It's inevitable to compare it to Sophocles' Electra when having just read that tragedy as well.
And this Electra comes across much more cautious, her grief quieter, her speech less emotional and more sensible, even though she asks to be the one to kill Clytemnestra.
I liked that Electra and Orestes have more time for dialogue, and that Electra too has to purge in the end. But this version also seems more misogynistic.
And once again I was on Clytemnestra's side after hearing her arguments, which demanded the reader imagine a role reversal where she had committed her husband's actions and went unpunished.

A beautiful tragedy by the great ancient Greek playwright Euripides! The play is centered on revenge and justice, where the children of Clytemnestra, Electra and her brother Orestes avenge the murder of their own father by the hands of his wife Clytemnestra and her lover Aegistus at the end of the play. What I liked in Euripides’ version of the play is its somehow realistic form as well as the depiction of the deep psychological aspects and conflicts of the characters, shown, for instance, in the characters’ motivations. For example, we see that Orestes is hesitant to kill his mother when the time arrives, partly because he does not want to commit a matricide, but more driven by his sense of filial duties toward the mother who brought him. Electra tries to show her mother that the real motive behind her husband’s murder was not because the latter killed their daughter, but because she already had had feelings toward Aegistus. On the other hand, the events take place in the peasant’s house, not in the palace (like in Aeschylus and Sophocles versions). I also liked to see the mother willing to help her pregnant daughter with her first baby, which shows that even if she knew that her daughter hated her, still she had motherly feelings toward her daughter – That was not the case with the other plays. One aspect the play seems to shed lights on was the gender role as imposed by the patriarchal culture of the time. The language is beautiful and the play attracts one’s attention from the very first page.

no way Freud

Euripid je u odnosu na Sofokla i Eshila jedna velika velika DEUS EX MACHINA! :D

من از ستیز در میدان کردار آمده‌ام، نه جولان‌گاه کلمات.

حکایت خاندان آترئوس یکی از جذاب‌ترین حکایات تاریخ است. نفرینی که تا قیام قیامت گریبان نسل در نسل این خاندان را می‌گیرد و ول‌کن ماجرا نیست. داستان انتقام گرفتن الکترا از مادرش که با هم‌کاری برادرش اورستس صورت می‌گیرد از مشهورترین داستان‌های مربوط به این خاندان است و شاعران زیادی درمورد این داستان نمایش‌نامه نوشته‌اند. تا به امروز می‌توانم بگویم ضعیف‌ترین نسخه‌ از این داستان، همین روایت اوریپید است که به گرد پای روایت آیسخولوس(نیازآوران) و سوفوکل (الکترا) نمی‌رسد و حتی - می‌دانم که روزی از این گفته پشیمان می‌شوم - روایت سارتر از این داستان (مگس‌ها) را بیشتر دوست داشتم. البته این اثر هم نکات بسیار قابل توجهی داشت. نقد اوریپید نسبت به نیازآوران آیسخولوس از مشخصه‌های بارز آن است. مثلاً آن بخشی که الکترا اذعان می‌دارد که نمی‌تواند از روی مو یک فرد متوجه هویت او شود، نقدی به گره‌گشایی آیسخولوسی می‌کند. یکی دیگر از مسائل متن، عقل‌گرایی اوریپیدی‌ است که نیچه مفصلاً در زایش تراژدی به این بحث پرداخته و اوریپید را بخاطر این رفتارش سرزنش کرده است. در این نمایش، اوریپید برخلاف آیسخولوس نیروی خدایان را پس می‌زند و سعی می‌کند تمام بار نمایش را روی دوش انسانیان بگذارد. در این متن اثری از آپولون نیست و در نهایت هم هنگامی که اسمی از او به میان می‌آید به جهت سرزنش کردنش می‌باشد و حتی اورستس با کلمات تندی از او یاد می‌کند که این عمل در آن دوران به نوعی کفرگویی محض بوده است. کلوتایمنسترا و آیگیستوس در این اثر به آن بدی همیشه نیستند و ممکن است مخاطب با آن‌ها حتی هم‌دلی کند و برای‌شان دل بسوزاند. تجربه‌ی عجیبی بود. اوریپید همیشه آدم را متحیر می‌کند، حتی با یک روایت ضعیف

This one is a cracker that romps along swiftly to its bloody climax. Loved Euripides making fun of Aeschylus's version of how Electra and Orestes recognised each other in The Libation Bearers.

إستكمالاً لمسرحيات يوربيديس .. لم ترق لي هذه المسرحية .. سأحاول قراءة مسرحيتي إليكترا لـ سوفوكليس و فولتير ..

