I read the translation by Emily Townsend Vermeule.

Nije bilo drugog pa sam štiklirao ovo izdanje kao ono koje sam čitao. Prosto, nisam želeo da ubacujem izdanje izdavačke kuće AKIA M.PRINC jer je grozomorno u skoro svakom smislu. Od toga da piše kako je Sofokle autor, premda je autor ove konkretne "Elektre" Euripid, do toga da je interpunkcija je zi va. Sve u svemu, izbegavajte ga u širokom luku, molim vas.

The Greeks really had a tendency of repeating themselves, didn't they? Often times , many plays by these ancient dramatists basically tell the same story, it's all just a matter of whose writing the reader/watcher prefers more. In the case of Electra, there are essentially two tellings of the exact same story, one by Euripides and one by Sophocles. I have already reviewed the Sophocles version, so I suppose I will do a review of this one as well.

I feel that there isn't really a need to go into that detailed of a plto summary- Electra, who is living with her cheating, murderous mother, is miserable because she is in mourning for her father. She meets up with Orestes and Pylades, who then kill the mother and her lover.

If one is familiar with Greek drama, then they will most certainly know that this story is told many, many times. The story of Orestes and Electra obviously must have been a very popular one, because all of these plays were performed publicly; many people must have wanted to see this story arc. I would even go to say that this particular story is just as popular and frequent in these plays as the Oedipus story arc is.

Now, can I say that I eventually get tired of hearing the same story over and over again? Frankly, yes. However, that does not diminish the quality of Electra- Euripides still reads pretty well. It's jsut that by this point, I have read about Orestes and Electra many times and am certainly all too familiar with the story. It's strarting to seem a little cliche to me!

Continuing my journey through Euripides, I read Electra, a story about filial piety, sacrifice, and repercussions. I had previously read Sophocles' version translated by Anne Carson. Electra is racked with pain from her father's murder, and not afraid to show it and seek revenge. Euripides loves strong female character, and unfortunately the deus ex machina. I know I say this a lot, but the predictable appearance of an all-powerful god or two bothers me. But this isn't enough to turn me away from the twists and emotions of ancient Greek drama. The Dioscuri show up again, this time annoyingly negating all of the action of the play. Overall, an enjoyable experience.

From my edition's introduction, the translator Gilbert Murray writes that Euripides' Electra 'has the distinction of being the best abused and not the best understood of ancient tragedies'...

And I agree. It is very different from Sophocles' Electra, even as regards to the portrayal of Electra and Orestes themselves. In a way Euripides is more strikingly realistic. "In Euripides' play both Orestes and Electra are far from heroic, the murder of Aegisthus is shown as, at the best, inglorious; that of Clytaemnestra as revolting.": from the introduction of the Penguin classics edition by Philip Vellacott. Castor and Polydeuces (two gods) actually make an appearance in Euripides' version to remind them of the horrendous nature of their deed, despite Orestes being urged on by Apollo (who in the end must be blamed) and their justification.

Some criticize Euripides as being overly 'antiquated' in his perceptions of ideals, especially as regards to women. One might quote the phrase from the play: "A wife ought in all things to accept her husband's judgement". Sophocles, on the other hand, portrayed Electra and Clytaemnestra as the main and passionate driving force behind the plots of their male counterparts. However, I do not feel that this is fair on Euripides. Besides being restricted by the patriarchal beliefs of his time, he is not afraid to criticize the husbands as well, "The husbands are also to blame but they are never criticized" pleads Clytaemnestra.

I also think that Euripides' play has a lot of commendable qualities that are in its merit. The peasant, Electra's husband who adamantly refuses to take advantage of her pitiable state, provides a refreshing virtuous and reasonable alternative to the other characters. There are also a lot of references to current affairs and ancient Greek mythology. I'll leave my comment on the references out, one might easily understand them by the notes provided in many versions.

However, at one point Orestes speaks out against Apollo, his 'omniscience' and his ill-fated oracle; "How if some fiend of hell, hid in god's likeness, speaks that oracle?". Besides the open boldness of such a statement, implying that a god could ever be wrong in the 'Great Dionysia festival' itself is no small feat, and the likeness to the famous Hamlet (which is in many ways similar to Electra) quote; "The spirit that I have seen may be the devil". Besides these consideration, I have also come up with one of my own. We all know that 'Rationalism' as a philosophical ideal was founded by the great Plato and Socrates before him. Well, if you know that, you must also know that the even more famous philosopher Descartes once said 'What if we are all being tricked by an evil demon in the disguise of divine forces' (there is also an old book called 'Euripides the Rationalist').

