Bloomsbury’s companions to ancient comedy cover both Greek and Latin authors and volumes have already appeared on Menander, Plautus, Terence and other plays of Aristophanes. These new guides are intended for readers, students, teachers and drama practitioners who may not read them in Greek but are engaged with these dramas in different ways.

This book by Robert Tordoff is a new, recent Companion aiming at a better understanding of Hippeis, Cavalry, one of the most difficult comedies by Aristophanes.

The book is shaped as follows. Chapters 1and 2 are mostly introductory; the first one deals with the theatrical context in which Athenian drama of the classical period was performed. The second one focusses on Cleon, the Athenian political and military leader, the central subject of the play.  The next six chapters explore the play in detail and form the focus of the book. Finally, chapter 9 provides an overview of modern reception and reperformances of the play. Notes are displayed in pages 135-147; the volume closing with a list of bibliographic references together with some suggestions for further reading and an accurate general index.

As usual when reviewing this kind of books I prefer to examine in detail one specific important chapter rather than dealing with each chapter separately. This is the reason why I will concentrate on chapter 4 which is related to the first agon and parabasis that I like very much.

It is supposed to be the second sequence of the play after the prologue and parodos. It covers verses 303-610.The agon is a struggle between Paphlagon and Agorakritos in order to point out the greatest “outrageousness” of each of them. In fact, the result is a continuous exchange of boasts, threats, oaths, accusations and insults. Agorakritos indeed is strong enough to outdo Paphlagon his rival. Tordoff makes an excellent examination of the full agon pointing out that it is really a context in anaideia usually translated as ‘shamelessness’.  The author points out that no single English word captures fully the proper meaning of this agon; ‘outrageousness’ comes closer.  When I was a postgraduate, I had to deal with the semantics of aidôs in Aristophanes as a part of my doctoral thesis related to Aristophanes and the Comic Hero.  In fact anaideia in Cavalry is close to the Spanish word sinvergüenza ,which is closer to ‘outrageousness’ than ‘shamelessness’. In fact, examining the semantics of aidôs in the works of the Athenian playwright is quite fascinating task.  After examining texts by Herodotus and Pausanias, Tordoff concludes anaideia specifies actions, and the attitudes of mind behind them as unmitigatedly extreme; shameless in fact  is a little short of insanity. Thus the agôn becomes a real contest in anaideia. The way they both, Paphlagon and Agorakritos, exchange outrageous boasts is pointed out in detail (335-360).  There is a short allusion to food as political power and success, something by the way quite usual in Aristophanes’ plays. The author points out once again the very low social origins of Agorakritos in contrast with the traditional aristocratic noble birth suitable to any political ruler; it is the so-called social inversion. The full sequence is analysed in detail (pages 43-53).

Then we move to the parabasis, in fact the first parabasis, lines 498-610, as this play presents a second parabasis, verses 1264-1315, which is shorter and simpler than the first one. Anybody ready to enjoy this play should pay special attention to this particular parabasis.  I still feel deeply moved when remembering the performance of Cavalry by the National Theatre at Epidaurus in the beginning of the 2000s. I still remember the full audience clapping immediately after the parabasis.  There are two sections: a short prelude sung by the chorus; then an extensive long speech from the koryphaios follows. He addresses to the audience, no doubt on behalf of the playwright. When speaking he steps apart from the Chorus, using anapaestic verse rhythms. The chorus leader points out Aristophanes’ genius; the very goal of the speech is to promote the playwright as the greatest poet Athens has ever seen. Aristophanes presents himself as a friend of both the elite cavalry and the mass of citizens. This kind of unity between mass and elite lies under the different elements of the parabasis; in fact Aristophanes hates the same people the audience do, that means Cleon and his supporters. Then the koryphaios explains the reason why Aristophanes decided to direct the plays he writes just at that particular moment: directing comedy is not an easy task and success is highly uncertain; on the other hand, the audience soon grows tired of even the most successful comic poets but even so it was essential for our playwright to learn the ropes of comic directing one by one. It is notable that his three previous plays -Banqueters, Babylonians and even Acharnians- were directed by his fellow Calistratus. Aristophanes is now ready to surpass his forerunners, Magnes, Crates and Cratinus, whose productions were sharply criticized. The audience should then shout out and clap for the poet so that he will achieve his goal of winning the Lenaea competition.

