Euripides: 10 Plays

Rating:
Summary: Ten plays by Euripides, the first playwright of democracy
Review: Euripides was the youngest and the least successful of the great triad of Greek tragic poets. Criticized by the conservatives of his time for introducing shabby heroes and immoral women into his plays, his plays were ridiculed by Aristophanes in "The Frogs." His plays exhibited his iconoclastic, rationalizing attitude toward the ancient myths that were the subject matter for Greek drama. For Euripides the gods were irrational and petulant, while heroes had flawed natures and uncontrolled passions that made them ultimately responsible for their tragic fates. Ultimately, your standard Euripides tragedy offers meaningless suffering upon which the gods look with complete indifference (until they show up at the end as the deux ex machina). However, today Euripides is considered the most popular of the Greek playwrights and is considered by many to be the father of modern European drama.

This volume does not include all of the extant plays of Euripides (we believe he authored 92 plays, 19 of which have survived), but what are arguably the ten most important: "Alcestis," "Medea," "Hippolytus," "Andromache," "Ion," "Trojan Women," "Electra," "Iphigenia Among the Taurians," "The Bacchants," and "Iphigenia at Aulis." The translations by Moses Hadas and John McLean are not as literate as you will find elsewhere, but they are eminently functional and make this volume one of the most cost-effective ways of providing students an opportunity to study the work of a great dramatist.

After reading several Euripides tragedies several things emerge in our understanding of his work. First, he has a unique structure for his plays decidedly different from those of Aeschylus and Sophocles. Usually the play begins with a monologue that provides the necessary exposition regarding the situation with which the characters are confronted. At the end of the play a god usually descends from heaven to provide an epilogue to say what happens afterwards (e.g., "Hippolytus"). Second, Euripides is much more interested in the dynamic interaction of his characters than the role of the chorus. The stasimons and occasional monodies are more what exists between scenes for Euripides instead of an opportunity to comment upon the story as with Aeschylus (e.g., "Agamemnon"). Third, the idea that Euripides is a misogynist just does not bear up under even a basic reading of these plays. This misconception might stem from our understanding of the culture of the times, because the "worst" thing you can say about the women of Euripides is that they are realistic characters.

Fourth and most importantly, clearly Euripides is at his best when there is a political agenda embedded in his story. "The Trojan Women" offers a fascinating counterpoint to the reactions of those same characters at the end of the "Iliad" when Hector's body is returned to Troy, but Euripides is not concerned with commenting on Homer but rather on the Athenian destruction of the city of Melos, which had tried to stay neutral in the Peloponnesian War (compare this with Euripides in a patriotic mode in "Andromache"). Much more is made of Euripides irreverence towards the gods (e.g., "The Bacchants"), however I think his greatness lies not in being an atheist but in being a strong advocate of democratic principles (e.g., the treatment of foreigners at the heart of "Medea"). Hadas reinforces this latter idea in his translations, admitting that for the modern reader it might be better to think of Euripides "as a pamphleteer rather than a poet." Still, Hadas emphasizes that despite the parodies provided by Aristophanes, Euripides was a great poet. Furthermore, Hadas is committed to keeping the translations as poetry rather than prose.

But there is also a sense in which Euripides provides psychological insights into his characters as much as Sophocles, who usually gets the edge in that respect because Freud derived the Oedipal and Electra complexes from his writings. Even though there was a limit of only three characters on stage at a time, Euripides would often made one of these characters, such as the nurse in "Hippolytus" or Pylades (friend of Orestes in both "Electra" and "Iphigenia Among the Taurains"), a normal person, who served as a means for showing the profoundly disturbed nature of the tragic hero.

Reading a single Euripides play is not going to make the validity of any or all of these points clear, but if you read most of these ten plays you should come to similar conclusions. I still like to use Euripides in bracket Homer's "Iliad," looking at the way he presages the conflict between Achilles and Agamemnon in "Iphigenia at Aulis," and the fate of "The Trojan Women," but there is much value to studying the plays of Euripides on their own terms. Granted, you can find better (i.e., more "modern") translations, but finding ten Euripides plays in one volume is going to be impossible and/or expensive.

