Euripides I: Alcestis / The Medea / The Heracleidae / Hippolytus

A Crash Course in Greek Tragedy

Reading a book of relatively modern plays recently proved my ignorance in the history of theatre. Whilst I have studied Shakespeare at some depth during my schoolgirl years and had seen several of his dramatisations, I knew little of anything earlier, let alone anything beyond the parochial English shores. I was struggling with mythological references at the very least as well as comprehension of the dramatic method of presentation of this archaic form of theatre.

So, by happenstance, I came across this book of 4 plays by Euripides, who's probably the most accessible, it would appear, of the 3 earliest Greek playwrights from around 405-455BC. The book is introduced by Richard Rutherford and translated by John Davie who's used previous translations from the 10th century AD. It had been collated around the 4th century AD when clearly there were concerns that the plays were changing over time. So the scholarship required to deduce the original plays has been impressive.

What has eventuated is a fascinating impression of an erudite dramatic Athenian culture enjoying drama as part of the festival of Dionysus. These plays were performed as trilogies in competition with up to 500 lay judges. There were only male actors, either 2 or 3, playing multiple parts but women made up the chorus, who appear to provide the emotional force of the play, or tragedy. The plays were action-packed with lots of telling as they were staged in large amphitheatres seating up to 14000 people. Killings, beatings and sacrifices stayed offstage so these plays moved quickly and performances would have lasted possibly under the hour for each individual play. Plots invariably revolved around the heavenly family of gods and goddesses, villains and tyrants interacting with the mortals and halfbreeds with epic consequences!

As my knowledge of Greek myths is scanty, this book is very well notated, referenced and with an extensive glossary. At no point did I feel a complete idiot despite my lack of knowledge, although as I discovered in "Alcestis", the basis of the original myth was hazy. The bibliography appears excellent for further research and the book was revised in 2003.

I have reviewed each individual play independently as they all revolve around different myths but I will quickly gloss over the 4 of them.

1. "Alcestis" is the earliest play. Here we see the King of Pherae, Admetus, required to find someone to sacrifice in his place as payback for upsetting the Furies. Well, who stands up for martyrdom but his wife, Alcestis! His/her parents(there is confusion in my mind as I think they're her parents, his in laws-see David Sarkie's comments on the actual backstory) refuse to offer themselves in his place so he falls out with them! Then there's Heracles on his way to perform another impossible quest who stops by to sample the hospitality but doesn't understand that there's been a death in the family etc. Only after he's enjoyed all the food and drink that he can put away, does he start to understand from a very unimpressed servant what catastrophe has just occurred.
So, what does this earthbound demigod do? I won't spoil the ending but just say that Admetus becomes very upset and an awful lot wiser after the loss of his wife! We see that his selfish behaviour may have secured his continued existence but grieving desperately for the loss of a saintly partner. A good 3.75*.

2. "Medea" is the title play and I was expecting it to be the best but it's short, has great speeches and heavy on the tragedy. Her soliloquy is possibly not original but what was present is full of melodrama. So, yes, as per the legend, she kills both her sons in response to Jason, he of the Argonauts fame, divorcing her. She comes across as quite the psychopath, with a track record of previous murders! However, she also takes revenge on his new wife and father-in-law just to double down on his betrayal and, even better, gets to emigrate elsewhere. What a woman! 4.5*

3. "The Children of Heracles" is another dose of revenge inflicted on the earlier mentioned Heracles' family. Basically, his nemesis, Eurystheus, is hunting down all his progeny for Heracles is dead, trying to stamp out his evil influence! Here we see the influence of the temple of Zeus and the importance of religion to the Athenians, as it's by this supplication for sanctuary that Iolaus, their protector, achieves their relief. Unfortunately, this requires a trade-off with the gods who demand a sacrifice of a person of noble blood. Surprise, surprise, another female steps up for martyrdom! 4*

4. "Hippolytus" is a more complex and longer play, it's quite surprisingly brilliant. It also won first prize when presented originally and it's easy to see why. Essentially, Hippolytus is a hunting shooting fishing kind of guy, has pledged his lot to Artemis, goddess of chastity, and offends Aphrodite, goddess of love. She 'gets the pip' in a big way and decides to take revenge on him by making his stepmother, Phaedra, fall in love with him whilst his father, Theseus, is otherwise employed elsewhere. So sparks smoulder rather than fly resulting in not just 1 death, but 2! It's really well written and paced, with the moral of the story, of course, being that one should never offend the heavenly family and always listen to the servants, but be careful what you divulge. 5*

So, what did I discover in this endeavour?

