dress up as a woman and go towards certain death??? These Greeks were ignorant on quite a few things, in my opinion.)

Rising Action or Exploding Action?

The god Dionysis is very interesting. The city that disclaims his divinity and dishonors his name is sentenced (by him) to be in a state of madness and constant worship of him. However, what does this state of madness consist of? Orgies, drinking honey, milk, and possessing a septor that performs miracles and magic and whatnot. This does not sound like a very terrible punishment to me. Granted, then here comes Pentheus with his ideals and untainted views and he screws it all up. He ends up getting killed by his own mother and her sisters. Unfortunate? Yes. But this is not how Dionysis originally planned to punish the city. He was just going to make them go out to the mountains and be a little barbaric for a few days. That hardly seems like punishment. And then Pentheus does nothing different than what the rest of his city has already done: deny Dionysis right to godness. But this time he flips out and makes him dress up as a woman and then he's quartered and killed by his own mother. Was this like the last straw that broke Dionysis back of tolerance for insubordination? It IS a Greek tragedy, so extremes are played as usual, but I feel like there could have been a better rising action to it, then just Dionysis just exploding out of nowhere and taking out all his fury on one dude. Makes the reader really empathetic and sympathetic for Pentheus. I guess all of us have had a friend blow up on us for no reason, just because (s)he was stressed in general and then took it out on us. But I do not remember ever trying to be eaten by my friends or mother.

Meditation 6

In the play The Bacchae, I feel that the concepts of “ignorance is bliss” and “know thyself” are very relevant. Ignorance is a concept that could almost be considered a theme throughout the work. All through the play the characters never realize that they are doing everything with the God Dionysus. If the people had realized this, then none of the events in the play would have ever happened. Their actions would have been completely different. If they knew that they were among a God I highly doubt Pentheus would be dressing like a fool the way he did. I also do not believe that Agaue would kill her son. The concept of “ignorance is bliss” worked in Dionysus’ case, because the fact that these people had no clue helped him fulfill his revenge.
I also felt that “knowing thyself” was important in this play. Dionysus’ self knowledge of his plan helped him succeed. I also think that the other character’s lack of knowledge hurts them. If these characters knew what was going on none of the events in the story would have happened. It would also have been more obvious to them that they were being tricked by a God if they would have looked at events that happened in the past. These concepts seem to play a very important role in my mind to the development and the finish of the play.

Greek Plays, like Shakespeare

Shakespeare's work is unlike any other, with regards to writing style, syntax and recurring themes. Whenever a passage is read, in any sort of sense, if the author is strong, then their voice and style should be obvious. Just like it is obvious when a soliloquy from Hamlet is heard- the audience recognizes the style and identifies it as "Shakespearean". In this same fashion, Greek plays have recurring themes and are recognizable as well.

Incest, power, fate and greed are usually prevalent in a typical Greek play. The recognizable features make identifying a play from Grecian times incredibly easy. In Lysistrada, by Aristophanes, the women of the story use the sexual power they have over their husbands to manipulate them into ending the war which is plaguing the people of the cities. Greek literature is like no other kind of writing, it is able to successfully allow readers to understand specific circumstances and character choices. The language is beautiful, and like Shakespeare, a little long-winded at times.

No writer can achieve success if their writings are not distinct, recognizing phrases and sentance structure is imperative. While each particular Greek writer may not be recognizable, the style and the era is, and that is what counts.

