The Heracles of Euripides

by Euripides, Michael R. Halleran (Translator)

Euripides'  Heracles  is an extraordinary play, innovative in its treatment of the myth, bold in its dramatic structure, and filled with affective human pathos. The play tells a tale of Heracles, the greatest hero of the Greeks, is maddened by the gods to murder his wife and children. But this suffering and divine malevolence are leavened by the friendship between Heracles and Theseus, which allows the hero to survive this final and most painful labor. The Heracles raises profound questions about the gods and mortal values in a capricious and harsh world.

​Includes essays on Euripides, performance, and interpretation of Myth, a list of suggested readings, notes, and a map.  

Genres: Plays, Classics, Mythology, Drama, Fiction, Theatre, Tragedy

96 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 417

About the author

Euripides (Greek: Ευριπίδης) (ca. 480 BC–406 BC) was a tragedian of classical Athens. Along with Aeschylus and Sophocles, he is one of the three ancient Greek tragedians for whom any plays have survived in full. Some ancient scholars attributed ninety-five plays to him, but the Suda says it was ninety-two at most. Of these, eighteen or nineteen have survived more or less complete (Rhesus is suspect). There are many fragments (some substantial) of most of his other plays. More of his plays have survived intact than those of Aeschylus and Sophocles together, partly because his popularity grew as theirs declined—he became, in the Hellenistic Age, a cornerstone of ancient literary education, along with Homer, Demosthenes, and Menander.
Euripides is identified with theatrical innovations that have profoundly influenced drama down to modern times, especially in the representation of traditional, mythical heroes as ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances. This new approach led him to pioneer developments that later writers adapted to comedy, some of which are characteristic of romance. He also became "the most tragic of poets", focusing on the inner lives and motives of his characters in a way previously unknown. He was "the creator of ... that cage which is the theatre of William Shakespeare's Othello, Jean Racine's Phèdre, of Henrik Ibsen and August Strindberg," in which "imprisoned men and women destroy each other by the intensity of their loves and hates". But he was also the literary ancestor of comic dramatists as diverse as Menander and George Bernard Shaw.
His contemporaries associated him with Socrates as a leader of a decadent intellectualism. Both were frequently lampooned by comic poets such as Aristophanes. Socrates was eventually put on trial and executed as a corrupting influence. Ancient biographies hold that Euripides chose a voluntary exile in old age, dying in Macedonia, but recent scholarship casts doubt on these sources.

Reviews

[Ali Ahmadi · Rating 3 out of 5]

هراکلس
یا
هرکول که شیر می‌گرفتی همه عمر

هراکلس (که در روم باستان به هرکولس تبدیل شد) احتمالن نمایشی‌ترین قهرمان افسانه‌ای یونان است؛ از این نظر که زندگی‌اش سرشار است از داستان‌های شگفت‌انگیز و باورنکردنی‌ که خوراک مرغوبی‌اند برای اقتباس‌های پرخرج سینمایی. (در حقیقت بیشتر از بیست فیلم اکشن بر اساس این افسانه ساخته شده که بیشتر از نیمی از آن‌ها متعلق به دهه‌های پنجاه و شصت میلادی سینمای ایتالیا هستند.) اما این مفهوم از نمایشی بودن هیچ شباهتی به آنچه که یونان دوهزار و پانصد سال پیش در ذهن داشت نیست. تراژدی‌نویس، بر خلاف شاعر حماسه‌سرا، دنبال نمایش دادن پیروزی و افتخار (و چیزهایی از این دست) نیست. او به دنبال بخت‌برگشتگی می‌گردد. اما آیا می‌شود گفت که بخت از کسی برگشته که فرزند خداست، دوازده خان را پشت سر گذاشته (و ده‌ها کار دیگر هم کرده) و بلاخره خودش هم خدا شده؟ از نظر اوریپیدس بله.

چیزی که تراژدی یونانی را ماندگار کرده همین است که کیفیت تراژیک —که می‌شود آن را به نوعی گرفتاری در چنگال تقدیر و بازی‌ دوسرباخت تعبیر کرد— چیزی منحصر به زمان و مکان نیست و البته که برای بزرگترین پهلوان هم ممکن است پیش بیاید. نمایش از آنجا آغاز می‌شود که هراکلس سرگرم سپری کردن آخرین خان است و بی‌خبر از این که پادشاه غاصب و جباری می‌خواهد پدر و همسر و فرزندان او را بکشد. اوریپیدس مثل همیشه از هوشش استفاده می‌کند و با بر هم زدن روابط علّی روایت افسانه‌ای رایج از زندگی هراکلس، نه به کشتن شیر و رام کردن سگ سه‌سر، که به پرده‌ای کوتاه از زندگی او می‌پردازد که برای پیشینیانش اهمیت چندانی نداشته.

بُکُش و نشان نده
برخلاف حماسه (و اقتباس‌های امروزی از روایت‌های افسانه‌ای)، در تراژدی حساسیت ویژه‌ای نسبت به بازنمایی خشونت وجود دارد. هر قدر در اشعار هومر، ویرژیل و اوید خشونت بی‌معنا و بی‌دلیل، با ریزترین جزئیات توصیف می‌شود، تراژدی، با وجود بهره‌ بردن از قتل به‌عنوان یک رانه‌ی مهم دراماتیک، هیچ‌گاه آن را جلوی چشم تماشاگر نمی‌آورد. یک دلیل این است که جشنواره‌ی دیونیزیا — که محل برگزاری این نمایش‌ها بود — ماهیت مذهبی داشته و نمایش این صحنه احتمالن با فضای حاکم بر مراسم همخوانی نداشته. دوم اینکه تراژدی‌نویس‌ها برای محاکات یا mimesis اهمیت زیادی قائل بودند و عجیب نیست که فکر کنیم نمایش قتل با امکانات حداقلی آن زمان نه‌تنها باورپذیر نیست، بلکه شاید خنده‌دار هم باشد و قطعن درام‌پرداز هم از آن باخبر بوده. و بلاخره اینکه این قضیه به ویژگی پالاینده بودن تراژدی هم ربط دارد. چه بسا نشان ندادن صحنه و شریک شدن در شکنجه‌ی فکری همسرایان که تنها صدای فریاد را می‌شنوند بسیار موثرتر است از نمایش قتل. البته که در بسیاری از تراژدی‌ها، مثل هراکلس، دست کم یکی از قتل‌ها به شکلی دقیق توصیف می‌شود. می‌شود این را مخالف توصیه‌ی معروف «نگو! بلکه نشان بده» در در نویسندگی مدرن دانست: «اتفاقن نشان نمی‌دهم و فقط می‌گویم.»

(البته در بسیاری از اوقات، پیکر مرده(گان) بعد از رخ دادن قتل به لطایف‌الحیلی روی صحنه می‌آید که اینجا می‌توانید ببینید چطور)

این رشته را به نقد جوانی خریده‌ام
در چندجای نمایشنامه همسرایان روی این تاکید می‌کنند که جوانی کجایی که یادت بخیر و پیری عجب بلای خانمان‌سوزی‌ست. آیا در ادبیات و تاریخ یونان و روم باستان نشانه‌ای از نوعی از سن‌گرایی یا ageism به چشم می‌خورد؟ آیا پیرها مثل آنشیز (پدر انه) و آمفیتریون‌ (پدر هراکلس) محترمند، اما در نهایت باری بی‌فایده به دوش بچه‌ها؟ یا مثل نستور خردمند، آنطور که همه در هر کاری از او مشورت می‌گیرند؟ نمونه‌های جالبی و نیمه‌تاریخی دیگری هم از بازنمایی مثبت سالمندی هم وجود دارند، مثل کتاب اول جمهور و مکالمه‌ی طولانی سقراط با سفالوس که پیری‌اش را دوران صلح و آرامش می‌داند و خلاص شدن از دیوانگی جوانی. خلاصه که هر اثری به‌گونه‌ای به سالمندی نگاه می‌کند. این که چرا اوریپیدس در این اثر به‌خصوص سختی‌های پرشمار پیری را برجسته کرده، شاید به سن خودش در زمان نوشتن ربط داشته! (هراکلس احتمالن در دهه‌ی هفتم زندگی‌اش نوشته شده، تقریبن پانزده سال بعد از مده‌آ و ده سالی قبل از مرگش.)