Rating:
Summary: Ten plays by Euripides, the first playwright of democracy
Review: Euripides was the youngest and the least successful of the great triad of Greek tragic poets. Criticized by the conservatives of his time for introducing shabby heroes and immoral women into his plays, his plays were ridiculed by Aristophanes in "The Frogs." His plays exhibited his iconoclastic, rationalizing attitude toward the ancient myths that were the subject matter for Greek drama. For Euripides the gods were irrational and petulant, while heroes had flawed natures and uncontrolled passions that made them ultimately responsible for their tragic fates. Ultimately, your standard Euripides tragedy offers meaningless suffering upon which the gods look with complete indifference (until they show up at the end as the deux ex machina). However, today Euripides is considered the most popular of the Greek playwrights and is considered by many to be the father of modern European drama.

This volume does not include all of the extant plays of Euripides (we believe he authored 92 plays, 19 of which have survived), but what are arguably the ten most important: "Alcestis," "Medea," "Hippolytus," "Andromache," "Ion," "Trojan Women," "Electra," "Iphigenia Among the Taurians," "The Bacchants," and "Iphigenia at Aulis." The translations by Moses Hadas and John McLean are not as literate as you will find elsewhere, but they are eminently functional and make this volume one of the most cost-effective ways of providing students an opportunity to study the work of a great dramatist.

After reading several Euripides tragedies several things emerge in our understanding of his work. First, he has a unique structure for his plays decidedly different from those of Aeschylus and Sophocles. Usually the play begins with a monologue that provides the necessary exposition regarding the situation with which the characters are confronted. At the end of the play a god usually descends from heaven to provide an epilogue to say what happens afterwards (e.g., "Hippolytus"). Second, Euripides is much more interested in the dynamic interaction of his characters than the role of the chorus. The stasimons and occasional monodies are more what exists between scenes for Euripides instead of an opportunity to comment upon the story as with Aeschylus (e.g., "Agamemnon"). Third, the idea that Euripides is a misogynist just does not bear up under even a basic reading of these plays. This misconception might stem from our understanding of the culture of the times, because the "worst" thing you can say about the women of Euripides is that they are realistic characters.

Fourth and most importantly, clearly Euripides is at his best when there is a political agenda embedded in his story. "The Trojan Women" offers a fascinating counterpoint to the reactions of those same characters at the end of the "Iliad" when Hector's body is returned to Troy, but Euripides is not concerned with commenting on Homer but rather on the Athenian destruction of the city of Melos, which had tried to stay neutral in the Peloponnesian War (compare this with Euripides in a patriotic mode in "Andromache"). Much more is made of Euripides irreverence towards the gods (e.g., "The Bacchants"), however I think his greatness lies not in being an atheist but in being a strong advocate of democratic principles (e.g., the treatment of foreigners at the heart of "Medea"). Hadas reinforces this latter idea in his translations, admitting that for the modern reader it might be better to think of Euripides "as a pamphleteer rather than a poet." Still, Hadas emphasizes that despite the parodies provided by Aristophanes, Euripides was a great poet. Furthermore, Hadas is committed to keeping the translations as poetry rather than prose.

But there is also a sense in which Euripides provides psychological insights into his characters as much as Sophocles, who usually gets the edge in that respect because Freud derived the Oedipal and Electra complexes from his writings. Even though there was a limit of only three characters on stage at a time, Euripides would often made one of these characters, such as the nurse in "Hippolytus" or Pylades (friend of Orestes in both "Electra" and "Iphigenia Among the Taurains"), a normal person, who served as a means for showing the profoundly disturbed nature of the tragic hero.

Reading a single Euripides play is not going to make the validity of any or all of these points clear, but if you read most of these ten plays you should come to similar conclusions. I still like to use Euripides in bracket Homer's "Iliad," looking at the way he presages the conflict between Achilles and Agamemnon in "Iphigenia at Aulis," and the fate of "The Trojan Women," but there is much value to studying the plays of Euripides on their own terms. Granted, you can find better (i.e., more "modern") translations, but finding ten Euripides plays in one volume is going to be impossible and/or expensive.

Rating:
Summary: Vigorous Euripides Top 10 - For Acting For Reading
Review: First the 10 Plays -- Alcestis / Hippolytus / Ion / Electra / Iphigenia at Aulis / Iphigenia among the Taurians / Medea / The Bacchae / The Trojan Women / The Cyclops -- together with a pronouncing Glossary of names and places. Tops out at about 575 pages.

