Talk:The Frogs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Comments

Should the musical be put in a seperate article? i.e. The Frogs (musical)

Yes. - Nunh-huh 20:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Done, and corrected all the links to the musical that were pointing here (and corrected the links to the band while I was at it). - Ravenous 16:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes because the musical is a re-branding, with different individuals fit into the same template.

[edit] About the new rewrite

The article was a little confusing, and there was some info I couldn't find in two different translations of the text. So I went ahead and just rewrote it. If there was something from the earlier version that I removed that can be verified, feel free to add it back where appropriate. - Ravenous 22:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About the translations

Shouldn't all translations have a link to ... something? Otherwise, any Greek student who did a translation for their teacher, and kept it private, should have a translation here...

If their translations were published or somehow noteworthy than maybe they should be listed here. Why would an encylopedia link to a student's private translation? - Ravenous

You misunderstood. Sorry. Hence I delete the effect of the misunderstanding, which I caused.

The listing "Steven Killen et al., 2006 - prose and verse" contains no link, neither a hyperlink nor a pointer to a paper version. So why is it there? Should the names and not links of everyone who translated anything be here?

It seems to me that there would be two good reasons to list a particular translation -
1. it's a well-known and well-respected version that the serious reader should hunt up, or
2. it's an acceptable version which is immediately accessible to the reader (i.e. online or in the public domain).
Lattimore, for instance, is a prominent translator and should probably remain on the list. Arrowsmith should perhaps be there, as well.
As far as online versions go, if a translation is readily available from Perseus or another reliable site, then I feel that individuals who have put up their own non-published (in the traditional sense) online translations should probably be excluded, unless there can be a peer-review process to look them over. They certainly might be good, but this should be verified by a group of knowledgeable people. Such a process has essentially already happened with the translations put up by Perseus and similar academic sites, whether in the original publishing process or in choosing which to use... whereas anyone can put one up on a website.
The webcomic has curiosity value, and - as it actually incorporates some of the original Greek text into the translation while explaining it in side notes - an educational element as well, so perhaps it should be retained but under a different heading - i.e. as an extra resource or "link of interest" rather than with the regular translations.
Just my two cents' worth to try and help resolve the chaos... :) Hierophany 13:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Festival of Dionysus?

I'm pretty sure it was performed at the Lenaea in 405 B.C. , not during the festival of Dionysus.

The following were the known dramatic festivals of ancient Attica: the Great, or City Dionysia, held in Athens, directly beneath the Acropolis, the Lenea held outside Athens at the nearby town called Lenea, (AKA Lenaia), the Rural Dionysia held almost everywhere around the rural areas of Attica, the Anthesteria and the Panathenaia, of which little is known. The above were all festivals held in honour of the god Dionysus who was the "last" god to come to Athens and who had a great difficulty in being accepted by the people (see Euripides' "Bacchae" where one can also discern strong similarities between this god’s appearance one earth and that of Jesus.)

I had no idea that this forum type section existed and I must admit, I was insulted when I saw the errors made by the original writer about Aristophanes' language. I was also offended by the removal of my second essay. It would have been so much more logical if someone had sent me a letter directly at my address at solowords@yahoo.com and let me know their objections - not that I care to contribute to something as serious as this thus played with by children! The sentence about Aristophanes’ language being appropriate for the ears of his audience, the one you’ve characterised as “rocks!” Is neither a simple POV nor a protracted one for anyone whose attention span lasts for a little longer than that of a gnat. These are the sentences that a prof. or a lecturer would reward with profuse adulations. Slaves, in that era, were gentle rascals: too expensive too maintain, too loud with their criticisms of the boss, too untrustworthy with the wives of their masters, too hungry, too thirsty, too defiant, in short, men who caused a great distress to their owners and, under this sort of distress, the owners reacted with extreme vernacular. There is an enormous number of books discussing Aristophanes’ “indecent” or “vulgar” or obscene language, one of the more important being that by Henderson, “The Maculate Muse.” Do read it. Therein you’ll find much explication of the dramaturge’s language expressed by many “run-on!” sentences. Better still, read all of Aristophanes: there are only eleven plays extant!

I had always thought that the wikipedia was a serious publication. What a pity it is up to any and every graffiti lover to interfere with its contents! A proper discussion between contributors would be a much better solution. Contributors should also be those of the higher possible calibre when it comes to their expertise. In this case, I suggest a strong knowledge of Aristophanes would be the least prerequisite for being a contributor and it should be left to other, equally knowledgeable people to ask pertinent questions. If you wish to contribute in any way, then I suggest you make a concerted effort to find the right people to do the writing of articles or essays and once you do, you leave it to them. Don’t go unilaterally (do you work in Mr Bush’s administration?) changing everything if you don’t know what you’re talking about. Your lack of understanding of the English language alone renders you incompetent to do anything else other than read the articles. Begin by getting to know your apostrophes.

