It is uncommon, in the twenty-first century, to review a work of classical scholarship written by a sitting member of the British parliament. Yet there was a time, not so very long ago, when politics, popular culture and Classics rubbed shoulders on the benches of Westminster, in the aisles of West End theatres and in the wider world beyond – a time when an educated Englishman’s opinion of Aristophanes might reflect his thoughts on the Reform Act, Women’s Suffrage or that ever-elusive question of ‘taste’. In this volume S. applies his unique understanding of politics and classical scholarship to the convoluted threads of Aristophanic reception. In so doing, he brings the spirit of Aristophanes to life during this influential period of Britain’s global ascendency. Through eight chronologically arranged studies S. offers fascinating glimpses and compelling analyses of Aristophanes’ evolving cultural significance. The result is a survey equally vital for those concerned with the reception of this pivotal yet often problematic playwright as well as those interested in the social and intellectual history of the Victorian era. S.’s ambitious scope, archival exploration, balanced judgement and tongue-in-cheek wit make this an excellent book.
The title’s keywords present ‘Old Comedy’, ‘nineteenth century’ and ‘Britain’ as coherent and orienting ideas, but the boundaries of these terms are fuzzy when not oblique. Aristophanes is the undisputed star of the show; amongst his fifth-century rivals only Eupolis receives a single, scant mention. Chronologically, the ‘century’ might be postponed two decades: early chapters begin with an 1820 publication of the poet P.B. Shelley and the translations and commentaries of Thomas Mitchell and John Hookham Frere (appearing in the 1820s and 1840s, respectively), whose impact was mostly felt only after ‘extensive reprinting’ (p. 33) in the 1870s. Likewise, the final chapters of the book spill over into the Edwardian and modern eras, as S. tracks the influence of Aristophanes into Oxbridge theatricals and the burgeoning Women’s Suffrage movement. In this extended finale S. brings onto the historical stage a colourful cast of characters (including Janet Case and Gilbert Murray), whose influence would extend into the interwar period. The identity of Britain, too, was in flux over this period of territorial expansion and colonial investment (and extraction), but the Empire lurks almost entirely unseen in the wings (S. cites P. Vasunia’s chapter, ‘Aristophanes’ Wealth and Dalpatram’s Lakshmi’, in: The Classics and Colonial India [2013], pp. 279–99). Benefits accrue from this decidedly insular history, but a broader, colonial scope would make for enlightening, if at times heavy, reading.
Each chapter may profitably be read in isolation, but all are in close dialogue with each other, arranged to highlight cultural contrast no less than historical continuity. Adjacent chapters demonstrate how, for example, Aristophanes was simultaneously received as a ‘proto-Tory moralist scourge’ (p. 1) via translation (Chapter 2) and as an anchor and inspiration for ‘revolutionary sentiments’ (p. 43) in Shelley’s satire Swellfoot the Tyrant (Chapter 3). S. shows how Aristophanes’ fantastic plots and comedic tropes developed around the Theatres Act reforms of 1843, contrasting the work of J.R. Planché (his 1846 adaptation of Birds, Chapter 4) with that of W.S. Gilbert (Chapter 5). A trio of chapters exploring the aesthetics and theatrics of Aristophanic drama address literary criticism (Chapter 6), academic staged production (Chapter 7) and women’s appropriation in the ‘fight for gender equality’ (Chapter 8), all engaging substantially with gendered Victorian questions of decorum and representation that would be revisited during the modern period (Chapter 9). S. notes how Aristophanes was ‘repeatedly but diversely used’ across a ‘rich array of mediums and texts’, among ‘high and low’ (p. 1) registers and audiences throughout this long nineteenth century. His contextually aware and theoretically nimble approach is up to the challenge posed by his evidence, which vividly shifts and recombines with every turn of the cultural kaleidoscope. S. quotes periodicals, poetic adaptations and personal correspondence, in addition to archival records and modern scholarship, in which his work is steeped and au courant.
S. does not shrink from challenging topics. In discussing the reception of Aristophanes among Aestheticists, he remains ‘[a]lert to the dangers of positivism when discussing nineteenth-century male sexuality’ (p. 124), and he chooses to adopt the terms and frameworks of queer studies to both mark and interrogate non-normative gender expression and sexuality in Victorian Britain. Indeed, when studying an era when a certain kind of love might, in the notorious words of Lord Alfred Douglas, ‘dare not speak its name’, a positivist approach soon runs into evidentiary and terminological difficulties. Even so, presenting historical material under a modern rubric risks smoothing out some of the texture of the past – a tactile quality otherwise vibrantly preserved in S.’s nuanced work. Critical frameworks also run the risk of being unevenly applied: while ‘queer’ surfaces naturally when addressing the work of J.A. Symonds and Oscar Wilde (Chapter 6), outside of a single reference to ‘queer classicist, poet brothers’ Laurence and A.E. Housman (p. 216), the word is entirely absent from a chapter on women’s appropriation of Aristophanes, where Cicely Hamilton and Jane Ellen Harrison, among others, feature memorably. S. skilfully navigates the deep but dynamic waters of nineteenth-century sexuality, despite the inadequacy of both modern and Victorian terms.
On the relative terra firma of documentary studies, S. quickly covers much historical and cultural ground. There are times, however, when it would be convenient to quote discussed passages in extenso, possibly via appendices, since some of the evidence S. analyses can be challenging to find or collate. When, for example, S. offers a poetic analysis (pp. 135–6) of several lines of Wilde’s Chorus of Cloud Maidens – a loose, literary translation of the eisodos of Clouds, published in 1875 in the Dublin University Magazine –, it would be helpful to have both passages to consult. The book has a spare but useful index, including mostly proper names. There is no index locorum, since the more interesting receptions S. charts are ‘subterranean’ (p. 4), going beyond direct intertext. A timeline, or at least a chronological list of major dates regarding publications, productions and personages mentioned, would make clear those chronological connections that resist linear representation in the text.
The text is practically error-free, and the volume is handsomely made – a fitting contribution to Oxford University Press’s Classical Presences series. Its provocative cover of Aubrey Beardsley’s nude Lysistrata, although less graphic than some of the artist’s other drawings included in the book, signals how the reception of Aristophanes remains challenging 2,400 years after the playwright and 125 years after Queen Victoria.
This book succeeds on many points; it will surely become a fixture in classical reception studies bibliographies. Its chapters are uniformly strong and interesting: readers arriving with a certain work in mind will be tempted to linger and explore. In the twenty-first century Aristophanes has become a global touchstone, but S. proves that British Classicists, and even members of parliament, remain at the vanguard of his reception.