Placing the only extant ancient Greek satyr play, Cyclops, at the end, Roche supplies needed comic relief. Odysseus and his crew fall in among a band of randy, wine-craving satyrs who toil away for the famed one-eyed Polyphemus.

Roche's introductory material is short, clear and useful, especially well thought out is his method of translating Greek meters into English verse. Each play has a brief introduction as well.

The translations are vigorous, modern, and to this reader both lyrical and moving. Roche's poetical gifts are obvious and put to effective use.

Let Paul Roche be ivy-crowned, son of Semele, son of Zeus!

Rating:
Summary: Excellent translations. The best Medea I've ever read.
Review: I am a theatre director and playwright. I read every translation of Medea I could find. This 1998 translation by Roche, after twenty years of ripening, is fresh, clear, and strong. He prioritized retaining the ( ( ( s o u n d ) ) ) of the ancient greek, and his poet's ear captured its slippery almost-iambic trimeter perfectly. A powerful, haunting, contemporary translation. "Deep is her sobbing from depths of pain/ Shrill is the answer her suffering gives/ To the news of a woman betrayed/ A love gone wrong..." A mature poet's text, translated by an equally sensitive poet. It doesn't get any better than this.

Rating:
Summary: Too much Roche - not enough Euripides
Review: Roche's translations of Euripides' tragedies are intrusive. He adds stage directions and characterizations that influence how the reader views the people in the plays. Readers may believe that these stage directions are from Euripides, but most of them are not. I find it irksome having to differentiate between Roche's interpretation of character and Euripides' text.

Rating:
Summary: Too much Roche - not enough Euripides
Review: Roche's translations of Euripides' tragedies are intrusive. He adds stage directions and characterizations that influence how the reader views the people in the plays. Readers may believe that these stage directions are from Euripides, but most of them are not. I find it irksome having to differentiate between Roche's interpretation of character and Euripides' text.

Rating:
Summary: An Ancient Greek Look at Human Nature
Review: The ten plays Paul Roche translated consisted of some of Euripides' finest plays and some of the lesser known plays. I particularly liked Alcestis and Hippolytus and cared less for the last three plays in the book. The one thing that struck me about Euripides is the inconsistency of some of his characters from the way Homer or Sophocles depicted them and his own depiction. Furthermore, in the case of Iphegenia in Aulis and Iphegenia Among the Taurians the character of Iphegenia changes from a heroic figure in Aulis to a bitter one in Taurus. Even the details between the two stories differed. True, they were written in different times but an author ought to keep track of the details of each play. I also felt Roche should have pointed these things out in the introduction to the plays but he did not.

Euripides was criticized in his own time while being praised more in modern times for his desire to make his characters conform to the way people behave in real life. Most of Euripides' characters were often flawed such as Iphegenia and Admetus in the play, Alcestes. They were portrayed as basically good people that had a dark side to them. Iphegenia, who came to accept her fate (she was to be sacrificed by her father, Agamemnon, to Artemis in return for a fair wind to Troy) was whisked away by the god to Tauras. In the sequel to the play she became a bitter priestess who sacrificed all Greeks that wandered into the country.

Admetus was a man who treated Apollo well when Zeus punished him by making him serve Admetus. Apollo rewarded him by allowing him to live if he could find someone to die in his place. He asked his parents but they refused; only his wife agreed. When she died he mourned her death and truly loved her but he would not allow his parents to mourn because they betrayed him. His father countered by saying that each must take responsibility for their own lives. A good point that Admetus never understood.

I believe Euripides challenged his audience to ask themselves what they would do if confronted with similar circumstances. How would one react if you knew you could live if someone else died in your place (the subject of an old Twilight Zone episode, by the way)? In the case of Media (the wife of Jason-who got the Golden Fleece from Media's father) what would you do if you gave up your country and everyone you knew to marry a man and then ten years later you're thrown out of your home? What would you do if you were Phaedra (wife of Theseus in the play Hippolytus) and a god put a spell on you to make you fall in love with your stepson? These are the challenges that Euripides makes to his audience. He does so in an engaging manner with good interaction between the characters. The Chorus plays less of a role than it does with Aescylus or even Sophocles but as a modern reader of these ancient play I find Euripides great entertainment.