خدا مرده است (یا حداقل این خدایی که شما می‌گویید)
طعنه‌های اوریپیدس به زئوس و باقی خدایان معروف‌اند. در اینجا هم هراکلس به وضوح برخی باورهای بنیادین زمانه‌ی خودش را رد می‌کند، طوری که می‌شود پرسید چطور این نمایش در مراسم مذهبی دولت‌شهر برپا می‌شده؟ چرا سقراط که در همان دوره زندگی میکرد و هرگز اینطور صریح نبود اعدام شد ولی اوریپیدس، اگر نگوییم به اندازه‌ی آیسخولوس و سوفوکل، باز هم معروف و محبوب ماند؟ احتمالن به چند دلیل. انگار برای درام‌پردازها و کمدین‌ها نوعی مصونیت نسبی وجود داشته، چون آثارشان چاپ نمیشد و مردم تنها در آمفی‌تئاتر و مثلن سالی یک بار با آن رو‌به‌رو می‌شدند، اما سقراط هر روز با مردم کوچه و بازار در ارتباط بود. از طرف دیگر کفرگویی بیشتر در زمان جنون اتفاق می‌افتد (مثل هراکلس در اینجا) و به روح حاکم بر اثر تبدیل نمی‌شود. و بلاخره این که معمولن شخصیت‌های دیگری هستند که این نظرات رادیکال را تعدیل کنند (مثل تسئوس در این نمایشنامه)

خالی از لطف نیست خواندن نقل قول‌هایی از زنوفانس، فیلسوف یونانی، که مرگش تقریبن مصادف است با تولد اوریپیدس و نظراتش درباره‌ی خدایان احتمالن یکی از رادیکال‌ترین‌های آن دوران.

Homer and Hesiod have attributed to the gods all things
That among men are sources of blame and censure:
Thieving, committing adultery, and deceiving each other.

But mortals think that gods are born
And have clothing, voice, and bodily frame just like theirs.

But if oxen, or lions had hands
Or could draw with their hands and create works like men,
Then horses would draw the shapes of gods like horses, and oxen like oxen,
And they would make the same kinds of bodies
As each one possessed its own bodily frame.

همه‌ی راه‌ها به آتن ختم می‌شود
به طرز عجیبی تقریبن هیچ کدام از تراژدی که در آتن نوشته و اجرا می‌شدند در آتن اتفاق نمی‌افتند! اما در بسیاری از موارد آتن گرانیگاه تمدن، پاکی و شروع دوباره است، البته در پس‌زمینه. ریشه‌ی این رویکرد را باید در نگاهی دید که شهروندان آتن نسبت به موقعیت سیاسی و تمدنی خود داشتند. این قضیه در مورد هراکلس هم صادق است. تباهی و قتل و جباریت در تبای است، اما آتن آنجایی‌ست که نظم از دست رفته دوباره برقرار و قهرمان پاک می‌شود و آماده برای شروع دوباره. خدایان پرزورند و حتا اگر باورشان نکنیم، بازهم ما را در تقدیری ازپیش‌بافته به دام می‌اندازند. اما تا آتن هست زندگی ادامه دارد. تا الیمپوس رسیدن، یک یا زئوس دیگر.
************
درباره‌ی ترجمه: تا جایی که دیدم به جز ترجمه‌ی نشر بیدگل، ترجمه‌ی فارسی دیگری از هراکلس موجود نیست. ترجمه‌ی غلامرضا شهبازی نثری خوشخوان و روان است، اما آهنگ و وزن ترجمه کوثری را ندارد. البته که سلیقه‌ایست، اما به شخصه کوثری را ترجیح می‌دهم.

با تشکر از همخوانان عزیز.

[Steve]

Two renditions of Hercules fighting the Nemean lion on ancient Greek pottery

But the gods' ways aren't ours:
Between good and bad action,
They don't draw a clear line.
And time, as the years roll on,
Does not lay things bare
Or blind us with the truth.


At about the halfway point through the generally fascinating plays of Euripides (c. 480 – c. 406 BCE) I've just read the quite consternating Herakles. First performed c. 416 - so a product of his later, more pessimistic period - Herakles breaks with both the traditions of form and of allowable sentiments in tragic Attic theater.

While Hercules, illegitimate son of Zeus, is carrying out his last commissioned task - capturing the three-headed watchdog of Hades, Cerberus, and freeing Theseus from the underworld as an afterthought - in Thebes his wife, children and (step)father are about to be put to a horrific death by the new tyrant, Lykos. They are huddled about an altar to Zeus erected by Hercules in gratitude for one of his heroic victories, but Lykos and the rest of the Thebans - excepting the chorus of old men - care not that such supplications are holy and traditionally protect the supplicants while they are on the sacred premises. Hercules' old friends and supporters have melted away before Lykos' tyranny. Lykos intends to burn Hercules' family alive at the altar, a sacrilege.

Hercules arrives at the last moment and slays Lykos and his supporters. And then the strangeness begins. The goddess Iris and the pre-Olympian Fury Lyssa appear, commissioned by Hera - Zeus' jealous wife whose ire must be exercised on the innocent Hercules rather than on her all-powerful husband - with a dreadful task. They are to inflict Hercules with madness so that he kills his children. The Olympian Iris seethes with rage and claims that unless Hercules pays this price, human beings may as well take over from the gods. The ancient Fury - manifestation of the oldest, irrational powers of the universe who were replaced by the supposedly more civilized and rational Olympian gods(*) - tries to talk sense to Iris and through her, to Hera, and fails. The unholy deed is carried out, offstage, in a very gripping manner.

When Hercules finally emerges from his madness and realizes the enormity of his unwilling actions he is crushed and ready to commit suicide.(**) But a grateful Theseus stands by him and convinces him to live and bear it. As Hercules limps offstage supported by Theseus his last words are

If in your heart you put wealth and power
Over loving friendship, I tell you - you are mad.



Hercules and the Hydra

There is much in this rich drama worth considering, but here I shall keep the focus on Euripides' stance towards the received religion. One can interpret the questioning of the gods by the stricken Hercules as an effect of his shock and grief. Indeed, he asserts that the gods could not have been adulterous nor fought among each other as the myths maintain. Anticipating Epicurus, Euripides has Hercules say "A god is self-contained. Perfect. Needing nothing."(***) All the myths every Greek learned at their parents' knees were "only poets mouthing lies". But the exchange between Iris and Lyssa was not a product of Hercules' grief; it was a most unusual dramatic device of the playwright himself. I think Euripides had the received religion in his gunsight when he wrote this play.

The more I read of his plays, the more I am inclined to the position that, unlike Sophocles, Euripides was a philosophical dramatist like, say, Jean-Paul Sartre. Though reliable sources are scanty, it appears that Euripides began his adult life as a student of philosophy and numbered Socrates, Anaxagoras, Protagoras and Prodicus among his friends. I am also inclined to think that Euripides believed that the source of humankind's tragedy is the (in his view) ineradicable irrational impulse within us all: just look at Medea, Hippolytus, Hecuba and, though here the irrational was imposed by a deus ex machina in order to indirectly question received religion, also in Herakles. It would be difficult for me to disagree with him on this point.

