I read Hecuba because it was this year's Greek Play at Kings and I always like to have read the play before I go and see it. It was very good. Once again another lovely Greek play where there are lots of women characters. Hecuba is quite woe begotten loosing her children and having her daughter sacrificed but she does at least get a bit of revenge. Children of Hercules was my least favourite. Too many men and not enough interesting things happening and of course everytime Iolaus was on stage I was picturing the tv show! Andromache I really liked. There were interesting dynamics between the women characters, even if they were mostly just fighting over men. Hippolytus was also very good. The gods causing havoc in the lives of mortals and women committing suicide as a form of protest and blame. It also had some of the nicest lines of the four.

I did enjoy these plays a lot though I finished them quite a few days ago and am having a hard time remembering all the details already!

Just finished reading Children of Heracles from this book. I've read other translations of Greek plays, but David Kovacs translation is the best. He has the Greek side by side with the English, I feel that having the source material is a nice touch. The translation itself is neither encumbered by Victorian English affectation nor does he dumb it down a very nice literal meaning.

Children of Heracles isn't the best play, however, it is a great example of some early civilization propaganda. Near the start of the Pelloponnesian war, this play was about how Athens doesn't kill it's prisoners and that it helps the weak. While Athens didn't kill it's prisoners during the war it certainly didn't help the weak it enslaved them. Nevertheless it is quite interesting as this type of patriotism isn't new but it's been around since the beginning of civilization and likely before that.

Hypolitus was far more interesting. It was quite interesting how the Greek gods(esp Aphrodite, Eros, Artemis and Poseidon) have a duality in this play. In some ways they act like gods and in others they act like forces of nature. The Greeks had a very interesting way of looking at things where certain events and emotions where a result of fate or the gods and mortals could not do anything about them. They viewed people of integrity as good people and had their own hang ups about sex. They were also quite misogynistic.

Euripides, the Tarantino of 5th century BC Athens.

My advanced Greek class will begin reading Hippolytus tomorrow, and I must say I have really been looking forward to it.

This is one of E's best, right up there with Bacchae and Medea.

Kovacs' translation is very straightforward and clear, just what you want from a bilingual edition like this one. Of course no translation, whether literal and "high fidelity" (such as Kovacs'), or one that takes great, even outrageous liberties with the Greek, can do justice to the astonishing power of the original.

What is more, translations rarely capture adequately the different linguistic registers that E. employs between the spoken and lyric (sung) portions of the play. The dialogue (iambic trimeters) between characters comes close to what everyday Greek must have sounded like, even allowing for the fact that it is poetry. The choral songs, however, are written in complex meters with richly poetic diction and elaborate, compressed syntax.

E's choral odes are pure poetry. Hippolytus contains one of my favorites:

Eros, Eros, you who drip desire down into the eyes,

bringing sweet pleasure to the souls of those against whom you wage your campaigns,

May you never appear to me with harm or disharmony,

For neither the shaft of fire nor of the stars is greater than that of Aphrodite, which Eros, the son of Zeus, throws from his hands.

(525-29)

Andromache and Hecuba are great continuations of the story of the Trojan War.

This second volume of Euripides' works contains four earlier plays Euripides would have written as a 50-something year old in the time from ca. 430 to 424. These are his tragedies about the Children of Heracles, the love of Phaedra for her stepson Hippolytus, the fate of the concubine Andromache and Hecuba's tragic loss of two of her children. While these tragedies are not comfortable to read when it comes to the themes discussed (quite the opposite, actually) they fit into the habits of modern consumers of Ancient plays much better than the earlier 'problemplay' Alcestis and the Satyrplay 'Cylcops'. Furthermore, Euripides characteristic style, for instance his plotting, his choice of characters and type of dialogue become more obvious: Among them his tendency to portray ambivalent female characters, to present sophistic argumentation, to tell stories without a clear unifying theme and/or clear climax as well as the appearance of a goddess at the end.

I will now give an individual review of all except the second play.

In 'Children of Heracles' king Eurystheus plots to kill the children of the great hero in fear that they would later on challenge his reign. The old companion of Heracles, Iolaos along Heracles old mother Alcmene accompanies the children in their search for asylum. They arrive at Athens and ask king Demophon for protection. He first agrees and goes away to prepare a war against Eurystheus but then backpadels: The oracle says that Athen only wins the war if a virgin is sacrificed. Demophon is not willing to give a daughter or ask any citizen to do the same. One of Heracles daughters, Macaria, is willing to sacrifice herself and so Athens wins against Eurystheus. Heracles mother wishes revenge and wants Eurystheus killed. Eventhough this is against the laws of Athens, Eurystheus gets killed and then fulfills the prophecy that the city where he is buried will be blessed. Two themes stood out for me in this play of Euripides: First, the question of how refugees should behave, what they can ask for and what they owe. In this play Euripides seems to draw 'ideal' refugees and contrast them with 'non-ideal' ones. Iolaos is accepted in his request because he has good arguments and speaks well but Macaria in particular stands out in her willingness to sacrifice herself to protect her siblings and allow Athens to win. Her argument, right before she dies, is remarkable to me: "For what shall we say if this city is willing to run great risks on our behalf, and yet we, who lay toil and struggle on others, run away from death when it lies in our power to rescue them?" Alcemene on the other hand is the type of refugee who is unwilling to accept the foreign laws - her unwillingness to let Eurystheus go is beneficial to Athens at the end but not praiseworthy. The second theme that stands out is the descendibility of virtue. Iolaos says of Demophon that he is not inferior to his great father, king Theseus and states "Only one man out of a great multitude can be found who is not inferior to his father". Likewise, Macaria seems to have inherited Heracles virtue and courage. Iolaos accordingly comments: "My child, your spirit was born of none else than that hero: you are the seed of that divine spirit of Heracles!" In the 'Children of Heracles' Eurpides presents something more familiar to readers of the Sophoclean tragedy: A truly perplexing situation in which the position of many of the players can be understood. So far, it is my favorite of Euripides plays.

