A collection of tales of betrayal; The Legend of Good Women, Geoffrey Chaucer

Why you might read The Legend of Good Women?

 

One of Chaucer's anthologies rather than a single story. This makes them a bite-sized way to get into reading Chaucer. While they have common themes they do each stand alone. It is not one of his most well-known pieces but it does give a different perception of some more classical tales. 

Synopsis of The Legend of Good Women

Spanning Cleopatra, Thisbe, Dido, Hypsipyle and Medea, Lucretia, Ariadne, Philomela, Phyllis, and Hypermnestra.  These are very different stories they have one thing in common. This ish that they praise the women and portray the men in a bad light. In most cases, the man is untrue to his woman. He does this by either seeking and finding another or by leaving her alone somewhere. 

Lucretia stands out as she is raped by one of her husband's men. She tells her husband and family about it. While asking their forgiveness concedes that they shouldn't forgive her. Having laid it out in front of her family she commits suicide with a dagger to the heart.

Hypsipyle and Medea are grouped together in most editions. This is due to them both being about women betrayed by Jason. In both cases, he is married to them but skives off out of the country to find another woman. Medea helps him with his quest for the golden fleece and is promised marriage for her help. While he does marry her he also leaves without returning.

In Cleopatra, Mark Antony leaves his wife in search of another. He ends up in Egypt and falls in love with Cleopatra. He hears that the brother of his wife is angry with him and coming to kill him. They meet out at sea and Mark Antony is defeated. He then kills himself out of humiliation. When Cleopatra heard of this she has a hole dug beside his grave. she then have it filled with snakes and lays in it to die beside him.

Reflections on The Legend of Good Women

Suicide due to humiliation is foreign to me as a modern western reader. This is not the first time I have come across it, however. I still find it a little disturbing as I was always taught to cherish life. This requires a mindset of death over dishonour. This is something we see more of today outside the west. 

Chaucer's handling of rape was interesting as well. He was very matter of fact about it but did not see the need to go into the details. He also attributes the situation to the man's lust. This may be a frank portrayal of the situation or it may be a nod to morality. That it's a sin of the mind that precedes a sin of the body.

His handling of women and making him the good in his stories are interesting for his time. Or at least in the way that the modern world sees the past. We see Women lauded for being true and doing their duty and we see the men as rascals. While in modern times we are about to throw down men's place at the head. This is a warning tale of just how fickle those heads can be. Male headship has its place but it needs checks and balances.

What others have to say about The Legend of Good Women

"But, he wonders, what is the point of cataloguing old stories everyone already knows and forcing them to fit into a predesigned moral grid? Chaucer never seems to enjoy single-minded views but always prefers multiple perspectives. Here he is forced to question the purpose of old stories being repeated, from tellers/translators and for listeners. " From Dr. Michael Delahoyde

Like much of Chaucer's oeuvre, Chaucer's Legend of Good Women cannot be certainly dated and survives only in an incomplete form. Both factors bear on the larger issues of the poem's interpretation. From Cambridge University Press

Comparisons with other texts

The Legend of Good Women retells some stories from Greek mythology and plays. Medea by Euripides covers similar content. Chaucer has summarised it down to just the acts of Jason against Medea and not her revenge. This gives Chaucers telling a very different focus and takeaway. Here Chaucer focuses on her positive attributes and Jasons negatives. Instead of showing how low she would also stoop. It is interesting that Chaucer chooses to retell known tales. This means that although he can spin it his audience does tend to know the outcome.

Troilus and Chrisyde is a  story of a single couple. By contrast, the Legend of Good Women is more of an anthology. Here Chaucer links together shorter poems on a single theme instead. In doing so he at times seems to almost repeat stories with just a few details changed. His writing of course is rather different but the bones of the stories are very similar

Conclusion

The Legend of Good Women is less known than his big-name collection, The Canterbury Tales. These cover the wrongs done by men and the upstanding nature of the women involved. It covers what we now consider hard topics such as suicide and rape but it does so in a matter of fact way. The bite-sized nature of the individual stories makes it an easier work of Chaucers to pick up.

