"Paul Roche...must be ranked among the great translators of the Greek dramas in our century."―Robert W. Corrigan Here are three of Euripides' finest tragedies offered in vivid, modern translations.
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.
Besides, you are a born woman: feeble when it comes to the sublime, marvelously inventive over crime.
Oh Medea, you emerge as the force in this tumultuous collection and such a distinction is not lost on the gore-spattered pages where it take an epic hero to return a lost love from the dead to a shitbag husband (Alcestis) and then later a hallucination to inspire an incestual dismemberment (Bacchae). My reading of Medea is anchored by her being foreign-born, a stranger whose displacement is opened wide by her jackass husband and his efforts at social elevation through snagging a new bride of royal (and white) stock. There is something to be said for the original Lady Vengeance. Her vision and pluck are to be respected even if we cower and squirm before her monstrous deeds. She maintains a grace evn in the darkest light.
~2500 years later, still hard to top the thrill of women inflicting grotesque violence on their children.
Wonderful stuff. Sparse, just a few characters and a chorus speaking on stage. Richly specific, with that distinctive rhythm of Greek tragedy keeping you rooted in that sense of place. And the imagery is just so vivid and universal.
“The Bacchae” is a bit less accessible at a first pass. The comeuppance for an arrogant man’s hubris requires no added explanation, but the presentation of Bacchic madness, and particularly the extended coda (post-tearing her son limb-from-limb), are a bit harder to parse. “Medea”, by comparison, wears its heart on its sleeve. But not in a bad way–even painted in such brash strokes, there's plenty to chew on. My favorite slice is the added messiness when grave injustice becomes common. We have a deft vocabulary for new and shocking indignities... but how to process the same degradations when they're the norm?
Medea if your husband is won to a new love The thing is common; why let it anger you...
I’ve been wanting to read Alcestis since reading a certain book on the NYT bestseller list that purports to kinda/sorta/maybe tie in with the story of Alcestis, but I had trouble seeing how as they don’t exactly align (plus I had other problems with the NYT book, but that’s a different rabbit hole…)
Here, Admetus comes off half a t*rd (the way he treats his father) and half not (resisting Heracles offer); though he never should have accepted Alcestis to stand in his place.
And I’d understood before now that Alcestis never speaks after Heracles brings her back, but in Euripides telling, she is only unable to speak “until three days have passed and she is purged of her consecration to the powers below” as Heracles informs us.
Medea: see other editions
The Bacchae: so Zeus with Semele, Dionysus sewn into his thigh; his birthright not believed; his royal house of Cadmus not respecting him, so revenge. Agàve, his mother, and her sisters in a frenzy do not recognize Pentheus, kill him and tear him apart.
Exactly what it says on the tin. There is no additional commentary in this edition, it is just the three plays listed above.
Spoilers ahead
Alcestis- A man trades his wife for eternal life and then realizes that that life without his wife is unbearable. Hercules takes a break from his labors to punch death in the face- this is the best part of the play and happens off screen.
Medea- probably Euripides most famous play. I was familiar with the plot before picking this up and im not all that familiar with Greek plays. Outstanding. Far more narratively complex than I first realized with well developed characters.
The Bacchae- Dionysus takes revenge on his relatives. This one was downright creepy.
Overall this is an excellent collection of plays. I just wish I had some commentary with these plays so I had a better understanding of them.
I feel like these all should be rated individually.
Alcestis is a solid 3.5 - Moral of the story is always be kind to a guest even if you’re going through a tough time because that guest may just bring your wife back from the underworld.
Medea is also a 3.5 - Moral of the story, don’t cheat on your wife or she may kill your children to make you feel sad.
The Bacchae is a 3 - Moral of the story? Uhh Dionysus sucks?
Overall these were quite entertaining though not always attention grabbing.
If you're into female rage and witchy maddness, these are the plays for you - not a massive fan of the translator though, some of the preface is grossly patriarchal so I'd find another copy, preferable one translated by women as I'm sure Medea herself would appreciate
Alcestis - funny. heracles is there. ( on obligation ) Medea - THE GOAT! THAT IS WHY HE IS THE GOAT!!!!! The Bacchae - erm... what the freak? also might be yaoi.
Dionysus, the god of wine, prophecy, religious ecstasy, and fertility return to his birthplace in Thebes in order to clear his mother's name and to punish the insolent city-state for refusing to allow people to worship him. The background to his return is presented in the prologue, in which Dionysus tells the story of his mother, Semele, once a princess in the royal Theban house of Cadmus. She had an affair with Zeus, the king of the gods, and became pregnant.