But I think that as he aged Euripides disagreed with his earlier friends on some important points. For example - and the matter arises in this play, as the initial quote above indicates - Socrates and his followers believed that with reason one could find criteria distinguishing good and evil. It appears to me that Euripides questioned that. Diogenes Laertius reports that Socrates always went to the premieres of Euripides' plays, but that at the premiere of Elektra, where at one point a character questioned mankind's ability to do just that, Socrates arose with disgust and left the theater. In Hippolytus Euripides suggests that only time will show what is good and what is evil. Though I expect he would agree that in some situations it is rather clear what is good, I admit that in others he could well be right about that, too.


(*) This belief is central to Aeschylus' Orestia trilogy.

(**) Interestingly, it seems that even worse than the personal loss is the concomitant social disgrace, the rejection of the family-killer by the polis.

(***) The consequence for Epicurus was that the gods have no interest in nor effect upon this world. It was a small step for the Epicurean disciple Lucretius to conclude that the gods do not exist. Even in Euripides' time this notion had been discussed.

[Harir Heidary · Rating 5 out of 5]

هراکلس: اما یارانم چه؟ در نبود من خبری از ایشان نبود؟
مگارا: کدام مردی آن‌گاه که باران بلا بر او می‌بارد یاری دارد؟

[İlkim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Herakles gerçekten acıların adamı.

[Roya · Rating 3 out of 5]

ببینید این خون چگونه طغیان می‌کند.

معمولا هراکلس یا همون هرکول، به عنوان نماد قدرت و قهرمانی نشون داده میشه اما در این نمایشنامه، اوریپید قصد داره وجه دیگری از هراکلس که آسیب‌پذیره و هیچ قدرتی برای مقابله با خواست خدایان نداره رو به صحنه بیاره.
به نظرم پررنگ‌ترین مفهومی که بهش پرداخته میشه، باز هم همون تأثیر تصمیمات خدایان بر زندگی و سرنوشتیه که همگی بهش محکوم‌اند و راه فراری از اون وجود نداره. همون موضوعی که در اکثر نمایشنامه‌های اوریپید دیده میشه. اوریپید ذهن مخاطب رو درگیر میکنه که آیا خدایان عادل و با انصاف هستند یا بسته به احساسات شخصی خودشون مثل حسادت و خشم، با میرایان مثل عروسک‌های خیمه‌شب‌بازی رفتار می‌کنند. مهم نیست چقدر قدرتمند باشی، هیچ‌گاه توان گریز از سرنوشتت رو نداری و در برابر خواست خدایان تنها باید سر فرود آورد و رنج کشید.
《ابلهانه‌ست که کسی با سرنوشت خویش بجنگد.》

مفهوم دیگری که در این نمایشنامه تکرار شده، نقش و ارزش دوست و همراه در زندگی، خصوصا به وقت سیه‌روزی‌ست. زمانی که همه، تلاش‌ها و زحمات هراکلس رو به فراموشی سپردند و متوجه میشه که "به گاه تیره‌بختی یاری نزدیک خود نمی‌بینی" ، تسیوس به کمکش میاد و به نوعی نجات‌بخش هراکلس میشه و هراکلس ارزش دوست رو از ثروت و قدرت بیشتر می‌دونه.
علارغم این مفاهیم پرتکرار، با مقایسه‌ی نمایشنامه‌هایی که پیش از این از اوریپید خوندم، در این نمایشنامه با دو تناقض/تفاوت مواجه شدم:
1- توی نمایشنامه‌های قبلی، اوریپید سعی میکنه به نحوی خدایان و آیین زمان خودش رو زیر سؤال ببره و مردمی که این خدایان رو ستایش می‌کنند رو سرزنش کنه‌. معمولا شخصیت اصلی علیه سرنوشتی که خدایان براش رقم زدند اعتراض می‌کرد ولی در این نمایشنامه، علارغمی که هراکلس به وضوح می‌دونست رنج و بدبختی که متحمل شده به خاطر خشم و حسادت "هِرا" بوده، ولی میگه:
"آنگاه که خشت نخست یک تبار را کج می‌گذارند، سرنوشت تمامی زادورود آن تبار بدبختی خواهد بود."
یعنی ناپدری‌ش (آمفیتریون) رو که قاتل پدربزرگش (پدرِ آلکمنه، آلکتروئون) بوده رو مقصر این بدبختی که بهش به ارث رسیده می‌دونه. در حالیکه هراکلس در واقع پسرِ زئوس بوده و بانی رنج و عذابش همسرِ زئوس، هِراست.
با این حال، دیالوگ زیر نشون میده که این فقط عقیده هراکلس بوده و آمفیتریون همچنان خدایان رو مقصر می‌دونن:
"تو یکی میرایی که بی‌رحمانه در اندیشه‌ی گناهان خویشی، حال آنکه خدایان خود هیچ خطایی در گناهان‌شان نمی‌بینند."

2- تیسیوس که به یاری هراکلس میره، وقتی رنج و اندوه هراکلس رو می‌بینیه اون رو سرزنش میکنه که تو که قهرمان شرافتمندی هستی این چه رفتار زنانه‌ایه که داری؟!
این دیالوگ شکنندگی عاطفی و روحی که اوریپید سعی داره به عنوان نقطه تقابل قدرت بدنی هراکلس نشون بده رو یک ضعف زنانه قلمداد میکنه.
این در حالیه که اوریپید در نمایشنامه‌های دیگه‌ش سعی میکنه زنان رو به گونه‌ای پرقدرت نشون بده که در طلب حق و خواسته‌های خودشون دست به طغیان می‌زنند. این دیالوگ، از طرفی هم ضد مرد محسوب میشه چون هراکلس رو تشویق میکنه که احساسات و دردش رو بروز نده و اصطلاحا همون "مرد که گریه نمیکنه" خودمونه.
در کل که تراژدی‌شو دوست داشتم و نگاه جدیدی که اوریپید به یک قهرمانی که از دوازده خوان گذشته و هیچ‌ چیز نتونسته اون رو از پا در بیاره اما دچار گسستگی عاطفی و روانی میشه رو دوست داشتم.

[Evripidis Gousiaris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Αγαπώ.

[Jenny · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Σ'αυτά οι θνητοί παρόμοια νιώθουν όλοι·
και οι τιποτένιοι και οι τρανοί αγαπάνε
τα τέκνα τους· στο χρήμα διαφέρουν·
άλλοι έχουνε κι άλλοι δεν έχουν· όμως
όλοι οι άνθρωποι λατρεύουν τα παιδιά τους. "


Μια από τις πιο στενάχωρες τραγωδίες του Ευριπίδη, καθώς ο Ηρακλής (ένας από τους πιο συμπαθητικούς ήρωες που έχω συναντήσει) εκδηλώνει έντονα τα συναισθήματά του, πριν και μετά το φονικό: τη μεγάλη αγάπη που τρέφει για τα παιδιά του και τη μεγάλη δυστυχία του, όταν σκοτώνει αυτά και τη γυναίκα του. Επίσης, με συγκίνησε πολύ η φιλία του με τον Θησέα και ο μεταξύ τους διάλογος. Άτιμη Ήρα!

[Sinem]

Antalya Müzesi'ndeki Yorgun Herakles heykeli çok anlamlı oldu şimdi. :')

[İlhanCa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Yani bir solukta biten bir kitap..
Sayfalar dolu dolu değil zaten..
Uyku öncesi başlayıp sabah kalktığımda biten bir eser oldu..o kadar kısa yani😃

Mitoloji ya da Yunan Mitolojisi beni pek sarmıyor sanırım..bir mitolojik kahramanın yükselişi ve düşüşü diye özetlemiş kitabın arka kapağında..aynen öyle..ailesini öldüren bir babanın hazin sonu mu desek bilemedim..