Have you read The Legend of Good Women? If so what did you think of it? 
 
Want to read The Legend of Good Women but haven't? Please leave me a comment and let me know why you want to read it.

Hopefully, this post inspires you to take the time to look into it on your own journey of Self Education.

Get a copy of The Legend of Good Women. 

What happens if we put the women in charge; The Assemblywomen, Aristophanes

 Why you might read The Assemblywomen?

The Assemblywomen is another of Aristophanes' plays about the upset of normal proceedings. In this case, we see the women take charge by taking power. It shows us the first mention in literature of what will come to be known as communism. Being still a comedy it is full of the absurd and is an enjoyable read.

Story of The Assemblywomen

The Assemblywomen starts with a group of women plotting to go to the assembly dressed as men. They steal their husband's cloaks, shoes and staves. They collect together plotting to speak at the assembly. They hope to get the men to pass the control over to the women. They hope that this can stop the war with Sparta and create a better Athens.

Their husbands come out while they are gone. They complain of their missing cloaks and missing going to assembly because they get paid to go. They discuss how you must go early to the assembly otherwise it is full and you don't get paid if you don't get in.

The women return and tell of how they spoke loudly and enthusiastically at the assembly. As a result, they got the women appointed in charge. Praxagora, our main character, is put in charge and proposes sweeping changes. These changes include having all property in common and doing communal meals.

The men discuss the changes and one is going to turn over his goods. The other however is waiting until other people do before complying himself. He also tries to persuade the other to wait. But when it comes to food he is the first one in. He is happy to take but reluctant to give.

The play ends with the second man going for food at his allotted place.

Reflections on The Assemblywomen

It is interesting to see a power play taken by the women to try and change their situation. Aristophanes has no problem with the idea of strong women. That being said this is a comedy and as such tends towards the absurd in the execution of this strength. The women being in charge is not taken with alarm by any of the men involved either. Whether this is indicative of general attitudes or whether it is part of the absurdity of the play is hard to tell.

The measures taken by the women are along the lines of what we would now call communism. Aristophanes does not take a position for or against this idea. He instead portrays it almost as a natural consequence of women being in charge. It is interesting to see these concepts in literature before the manifesto. This reminds me that most ideas aren't new they are just rehashed.

What others have to say about The Assemblywomen

"However, the similarities between some aspects of the play and the utopian ideas of Plato in his Republic have made Assemblywomen the subject of numerous comparative analyses and philosophical or historical speculations." From Greek Mythology

"Written in 391 BC, it’s a wonderfully fun play, a comic fantasy about women being in charge of government and men reduced to feeble, pitiable creatures in drag." From Interesting Literature

Comparisons with other texts

Like Wealth, The Assemblywomen is a reversal of the usual status quo. In Wealth it is good things coming to the good. Whereas in the Assemblywomen it is women ending up in charge. This is about all these two have in common. They are focused one on fortune and the other on ending the war.

We see the theme again of how to end the war come to the front. We have already seen this in Peace and Lysistrata. And with Lysistrata, we again see it is the women doing the outrageous that seems to get the job done. In the Assemblywomen we see the women take power from the men by guile. By contrast in the Lysistrata, we see them use their innate power around sex to make the war end.

Conclusion

As one of Aristophanes most overlooked plays, there is still much to glean from the text. It is an interesting reversal of roles with the men becoming feeble and the women gaining power. It shows us that the ideas of communism existed long before their modern form. While they are portrayed in the absurd it still shows the existence of the ideas. Again we see the woman take centre stage and in this case, take control from the law giving down.

Have you read The Assemblywomen? If so what did you think of it? 
 
Want to read The Assemblywomen but haven't? Please leave me a comment and let me know why you want to read it.

Hopefully, this post inspires you to take the time to look into it on your own journey of Self Education.

Get a copy of The Assemblywomen. 

Getting wealth for those who do good; Wealth, Aristophanes

Why you might read Wealth?

