Alcestis: 2 stars
Medea: 5 stars
The Bacchae: 5 stars

these are the best three plays of Euripides. fight me.

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.

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.

Alcestis - 3 stars
Medea- 5 stars
The Bacchae- 3 stars

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.

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.

~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...

Only read Medea and The Bacchae but I couldn't find the Paul Roche translations on Goodreads by themselves.

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.

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