George Theodoridis (see how I spell my name?) I’ve put it at the end of the article to be seen as a signature applied to something I believe and know about, as well as to be held accountable directly and not in some forum, behind my back.

Your second essay hasn't been deleted, it's been moved to Aristophanes. The subject was much broader than The Frogs and applies to the author in general. Don't be suprised if it gets deleted or heavily edited there though. The fact that it sounds like an "essay" and not an encylopedia is the main problem. A prof. or a lecturer might indeed reward your writing with profuse adulations, but that's not the point of wikipedia. First see the about page: Wikipedia:About, and then take a look at some of the wikipedia policies Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
As far as contacting you about your edits, people here are more used to discussing on the talk page of the article or the talk page of the user. Click the "watch" tab at the top of the article you are interested, and from then on you can go to the "my watchlist" link at the top, and it will show if someone has made a change to that article or to the talk page. Go to the "my talk" page - and you'll see I've already made a few attempts to contact you on your talk page.
Sorry to hear you are offended by our actions. Clearly you have a stronger knowlege of Aristophanes than the rest of us, but you still have a poor knowledge of what wikipedia is. This isn't a publication of scholars writing for other scholars. Like any other encyclopedia, this is just a starting point for further research. Like I said on your talk page - I hope you'll continue to add contributions here. We NEED more people who know what they are talking about. But if you don't make an attempt to follow the guidelines, your contributions will probably get deleted or gutted by those who do. I learned that the hard way myself. - Ravenous 15:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] commentary on the Reconstructing Humour section - moved from article

I fear that both, Mr Johnston and the commentator above are wrong when it comes to the explanation of Aristophanes' language in this passage. If the commentator is correct about Mr Johnston’s interpretation, then it seems to me that Mr Johnston is far too timid or inhibited with his translation. The passage referred to here (at the very beginning of The Frogs) is one which the ancient greek ear would undoubtedly understand as a passage composed in the formula of a slave's speech, the slave, no less of Dionysus the god of wine, the god to whom this festival was dedicated. It would not be the speech of a polite monk or nun, nor would it be the speech of a university professor, afraid that he might be reported by some over-prudish student for using –gasp!- foul language. “Foul” speech, or what some people, in this day and age might consider to be "foul," abounds in Aristophanes ' plays and this bit in his Frogs is but one such example. A more conscientious look at all of his other plays would leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that what some consider “foul” these days was not considered such back in the days of the “golden age of Pericles,” in 5th CBE. It must also be remembered (though Aristophanes would make no differentiation) that this play was first staged during the Lenean festival, a festival held outside Athens and during the winter month of January when there would be hardly any visitors to watch the plays so a playwright might well have felt a little freer to use whatever language he wanted. Not that these particular men would be overly concerned about what “others” thought about their work, a a phenomenon which exhibits both, the strength of their Democracy as well as the strength of their conviction. It would be doing the great comic an enormous injustice if one, particularly in this 21st century and the age of freedom of expression, were to expurgate Aristophanes’ every “common” utterance as if it were anathema. “Piezomai” in fact, is used to mean “I urgently need to fart” just as much as it means “I am (awfully) pressed” and “thlivomai” means “I need to shit” just as much as it means “my bowls are moving urgently” or "I'm being saddened (by something)" and there is no question at all as to what the word "hezitias" means, only a couple of lines later; or, "apoparthisomai" a little later still! It requires but a little of the art of histrionics on the part of the actors to give the right understanding of the meaning of these words, though "hezitias" and “apoparthisomai” require nothing more than their utterance to have the audience rolling in the aisles clasping their bouncing bellies! Aristophanes needs to be read with the view not of expurgating his words but, rather, the words of his earlier translators who give one the impression that their audiences sat in dusty pews and musty lecture theatres that resembled those pews, or else, publishers of “clean, family literature.” Ancient Athens, it seems, was nowhere to be found in their minds. In other words Aristophanes, of the 5th century BCE, was the classic dramaturge of the comedic genre who included pretty much every manner of comedy and every manner of speech. To dilute his work so as to serve the present-day “politically correct” agendas, as did his earlier translators, is to do it a great disservice and to admit, in us, a lack of honesty and intellectual strength, so vital in a Democracy, yea, even ours. George Theodoridis [1]

This is an interesting commentary, but it sounds like your point of view (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view), rather than an encyclopedia. So it probably belongs here (especially since you signed it at the bottom). -Ravenous 21:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reconstructing Humor - solowords

This is going to need some work to remove POV statements, add sources, and keep on the topic of The Frogs. -Ravenous 00:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I (Phlip) put in the original Reconstructing Humor section, and I felt safe not knowing enough about the topic to have a POV.