Wealth is another tale of assisting the personification of a trait, to gain great rewards. In this case, those rewards are wealth. 

In my Self Education project, it continues the expansion of the idea of the play. It also foreshadows the more modern form of the satirical play.

Story of Wealth

Wealth is a play in two acts with the second act having 5 scenes. Wealth starts with our main character Chremylus returning from the Oracle. He is following an old blind man. He does so because he was told by the oracle to not let the first person he came across depart from him. He and his servant ask who he is and find out that he is Wealth. They quickly devise a plan for him to regain his sight. This is so that he can visit the worthy instead of those who cheat and steal. Poverty as an old woman tries to dissuade them of this saying without the threat of poverty man will not work. They disregard her and she leaves.

In the second act, they action this plan. Wealth regains his sight and stays with Chremylus. Chremylus' house increase in wealth rapidly. It is not long before a wicked man comes to complain that his wealth has left him. He and Chremylus's slave argue but he is sent on his way. Eventually, Hermes arrives to complain that there are no longer sacrifices to the gods. With wealth falling on the upright they do not see the need for the gods. He begs to be taken into the house and this is granted. The play ends with them going to set up Wealth as the new god in Zeus' place.

Reflections on Wealth

In the first act, it seems that this play is set up to warm against the softness of prosperity. We see this in the dialogue with poverty. But when we get to the second act this idea is not followed through. The most we see in the form of negative consequences is the gods no longer getting their sacrifices. Considering Aristophanes' previous work I am surprised by this. In general, he is not against using his plays to convey a point.

That being said what poverty says about the struggle against poverty being what makes man strive for better is profound. It still rings true today. We see those who have plenty don't have quite the same motivations as those who need to make a living. 

The idea that man only needs the gods when he is struggling is also interesting. It is an indictment against those of the time. The idea that the gods are only for bad times is something we see in a lot of pantheistic groups. By contrast it is taught against in the likes of Judaism and Christianity.

What others have to say about Wealth

"In essence, it is a twist on an observation probably as old as civilization itself – namely that “wealth is blind.” The meaning of the proverb is pretty straightforward: the evil are usually wealthy because the god of wealth, Plutus, is unable to distinguish good men from bad." From Greek Mythology

"Plutus’ eyesight is restored at the temple of Asclepius, famous for cures and miracles of this nature, and he formally becomes a member of Chremylus’ household." From Classical Literature

Comparisons to other texts

This is the second play of Aristophanes where we have seen the stopping of sacrifice to the gods. The other being the Birds. Though in this case, it is by making the people wealthy. Whereas in the birds it is a direct block of the path between the altars and the gods. We have also seen the rescue of a personified quality. This time we see Wealth regaining his sight. In Peace, we see the rescue of peace from a cave. Though with Wealth we see the gods disadvantaged by this, in peace they also want to end the fighting.

Conclusion

 Wealth, over its two acts, tells the story of recovering wealth's sight to help him come to the upright. It dabbles into the consequences of the upright getting wealthy. But it does not fully explore them. On the other hand, the positive side is seen. Those who are upright coming up in the world and those who are gaining by foul means losing their wealth. 

Have you read Wealth? If so what did you think of it? 
 
Want to read Wealth but haven't? Please leave me a comment and let me know why you want to read it.

Hopefully, this post inspires you to take the time to look into it on your own journey of Self Education.

Get a copy of Wealth. 

Ending the war by rescuing peace; Peace, Aristophanes

 Why you might read Peace?

Peace is another fantastical tale about how to end the war. As such it gives us insight into the war-weariness of the people. As well as how Aristophanes felt compelled and safe to criticize the war.

For my Self Education project, it is a great stepping stone toward modern plays and modern satire.

The Story of Peace

Peace is a play in two acts. The first takes place both on earth and in heaven. The second is restricted to the mortal coil. Peace starts with our main character Trygaeus being sick and tired of the war. He constantly looks up at the sky and talks to Zeus asking why he has forsaken Greece. He hatches a plan to go and see Zeus. He has an oversized flying dung beetle that he has his servants looking after. He mounts this and heads off to heaven. There are a few hiccups on the way with the beetle getting distracted.

