Lysistrata

Lysistrata

The Project Gutenberg EBook of Lysistrata, by Aristophanes #5 in our
series by Aristophanes
Copyright laws are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the
copyright laws for your country before downloading or redistributing
this or any other Project Gutenberg eBook.
This header should be the first thing seen when viewing this Project
Gutenberg file. Please do not remove it. Do not change or edit the
header without written permission.
Please read the "legal small print," and other information about the
eBook and Project Gutenberg at the bottom of this file. Included is
important information about your specific rights and restrictions in how
the file may be used. You can also find out about how to make a
donation to Project Gutenberg, and how to get involved.
**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**
**eBooks Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since
1971**
*****These eBooks Were Prepared By Thousands of
Volunteers!*****
Title: Lysistrata
Author: Aristophanes
Release Date: March, 2005 [EBook #7700] [Yes, we are more than one
year ahead of schedule] [This file was first posted on May 18, 2003]
Edition: 10

Language: English
Character set encoding: ASCII
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK
LYSISTRATA ***

Produced by Ted Garvin and the Distributed Processing Team.

LYSISTRATA
Translated from the Greek of
ARISTOPHANES
Illustrations by Norman Lindsay [to be added to the next edition]

FOREWORD
Lysistrata is the greatest work by Aristophanes. This blank and rash
statement is made that it may be rejected. But first let it be understood
that I do not mean it is a better written work than the Birds or the Frogs,
or that (to descend to the scale of values that will be naturally imputed
to me) it has any more appeal to the collectors of "curious literature"
than the Ecclesiazusae or the Thesmophoriazusae. On the mere grounds
of taste I can see an at least equally good case made out for the Birds.
That brightly plumaged fantasy has an aerial wit and colour all its own.
But there are certain works in which a man finds himself at an angle of
vision where there is an especially felicitous union of the aesthetic and
emotional elements which constitute the basic qualities of his
uniqueness. We recognize these works as being welded into a strange
unity, as having a homogeneous texture of ecstasy over them that
surpasses any aesthetic surface of harmonic colour, though that
harmony also is understood by the deeper welling of imagery from the
core of creative exaltation. And I think that this occurs in Lysistrata.
The intellectual and spiritual tendrils of the poem are more truly
interwoven, the operation of their centres more nearly unified; and so
the work goes deeper into life. It is his greatest play because of this,
because it holds an intimate perfume of femininity and gives the finest
sense of the charm of a cluster of girls, the sweet sense of their chatter,

and the contact of their bodies, that is to be found before Shakespeare,
because that mocking gaiety we call Aristophanies reaches here its
most positive acclamation of life, vitalizing sex with a deep delight, a
rare happiness of the spirit.
Indeed it is precisely for these reasons that it is not considered
Aristophanes' greatest play.
To take a case which is sufficiently near to the point in question, to
make clear what I mean: the supremacy of Antony and Cleopatra in the
Shakespearean aesthetic is yet jealously disputed, and it seems silly to
the academic to put it up against a work like Hamlet. But it is the
comparatively more obvious achievement of Hamlet, its surface
intellectuality, which made it the favourite of actors and critics. It is
much more difficult to realize the complex and delicately passionate
edge of the former play's rhythm, its tides of hugely wandering emotion,
the restless, proud, gay, and agonized reaction from life, of the blood,
of the mind, of the heart, which is its unity, than to follow the relatively
straightforward definition of Hamlet's nerves. Not that anything
derogatory to Hamlet or the Birds is intended; but the value of such
works is not enhanced by forcing them into contrast with other works
which cover deeper and wider nexus of aesthetic and spiritual material.
It is the very subtlety of the vitality of such works as Antony and
Cleopatra and Lysistrata that makes it so easy to undervalue them, to
see only a phallic play and political pamphlet in one, only a chronicle
play in a grandiose method in the other. For we have to be in a highly
sensitized condition before we can get to that subtle point where life
and the image mix, and so really perceive the work at all; whereas we
can command