ريفيو مسرحية هيلين

الکترای اوریپید اولین تجربه‌ی خوانش اسطوره‌ها از تراژدی نویسان یونان بود. متاسفانه قبل از این مستقیما هیچ کدوم از متون رو نخونده بودم و مواجهه‌ام با اسطوره‌ها از بازنویسی‌های جدیدتری مثل مگس‌ها یا زنان تراوای سارتر بود.
متن بسیار کوتاه و بسیار ساده‌است و توی کمتر از نیم ساعت خوانده میشه. من ترجمه آقای شهبازی رو خوندم اما متوجه شدم که ترجمه‌ای از کوثری هم وجود داره و اون بهتره. این نمایشنامه اونقدر برام جذابیت داشت که بلافاصله متن آقا کوثری رو پیدا کنم و بخونم.
قبل از شروع، خوب هست که آشنایی مقدماتی با بک‌گراند ماجرا، اسطوره‌ها و روابطشون داشته باشیم (حتی در حد دیدن فیلم تروی!) که متوجه شیم روابط خانوادگی چطور پیش میره.
درون‌مایه‌ی اصلی نمایشنامه، "انتقام" و احساسات و قضاوت‌های خانودگی است.
آگاممنون در جریان شروع جنگ تراوا، دختر کلوتایمنسترا، ایفیگنیا رو به پیشگاه آتنا قربانی میکنه. کلوتایمنسترا با کینه‌ای که از آگاممنون به دل میگیره، همراه با معشوقه‌اش همسرش رو میکشه و در ادامه پسرش، اورستس رو از ترس انتقام به جای دیگه‌ای می‌فرسته و دخترش الکترا رو به همسری دهقانی درمیاره.
داستان حول انتقام الکترا و اورستس از مادر و همسر مادرشون می‌گذره.
نکات قابل توجه داستان برای من این بود که بار تصمیمات و پیشروی داستان بیشتر انسانی بود و اوریپید خدایان رو کمتر دخالت داده بود. حتی زمانی که آخر داستان از آپولو سخن میگه، وجهه مثبتی رو ازش به نمایش نمیذاره. فکر می‌کنم این موضوع خیلی در زمان خودش پیشروانه محسوب میشده.
علاوه بر این حتی منفی‌ترین شخصیت‌های داستان هم وجهه‌هایی مثبت داشتن و ممکن بود همدلی‌ات رو برانگیزن. دلیل کلوتایمنسترا برای کشتن آگاممنون رو میتونی درک کنی و همسر کلوتایمنسترا هم در بخش کمی که حضور داره وجهه‌های مثبت اخلاقی مثل خوش‌صحبتی، مردم‌داری و مهمان‌نوازی رو نشون میده. اون‌طور که خوندم توی دو نمونه‌ی دیگه‌ی این نمایشنامه (از سوفوکل و سوخولیس) اینطور نیست و شخصیت‌ها سیاه‌ترن.
الکترا سویه‌ی مادرکشانه‌ی ادیپ هست. هنوز نمی‌دونم برای شروع مورد مناسبی رو انتخاب کردم یا نه، اما توصیه‌ش می‌کنم و قطعا تراژدی‌های یونان رو ادامه خواهم داد.
مونولوگ اورستس بعد از شناخت دهقان قسمت مورد علاقه‌ام از نمایشنامه بود.

Euripides' take on the vengeance of Orestes
9 March 2012


tI clearly remember reading this play for university and one of the things that the lecturer spoke about was how we have, from all three of the surviving tragedians, a extant plays that deals with the same subject, being the murder of Aegisthus and Clytaemnestra by the two of her children, Orestes and Electra. I believe that we actually looked at all three at university, if only to compare the similarities, and differences, in how the three tragedians dealt with the same subject. In fact, it is very fortuitous that we actually have these plays because it gives us a deeper insight into how the same even was viewed by differing contemporary authors.

tThe sympathy that Euripides shows towards women that was noticeable in Medea and Hecabe seems to be somewhat absent from this play. In fact there are indications in this play of the role that women generally played in Greece with no real criticism of their status. In a way one can empathise with Electra in that she is being persecuted by her mother's lover in that he fears retribution for his part in the death of Agamemnon, her father, but also we admire the peasant whom Electra has been married to in that he has chosen not to sleep with her in that he sees this as a marriage of convenience rather than of love. In a way, he recognises Electra's high status, her being a member of the nobility, while he, a peasant, has no right to such a noble wife.