Trygaeus arrives in heaven to find all the gods gone except Hermes who has been left to look after things. The gods have gone as they are sick of giving Greece chances for peace but one side or other choosing war. Trygaeus finds out that Peace has been put in a dark cave. He then gets the chorus together to remove rocks from the entrance and heave and pull Peace out. Peace turns out to be a statue with two girls in attendance. Hermes offers one, Harvest, as Trygaeus's wife. The other, Festival, Trygaeus takes to give to the assembly in Athens. Then having lost the beetle he heads for home by foot.

Once home these things are set into motion and a feast is prepared for the wedding. Before this, Trygaeus prepares a sacrifice to peace. An oracle comes and tries to first tell them that the war cannot be over and then tries to help them eat the sacrifice. He is blocked from the sacrificed food and drink. Then his is sent on his way with a beating after he refuses to take no for an answer. After the sacrifice but before the feast two merchants approach him to thank him for the peace. Their peaceful businesses have increased again. He is then accosted by three merchants who have lost business because they sell spears and armor. He mocks them and sends them on their way. He then invites all to the feast and has two young boys sing but both will only sing war songs so he quickly stops them. Peace ends with the wedding feast.

Reflection on Peace

Aristophanes is not afraid to venture into the realms of sex and innuendo. He is quite blunt about Trygaeus wanting to bed Harvest and she is described in rather sexual terms. Though this is more earthy in nature than we tend to see today. This was performed publically so it cannot have been seen as a lack of modesty or propriety. This would have been true at some other points in history. 

It is interesting that while Peace is just a statue her attendants are living girls. It is also interesting that while the other gods are portrayed as living Peace is just a statue. It also makes Trygaeus's sacrifice to Peace a little odd. I am surprised by it because while on the earth it was normal to portray a god as a statue. From most sources, we see that they were expected to be living in Heaven.

What others have to say about Peace

"Aristophanes is known to criticize war leaders, politicians, men of fame, philosophers, etc. directly through his plays – the two pestle reference is a direct attack on the Athenian leader Cleon and Spartan leader Brasidas who led the war for years. " From Classical Arts Universe

"First produced in 421 BC – just two weeks before a peace treaty that ended the first half of the Peloponnesian War" From Greek Mythology

Comparisons with other texts

This is not the first time we have seen a play by Aristophanes about creative ways to end the Peloponnesian war. In Lysistrata we also see him proposes a novel end to the war. The difference is that in Lysistrata it is people, in this case, the women, who bring this about. By contrast in Peace, it is in the realms of the gods that this is achieved.

We have also seen Aristophanes comment on the war before in The Acharnians. The Acharnians also deals with unusual peace but in this case, an individual sues for individual peace. By contrast, Peace gains peace for the whole of Greece. The war is a big part of daily life for Aristophanes as he spent the time to write many plays about it. 

Conclusion

Peace is another of Aristophanes' plays about possible ends to the Peloponnesian war. It covers what is happening in the realm of the gods rather than the realm of men. It is set right at what turned out to be the end of the war and is first performed mere weeks before the war ends. It portrays Peace as a statue lost in a cave. she is then restored and sacrificed to.

Have you read Peace? If so what did you think of it? 
 
Want to read Peace but haven't? Please leave me a comment and let me know why you want to read it.

Hopefully, this post inspires you to take the time to look into it on your own journey of Self Education.

Get a copy of Peace. 

Betrayal of love at Troy; Troilus and Criseyde, Chaucer

 Why you might read Troilus and Criseyde?

Troilus and Criseyde is the second most well know Chaucer Poem. It is also complete which the more well-known Canatbury tales is not.

In my Self Education project, it helps to form a rounded understanding of Chaucer. It also serves as a lesson in Middle English before the pronunciation shift.