[sologdin · Rating 3 out of 5]

An odd set of inversions here. The ancient mythology is straightforward:

Now it came to pass that after the battle with the Minyans Hercules was driven mad through the jealousy of Hera and flung his own children, whom he had by Megara, and two children of Iphicles into the fire; wherefore he condemned himself to exile, and was purified by Thespius, and repairing to Delphi he inquired of the god where he should dwell. The Pythian priestess then first called him Hercules, for hitherto he was called Alcides. And she told him to dwell in Tiryns, serving Eurystheus for twelve years and to perform the ten labours imposed on him, and so, she said, when the tasks were accomplished, he would be immortal. (Apollodorus, Bibliotheka II.4.12 (Frazer, trans.))

Euripides, accused by some (with some justice perhaps) of being an atheist, reverses the chronology here by having the twelve labors completed before the murders of Megara and their children, as Heracles enters the text to his still living family and has “brought the triple-headed dog” (l. 611), Cerberus of Hades, which is generally accounted the 12th labor (Bibliotheka II.5.12). Normally, the labors were conceived as part of the atonement for the crime, but here, the crime occurs after the labors are finished. It’s a nice setup for some anti-traditionalist views, such as Lycus’ suggestion that overcoming the Lernean Hydra and the Nemean Lion is overstated (l. 151 ff.) or that “his reputation fighting beasts” (l. 158) with a bow is nothing compared to real warfare as part of a phalanx of hoplites. Heracles' quasi-father Amphitryon articulates the contrary view that fighting in a phalanx is not so big a deal, and that Heracles is slick for using a bow & arrow: “This is best in war: to preserve yourself and to hurt your foe” (l. 201).

The text further lays out an impious presentation, first by suggesting that “the gods are nothing / and men prevail, if this one man escape” (ll. 841-42). He escapes, and even asks Theseus, after accommodating to the Real of “I must serve necessity [ananke]” (l.1357), “Help me take to Argos the monstrous dog” (l. 1387) (i.e., because tricephalous Cerberus is just hanging around on a leash the entire time), which is probably the best line in the play. Heracles himself is presented as monstrous in his madness:

He thought Eurystheus’ father
Had come, trembling, to supplicate his hand; pushed him away, and set his bows and arrows
Against his sons. He thought he was killing
Eurystheus’ children. Trembling with terror,
They rushed here and there; one hid beneath
His mother’s robes, one ran to the shadow.
(ll. 967-72)

Though killing one's own minor children is awful, if it is your enemy’s children, killing them is of course perfectly reasonable and acceptable. Insofar as this is a treatise on natalism, he will later place his own children into juxtaposition with the chthonic beasts that he purged from the earth: “And now my last worst labor has been done: / I slew my children and crowned my house with grief” (ll. 1279-80)--parenting as the ne plus ultra of heraclean labors (this appears in the labors of Theseus, too—it has been pointed out to me that the Minotaur is the ultimate presentation of a difficult child).

The heresy, however, of this text is the anagnorisis:

all this has no bearing on my grief;
But I do not believe the gods commit
Adultery, or bind each other in chains.
I never did believe it; I never shall;
Nor that one god is a tyrant of the rest.
If god is truly god, he is perfect,
Lacking nothing. These are poets’ wretched lies.
(ll. 134046)

So, there it is, the great hero as anti-theist ideological weapon.

This presentation develops curiously when picked up by Seneca, in his Hercules Furens. He retains the reversed chronology, but loses the interest in making an atheist’s or anti-traditionalist’s argument. Rather, Hercules in Seneca is cast as a cosmopolitan defender of the earth (l. 249), “peace has been gained by his hand” (l. 442). In the course of this work, he has “seen places unapproached by any [vidi inaccessa omnibus]” (l. 606); the labors are listed in detail several times. After the madness hits, it is unclear at first whether it is classical hubris or not; it is consistent with Euripides insofar as the children, as they are being murdered, are perceived as monsters (l. 1019).

In the anagnorisis, however, he understands that “if I keep to life, I have wrought wrong” and therefore is “in haste to purge the earth” of his own “monstrous form” (ll. 1278-80): he is Nietzsche’s fighter of monsters who has become monstrous in the process and accordingly seeks to complete the task of making the world safe for civilization. Though there is window dressing regarding Juno’s wrath, the linkage here is plain between the warfare and madness arising out of it: PTSD, shellshock, furens. Because he is “known in every land, I have lost my place for exile” (l. 1330), and resolves to go with Theseus in refuge. Very plainly the euripidean concern with offending traditionalist prejudice is replaced with the stoic concern to perfect humanity, inclusive of self-discipline and world peace.

Effective katabasis from Theseus in Seneca (l. 658 ff.); plenty of great stoic aphorisms; no shortage of senecan gore (including brains being bashed out).

Overall, go forth and read more Euripides and Seneca: “now no fear remains [iam nullus superset timor]; naught lies beyond the underworld [nil ultra iacet inferos]” (l. 891).

[Giorgia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Inizio più lento e meno drammatico, ma quando sulla scena compare Eracle finalmente le cose si fanno molto più vivaci. Come al solito, gli antichi greci sono bravissimi a far soffrire la gente: Eracle ne è l'esempio perfetto, perseguitato da Era perché figlio di Zeus. Davvero dolorosa la parte finale e interessante il suo rapporto con Teseo.

[Meg · Rating 4 out of 5]

"What groaning,
what lament,
what song of death,
what dance of Hades
shall I do?"

Now, this is tragedy. Sweet carthasis, emotions lived through characters and expunged. A condensed punch in the gut delivered through 1,400 lines. Euripides' tragedies get to me every single time. He’s the greatest playwright. Anne Carson's translation (found in Grief Lessons) does him justice.

The play starts with an absent Herakles in the underworld, while his children, wife, and father are about to executed by Lykos, the despot. Herakles reappears at the last minute.

"Who else should I defend if not wife,
sons, father? Farewell my labors!
That was all pointless.
I should have been here.
How is it heroic
to fight hydras and lions for Eurystheus,
while my children face death alone?
I shall never be called "Herakles the victor" again."

He's in time to save the day, murder Lykos before he can murder Herakles’ family. What a relief! Cue ceremonial trumpets, audience applause, sigh of relief. The hero is here, to make everything right. He’s finished his twelve tasks, he’s triumphant, he’s saved his family. But wait, this is a tragedy...

Madness strikes, personified as a goddess beholden to Hera, a manifestation over his house that sinks downward and inflicts. Herakles kills his wife and children, not knowing what he’s doing. He awakens to the horror he’s wrought. True despair, unrivaled pain.

"What are you saying? What have I done? Father!”

and:

"AIAI [cry]
My world goes dark."

His family's fallen bodies are a mockery, an antidote to his entire myth, a shadow over every good or noble deed he’s ever done. Who can call him a hero, after this atrocity? Just as importantly, how can he see himself as a hero, knowing what he’s done?

"Here is my life — not worth living
now or ever.
First, I came into being from this sort of man:
he killed my mother’s father
then married her to deflect the guilt.
When the family foundations are poor
of course the descendants turn out a disaster.
And Zeus—whoever Zeus is!— begot me
(don’t be offended, old man. I consider you
my father now, not Zeus)
as an enemy for Hera.
While I was still an infant
she put snakes in my cradle, that wife of Zeus,
to annihilate me.
And when I grew up — all these labors,
what can I say? Those lions.
Those typhons.
Those giants.
Those centaurs.
Those wars.
Then the hydra with her hundred heads snapping.
And down to hell to get the threeheaded dog.
And now, absolutely last labor.
I kill my children.
I finish my house in evil."

