Euripedes wrote more than 100 plays. Only 17 of them survive. This volume contains Alcestis, Medea, The Children of Hercules and Hippolytus. Medea is probably the best known of the four. Hence it gets top billing in the title. It is the best of the four plays too I think. It is as dark as you'd expect based on the subject matter.

There is a good general introduction by Richard Rutherford and a short introduction to each play, which - with the notes - really helps contextualise what you are reading. It also helps identifies missing text and issues of comprehension. The past, as a writer whose name escapes me, is like a foreign country. They do things differently there.

Women - bad women - are often at the centre of Euripedes' plays. It was noted even near his time. Aristophanes takes the piss out of him for his hostility to women. Hippolytus gets a long speech railing against women that ends:

"I curse you all! Never will I have my fill of hating women, even though they say I never cease to speak of them. Do they ever cease from sinning? Let someone teach them to control their desires or leave me to trample them underfoot for ever!"

Which makes Hippolytus sound like a prototype incel.

However, the men in these plays are mostly proud, belligerent and - in Jason's case particularly - utter pricks. I mean Medea's response to Jason is utterly mad but Jason has run off with a younger woman, demands Medea leave their children with him and wants her banished from the city. Whether those crimes deserve the punishment Medea meats out to him is moot. Hippolytus is a prig, Theseus curses his son in a moment of rage and doesn't bother to check facts and Phaedra's 'love' for Hippolytus is triggered by a goddess with a grudge. There are victims of the Gods everywhere. Sometimes they hubristically bring it on themselves. But sometimes the punishments don't seem to fit the crime. Greek Gods are sensitive sorts who will bear a grudge.

These were an interesting read. I'd say Medea and Hippolytus are essential reading. Both as plays themselves and as long term influences on drama. Hippolytus begat Racine's Phaedra, which is a play often mentioned in Proust's "In Search of Lost Time."

See, it's all one book.

Glad I read them. I'd really like to see Medea live now.

Medea solos. Euripides is a feminist.

Tbh if I was her I just would have gotten over it and been normal.

dnf- i think im done w classics

Euripides is one of the three greatest tragedy writers of classical Greek, a genre full of drama and suffering by the tragic hero. With Medea being one of his best works, Euripides rewrote the myth of Jason, Medea and the Golden Fleece by providing a few new twists, especially near the end of the story. The story takes place in ancient Greece in Corinth, where Jason, perhaps, for his future, married the princess. Medea later found out about the affair, became uncontrollable, and began her wild venture. Medea's described to be psychological unstable, which led to the appearance of Medea's dark side as a murderer.
This book relates to the chaotic world we live in, with protests going on everywhere around the world, whether about the unemployment, government or war. The chaos can affect the people as in the case of Medea, made her to rid herself of moral and filled her mind with hatred and rage. A relationship can be made between Medea and Lady MacBeth, made apparent by their struggles with emotions, doubting themselves before committing the unthinkable. The story resembles some of the reality television shows that depict people in the worst of times such as Maury, etc, which ironically, make them so popular. Nothing in this story evokes a personal memory for me, I can gladly say. After reading this book, I definitely have a stronger attitude against the many "sins" the characters commit, there are no reason one should even think of these in-humanistic ideas.
This book ties perfectly with the theme of duality of good and evil in human nature. Human nature can be unpredictable, unstable at times, which can alter one's character for better or worse. Euripides portrayed the characters in a way to compare and contrast the theme of good and evil in human nature, represented by the personality change in Medea. Medea took a turn for the worse as her hatred and thirst for revenge took over.
I personally loved this book and I would recommend this to anyone who likes short tragedy with crazy twists all throughout the story. I feel the author accomplished his goals, providing with clear, descriptive details that make the theme more clearly. I was not convinced about the short sentences in the book, but as I got into it, they actually made the book easier to understand and made apparent the important themes embedded in the words.

4.0 - All of the plays in this collection were tragedies, but I enjoyed all of them the same. I especially appreciate how three of these stories focused on women and that Euripides painted all these focal women with a sympathetic light. Although he detailed the way they murdered, he also did a great job showcasing how their grief and suffering pushed them to do so. These definitely aren’t by any means icons of feminism, but these plays do feel much more lenient and contemplative towards women than other texts from this time. I also enjoyed each play for its individual story; Medea’s revenge against Jason for marrying a princess, Hecabe’s triumph over the man who killed her last remaining child, Electra’s rage against those who killed her father, and the brutal detailings of Heracles’s horrifying murders. As with most Ancient Greek texts, there is a lot of death and murder, but I find that I didn’t mind it as much in these plays as in other pieces I’ve read due to the well showcased emotional turbulence the titular characters face.

gaslight gatekeep girlboss

43. Euripides I : Alcestis, The Medea, The Heracleidae, Hippolytus (The Complete Greek Tragedies)
published: 1955 (my copy is a 26th printing from 1993)
format: 224 page Paperback
acquired: May 30 from a Half-Price Books
read: July 5-9
rating: 4 stars

Each play had a different translator

Alcestis (481 bce) - translated by Lattimore, Richard c1955
The Medea (431 bce) - translated by David Grene c1944
The Heracleidae (circa 430 bce) - translated by Rex Warner c1955
Hippolytus (by 428 bce) - translated by Ralph Gladstone c1942

“Perhaps the most significant remark about Euripides and Sophocles is that supposed to have been made by Sophocles, that he himself showed men as they ought to be (or as one ought to show them) but Euripides showed them as they actually were.” - from Lattimore's introduction.