The story of Troilus and Criseyde

Troilus and Criseyde is a poem in five parts. It happens predominantly in Troy during the truce in the Trojan siege by the Greeks. It starts with the ice-cold Troilus seeing Criseyde across the room at the temple in Troy. He is smitten with her and immediately starts pining over here. She has also seen him and is also smitten. Luckily for them, her uncle who is her guardian realises this. He eventually sets up a meeting for them socially and they fall even further.

Eventually, the uncle sneaks Troilus into Criseyde's room by night. The two become lovers. Not long after this, a prisoner exchange is arranged between the two warring parties. Criseyde's father defected to the Greek side early in the war and now wants her to come to join him. So the swap includes Criseyde which she and Troilus are unhappy about. Troilus wants them to run away together. Criseyde wants to go but says she will return in ten days. In the end, things go Criseyde's way and Troilus escorts her to the Trojan lines.

Ten days come and go and Criseyde does not return. Troilus starts writing her letters but gets no reply. In this time she has fallen in love with one of the Greek warriors. Because of this, she has no intention to return to Troilus. She eventually writes him a letter telling him so, this leaves him distraught. This is where the poem chooses to end. Chaucer ends with an invocation to Christ.

Reflections on Troilus and Criseyde

I found the juxtaposition of Trojan times and events with the Chivalric people a little hard to keep straight at times. This is probably in part because as a modern reader I am dealing with two contrasting time periods being presented at once. This would have not been the case for a reader at the time of writing as they would have been living in one of them. Also as a modern reader, I am used to modern historical fiction that tries to be as true to the context and times as possible.

The betrayal itself is quite interesting. It seems that things between Troilus and Criseyde rather brief. Even though the love affair is rather intense. So it is not surprising that Criseyde falls for another in just ten days. Troilus does not even consider others even after such a short time. I wonder if these more impassioned affairs were more common in Chaucer's time. It could be just a poetic device to make life seem more intense in the story than in reality.

What others have to say about Troilus and Criseyde

"The love affair must remain secret to protect her honour; Troilus and Criseyde cannot marry because he is a prince and she is the daughter of a traitor; and nor can they leave Troy and abandon their city." From The Conversation

"Troilus and Criseyde by Geoffrey Chaucer is widely regarded as one of his more influential works, alongside The Canterbury Tales." From English Literature

Comparisons to other texts

Like Anelida and Arcite we have a betrayal story. Troilus and Criseyde seem more of a whirlwind romance. By comparison, Anelida and Arcite seem a lot more stable as a starting place. Unlike Anelida and Arcite this is a complete poem and gives us as much of the story as Chaucer is willing to write.

Chaucer portrays women as fickle and with ever-changing allegiances. By contrast, Aristophanes in Lysistrata has women with all the power by their control over sex. He has them staying true to their plan even though it is difficult. Chaucer depicts his main character woman as weak and persuadable.

Conclusion

Troilus and Criseyde is the five-part poem where Chaucer details their romance. He portrays the woman as fickle and easily swayed while the man of the story stays true. It is quite an intense love affair between the two and just as quick it is over. Chaucer does not give us much information on how Troilus takes the rejection as he ends the poem first.

Have you read Troilus and Criseyde? If so what did you think of it? 

 
Want to read Troilus and Criseyde but haven't? Please leave me a comment and let me know why you want to read it.

Hopefully, this post inspires you to take the time to look into it on your own journey of Self Education.

Get a copy of Troilus and Criseyde.

The battle of two scoundrels for the top job; The Knights, Aristophanes

 Why you might read The Knights?

The Knights gives us insight into the politics of Athens following the Peloponnesian war. It shows us that the Athenians were to an extent self-aware of the corruption in their politics and in politicians pandering to the populace.

For my Self Education project, it is part of the whole picture of Aristophanes. Who so far is a comedic and satirical writer, but unafraid to upset the apple cart.