I loved this turning part of the play because it destroyed not just him as a person, his entire sense of self, but also his entire myth. And it bifurcates him. Herakles becomes a walking contradiction: the heights of heroism and the depths of depravity in one person.

It makes you question the nature of a hero such as he, so eminently violent. Killing monsters or tyrants, we can cheer him on, but the fact remains he brings death and calamity where he goes, he ends things. The only difference this time is that it was his family who became the recipient.

"O bitter last kiss.
Oh bitter weapons. My partners.
Should I take you with me or leave you behind?
Knocking against my ribs you will always be saying,
"This is how you slew your wife and sons,
we are your childkillers."
Can I bear that?
Can I answer?
But without them
won’t I die in shame at my enemies’ hands—
naked, nobody?
I cannot leave them.
However grotesque it is.
I must keep my weapons."

But even as he brings death, he brings life. Another contradiction here: that he's just finished retrieving Theseus back from the Underworld. It's Theseus' friendship that allows a way forward for this un-hero.

Herakles: "I fear to stain your clothes with blood."
Theseus: "Stain them. I don’t care."

[Aya Ibrahim · Rating 4 out of 5]

يترك هرقل العظيم ابن الإله زيوس أرض طيبة وينزل إلى العالم السفلي ليحضر الكلب ذو الثلاث رؤوس فيغتصب ليكوس عرش طيبة ويعين نفسه ملكاً عليها ويطرد والد هرقل وزوجته وأبناءه الثلاث بعد أن يحكم عليهم بالموت، فيعود هرقل قبل أن ينفّذ ليكوس رغبته ولكن بعد أن يستعيد هرقل حكمه تصيبه الالهة ليسا ربة الجنون بمس من الجنون فيقدم على فعل مجنون ويقتل أغلى من يملك، فينهار هرقل أقوى الرجال ويجد عزاءه في صديقه ثيسيوس ملك أثينا.

[Manuel Alfonseca · Rating 3 out of 5]

ENGLISH: The tale of the madness of Heracles, caused by the jealousy of Hera, like many of his misfortunes, during which he murdered his children and his wife Megara, mistaking them for the children of his enemy, King Eurystheus, who forced him to perform the twelve jobs.

In this work, Euripides reverses the order of events, since Heracles goes mad just at the end of his works, whereas in current mythology the works are the consequence of his crime and of his madness.

Regretful for his heinous crime, Heracles intends to commit suicide, but is dissuaded by Theseus, whom he has just saved from Hades, who in this play plays the role of deus ex machina.

A curious detail: to console Heracles, Theseus tells him that the gods have committed all kinds of crimes and marital infidelities, and are not thinking of committing suicide. Heracles denies that this has ever happened, and says that these things are only poetical imaginations, thus denying the truth of myths. It is curious that this is said by Heracles, who is supposed to be the fruit of a fraudulent love of Zeus, who adopted the form of Amphitryon to seduce his wife, Alcmena. Of course, in fact, this idea does not comes from Heracles, but from Euripides, who has put it in the mouth of his character.

ESPAÑOL: Relato de la locura de Heracles, provocada por los celos de Hera, como muchas de sus desgracias, durante la cual asesinó a sus hijos y su esposa Megara, confundiéndolos con los hijos de su enemigo el rey Euristeo, el que le obligó a realizar los doce trabajos.

En esta obra, Eurípides invierte el orden de los sucesos, puesto que Heracles enloquece justo al final de sus trabajos, mientras que en la mitología corriente los trabajos son consecuencia de su crimen y de su locura.

Arrepentido de su horrendo crimen, Heracles piensa en suicidarse, pero le disuade Teseo, al que acaba de salvar del Hades, que en esta obra desempeña el papel de deus ex machina.

Un detalle curioso: para consolar a Heracles, Teseo le dice que los dioses han cometido toda clase de crímenes e infidelidades matrimoniales y no piensan en suicidarse. Heracles niega que eso haya ocurrido, y dice que estas cosas sólo son imaginaciones poéticas, negando así la realidad de los mitos. Es curioso que lo diga precisamente Heracles, de quien se dice que es fruto de un amor fraudulento de Zeus, que adoptó la forma de Anfitrión para seducir a la esposa de este, Alcmena. Claro, en realidad, esta idea no es de Heracles, sino de Eurípides, que la pone en boca de su personaje.

[Benedetta Folcarelli · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Eracle" di Euripide è forse la tragedia più cruda e sanguinosa dell'autore, nonché una delle più tragiche, per intensità emotiva e profondità del dramma umano. La vicenda si apre con Megara - moglie di Eracle - e i loro figli sotto la minaccia di Lico, un tiranno spietato che ha usurpato il trono di Tebe. Lico, nel tentativo di consolidare il proprio potere, trama di uccidere la famiglia dell’eroe. Tuttavia, Eracle ritorna dall’Ade proprio in tempo per sventare il piano omicida del sovrano e ristabilire l'ordine all'interno del suo nucleo familiare, uccidendo Lico e salvando la moglie e i figli. La tragedia sembra avviarsi verso un paradossale lieto fine, quando all'improvviso si manifesta la forza inesorabile del destino. Era, la dea ostile che ha sempre serbato rancore nei confronti di Eracle, gli infligge una punizione terribile: lo fa cadere preda di una follia divina. Convinto di affrontare i suoi nemici, Eracle massacra invece la sua stessa famiglia, credendo di stare compiendo un atto di giustizia. Solo quando il delirio svanisce, l'eroe si ritrova davanti all'orribile verità: ha ucciso con le sue mani la moglie Megara e i loro figli, divenendo vittima dell’inganno degli Dei e della propria umana vulnerabilità. Euripide si dimostra, ancora una volta, maestro nell'intrecciare mito e umanità, eroe e uomo, dimostrando come le forze divine possano piegare anche il più grande degli eroi. Eracle, simbolo di forza e invincibilità, trionfa sul campo di battaglia, ma cede di fronte a una potenza più grande di lui: il capriccio divino. La tragedia evidenzia, in modo straziante, l’inconciliabilità tra la grandezza dell’eroe e la sua impotenza di fronte al volere degli Dei. Questi ultimi non vengono rappresentati come guide sagge e giuste, bensì come entità che, pur condividendo le debolezze e i vizi degli uomini, dispongono del destino umano con crudeltà e indifferenza. Euripide, con questa tragedia, denuncia non solo la fragilità umana, ma anche l'assenza di morale nelle divinità, che governano con una giustizia distorta e spietata. Eracle, l'eroe che incarna il trionfo della forza e del coraggio, è ridotto a vittima di un potere divino che si diverte a piegare la volontà degli uomini, rivelando così la vera natura dell'esistenza umana: un continuo confronto con forze al di là del proprio controllo, contro le quali neanche i più grandi possono sperare di prevalere.

[Mar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Evil has changed sides; he who was erst a mighty king is now turning his life backward into the road to Hades.

Nor shall ocean with its moaning waves, nor the earthquake, nor the thunderbolt with blast of agony be half so furious as the headlong rush I will make into the breast of Herakles; through his roof will I burst my way and swoop upon his house.

Now to one who was erst called happy, such changes are a grievous thing; though he who is always unfortunate feels no such pain, for sorrow is his birthright.

Such a tragic story but I enjoyed reading it very much.

[Meghan · Rating 4 out of 5]

(I did not read this version of Heracles, I found mine in the Penguin Classics edition of Medea and other plays by Euripides, but did not find that version on Goodreads.)

CHORUS: “My right hand, how you long to grip a spear again!
But, being weak, you waste your wish. Had I been young
I would have made you swallow that word ‘slave’; and we
Would have set up good government in Thebes, where you
Now take your pleasure. Faction and folly had driven Thebes
Insane, or she would never have got you for King.”