Essentially that Greek tragedy was a highly developed form of drama; exploited its myths to great theatrical effect and, apart from the murderous Medea, that you didn't want to be a woman in those days, when personal sacrifice wasn't just loss of employment but possibly death? I lie, of course, but it's fascinating looking back on something from 2500 years ago and seeing how entertaining it must have been to watch these performances!

Overall, a really good book which I recommend. 4.5 *

Amid the flurry of feminist Greek myth re-tellings constantly hitting the shelves, I enjoyed reading this collection of Euripides' plays, which focus on familiar characters from the Trojan War and the Age of Heroes. A criticism frequently levelled against the writers of classical antiquity is that women in these stories are passive and marginalised, in favour of celebrating male (martial or athletic) prowess.

Certainly, the female characters in these plays are trapped by cultural circumstances and shockingly ill-used, but I was intrigued by the central role Euripides accords them. Each of the three plays is named after its female protagonist and, with the exception of Helen, whom I found tedious, the women in question are assertive, angry, and transgressive, more akin to Furies than the dutiful wives and daughters one might expect to encounter in such texts. They are, of course, punished for such transgressions, but I still appreciate how vivid and well-realised these women are as characters.

"Medea" is my favourite of the three plays; the eponymous heroine is a complex character whose descent into madness is utterly mesmeric. I particularly recommend watching the National Theatre production that stars the phenomenal Helen McCrory; it's one of the best live performances I've ever seen. I really enjoyed "Electra" as well, but "Helen" was dull, hence my rating of three, rather than four, stars.

Hippolytus

Those Greeks and their myths. It started with Euripides in the fifth century. Hippolytus loved nothing better than to ride his horse (his name: the breaker of the horse).

Love, he had no interest, and jealous Aphrodite was so angry that she needed to teach him a lesson: she made his step mother Phaedra fall in love with Hippolytus.

The poor woman was beside herself. Phaedra was driven to her to own tragedy. When her husband, noble Theseus learned what happened, he turned on his own son. No questions asked. The weakness of humans: lust, anger, pride, resentment, treachery.

Double tragedy; more blood is spilled. The goddess Artemis intervenes. Humans be dammed because the gods can toy with them. Silly humans.

Great collection with excellent translations.

Of the three great Greek playwrights I’ve read, Euripides was my least favorite. This collection was interesting to read, especially the closure it gives Helen, but mostly, they read too far on the extreme of dramatics for my taste. When reading Sophocles and Aeschylus, their genius was transparent, the drama was refined and poignant. With Euripides, I could not decide if it was closer to my experience of reading Dante or not, where much esoteric historical knowledge is required to fully grasp it. If not, then his brand of genius is rather too subtle. Still, I will return to these again later to see if I’m missing something.

i love BETRAYAL and MURDER and TRAGEDY

4.7

Euripides’ tight focus on just a handful of characters – part and parcel of Greek tragedies – and the way he jumps right into action and pathos is refreshing for someone like me whose reading of drama revolves mainly around the English Renaissance with its customary abundance of, well, everything, including mandatory comic subplots. None of that is present in these four plays. However, the first play, Alcestis, resonates interestingly with The Winter’s Tale. Medea deserves its titular role in the collection, a devastating account of a woman taking revenge on a man, which in some part resembles a 21st-century feminist literary trend in its moral ambiguity and shockingness. The Children of Heracles and Hippolytus were not quite as strong, but this is chiefly due to reading four plays back-to back, i.e. over-exposure.

go girlboss go