Euripides' tragedy 'Andromache' is a play about the reversal and restructure of social role and status after war. Andromache, former queen of Troy, is now a sex-slave for Neoptalemus, the son of Greeks biggest hero Achilles. His lawful wife, Hermoine, is envious of her as Andromache has a son with Neoptalemus while she is unable to become pregnant. With her father Menelaos she plots to kill Andromache, accusing her of casting spells which make her infertile. Neoptolomus' grandfather, Peleus, prevents Hermoines plans and sends Menelaos away. Hermoine, now without the support from her influential father, worries about the reaction of her husband and decides to run away with Orestes, who suddenly appears. It turns out that he killed Neoptolomus and came to get Hermoine who was promised to her as a wife before the war. Peleus, learning that his son is dead, grieves the loss of his only son and the extiction of his familiy line. Then Peleus' wife Thetis, a goddess, appears as a deus ex machina, prophesising a great future for Andromache, her son and tells Peleus that he will become a god next to her side.
The play thus ends with rewarding those characters who show the most dignity and humanity thorughout the play. Andromache in particular is a fascinating character and one of my favorites in all Ancient tragedies. Against the great king Menelaos she argues brilliantly. Aware of her low social status, she demonstrate that her noble character and mind are uneffected by the political circumstances she has to endure. Knowing that she is right but that this won't mean anything to Menelaos, she courageously states: "Those whose pride is great do not take kindly to hearing superior arguments from their inferiors". Really, Menelaos is the inferior one, when it comes to character. While Andromache shows rhetorical skill, confidence and self-knowledge, Peleus is the exemplar of a person who is able to look beyond status and assess a persons character. Consequently, he stands on Andromaches side when she is threatened by Menelaos and Hermoine. He recognizes that a persons goodness is independant from his oder hers heritage when he says: "For just as stoney grounds often surpass deep soil in its produces, so bastards are often better men than legitimate sons."
His alliance with Andromache is one of the most touching moments of this play. In her desperate state, facing death from the father of the angry wife of her master because of something she cannot control, Peleus offers rest: "For though you have run into a fierce storm you have come to a harbor sheltred from the wind." The story becomes quite crowded with characters and plotlines at the end and lacks coherency, as I feel many of Euripides' plays do. Still, it is among my favorite of his plays for it provides some rest from the sufferings he usually puts his characters through.

Euripides 'Hecuba' is yet another play of Euripides about a former Trojan noble woman turned slave. Only this time, things don't turn out as well for her as they do for Andromache in the previous tragedy.
Early on in this play, Hecuba learns that the Assembly of the Achean Army has decided to sacrifice her daughter Polyxena as an offering to Achilles in the underworld who supposedly demands her as a wife. When Odysseus comes to Hecuba to explain that they have to do this sacrifice so that wind will blow to take them back home, Hecuba reminds him how she once spared his life. Odysseus is unimpressed by this argument and takes Polyxena away. A messenger arrives, telling Hecuba about her daughters last moments and asking her to prepare her for the burial. At the same time, a young slave discovers a dead body at the shore - it is another of Hecubas children, the youngest son Polydorus. His corpse gets wrapped in blankets and Hecuba, who believes it is Polyxenas body that is about to uncovered in front of her eyes, learns that she has lost her youngest son also. She is enraged as she considered him to be safe with a friend abroad who received a lot of money to protect the boy during the war. Now that it is lost, she gathers, this 'friend' has killed her son in order to keep the money.
Hecuba explains this to her master, Agamemnon and asks him to allow her to entice that 'friend', Polynestor, and his sons to come to her. As the wind still does not blow, Agamenon agrees. Polynestor arrives, Hecuba blinds him and kills his sons in revenge. The play ends with Agamenons judgment on the question of whether or not Polynestor has desevered this suffering. He claims that it was not gluttony that made him kill Polydorus but his desire to prevent another war. Hecuba argues cleverly why this is a lie and successfully persuades Agamenon who declares Polynestor guilty and Hecubas punishment just.
I found this play is remarkable in two ways. It is firstly constructed in a very clever way by weaving together the seperate stories of Polyxenas' and Polydorus' death. Euripides' displays his inventfulness by beginning the play with Polydorus ghosts, who appears in Hecubas dream and prophezises how he will be found that day. While other tragedies of his seem to become faster and denser towards the end, the amount of action and the pace of the play seems more harmonious. Secondly, the play contains some great lines about the worth of political leaders and the temptations of money, influence and power that easily leads them astray from pursuing what is right. With Hecuba, Eurpides seems to adress some influential men in his own time in Athens. Consider these quotes:
"An ungrateful lot you all are, who want to be political leaders! Never may you be acquintances of mine! You do not care that you harm your friends provided that you say something to gratify the crowd!" or "Those who have power ought not to exercise it wrongfully, nor when they are fortunate should they imagine that they will be so forever. I too was once someone of importance, but now I am so no longer: a single day has stolen away happiness from me" or "No mortal is free! Either he is the slave of money or fate, or he is prevented by the city's multitude or its laws from acting as he thinks best." In this situation, it is necessary to learn rhetoric, to persuade of the right thing, Hecuba argues and succeeds at the end. When it comes to the structure and language of his earlier plays, I would consider it his best although I personally prefer 'Andromache' over it.