After reading the above passage it is easy to see how we have idealized the ancient Greeks. Their literature is littered with ideas foreign to their time about freedom and governments for the people. In this play, here is a group of old men lamenting their loss of youth because they do not have the physical force needed to stay the hand of the king. Might or physical violence is required when tyranny is involved.

After contemplating the Greek Gods and the ancient Greeks who had faith in these creatures, I have come up with conflicting ideas. First, the ancient Greeks lived thousands of years ago in a world where science had no place. No Greek was blessed with the knowledge of the species of the animal kingdom, of the plant kingdom, of the stars in the heavens, of anything that was naturally occurring around them. They needed to explain confusing events in their lives and the Greek Gods are just the creatures for this task. They do not adhere to any set of rules, they fight among themselves, they manipulate Zeus to gain their end and they succumb to every whim of passion or revenge. Any event could be explained using this set of Gods.

On the other hand, how could any rational person keep faith in any of these Gods? First, Zeus gained his power by usurping his own father. Fear would replace faith because if one God could topple the regime of another, the promises of the God could not be kept. Second, these Gods are not loving towards the human race. In this case doubt replaces faith because how could one tell if what the God is telling you is for the best? Last, these Gods have favorites. Athena championed Odysseus, Aphrodite championed Paris, and other examples abound in Greek literature. Confusion replaces faith because there would not be a sure foundation to exercise faith among all people regardless of status, state of sin, age, etc… So I am with Amphitryon when he makes the following statement:

AMPHITRYON: “Zeus! I once thought you were my powerful friend. You shared
My marriage, shared my fatherhood of Heracles.
All this meant nothing; for you proved less powerful
Than you had seemed; and I, a man, put you, a god,
To shame. I’ve not betrayed the sons of Heracles.
You knew the way to steal into my bed, where none
Invited you, and lie with someone else’s wife;
But those bound to you by every tie you cannot save.
This is strange ignorance in a god; or else, maybe,
Your very nature lacks a sense of right and wrong.”

I got halfway through the play thinking ‘this isn’t a tragedy! What can possibly happen that would be tragic?’ I was soooo wrong. I should have remembered I read another tragedy about Heracles (Women of Trachis by Sophocles) later in his life and at that time he has a different wife. The following illustrates the twist of fate for Heracles:

IRIS: “Hera desires (and I am with her)
To fasten on Heracles the guilt of kindred blood,
Making him kill his children. Come, then, virgin child
Of murky Night, close up your heart against all pity,
Send maniac fury on this man, distort his mind
With lust for his own children’s blood, cut murder’s cable,
Rack him with lunatic convulsions; that when he
With guilt-red hand has sent his crown of lovely sons
Over the river of death, he may perceive how hot
Is Hera’s anger against him, and learn my hate too.
If Heracles escape our punishment, then gods
Are nowhere, and the mortal race may rule the earth.”

Why does Hera hate Heracles? Because her womanizer-of-a-husband had an affair with Heracles’ mother and is his father. Hera is jealous and is taking it out on Heracles. Why does Iris hate Heracles? No idea. Why doesn’t Zeus protect his own son? He is married to Hera. Maybe she wears the pants in the relationship and he doesn’t want his own life to be made unbearable by Hera. This adds cowardice to the character of the Greek gods and further adds to my argument that no rational being could keep faith in any of these beings.

As an added note: Of all the plays thus far, this one portrays Heracles in the most favorable light. In all the other plays he is bitter, hateful, bumbling or angry. The following lines is an example of a favorable Heracles:

HERACLES: “Come, the, and hold my hands;
I’ll take these little ships in tow. I never find
Children a trouble. All men are the same at heart
Towards children. Some are of high birth, some of low; some rich,
Some poor; but all love children – every human soul.”

[serenityread · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kendisine verilen on iki görevi tamamlamak için savaşan ve karısıyla çocuklarını bilmeden katleden bir babanın hikayesi, bir kısa özetle. Neler yaptığının farkına vardığında geri dönüşü olmayan yollara girmiştir artık. Ve şimdi onu tanrılar bile kurtaramaz.

[The Kid · Rating 5 out of 5]

Herakles goes nuts and kills everyone except his dad. Good times.

[David Sarkies · Rating 5 out of 5]

A story of redemption
4 March 2012

Like pretty much all of the Greek tragedies this play utilises the unities of time and place. The entire action takes place in a single day outside a palace in Thebes. Once again, all of the action takes place off stage and in narrated to the audience by one of the characters, and as in other plays the background and the events leading up to the play are narrated to us at the start. It appears, with Greek drama, that the bulk of the play deals with the climax and many of the events leading up to this climax are narrated. One thing with Greek drama is that action, such as the killing of one of the characters, could not take place on stage, so whenever a character dies it is always off stage (though in many cases screaming can be heard).

Herakles is a little different from the other plays in that the gods appear half way through (in the form of madness) and there is also a major plot twist. The play opens in Thebes with Herakles completing is final task, capturing Cerebrus from the pit of Hades, and Herakles' human father Amphytryon and Herakle's wife and children waiting for him to return. However Lycas has usurped the throne of Thebes, with the help of a group of failed businessmen, in an attempt to cancel their debts. To secure his position Lycas proposes to kill Herakles' father and children, particularly since he no longer believes that Herakles is alive. As such the first part of the play is one of waiting; waiting for Herakles to return to right the wrong that has fallen upon Thebes.

I am going to use a bit of Christian imagery in this play namely because there is a lot present. It was not intentional, this play was written 400 years before Christ and it is clear from surviving Greek literature that knowledge of the Jews appeared to be non-existent, however we have what appears to be Christian allegory, not once, but twice in this play. The first involves waiting for Herakles' return. In a way this reflects the Christian's wait for Christ's return with the Christian being linked with Amphytryon (the father of Herakles, and in a way reflective of the faithful Jew) and Herakles' wife and children (the Christian church). Lycas, in many ways, is the mocker and the God-hater who mocks Herakles as being a fake hero and being dead. However, Herakles does return and redeems his family from the tyrant.

It seems that once Herakles has killed Lycas all is said and done and the play should end - but it doesn't. Instead Herakles goes mad and kills his wife and children. It seems strange, and almost out of place for the events to suddenly take this turn and it is also suggestive that there is no reason for this. However there is. First of all, to those familiar with the topic (as the Greeks would have been) Herakles was cursed by Hera who was furious that Zeus was a randy panda who would have sex with every beautiful human he saw and giving birth to a race of god-men. Interesting, very, very interesting. We see a lot of the God-born humans in Greek mythology, and a lot of reasons as to how it happened: such as Leda and the swan, or the golden shower (no, not that sort of golden shower). We have two instances of the birth of god-men in the Bible. The first is clearly Christ. However, unlike Greek mythology, there is no sexual innuendo arising from the impregnation of Mary. In fact the Bible goes to great length to imply that sex did not play a role. There are also the Nephalim, men of old, heroes of renown, who where the birth products of the sons of God coming to the daughters of men. Some argue that they are the race of the sinners and the saved coming together (unlikely, and a bit of a cop-out as far as I am concerned, in the same way that there are two Isaiahs since people can't handle predictive prophecy, especially over hundreds of years), or they are demons impregnating human woman (possible, but heaps cooler in my opinion).

The other Christian allegory is that of redemption, and we see this twice in this play. At first it is Amphytryon and co who are seeking redemption: to be freed from slavery and certain death under Lycas. The second aspect of redemption comes from Herakles himself. Herakles does redeem them, however he is human, all to human. Human flaw plays a major role in Greek literature and the concept of hybris (arrogance) is one of the greatest. Herakles is not humble, and we are told that he forgoes a cleansing ritual after killing Lycas so he may kill his other enemies. This is all Hera needs,and strikes him with madness. Thus the redeemer suddenly needs redemption.