Story of The Knights

The Knights is a play of two acts with three scenes but the same set. It is set in Athens during the Peloponnesian war and was also performed then. It starts with two slaves complaining about the current master. They also complain that he sucks up to thepeople. The master beats them day in and day out. They conspire to steal from him his oracle. Once they have it, it reveals that he will be replaced by a sausage seller. One then chances on by and they convince him that he should vie for the top spot.

The master Paphlagonian enters and threatens the slaves with more beatings. The sausage seller intervenes and gets into an argument with Paphlagonian. After a while, Paphlagonian runs off to the debating chamber to put the sausage seller on charges. The seller charges off to take him on in the assembly.

The two return and the sausage seller tells of his victory. Then thepeople comes out of the house.  The sausage seller then talks his way into becoming his agent. So that he can do things on thepeoples behalf instead of Paphlagonian. Paphlagonian then realised the oracle and starts asking questions of the sausage seller. He quickly finds that he fills the oracle and gives up the fight. Paphlagonian then goes and sells sausages in the other man's place.

Reflections on The Knights

Aristophanes is very critical of politicians in this piece. He calls them liars and thieves. He does so under the guise of convincing the sausage seller he has what it takes for politics. Either it was a commonly held belief or the theater was a safe space to make these remarks. It is also a piece of humor that could be agreed with safely enough even if you would not dare say it yourself.

The namesake of the Knights only have a passing role as the chorus. The meat of the play has nothing to do with them in particular. Because of this, I wonder why it has been named such or why it has not had a second name attached.

What other have to say about The Knights

"It won first prize at the Lenaia festival when it was produced in 424 BCE. The play is a satire on political and social life in 5th Century BCE Athens" From Classical Literature

"Cleon, however, is mentioned only once by name and is rather transparently represented in the figure of Paphlagon." From Greek Mythology

Comparisons with other texts

Like The Birds, this is a comedy but unlike it, this is more satirical. The Knights is far more political than The Birds which is more fantastical in its approach. Like the Birds, the titular characters form the chorus.

Like The Acharnians which is also satire and political commentary. The biggest difference is that The Knights is after the war while The Acharnians is during the war. As such The Knights deals with power after the conflict. While The Acharnians deals with the absurdities of the war itself.

Conclusion

The Knights is a satirical play about the struggle for power and control after the war. The titular characters are actually the chorus and not a very important part of the play. The sausage seller upset the incumbent to take control of thepeople a character used to represent the people of Athens.

Have you read The Knights? If so what did you think of it? 
 
Want to read The Knights but haven't? Please leave me a comment and let me know why you want to read it.

Hopefully, this post inspires you to take the time to look into it on your own journey of Self Education.

Get a copy of The Knights.

The creation of the city of the birds; The Birds, Aristophanes

 Why you might read The Birds?

You might find you actually enjoy it. The Birds is a comedy and quite fantastical and quite enjoyable. It shows us that comedic plays did not have to be satirical to get written or performed in the ancient Greek world.

For my Self Education project, it is part of the whole picture of Aristophanes. Who so far is a comedic and satirical writer, but unafraid to upset the apple cart.

The Story of The Birds

It starts with our main character Peisthtaerus and a friend, both from Athens. They are looking for a prince who has been turned into a bird. They are scaling a cliff.  In an attempt to make more noise they start baning on what turns out to be the prince's kitchen door. Eventually, his servant rouses him and he meets with the two Athenians. After a bit of chatter, Peisthtaerus asks him where they can go that is a nice peaceful city. The prince gives him several options but he turns them all down. He then proposes that the birds make a city in the air. He convinces the prince to call the other birds.

The other birds arrive and are angry that he has invited two humans. they make to attack the two but are eventually persuaded to listen and kill them later. Peisthtaerus spins a yarn about how the bird used to be above the gods. As well as how they were there before the world began and they should take back their rightful place. The birds lap it up and appoint him to make it so.

Once the walls are built Iris is caught traveling through the city and is chased away. Peisthtaerus also declares war on the gods. He sets himself up to give out wings to those who would join the city and recruits a young rebel to the cause. He is then troubled by a slew of grifters from other cities. He chases them away with the very wings he has to give out, seeming to want this to be a more peaceful city.