Someone (possibly G. Theodorsis) replaced my modest and readable version with prose that is erudite, learne'd, and mostly POV. It also indulges in run-on sentences, and its supporting link is false. This is going to need a lot of work (and bravery) to fix, because Wikis should be incremental and organic. GT broke that rule with one big edit, not many careful little ones.

Further, GT accuses my original text, uncited, of claiming that Aristophanes did not indulge in potty humor. My original text did no such thing; it only pointed out that some translators resorted to it in individual cases when a high-brow joke was available - still in the language of low-lifes and slaves!

So, because GT can clearly write faster and more copiously than me, I'm not up for fixing the page. WikiPedia wins again!

--Phlip

I propose we either revert to Phlip's version or do away with the section entirely until we can work out what to do with the solowords (AKA G. Theodorsis) text. Solowords, if you are reading this - please check out some of the wikipedia policies, such as: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, & No original research. We appreciate your contributions, but in the current state, it's not really appropriate for wikipedia. - Ravenous 18:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure this is a first for WikiPedia, but we also have a case of researchers using a page to compete. Someone moved the citation for my webcomic up and put it after Ian Johnson's citation, as if I only used his version for a source. (I start with his verbiage, and constantly compare it against several other translations, and the original.)

So the change to Reconstructing Humor can also be interpretted as another instance of this competition. It formerly contained a link to my >cough< webcomic.

Hence I'm not qualified to fix the page, but neither is any other translator. --Phlip

That would be me who moved your translation up - at the top of page linked to it states "Translated by Ian Johnston", so I thought that would be more appropriate. If yours is it's own unique and "noteworthy" translation (as far as text goes), perhaps it deserves it's own line.
I'm not sure if external links to your sites are a bad thing so long as the link has good info and it's appropriate to section being linked from. If it's a link to a translation and is in the translation section, that's probably fine. But it's hard for yourself to make the judgement call on whether or not it's "noteworthy". When the link to a site about the topic is simply thrown under your contribution, but the site isn't specifically about the contribution (more like your just signing it), then I would say that's probably bad regardless.
I would imagine a translator would be qualified to work on this page as I'm sure you all know quite a bit more about the subject than the casual reader (such as myself). Just follow the guidelines and site your references, while avoiding citing your own original work as a reference. - Ravenous 07:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I like solowords's deconstruction of Aristophanes, in general, so I moved it to that page. We may give Reconstructing Humor a vacation. --Phlip

Good place for it. Plus there'll be more people editing that page, so it'll have a better chance of getting "overhauled" there. -Ravenous 17:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This sentence rocks

In the "Frogs," Aristophanes’ language is one which the ancient greek ear would undoubtedly understand as the language of a slave, the slave, no less of Dionysus the god of wine, the god to whom this festival was dedicated, the god who, philosophically speaking, “decapitated” the people three times a year for about a week, to allow their deeper, darker, more impulsive nature to act out its desire.

That one does indeed rock. However, it is also POV, original research, run-on, and off-topic.
The Dionysus in The Frogs is a pompous boor, but not drunk or out of control. The Frogs is not about catharsis, or relieving up your primal urges. It is about the crisis of Athens's society, embroiled in a war that profits their warmongers. Dionysus seeks the departed tragic playwrights as simple escapism; as a diversion (and as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after the disastrous Battle of Arginusae). He will instead find tragic rhetoric that reminds Athens of its earlier bronze-age heroism.

[edit] Explain the joke

"Aeschylus gets the upper hand in the argument, and begins making a fool of Euripides. He has Euripides quote lines from many of his prologues, each time interjecting with '...lost his bottle of oil'."

This description doesn't really make sense unless you've already read the play; it should either be left out or explained. The joke here is that Aeschylus claims (and then proceeds to demonstrate) that Euripides' verse is so monotonously predictable that you could substitute the phrase lhku/qion a)pw/lesen ("lost his little oil-flask") for the end of any random line and it would fit, both grammatically and metrically... a bit like the modern claim that any poem by Emily Dickinson can be sung to the tune of "The Yellow Rose of Texas". :) Hierophany 17:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)