This is where Theseus comes in. Now notice one other thing about the redeemer figures in this play: both have returned from the underworld, the kingdom of the dead. Herakles travels into the underworld as a part of his cleansing ritual to redeem his father, and while he is there he redeems Theseus from his imprisonment. Once again we have redemption: travelling into the kingdom of the dead to bring back to life that which has died. However Herakles is now stained with the guilt of his crime, a reflection of sin, and he is now the one that needs redemption. Thus enters Theseus. This is the climax of the play as Theseus agrees to take Herakles with him, and support him and comfort him in his moment of grief.

It is this part of the play that we see another Christian element: the concept of substitution of sin. Jesus became sin for us so that we might be holy before God. It is strange in that Herakles recoils from Theseus' touch for fear of polluting him with his sin. However Theseus not only allows Herakles' touch he is willing to take Herakles' sin upon him and carry his burden. This all wraps up in the neat conclusion that gold and glory in the end mean nothing, and that one's most valuable possession is the love of a good friend.

Unlike other plays, we aren't told what happens afterwards. All we know is that Herakles goes off with Theseus to Athens to rebuild his shattered life. However, those of us that know the story of Herakles knows that he goes on to receive both gold and glory. He goes on to give birth to many more children, the Heraclidae, who then go on to populate the Peloponese, and in turn give birth to the Spartan nation. In a way, it could be that the Dorians who 'invaded' Greece between the Mycenaen and the Classical period could quite have well have arisen up internally rather than coming from the north. The one thing that I do remember from Classical Studies is that there is actually no evidence that Greece was invaded by the Dorians as there is no evidence of large scale warfare from that period.

As I glanced at some of the versions of this play (and others) I have noticed that there has been further writings on these plays since the oil wars began. Herakles (and indeed many of Euripides' plays) were written during the Peloponesian War, which is probably why a number of people are beginning to see connections between the wars of Euripides' days and the wars that we are fighting now. In fact, as well as exploring the causes and the actions of the Peloponesian War we begin to see more connections with the foolish adventures of our own time.

[Marcos Junior · Rating 5 out of 5]

Acredita-se que Hércules tenha sido produzida no ano 415 A.C., provavelmente para o grande festival em honra a Dionísio em Atenas. As outras três peças da tetralogia que o dramaturgo apresentou naquele ano se perderam e não se sabe do que trataram. Nos festival, cada concorrente apresentava 4 peças.

Quando começa a peça, Hércules está ausente, desceu ao reino de Hades para tentar capturar Cérbero, o cão de três cabeças. Muitos duvidam que voltará, pois nunca ninguém conseguiu. Lycus toma o trono de Tebas, assassinando o rei Creon, sogro do herói, depois de sangrenta guerra civil. Agora se dirige ao palácio, para matar Megara, esposa de Hércules, e seus filhos, para evitar uma vigança futura. Para protegê-la, apenas o ancião Amphitryon, pai de Hércules. A situação é desesperadora e não há salvação para eles.

Pode-se perceber aqui uma crítica de Eurípides ao heroísmo que em busca de glórias no estrangeiro deixa as cidades desprotegidas, tema que depois seria retomado por Camões no episódio do velho do restelo. A vaidade dos heróis gregos se dava a custas de suas famílias, que muitas vezes eram prezas fáceis para usurpadores de todo tipo, como já tinha acontecido com Ulisses. Ao mesmo tempo, tem-se claro que a vingança era uma lei não escrita da Polis e não uma opção. Os filhos de Hércules, ao crescerem, deveriam obrigatoriamente vingar a morte do avô e da mãe, sob pena de se tornarem proscritos. Lycus não tem dúvidas que deve eliminar o mal pela raiz e matar as crianças quando pode, o que já mostrava uma atitude de desonra do próprio usurpador e de uma sociedade que experimentava uma decadência. Se a amizade era a base da sociedade, como acreditava Aristóteles, a peça mostra que no momento de extremo perigo os amigos do herói não compareceram para defender sua família. Megara e os filhos não tinham realmente a quem recorrer.

Diante de Lycus, Megara e Amphitryon imploram pela vida das crianças, mas em vão: “eu sou o poder aqui; eu exijo o que eu quiser. Por quanto tempo esperam prolongar suas vidas? Que esperança vocês têm? O que pode evitar suas mortes?”. Ele explica sua intenção: “minha política, ancião, não é mera crueldade, chame-a de cautela. Eu estou ciente de que matei Creon, o pai dessa mulher, e apenas nessa base governo essa terra. Não é de meu interesse que esses garotos cresçam e se vinguem de mim”. Amphitryon retruca: “ o que vai conquistar matando esses garotos? Por acaso eles o feriram? Entretanto eu garanto a sabedoria em um aspecto: baseado em si mesmo, você teme as crianças de um homem nobre. Assim, isso é duro conosco, que nós tenhamos que morrer por causa de sua covardia”. Eurípides deixa claro que o pragmatismo de Lycus é uma decadência em relação a um código de conduta que impede que se mate mulheres e crianças indefesas, o ato de Lycus é de pura vilania, como foi o de Lenin séculos depois ao tirar as vidas dos filhos do Csar da Rússia. A ordem de Lycus, assim como a de Lenin, baseada na violência sem limites de honra é uma desordem na pólis, uma evidência que a Atenas de sua época estava em crise.

Lycus permite apenas que Megara prepare os filhos para o sacrifício e se retira. Ela reza para Zeus, pedindo por suas vidas. Ocorre então a primeira reviravolta da peça, Hércules retorna do Hades. Prontamente ele mata Lycus e retoma o reino, a ordem está restabelecida. Mas não era essa a intenção de Eurípides que introduz na peça uma deusa a serviço de Hera, Iris, e a Loucura. Hera deseja vingança do filho bastardo de Zeus e através de Iris ordena à Loucura que haja para que Hércules mate os próprios filhos. A Loucura ainda tenta argumentar lembrando que Hércules tem a proteção de Zeus e que possui grande glória entre os homens e os deuses, além de sempre honrá-los. Iris rejeita os apelos e retruca: “Hera não mandou você descer para mostrar sua santidade”. Eurípides tinha inicialmente caracterizado a morte das crianças como uma vilania dos homens e agora o mesmo ato seria feito por intervenção dos deuses. O que ele estava tentando mostrar é que a antiga ordem da mitologia, da vontade dos deuses, já não servia de base para a decisão dos homens. Os deuses tinham chegado ao nível da humanidade e não eram mais confiáveis como fonte de sabedoria.

Acometido pela loucura, Hércules mata a esposa e seus próprios filhos, indiferente aos apelos do pai que tenta chamá-lo à razão. O herói dorme depois de tudo acabado e ao acordar, com a sanidade recuperada, contempla horrorizado o que fizera. Chega Teseu, rei de Atenas, que tinha sido salvo por Hércules anteriormente. O herói sabe que pela antiga honra deve se vingar de si mesmo, ou seja, tirar a própria vida. Teseu lhe faz ver que não se trata mais dos antigos tempos, os deuses tinham enlouquecido e se comportavam como o mais cruel dos mortais. Como poderia ele querer ser mais rigoroso do que os próprios deuses que viviam alegremente a despeito dos atos praticados? Queria ele ser melhor do que os próprios deuses? O que Eurípides sugere é que a vontade dos deuses não é mais um guia seguro na nova Atenas, que o homem deve procurar sua fonte de julgamento em outro lugar, na sua própria razão. É o que faz o herói ao perceber que não tem efetivamente culpa do que aconteceu pois não tinha a posse de suas faculdades quando matou a própria família. Ele rejeita o suicídio e aceita o convite de Teseu para servi-lo em Atenas. Um longo caminho precisou ser percorrido entre a tragédia de Édipo até essa peça sobre Hércules. O homem só poderia ser responsabilizado por suas próprias intenções e quando estivesse no uso de suas faculdades. Era a descoberta da razão como fonte da ordem pelos gregos.