JD'

I was struck by the suspense in Lysistrata particularly in the scene between Myrrhine and Cinesias.The greatest suspense for me was when the baby was brought out there was an extrEme feling of kriptoynite. I wonder how much the idea that a mother can not ignore a crying child is something in greek culture ,in modern American culture, or simply my own upbringing.We live in an age of career women and birth control.Yet I’ve met grown women who express a clear defiance to wanting to have children yet they avoid areas with baby socks and bibs in the mall because they’re afraid of giving in.Lystriata turns many ideas on it’s head if only mockingly.I think in society it would be perceived as much easier for a women to refrain from sex than a man.But Lysitata makes clear the strong urges of women.On the other hand Myrrhine is able to not give in to what may be steotypically viewed as the ultimate weapon against women a child.Despite the fact that the single “scariest moment for me was the bringing out of the baby the suspense of that whole scne is intense. I felt as though Myrrhine was playing with fire.There is a clear sense of the absurdity discussed in the intro.The other day I was watching A Bill Cosby Show rerun it was his wifes birthday and he kept tempting her with cake.But she refused.He’d pretend to give in but come back out with another cake by the end he had brought in 4 cakes and finally his wife was sticking her face in one.This scene reminded me so much of that bit.That the fate of a nation and the end of the war would rely on the kind of flirtatious foolery in the Cosby show is not just hilarious it’s depressing.It makes one wonder if there is really such athing as a noble passion after all why should revenge o any other emotion or drive be more dignified than feeling horny?Those are some of the questions this play provoked.

Meditation Six - Ignorance can be a blessing or a curse

Title/Subject: Meditation Six - The Bacchae

In class I said that I would rather be ignorant about a lot of things in my life than to know about them – when I’m going to die, what’s going to happen to me, etc. I realize now that I wouldn’t necessarily want to be ignorant of everything in my life, but I also realize that life could be a lot easier for everyone (at times) if they didn’t think so hard.


The idea of ‘ignorance is bliss’ is portrayed in The Bacchae. If Pentheus hadn’t been so curious about what the women were doing on the hillside, and if he didn’t have the presence of mind to try to force them to stop, I don’t believe he would have met the fate of death. You can also look at it from another character’s point of view – if Agave was actually aware she was killing her son, would she have really done it? Would any of the characters acted the same if they knew Dionysus was among them? I don’t think so. Whether a play is acting under the guise that ignorance is bliss or that knowledge is power, the fact is that wisdom, knowledge, whatever you want to call it, plays a major role in all the plays we’ve read thus far.

Meditation 6

I feel like Dionysus is just taking advantage of his powers as a god. He is really just screwing with Pentheus, by mocking him and making him look like a fool in front of his people. He works his magic like a magician to play Pentheus and make a mockery of him. I suppose Pentheus deserved it by not believing that he was a god or fearing the wrath of Dionysus, but I do not think it was fair for him to play Pentheus the way he did. As discussed in class, the idea of a compassionate god is not seen until the Bible rolls around and even then not until the New Testament. I see that Dionysus is just looking out for himself and only takes pride in his work as long as it pleases himself, he has no use for helping humanity or being merciful to people. So Pentheus should know that the gods are vengeful and not willing to help him out, wouldn’t he be more apt to pleasing a god whether he believes in him or not? I would definitely not want to incur the wrath of a Grecian god, isn’t that just basically sealing your own fate? Pentheus is too proud to let anyone get in his way of ruling and his destiny to become great to even accept the truth that Semele was going to bear a god for a son and that Thebes would worship him.

Pentheus was not about to let someone else into his kingdom that would take away from those who followed him; the inability to overcome pride is a regular occurrence in reading Greek tragedy, it seems that everyone is to boastful of themselves to admit that there could be someone better and it always ends in their demise. Pride also has forbidden people from seeing who they really are and that they cannot control their fates but that they will always do what they were destined to do, as with Oedipus. Oedipus cannot overcome his pride to accept that there was nothing he could do to avoid the prophecy that was given to him- while Pentheus cannot overcome his pride to admit that he was wrong about the god Dionysus and admit that he exists, which ultimately ends in his demise.

So in review, I guess that pride is a major factor on both sides of the equation here, Pentheus is too prideful to admit that Dionysus is a god and that he should be worshipped in Thebes just as the rest of the gods are, which causes Dionysus to toy with Pentheus and make a fool out of him because he cannot let pass the pain caused to his mother and him for Pentheus’ refusal to worship him. It seems to me that all these Greek tragedies occur because people can’t get over how wonderful they think they are, the world would be so boring without arrogant and boastful people wouldn’t it?