As revenge, Zeus's jealous wife Hera tricked Semele into asking Zeus to appear in his divine form. Zeus, too powerful for a mortal to behold, emerged from the sky as a bolt of lightning and burnt Semele to a cinder. He managed, however, to rescue his unborn son Dionysus and stitched the baby into his thigh. Semele's family claimed that she had been struck by lightning for lying about Zeus and that her child, the product of an illicit human affair, had died with her, maligning her name and rejecting the young god Dionysus.
Having read The Bacchae for a class and enjoyed it greatly, I took the time to read the other two stories and was not dissapointed in the least! Euripides presents us with three very fascinating tales, all tragic in their own ways. I can't help but question the theory that frames tragedy as Greeklike "tragedy of necessity" ("It is is shame it had to happen, but it in fact had to happen this way") vs. the Christian "tragedy of opportunity" ("It is a shame it had to happen, because it truly could have ended differently"). Euripides as a writer mingled very human flaws with excellent high drama such that the plays were all gripping and thought provoking. As for the translation, I trust in the judgement of the Classics faculty in agreeing that this version was well executed. Commentary often brings up the meter and intent of the original Greek, with notes on omissions.
This is my first time reading any of the classic Greek plays. I have to say that I was not disappointed. I have read the Iliad and the Odyssey before and appreciated the great writing evident within but the gore really turned me off.
The plays by Euripides are free from gore but not from classical mythology and the great writing. The pathos of the husband in the first play (I forget the names) losing his wife yet still remembering to show hospitality is such a great story. Then in the end when his act of hospitality which everyone else looks down upon turns out to be the thing that brings his wife back to him from the dead I absolutely fell in love with the play. Such good writing!
I recommend these plays to anyone interested in the classics.
Of all the collections of Greek plays I've read so far, this one was probably my least favorite. I really liked Alcestis, Medea was alright, and I disliked The Bacchae. These felt a lot darker than Sophocles or Aeschylus - the vivid imagery and gore involved probably attributed to that. Medea and Agave both go on something of a murderous rampage and it is just horrific. I think it was difficult to be sympathetic to these characters, too, due to the emotionless way they kill (of course, that changes for Agave once she comes out of her stupor and realizes what she's done). I also found it interesting how Dionysus was portrayed in such an evil, merciless way. For those who believed in the gods, this must have been a terrifying warning.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Though I'd read "Medea" and "Bacchae" before, this was my first leap into Euripides' lesser-known "Alcestis." Loved all three! Compared to his competitors (Sophocles and, to a lesser extent, the aged--scratch that, DEAD--Aeschuylus), Euripedes seems much more... casual. Rather than leaning his weight on the Choruses' exhaustive declamations (*ahem* Aeschulyus) or crafting interrogative "stagey" dialogue among his characters to share the plot, the playwright seems to enjoy the process of allowing his characters' interactions to unfold. Resultantly, the content--however grisly--is peppered with lots of humanistic (dare I say, funny?) moments.
Only having read The Bachae, I don't know if I would read the other two. Of course, Euripides is one of the more wild and crazy mythological writers, but I found some of the reading to be more of a chore than an entertaining experience. Perhaps it is the "tragedy" that I was not a fan of; when the main characters wind up exiled and turned to serpents or sacrificed at the hands of their mother for a bitter god who couldn't leave any disbelievers alone (even if they *were* his own family).
I read The Bacchae years ago, when I was in college. I always liked Euripides' progressive attitude towards women. When so many contemporaries wrote disdaining things about women, he took a much more equal view. I enjoyed reading these.
Despite many writers' (or translators') instances on only hearing plays read out loud, the existence of subvocalisation (hearing the words you read in your mind in your own voice) makes that less necessary.
My comments address THE BACCHAE. I have no idea what this play means for I do not understand the cult of Dionysus or the unbridled id released in this story. Even more than the other Greek plays I have read, this one needs a guide but I have found no one who seems to truly understand it. I suppose I enjoyed the story two stars worth, but the third is awarded on the basis of the potential pleasure of coming to understand this story better.
I enjoyed reading these, I wondered if I'd be able to comprehend them but I believe I did well. The ending on Alcestis seemed abrupt but then I spose there really wasn't much to wrap up. I think it would have been pretty cool to have seen these performances in their day. The plays were Alcestis, Medea and The Bacchae
Three plays of Euripides is a collection of three plays, Alcestis, Madea, The Bacchae.
In Alcestis the main message is that we are in debt to death, in Madea Medea kills two people and finally in Bacchae it is the story of Dionysus. If you want to read more about Dionysus read The Birth Of Tragedy.
Medea is my favorite Euripides play. I included it in my thesis, and I teach it in my Introduction to Humanities class. Many people misunderstand Medea. I think it's an excellent example of feminism.