Hércules é uma peça riquíssima, cheia de significados e monólogos memoráveis. Serve aos dias atuais para lembrar que temos responsabilidades sobre nossas famílias, que temos que ser um tanto prudentes ao nos lançarmos em aventuras públicas enquanto deixamos aqueles que dependem de nós sem proteção. Serve também para mostrar que a violência ilimitada e a vontade política não serve de fonte para uma ordem duradoura. O heróis retornou do inferno mas terminou por ser a causa da desgraça de sua própria família. Ao invés da solução pelo suicídio, resolve assumir a responsabilidade que lhe cabe e prosseguir em sua jornada. Acima de tudo a peça mostra que a essência da liberdade é a responsabilidade individual. Hércules não pode ser condenado pelo que não tinha consciência, a morte dos filhos, e sim pela que teve, abandoná-los em busca da glória.

[Viktor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hera is a first class hater… she really had to corrupt the legacy of Greece’s mightiest man. so glad Theseus pulled up to help our fallen hero though, he definitely would have offed himself without his Athenian friend.

all tomfoolery aside though i was actually really moved by the forgiveness Theseus and Amphitryon showed Heracles

[Afeefah · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Oh bitter weapons. My partners. Should i take you with me or leave you behind? Knocking against my ribs you will always be saying “this is how you slew your wife and sons, we are your childkillers.” I cannot leave them. However grotesque it is. I must keep my weapons.”

Slightly long quote there, and a warning of spoilers ahead, but this was a terrific read. The ending forces a reassessment of myth, of glory and heroism. Heracles must bear the weapons that bifurcate and merge his glory and his suffering. His return from the kingdom of the dead posits his potential as a figure who blurs the limits of mortality, but this potential is left unexplored as the ending plays out. Fate has left him forever in despair. And more than that, his legacy as a hero is now forever bound with the image of his hands bloodied by the murder of his family. In fact, the celebration of bloodied hands with the Labours, and then the suffering brought about by them as they plunge him into depths of despair, could maybe be an invitation to criticise the tradition of epic heroes - what type of violence is celebrated and all. As with Medea, the lack of divine justice is interesting but before I ramble on that, I’ll wrap up the review with this being a very cool play.

[su · Rating 5 out of 5]

read anne carson's translation from "grief lessons".

THESEUS
Is this the all-heroic Heracles talking?
HERAKLES
Not all-heroic. There has to be some limit to pain.

[ivi · Rating 5 out of 5]

"There's nobody alive who's faced greater trials or suffered worse torments."

[Vahid Masoumi · Rating 3 out of 5]

آدم بعضی وقتا فکر می‌کنه چند هزار سال قبل ملت خُل بودن، عقلشون از ما کمتر بوده، بعد اینا رو می‌خونه می‌بینه نه تقریباً هیچ فرقی با ما نداشتن. به قول زهرا چه بسا از ده هزار سال قبل هم متنی چیزی مونده بود می‌دیدیم اونا هم همینطوری بودن.

[Karl Hallbjörnsson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This tragedy is driving me nuts!! ;) — no, really, very good. I thought I'd read it before but it seems I hadn't—although I did know what was going to happen

[Subashini · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read the Jon Davie translation in the Penguin edition.

[R.H. Naranjo · Rating 5 out of 5]

El estilo de Eurípides se distingue de manera inmediata con respecto a Esquilo y Sófocles. El autor muestra una postura mucho más crítica hacia los héroes griegos, así como hacia los mitos de la antigüedad, dándole a sus personajes una profundidad psicológica que, en su momento, le valió las críticas de sus contemporáneos. El súbito cambio que se produce a mediados de la obra muestra cómo, para Eurípides, la vida no siempre es lineal; pueden suceder eventos que cambien por completo el rumbo que estaban tomando las cosas. Eso hace que la tragedia de Herácles sea particularmente dolorosa: no parece ser una tragedia (como lo sería Edipo Rey o Agamenón), sino que todo apunta a un final feliz… hasta que ya no. Es una obra muy recomendable.

[Charles · Rating 5 out of 5]

If anyone reading this review has played the immensely popular video-game 'god of war', s/he will have an idea of the game's basic concept, that basically a man (Kratos in the game) who has achieved military success as general of the spartan army is 'blinded' by frenzy and madness into killing his own wife and child.

Well, 'Herakles' by Euripides was most probably the inspiration for the game's plot. The ultimate tragedy if you will. We all know who Hercules is. Is there a man living who has not heard of him? However, very few know of the tragic outcome of his life's labours to procure a safe home for his family. Friendship, divinity, love and belligerence all play a part in his tragic life, for good or for worse. As in Euripides' 'Electra', Euripides counterbalances the lugubrious emotions aroused by tragedy by hope (Orestes in the former case and Herakles in this case, who entrance echoes the 'deux ex macchina' process), 'glorious hope'.

The tragedy lies not in these men themselves, for they are wronged and blinded by divine agents, but in their most human emotions of regret, pity and love despite them being champions among men. However, a very important consideration sets 'Herakles' apart from 'Electra' as a tragic play. In Electra's case, Castor offers Orestes a chance to redeem himself and admits that Apollo was to blame for Orestes' pitiable circumstances and exile. In Herakles' case though, no god actually intervenes in his favour, or offers him sympathy or advice. Hera and Iris (even madness 'godsonified' was initially reluctant to torment Herakles), out of their spite and jealousy, wanted to stop Herakles from getting any stronger.

For they probably feared that, as Zeus usurped his father's throne before him, so could Herakles (with the aid of humanity) overcome and destroy them. My point however is that Herakles found his prayers answered by Theseus and not by Zeus. You see, it is undoubtedly evident that Herakles in his heart did not want to forfeit his heroic legacy. He wanted to cling out to what is left for him in this world. So Theseus actually becomes his 'god' when he offers a chance for him to enact his dreams of integrating back in this world. He even says to his father Amphitryon not to be vexed that he should consider Zeus as his father anymore, as if he is denouncing his beliefs in the fickle gods. This is remarkable in its own right, but one should remember the context in which these plays were performed, 'The Great Dionysia' festival (in honour of the gods!!!) if I'm not mistaken. Euripides must have stirred a lot of controversy, but maybe that is why his plays still exist today. Another touching reminder of the importance of friendship (in contrast to the belief of divine favour) is when one elder says to the other elders:

"Grip the next man by the arm or the cloak,
Each of you help his fellow
Whom he fought beside long ago
Spear level with spear"

That actually brought a flood of tears to my eyes, as if the elder is saying to his friends that instead of being joined together by their fighting arms, they should be united by the supporting grip of their arms. It is if Euripides is saying, in sublimely masked terms, seek your friends arm for comfort and not some god whose only interest is whose king's wife he is to lay next (I could have not said it any different). I'm starting to think that the rise of humanism was not actually a recent phenomenon. I'm not saying that there is no God though, far from that. I'm a convinced Catholic myself. However, even the idolization of Herakles himself by his father who wanted to immortalize his name through monuments of stone (the irony is that Euripides immortalized Herakles' name through his literary genius for the monuments are long lost and forgotten) is in itself a form of deviation from what is Divine, the only One we should that we should worship, honour and respect.

There is so much to write about Euripides play 'Herakles' and its implications on the subsequent cultures and civilizations that I feel that I could never stop writing on such an interesting subject if I wanted to. Not that I don't want to in fact, it is just there are more plays by Euripides for me to read!