Meditation #6 The Bacchae -- Katie Marchant

I must admit that I was not looking forward to read The Bacchae. I haven’t enjoyed the other Greek plays that we have read so far and this one was really long which discouraged me even more. But by the third or fourth page I knew that it wasn’t going to be half as hard to comprehend for stay interested in as The Electras were. I really liked Bacchus’ opening monologue. After I finished reading I went back and re-read that section and felt like it conveyed the entire sense of the play in just a few lines. I really liked how the different scenes and chorus’ are separated, in some of the other plays it was hard to tell when the chorus began speaking to each other or the audience while in The Bacchae it was set apart into discernable sections which also made it easier to read.

One thing that kind of confused me and at the same time intrigued me was why Dionysus goes by so many different names. There is, of course, Dionysus, Bacchus, Bromius and Dithyrambus. I know we talked about this a little in class Monday but it is still a little unclear to me why, for example, on page 27 of the version Kirk sent us, does Dionysus say that Bromius appeared to him if he actually is Bromius? Is it because he is still playing the part of a common man?

I think that I must have a “thing” for word play because I feel like I write about how the word play of some character struck out to me. In The Bacchae I found it really interesting how Dionysus speaks to Pentheus. I like how much it enraged Pentheus that a man who was just a commoner would speak to him in such a degrading way and that when he tires to be clever Dionysus jumps all over him with something much better. (pages 28 and 33 for example in the emailed version)

Dionysus

Bacchus was merciful, bacchus tries to tell the king of Thebes hey if you do not respect me I'm going to cause untold suffering upon you. Why would go against a God? Especially a God who shows you miracle after miracle? The King was too proud, too sane to see what was right in front of his eyes " He's with me. You're unholy. You can't see." The King is given every chance to repent from his bashing of the God. He is told by messengers and even the god himself, hey you shouldn't be doing this Bacchus is getting mad. He is told of all the miracles the Bachae have been going Honey shooting up from the ground, women living in woods and defeating solders with wands. If you see all of this and you're in a Greek play and you don't repent you have basically screwed yourself over. Basically the play goes to prove that you should never go against the gods. " Besides even if the God isn't a God, believe him. Live with us. Don't break tradition." is simply the best quote to describe what the King should have done, even if you don't think he is a God believe in him anyway to save thebes and your family.