I could spend the rest of my life reading the works of attic tragedy! I read Hippolytus from this book.

In short, Hippolytus, King Theseus's illegitimate son, lives a life of celibacy refusing to worship Aphrodite, the goddess of eros and sexual desire ('I like no god whose worship is at night', 106). Aphrodite decides to punish him for that. Phaedra, his stepmother, falls crazy in love with him and lets herself gradually slip into physical and mental decay. After insisting questioning, she discloses her secret to her nurse who does not keep it and let Hippolytus know. Phaedra in despair kills herself but she leaves a tablet, hung by her corpse, reading that Hippolytus had raped her. Theseus gives his son a terrible curse, sends him into exile (the punishment of the greatest dishonour one could imagine in Ancient Greece), whilst Poseidon sends a gigantic bull risen out of a humongous wave (incredible description of this scene by the messenger, 1175-1254), and overturns Hippolytus's chariot. Moribund Hippolytus, with his head smashed and his flesh torn, is taken in front of his father. Aphrodite and Artemis have in the meantime revealed the whole truth to Theseus via theophany. Theseus realizes that he was unfair and cruel against his son and there comes reconciliation, just before Hippolytus has taken his last breath.

One of the questions which always arises from reading attic drama is why the heroes suffer what they suffer. What's Hippolytus's wrongdoing? He commits hubris! Hubris is pride; to be inflexible, persistent and arrogant in your stance. But hubris also means to refuse 'moderation' which is a key word for Ancient Greek culture. Aristotle in his Nichomachean Ethics states that: '...he that indulges in every pleasure and refrains from none turns out a profligate, and he that shuns all pleasure, as boorish persons do, becomes what may be called insensible (αναίσθητος), Book II, 7'. Excess and deficiency is hubris, doing things in life in moderation is wisdom. Hippolytus is an 'insensible'. What's Theseus's wrongdoing? He believed Phaedra's note without examining the true facts, without waiting for confirmation, without putting the charge against Hippolytus to the proof, without granting to Time the right to investigate it. He let his wrath override his good sense. What's Phaedra's wrongdoing? Her incestuous love for her stepson.

What is also very interesting in Ancient Greeks’ mindset is the fact that humans in a way are not fully responsible for their acts, good or evil. It is gods's interference which tips things over one way or the other. This is not meant to say that humans have no responsibility for their deeds, but attic tragedy sheds light into human incapacity to fully and always interpret things that happen in life. How can humans deal with unexpected calamities or with the constant insecurity of not knowing what's round the corner for them? What I also find extremely progressive in ancient Greek drama and way of thinking in general is that nobody is completely right or wrong, nobody is completely guilty or innocent. There is no black and white in the Ancient Greek perception of humanity. There is always an effort to explain, to look deeper into the human psyche, and avoid superficial interpretations. For instance, Phaedra is not presented as an evil person who destroys an innocent young man's life by writing a terrible lie in her suicide note. She explains to the women of the chorus and to all of us that now that her secret has been revealed, dishonesty for her children after her death would be unbearable and destroy their lives. The only way (in her mind at a moment of despair) to clear her name is to fabricate the story of rape. Christian ethics would probably condemn her for this, ancient Greeks though had a different, and perhaps more 'open-minded' view into the complexity of human psychology.

Kovacs's translation appears to be accurate (I am not a classicist, but Euripides's language is relatively accessible to the average educated modern Greek), however, it does not maintain the poetry, metrics, and musicality of the original text. The latter is an integral part of attic tragedy which is believed to be closer to opera (as we know it today) than prose.

Overall, it is worth so much exploring all 33 surviving attic tragedies, infallible testaments of Ancient Greek mind and civilization!