Prometheus shows up and says the gods will come to ask for peace. He says that Peisthtaerus should ask for the scepter and Sovereignty as his wife.

The gods send Heracles and Poseidon to sue for peace after they have not received sacrifices for a while.  They eventually concede to Peisthtaerus' requirements. They then take him to Olympus to collect his wife. The play ends with them returning to the bird city and getting married.

Reflection on The Birds

The Birds overall is an absurd premise, how you build walls in the sky I do not know. How they keep people out in three dimensions I know even less. But this seems to be part of Aristophanes' design in the play. It is a comedy meant to entertain and that it still does. That the gods could be overthrown so easily is an interesting conceit as well. 

The parade of the birds and the fact that they are all named explicitly at the start is interesting. To bother with this Aristophanes must have been persuaded that his audience knew all these types of birds. Their costumes must have been something to see as well!

That Heracles is part of the diplomatic party is a surprise. He shows that he doesn't really have the temperament for it in his comments on them while looking for Peisthtaerus. He is not known as a thinker or a talker but as a doer. That being said he ends up being the voice of reason to just get the peace treaty done. Eventually, he convinces Posideon to also agree.

What others have to say about The Birds

"First performed in 414 BC at the City Dionysia (where it won the second prize), The Birds is the longest of Aristophanes’ surviving comedies, and perhaps the most acclaimed one." From Greek Mythology

"Unlike the author’s other early plays, it includes no direct mention of the Peloponnesian War, and there are relatively few references to Athenian politics" From Classical Literature

Comparisons with other texts

Unlike Lysistrata or The Achanians, there is no mention of the Peloponnesian war. Even though The Birds was written and performed during the war. In fact, it is a straight-up comedy with no political references. Though there are references to particular people in Athens.

Like Lysistrata or The Achanians, it is a light-hearted work without death and despair. By contrast, we see both of these in the tragedies of Euripides like The Children of Heracles. It also has a looser grasp on reality and is more fantastical than any of these other works.

Conclusion

The Birds is a comedic play that is quite an enjoyable read. It covers the creation of a bird city in the sky and is quite fantastical with talking birds. It is the first comedy we have seen without political aspects woven into it. It was written and performed while the Peloponnesian war was going on.

Have you read The Birds? If so what did you think of it? 
 
Want to read The Birds but haven't? Please leave me a comment and let me know why you want to read it.

Hopefully, this post inspires you to take the time to look into it on your own journey of Self Education.

Get a copy of The Birds.

Withholding sex to end the Peloponnesian war; Lysistrata, Aristophanes

 Why you might read Lysistrata?

Lysistrata is a satirical look at the end of the Peloponnesian war. It uses a slightly absurd premise to show the absurdity of the war. As such it is early anti-war propaganda and gives us insight into the war-weariness of the Athenians.

In my Self Education project, it is a great contrast to the history of the Peloponnesian war. It gives a more human view of the war.

Story of Lysistrata

Lysistrata is a play in two acts with one scene in the first and two in the second act. Lysistrata gets together women of Athens, Sparta, and some of the other states involved in the war. With them, she hatches a plan to end the war. She gets them to all swear to withhold sex from their husbands until the war is ended. They then lock themselves in Athena's temple and wait. Some old men immediately try and smoke them out but the women of the city come to their aid and dump water on the men.

Five days later they are still there and the men are getting desperate. One of the women's husbands comes to the temple and tries to get her to sleep with him. She leads him on and then runs back into the temple. The men eventually settle the peace and wives and husbands join in joyous singing then head home.

Reflections on Lysistrata

It is interesting how much power the women have in this play. There are often male characters that try and tell them they have nothing to do with the war. They tell them it is their business and proceed to bring the peace. Aristophanes writes them as powerful in an age where their power was around the homestead. The men he writes are uncomfortable with the change but the women succeed anyway.