That is a bit of silly comment because no one stands and delivers long, uninterrupted dialogues about private thoughts which they don't actually want anyone to know about. But the statement does have some logic. Sophocles characters are higher, more heroic in statement and action. Euripides characters aren't. Even his heroes and gods speak very regularly. In translation, the works come in long inexorable monologues that don't appear to translate well to poetry, and that don't really strike the reader, or at least didn't strike this reader, until later on when you realize how terrible everything turned out and how terrible it was what they thought, said and did. They create what I like to think of as the build up of a quiet hidden energy, of a very dark sort. They also end almost suddenly, and certainly not in any satisfying manner.

These are the four oldest of Euripides plays. Each seems interesting in taking a very dark happening in the mythology, and dragging it out, putting words to these terrible things.

n  Alcestisn

Before the opening of the play: Apollo was sentenced to serve Admetus, a king in Thessaly, for a year. Treated well, he rewards Admetus. He helps Admetus to do some impossible tasks to win the hand of Acestis as his wife. But, in the process, Admetus forget a critical sacrifice to Artemus, who plans to have him killed by snakes. Apollo miraculously negotiates with the Fates and gets Admetus's life an extension - but someone must volunteer to die in his place. No one would agree to this, not even his aging parents. Finally Alcestus agrees (making her, apparently, an ideal Ancient Greek wife.)

That all happens off the stage, and is never explained within the play. The play opens with Alcestic about to die, and Apollo negotiating for her life with death himself, Thanatos. Apollo, fails, but promises to send Heracles to make things right. Meanwhile, Alcestis has to die, and her husband, and children and servants must witness it. This tragedy is the heart of the play.

Heracles shows up, unaware of anything. The mourning is hid from Heracles, who proceeds to get drunk and happy and then get confused about why no one will join him. But, what is strange to me, is that even though Heracles does create a happy ending, the tragedy is what hangs around.

This was not Euripides first play. He had been writing for years. But this is the oldest we still have.

n  Medean

This seems to be Euripides most important play(??). Medea, a conflicted hero from Jason and the Argonauts, is, here, a fascinating character. She is the barbarian from the east (from the Black Sea), unstable, uncivilized, a ruthless personality and a sorceress. When she falls for Jason, part of how she saves him is till kill her own brother in a boat chase, cut him up into pieces and scatter the pieces, forcing her own kingdom's boats to stall and pick up the pieces. That was not her most brutal action. And her story is long.

Here in the play, Jason has spurned her and their children and become engaged to a princess of Corinth. He does this for political advantage (he's in a bad spot because of Medea's latest crimes). Medea explodes in a spectrum of emotions of anger, jealously, etc. And then she plots, and she acts, concealing her true emotions from the other actors, but not from the audience. She will manipulate a safe haven for herself in Athens, gift the princess with a poisoned dress, kill her own children to thoroughly ruin Jason, and then flee in her magic chariot of sorts. As Jason, who is thoroughly ruined, tries to confront her. But she, still fresh from killing her own children, rails at him with a prolonged bitter speech that has not even the slightest hint of remorse. Medea will carry on.

n  Heracleidaen

This is apparently something of a rushed drama with a political point. In the real world context, Athens recently caught five foreign diplomats on a mission dangerous to Athens. They were summarily executed, without even being given a promised chance to make a public statement.

Here Heracles has died, and his sons are on the run under a protector. Their king, Eurystheus, treated Heracles so badly, that he feels he must kill the children to prevent their vengeance. The city of Athens agrees to protect the children and a war ensues. Later, Eurystheus is captured, and confronted with the mother of Heracles, Alcmene. She demands his death, immediately. But, in the process, loses her dignity in her rage, while the bad Eurystheus oddly establishes a dignity we didn't know he had.

Another key oddity here is the voluntary sacrifice of Macaria, a daughter of Heracles. For battle success, human sacrifice was considered essential, and she volunteers for the sake of her brothers.

Much to be uncomfortable with here. But, really, that is also true of the previous two plays too.

n  Hippolytusn

This was my favorite because it didn't leave me so uncomfortable. But, still, it's tragic. Phaedra, wife of Theseus, king of Athens, has fallen in love with her stepson, Hippolytus. She collapses into a self-destructive depression. Her not-so-bright maid tries to help her, and finally pulls out of her this very private and terrible thing that is bothering her. Then the maid tells Hippolytus(!!)...and the tragedies ensues (in far excess of reason).

Phaedra is the main interest here, making a psychological study that is really interesting. But I also found it interesting to read an Ancient Greek playwright's description of an earthquake and consequence Tsunami.

overall

Euripides so far strives at making the viewer/reader uncomfortable. He is interesting, but he's not fun like Sophocles was. The reward is, well, unclear. The art is in the complexity of our response, one that seems fully molded, intentionally, by the playwright. I'll read more, but I won't anticipate them so much as brace myself for them.

greek mythology at peak feminine rage <3

played these stage-plays with my gf out loud & it peaked getting the ick by men in history.
nothing will ever make me like you, agamemnon. -5/10 in EVERY play he was in. also: greek gods are the definition of pettiness. stan them for that wow

The translation was nice, though I would have appreciated more substantial introduction/notes sections. Then again, I definitely got my money’s worth ($3 for a very old paperback that looks like it went through a toaster oven)

probably the best greek tragedy i’ll ever read. this translation retains the richness, depth and complexity of euripides’ medea and allows for two actually genuinely exceptional monologues. jason is an insufferable misogynist and great sympathy is evoked for medea — different to her typical villification onwards. i loved! this tragedy. even the word love is an understatement; i am immediately propelled to read more euripidean plays!!!! genuinely masterful, genuinely brilliant, well worth a read.