Euripides’ The Cyclops was a bit of a surprise. Cross Homer with Aristophanes and this is what you would get. And that is not what I was expecting when starting off on a Euripides play. The basic plot is simply the tale of Odysseus and the Cyclops. But, add to it a bunch of satyrs making lewd jokes. Not a combination which has a lot to recommend it.
I learned from the introduction to The Cyclops (which I read, as always, after I read the play—why do publishers put these things before the work in question as if one is supposed to read all about the work before one actually reads the work?), that this is the only extant complete copy of a satyr play—a play which was performed at the conclusion of the traditional tragic trilogy in Greek theater. I’d never heard of satyr plays before—probably because with only one example, we don’t know a lot about them. And if this one is any indication of what they were like, the world hasn’t missed much by not having more examples around.
The editor’s introduction also points out how Odysseus cleverly twists the Athenian justifications for their empire in his speech to the cyclops—that is the sort of detail which makes the play interesting historically, but doesn’t really add much to the enjoyment of the play as a play. Sure, it’s funny when you notice it that Odysseus is using the rationale the Athenians gave for destroying other civilizations as an excuse for why he should not be eaten by the Cyclops, and then , when that doesn’t work, he starts arguing what those about to be destroyed by Athens argued. (See Thucydides for these debates.) But the play surrounding that speech is so weak, it’s funnier in idea than execution. Many a clever joke has been ruined by poor story telling; The Cyclops can be added to that list.
No comments:
Post a Comment