tThe major theme of this play is the conflict between the virtue of vengeance, and the crime of matricide. All three of the plays weigh heavily on the crime of matricide and it is clear that such a murder would have been repugnant to the ancient Greeks. However, this is balanced out with the fact that it was Orestes' duty to seek vengeance against his father's murderers. It is a case of justice needing to be done, and it is the duty of the son to see that this happens. While it is seen that it is right to kill Aegisthus there is a conflict when it comes to Clyteamnestra. Orestes is hesitant as he is aware of the crime, however Electra is blinded by hatred and vengeance, not only for the murder of her father, but also for the life that she now lives. She is not the one doing the deed, it is Orestes, therefore she does not care.



tWe notice that at the end, the Discouri appear (that being Castor and Polydeuces, the heavenly twins, who are sons of Zeus and the brothers of Helen and Clytaemnestra) and condemn Orestes for his crimes. However, as is true with much Greek drama, his future is foretold to him, and it is decreed that initially he will be pursued by the furies (demonic creatures that torment the wicked) to Athens were he will seek shelter in the Temple of Athena and then be brought to trial on the Rock of Ares. It is also decreed that his trial will set a precedent in which if all votes are equal in a murder trial, then the accused will be acquitted.

tIt is interesting how this time as I read the play I could almost picture some of the places that were mentioned. The action is set not in Argos but on a farm just outside the city. The ancient city really does not exist any more, but if you travel to modern Argos you can still see the remains of the Roman city, including the theatre, the bath house, and the agora. I could also picture the rock of Ares in Athens, which functioned as the high court in ancient times. I can also picture the Athenians being familiar with what Euripides is saying, and many of them would probably cast their eyes around to the rock, and be reminded of the principles of justice upon which Solon based his constitution.



tHowever we can also see different ideas about virtue in this play. To an ancient Greek, vengeance for the murder of one's father is not seen as a crime, and it is not necessarily the responsibility of the authorities (as it is these days). Rather, all prosecutions were private (unless it was treason, and even then that would be dealt with by a vote by all citizens). Another interesting thing about justice in Athens is that if somebody brings a charge against another person, and the person is found to be innocent, then the person bringing the charges is himself fined heavily. Not necessarily for a crime, but rather to discourage vexatious litigation (not that it actually stopped it).

tOne final thing I noticed was that right at the end the Discouri make a statement about leaving to watch over an expedition to Sicily. This comment actually gives us a very good idea of when the play was written and first performed, namely shortly before the launching of the Sicilian Expedition. Now, I am unsure if in those days the plays would have been performed more than once, but it appears that there is some hint in regards to this fateful expedition. While this play was being performed and produced though, the Peloponesian War was in full swing.

tWe also see Euripides' take on the Trojan War in this play, though his ideas regarding Helen are explored more deeply in the play of the same title. This is a belief, not necessarily created by Euripides but I will refer to it as Euripidean, that Helen never went to Troy, but was taken to Egypt instead. As such, the Greeks were chasing a phantom, and it did not become noticeable until after the war had been won. I am really unsure why they would take this idea as it was not necessarily needed for the Greeks to sympathise with the Trojans. In any case they were barbarians, but then maybe Euripides was commenting not only on the futility of war, but also how much destruction can come about from misunderstandings and jumping to conclusions.

From all the books I have read for high school until now, I would rate this one as a "meh" one. Not my favorite one but definitely not the worst. The only thing that bothered me is the fact that so much background information is required to fully understand the plot.

It was interesting reading Euripides' Electra straight after Sopocles' Electra and Aeschylus' The Libation Bearers, and noting the differences between the three. That said, I can't comment much on the actual writing as the authors' personal styles would have got lost in translation, but there were a few minor yet notable plot differences. Personally, I found Aeschylus' version of how Orestes avenged his father Agamemnon the most moving; I particularly liked this line, which Orestes and Clytemnestra speak in The Libation Bearers as the former kills the latter, his mother:

CLYTEMNESTRA
Will you murder your own mother?

ORESTES
Me murder you?
Mother, you have already murdered yourself.
I merely hold the sword as you fall.

But in Euripides' Electra, all the violence happens off-stage, and so there is no moving moment when Clytemnestra dies, no opportunity for the audience to pick sides based off both her pleas and her son's determination. However, during a conversation between Orestes and his sister Electra at the end, they do begin to visibly doubt their actions, a theme which was not as heavily focused on in Sophocles' Electra or Aeschylus' The Libation Bearers. In fact, Electra plays a much more minor role in Aeschylus' play, which only makes it all the more interesting that she was the protagonist of Sophocles' and Euripides' performances─female main characters were extremely rare in Ancient Greek theatre.

We finally got to find out how Aegisthus was murdered.
My favourite part of this play was seeing how Electra's character is written differently from her character in the Orestia. In there, she's given very little dialogue or agency, as apparently befits a woman of that time.
This Electra is outspoken, yelling at her relatives for the things they should have done for her, and taking an active part in the action of the story. Euripides writes women better, I guess.