Both Sophocles and Euripides deserve their recognition as some of world's best dramatists, if not some of the founders of drama and performance itself. However, despite the many, I am sure, who may not agree with me, I like Euripides' version more (though that may be in part to the sublimity of Euripides' version translation when compared to the simplicity of my Sophocles' version).

Adoring Sophocle's Electra, which I read in college, I decided to read the version of Euripedes, who critics claim writes far more cynically (about gods and humankind), to see how he handled the drama. Euripide's version was exalted, dark, and tragic, much like the version by Sophocles, but the characters and their motives were strikingly distinct. Euripides has the more somber and realistic vision of the two dramatists.
The character Electra as imagined by Euripides sank beneath hardship, self-pity and the need to dramatize to all about her how deeply she suffered. She made note of her father, but that was not the great injustice in her mind. Rather, she dwells on how poorly she had been treated. Electra, as realized by Sophocles, had been redeemed by love for her brother Orestes, and love for her murdered father. She had love as a resource after she had wreaked her terrible and mysterious revenge upon her mother. In contrast, the Electra of Euripides was exhausted and once those she hated had been dispatched, she had nothing to turn to and became reduced to a shell of a human being. There is something in me that prefers the vision of Euripides, whose dramatic decisions indicate that vengeance cannot satisfy any appetite nor leave love behind its wake as a resource. Her rage against her mother accomplishes nothing other than to reduce Electra to nothing. Orestes, according to Euripides, is a coward, unlike the determined and self-confident Orestes produced by Sophocles. I praised how Euripides showed him hesitating before killing his mother. The scene was rendered as putrid and revolting, rather than a scene of just death, anguish, and retribution. One feels contaminated by their murder of their mother Clytemnestra. Euripides produced a play of unremitting tragedy, whereas Sophocles, a true devout believer, offers hope and love in the end.
I recommend highly that both versions be read together in order to taste the contrasts and tensions which continue to make ancient Greek culture so vital.

As I've mentioned in my earlier reviews of this story, revolving around the Atreus's family, I find this version far superior than it's counterparts. It's not because of flattering or because I've read this work first (first was Aeschylus's and than Sophocles's version), but because it gives characters distinct layer of humanity. We have, on one side, a woman, who represents emotions and feelings of a wife and a mother who REACTS with her own reasons, which are understandable and begs the questions of man's morality and actions. On the other side, there's her daughter, who loves her father and values the family structure by a rule of patricide, thus giving us an example of obedience. Also, she acts so confident when holding backs for her brother in a moment of hesitation. It's important because, in the end, we got the conclusion everyone would find natural, but the build up leading to this point wants us believe the reaction will end differently. To fully understand it, one must read all three versions and compare it and I know it's probably boring, but the devil is in the details,as we say. In short, give it a try, read it passionately and admire it. I wish you all a pleasant evening and good night.

«آنگاه که شویی از این شاخ به آن شاخ می‌پرد و بسترش را فراموش می‌کند، زن از شویش پیروی می‌کند و یاری دیگر می‌یابد. سپس مردم یکسره از کردار ما زنان برآشفته می‌شوند؛ اما در کار شوهران که به راستی باید پاسخگو باشند خطایی نمی‌بینند.»


کلا نمی‌فهمم وقتی قصدتون کثافتکاریه، چرا اصلا ازدواج می‌کنین [یا حتی وارد رابطه میشین] که بعد دهنتون هم به یاوه و بهانه و توجیه باز باشه.

din seria "de ce n-am citit asta la timp"

Euripides focuses on psychology and moral ambiguity more than fate and the gods.

Οταν (ξανα) διαβάζεις κανείς τις αρχαίες τραγωδίες, διαπιστώνει πόσο επίκαιρες είναι πάντα. Θέματα εξουσίας, σχάσεων των δύο φύλων, οικογένειας, έρωτες και μίση, αναπλάθονται λες και είναι γραμμένοι σήμερα. Ειδικά σε τούτη την τραγωδία, η τραγική φιγούρα της Ηλεκτρας δίνει μια έντονη συναισθηματική φόρτιση με καίρια ερωτήματα που άπτονται της οικογένειας.

Electra:
... Bize merhamet et, çünkü acımız merhamet ister!