Then we move to the second part of the parabasis (page 59). Its content is made up of two strophic choral odes each followed by a speech. The god Poseidon is praised continuously, being considered as a kind of unifying force for Athenians. The first speech immediately after underlines the bravery of the chorus’s fathers. The antistrophe invokes Athena, the guardian of the city. This kind of balance (Poseidon and Athena, always in a permanent mythical rivalry), could be considered as an image of the essential unity of mass and elite in Athens. Aristophanes maybe seeks to establish a sentimental unity of classes against leaders like Cleon. Tordoff mentions Bowie and Dover whose works (1993 and 1972) share the same point of view. In a second speech the chorus praise their horses for their service in battles mainly in the Peloponnesian invasions of Attica.

Chapter 5 concentrates on the second agon (756-941) a real debate between both Paphlagon and Agorakritos in order to become Demos’ lover.  Once again Paphlagon will be defeated.  Then, in chapter 6, a lovely episode follows; the so called “divination contest”. 997-150). I must assert that it is a very enjoyable passage. In it both characters try to read oracles and describe prophetic dreams. At the end of this divination contest Paphlagon is beaten once again. This is a section of the piece which is quite difficult for performance; there is a comic parody atmosphere involving the full sequence; no doubt a real challenge for both actors.

Then we move to the next chapter.  It shows the final contest between Agorakritos and Paphlagon about public service. Once again food is brought on stage. The so-called banquet sequence is divided in three parts, that are examined in detail.  A competition between Paphlagon and Agorakritos serving Demos as waiters is really funny; every detail is remarked. A second parabasis follows (1264-1315). It is shorter and not at all as meaningful as the first one. Allusions to Cleonymus and the demagogue Hyperbolus to be found here and there. 

This unusually long comedy closes with a couple of short episodes. They are really the very final summary of the play. There is a dialogue between Agorakritos and the chorus before Demos returns to the stage transformed.  Agorakritos has boiled him down   in order to restore him to the way he was in the days of the Persian Wars. In the second episode   the Sausage-Seller reminds Demos of his former mistakes. Demos repents and is rewarded. Finally, Demos will invite Agorakritos to dine in the Prytaneion.  The lack of a final festive choral exodus is underlined by the author

Before ending this review, I would like to comment on chapter 9, Modern Reception and Performance. It is made up of two pages,133,134.  The reason why, Tordorff argues, is that professional and amateur productions have been few and that reception scholarship on them is thin. He only mentions performances in Greece and UK, and a very interesting mention of a performance at Barnard College in New York in 2016 closes this chapter. Maybe it could have been worth it to see Donald Trump as Agorakritos campaigning with the slogan “Make Athens Great Again”, Hillary Cleon (Clinton) as Paphlagon and Demos as a crowd of female newscasters finding a new champion in Trump. Could anybody imagine a very similar performance nowadays?

I should mention that I was lucky to attend an impressive performance at Epidaurus in summer 2001 by the National Theatre of Greece, with music composed by Mikis Theodorakis for a performance at Epidaurus 1979 by Theatro Technes and that they both were a great success. In Spain there was an excellent production by Thyasos Theatrical Group directed by Rosa García Rodero in 1996 within the National Congress of SEEC in Madrid.  It was represented for two consecutive years all over Spain. Even if is a very hard play it was successful. Since then, nobody (neither professional nor amateur) has tried it in Spain.

This book is really a very good attempt on a very difficult play. Certainly it is full of accuracy and subtle observations and remarks. I have liked the fact that the author does not simply take care of the text but also of the performance. I must agree this one, the performance, is extremely complex and requires a lot of expenses. Those are maybe the very reasons why it is not represented nowadays. As a matter of fact the subject remains absolutely updated but the way Aristophanes decided to stage it does not fit into contemporary patterns. Of course, anybody liking Aristophanes’ comedy should read this book carefully.

                                                            José Luis Navarro