The Gods Must Be Crazy

How important it is to prove that you are a god. Dionysis is worshipped many places, but he is not worshipped where he was born. In fact he is insulted, mocked; his mother is considered an unscrupulous whore, feigning pregnancy by Zeus. What a stark contrast to our Christian Mary; somehow everyone believed her, or at least she had a husband to cover up her pregnancy. However, Semele did not; is this why she was so castigated?
Did the citizens of Thebes not wonder where her son had gone? Obviously Semele had a supportive father; Cadmus worshipped Dionysis, and did not blame his daughters for his punishment, when clearly it was their actions, not his, that brought it about. Of course, she did not have a supportive family, her sisters had started the rumors that Semele lied about the father.
They were in the wrong mindset; they were feigning sanity, as Dionysis explains. So he made them extra crazy. Dionysis thrives on insanity; he thrives on drunk devotees. He takes such pleasure in calm insanity; in fact, that’s how I would describe him- remarkably cool, wreaking havoc. As Pentheus is tying him up, his lack of reaction illuminates his stature; nothing can touch him; it is a wise man who practices patience. What a foreboding image. For the rest of the play I saw him with the same unaffected demeanor, yet his actions and decisions proved him to be a bit of a tyrant (please don’t smite me Dionysis). This combination is so deadly and terrifying.
He and Pentheus incredibly make juxtaposition; Pentheus is uncontrollable with rage. He actually reminded me of the prohibitionists in America- too much sanity. But he was so sane that he was insane; he dressed up in a dress. I would say that is clear evidence. I felt sorry for him though. He was just trying to be a good king, he was a young king; the only thing he could do was take care of his grandfather. What I think is interesting is the blood ties he has with Dionysis. He is Bacchus’ cousin; their mothers are sisters. Bacchus detaches himself from this family; he is only the son of Zeus, and some lone noble woman with a heart (or something like that). Only Cadmus really even approaches the subject of family; he speaks of the honor a God brings to the family. Cadmus seems to be the only one who sees, just as Tiresisas says in the beginning: “Only we can see. The rest of them are mad.” I wonder if he perhaps included Dionysis in that group, even though he worshipped him. I certainly consider him mad; for revenge he sets a mother upon a son. This brings about unspeakable tragedy. Was he so enraged for being rejected-because that is why he needs revenge, lack of recognition- that he needed to unspeakable tragedy? Has he no compassion, not even enough to prevent a woman from unwittingly slaughtering her own babe? What a vision of motherhood he has! However, he is also a young God. He and Pentheus are quite similar. They are both struggling to gain recognition for their authority. Unfortunately they are placed against each other, and so one must win. And who can outsmart a God, especially a God of wits? Dionysis clearly loves reminding Pentheus that he is a mere man. Well, whatever makes him feel better (just kidding Dionysis, please don’t kill me). Somehow I feel like this was a bit of a tragicomedy. The noble citizens of Thebes were puppets, moved about according to Dionysis’ will. Isn’t this low status somewhat satirical, especially since they are precisely high status individuals in society? And the one with truly high status, Dionysis, has no unspeakable tragedies happen to him; therefore, the high status character, who we usually see fall in tragedy, does not. Unless you consider the family of nobility to be the characters of tragedy, but it’s so funny how they’re strung along according to the whim of a God. Also, Iacchus is the God who brought wine, that which alleviates the suffering of man; so it is ironic that these people are suffering by that very same God- the alleviator of pain! I would definitely say that this play was just hilarious; yet I was quite moved by the moment of Agave’s revelation. That was just terribly sad. Even though she was quite blind to her son’s head- that was pretty funny.

It's like telephone, only with Greek tragedies...

I read two different versions of Bacchae. And let me tell you, they were very different. Besides the reading that was sent to us to read, I have the version that was translated by Paul Woodruff. I never knew different people could translate the same story so differently. I have seen it happen with the Electra story, but these translations are even set up differently.
In the Woodruff version, the lines are written in paragraph form, yet in the other version, they are in a poem format. The choruses are also different. Woodruff has the chorus parts written as antistrophe and strophe. And he uses half of the chorus in scene 3. I think this makes it more confusing, at least for me it did. I had absolutely no idea what was going on when I read the Woodruff version. In the version that was sent to us, it was a lot easier to understand what was going on. I think that also has a lot to do with the actual translations.
When reading both of them, the lines are almost completely different. The God’s names are different. Even the first part of the prologue is completely different. Woodruff’s version starts out with Dionysus exclaiming who he is, yet he only states that he is Dionysus, and never continues on to say that he is “Bacchus. / Bromius and Iacchus. / Dithyrambus and Evius,” like in the version that was sent to us. The book just makes it more difficult to illustrate the power of this God and the capabilities he has. I can’t get the real side of Dionysus from the short paragraph explaining who he is.
The two versions did, however, have the same general understanding of the events and occurrences. For example, both versions have the mother and the other women pulling apart Pentheus limb from limb and the mother carrying the head around with her. In woodruff’s version, she actually had it mounted on her thyrsus (which I still haven’t figured out just what it is yet).
I don’t think I like Woodruff’s version. His translation is very confusing, and not straight forward like the other one. Plus, the cover of the book has a picture of Elvis on the front. What is that about?