Aristophanes writes the female characters as just as interested and needing sex as their male counterparts. This reminds us that the ancient Greeks saw women as the more sexually driven gender. This is contrary to modern societal thought.

What others have to say about Lysistrata

"The name Lysistrata can be translated as “releaser of war” or “army disbander”" From Classical literature

"Further, by occupying the Acropolis, home of the Athenian treasury, the women controlled access to the money necessary to finance the war." From World History Encyclopedia

Comparisons with other texts

Like The Acharnians this is an anti-war piece. They both poke fun at the war and in the war-weariness of the people of Athens. In The Acharnians this is done through an old man suing for his own peace. In Lysistrata, it is the women who take charge of bringing the war to an end.

Unlike The History of the Peloponnesian War, this play does suggest an end to the war. Where Thucydides' work cuts off abruptly in the later war and does not show us the resolution. That being said Lysistrata is clearly satire and while the war truly ended there is no way this was the reason.

Conclusion

Lysistrata is a slightly crude romp through war-weariness. It gives the women the power to end the war through unconventional means. Again it is satire and more a commentary on how over the war the average Athenian was with the war by the time it ended. 

Have you read Lysistrata? If so what did you think of it? 
 
Want to read Lysistrata but haven't? Please leave me a comment and let me know why you want to read it.

Hopefully, this post inspires you to take the time to look into it on your own journey of Self Education.

Get a copy of Lysistrata. 

A dream sequence with talking birds; Parlement of Foules, Geoffroy Chaucer

 Why you might read Parlement of Foules?

Parlement of Foules is another of Chaucer's dream sequence poems. It covers the idea that when there are competing men for a woman's courtship it is her that must decide. It gives insight into how those around those courtships saw them.

In my Self Education project, it stands to give a better understanding of Chaucer's times. As well as insight into country courtship at the time.

Story of Parlement of Foules

Parlement of Foules starts with the narrator reading Cicero. This is mostly around Scipio Africanis. He then runs out of light and goes to sleep. Once asleep Africanis guides him to the temple of Venus. Once there he heads outside and finds nature in a clearing. Around her are collected all the birds. It is St. Valentine's day so they are waiting for her to give them a mate. There are three male eagles who argue over who loves this one female the most. The other lesser birds get sick of this and complain. Eventually, Nature chimes in and declares that whoever the female decides will be her mate will be. The males are unhappy but it does end the argument. Then all the other birds pair off and there is an ode to spring. 

Relfections on Parlement of Foules

Dream sequences tend to be a lot harder to follow and this work is no exception. The topic at times moves quickly between ideas. As we get to the parliament itself things slow down and it is easier to follow.

It is interesting that Nature's ruling is for the free will of the female. It is an interesting twist to the idea that nature decides the pairing that we are introduced to. It took me a little by surprise as I had expected Nature to make the decision.

What others have to say about Parlement of Foules

"Chaucer uses this device to gently satirize the tradition of courtly love. He handles the debate with humour and deftly characterizes the various birds." From Britannica

Comparisons with other texts

Like the House of Fame and The Book of Duchess Parlement of Foules is a dream sequence. And like these other two, it makes it a little harder to follow. Like The Book of Duchess, it is about love. But where the Book of Duchess is about the loss of love Parlement of Foules is about the start of love.

It is unlike Anelida and Arcite which is a direct story about Arcites betrayal of Anelida. Though again both center on the theme of love they do so in very different ways.

Conclusion

The Parlement of Foules is another dream sequence from Geoffroy Chaucer. It covers the dreamer traveling to the temple of Venus and then outside. Once out there the dreamer finds Nature holding parliament of St Valentine's day and pairing up all the birds. It looks at the themes of love and parodies the usual country courtships.

Have you read Parlement of Foules? If so what did you think of it? 

 
Want to read Parlement of Foules but haven't? Please leave me a comment and let me know why you want to read it.

Hopefully, this post inspires you to take the time to look into it on your own journey of Self Education.

Get a copy of Parlement of Foules.