daha çok seveceğimi düşünmüştüm

Interessante vertaling :)

Zeus tarafından ölümlü kral Admetos'un sarayına, ona hizmet etmesi için sürülen Apollon'un, ölmesi gereken kralı ölümden kurtarmak için kaderi kendisi yerine birinin ölmesine ikna etmesi üzerine onun yerine ölmeyi kabul eden karısı Alkestis'in trajedisini okuyoruz biz bu tragedyada. Ben tragedyayı çok sevsem de okurken birçok yerde oldukça sinirlendim. Mesela kendisi yerine ölecek birini arayan bizzat kendisi iken karısı ölüm döşeğindeyken isyan eden, karısına dayanmasını, direnmesini söyleyen Admetos'a çok sinir oldum. Cenazede babasıyla arasında geçen tartışmada da aynı konu gündeme geldi mesela. Admetos kesinlikle iki yüzlü bir kral bence. Finalin mutlu sonla bitmesini sevsem de sevinmem Admetos için değil, Alkestis içindi. Ve hatta finalde hazır dirilmişken Admetos'u terk etse mükemmel olurdu bence.

2024:
4 Stars

A strangely compelling play even though it seems that depravity and cowardice is rewarded in the end.

Euripides’ Alcestis sounds to the modern ear like a tragedy, though when it was first performed it was billed as a satyrical play. Alcestis’ husband, Admetus, has been told that it is his time to die. But he doesn’t want to. Fortunately, he has a very powerful friend. The god Apollo has been working for Admetus as a field hand (as punishment). Apollo meets Death on his way to pick up Admetus and convinces him that mortal lives are interchangeable. So that Death agrees to let Admetus live past his use-by date if someone else agrees to die in his place. Admetus asks his ancient parents, who are so old they won’t live long anyway. But they refuse. Life, his father argues, is too precious to throw away even a hour too soon. So Admetus asks Alcestis, his wife and mother of his two children. She agrees to take his place. As she is dying, an old friend of Admetus’, Herakles, arrives. He wants to party—Admetus was a notorious party animal. When Herakles finds out what has happened, he waylays Death and carries Alcestis back to be among the living.

There are many ambiguities in the play, all worth serious investigation. Why did Alcestis agree? Was she protecting her children? Did she love her husband that much? Or was she just a dutiful Greek wife who put her husband’s desires above her own. Why did Admetus ask her in the first place? Was he selfish? Delusional? Desperate? If Death is owed a life, what happened when Herakles took Alcestis from him? Why did Admetus throw a party for Herakles while his wife was on her death bed? The dramatic potential is profound.

And so is the comedic potential. A god working for a mortal is a rich comic inversion. Watching Herakles drink and pontificate is fun, in a silly way. Admetus ogling Alcestis when he thinks Herakles is giving him a new slave, not his wife, can be played slapstick.

Beyond all that, what is mortality all about, anyway? Are we obliged to accept our fates, even if we can get powerful friends to intervene? Do we have obligations to others that transcend even the love of life? How does our own mortality shape our obligations to our parents and our children? To our spouse? To our house guests?

So, is the Alcestis tragedy, comedy, or philosophy? Yes, it is.

This volume is the original text with commentary aimed at the intermediate student of ancient Greek. The translation notes help readers over the rough spots without holding their hands so much they get lazy. The vocabulary section does an excellent job of providing all the necessary definitions while highlighting which words one should know by heart. There are excellent notes about Greek drama in general, and the performance of this play in particular. And, best of all, there are discussion points that instructors can use to guide classroom discussions, where the two translator/commentators present alternate perspectives.

This is an excellent addition to the classicists’ bookshelf, especially to those actively teaching classical Greek. These notes are useful to any student of classical literature reading the Alcestis, even if they have to read it in translation.

A treasure of Ancient Greek. Alcestis was written in 438 B.C. and is probably the earliest of nineteen surviving plays of Euripides (he wrote about 90). Euripides was one of the great tragedians of classical Athens (beside Aeschylus and Sophocles).

Alcestis is telling us the story of the king Admetus. Through the trickery of his friend, the god Apollo, Admetus escapes Thanatos, Death. Apollo laments the situation he has gotten his friend into. He had persuaded Death to take a substitute for Admetus.

It seemed a fine idea to both Admetus and Apollo, however Death made one stipulation, the substitute had to be a voluntary one.

Admetus, still undisturbed, believed his elderly parents would lovingly and willingly take his place and die. Instead, his parents made it clear, especially Pheres, his father, that life was sweeter and more precious as one got older and his parents had no intention of dying for him.

None, except his young beautiful wife Alcestis agrees to be taken. Alcestis voluntarily places herself in her husband’s stead...

A true satyr play, which is still up to date.

I lov my drama queen Euripides

He leido suficientes tragedias griegas como para entender porque esta fue innovadora pero aun asi no puedo decir que la haya disfrutado. Las partes más interesantes de la historia ocurren fuera de la obra: SPOILERS Apolo salvando a Admeto de la muerte por razones que no se, Hercules trayendo de los muertos a Alcestis.
Aun asi hay cosas interesantes como la acusación que le hace Admeto a su padre Feres y lo que él le responde o Alcestis pidiendole que no se vuelva a casar.
La verdad que es una lastima que no me vaya gustado porque todas las obras anteriores que lei de Euripides me gustaron.

*3.5 stars

Tuffo nel passato

(Admetus) شخصية أنانية وجبانه واستفزت الأغلبية، زوجته شجاعة وقوية جداً مقارنةً بيه.
العقاب بيكمن ف معاناته لما يكتشف ان الحياة ملهاش لازمه من غيرها فهيندم بشكلِ ما، ولانه مضياف مع صديقه، يمكن عشان كده هيتجازى بانها ترجعله.
النهاية مش واضحة كالعادة من Euripides اغلب القراء مافهموش المقصد منها يعنى، بس انا شايفاه يقصد انه ممكن تكون هى رجعتله فاقده القدرة ع النطق كنوع من الصدمة لانه ماتغيرش وماوفاش بوعده ف ده نوع من العقاب له يعنى، انها مستحيل ترجع زى الأول! فهى نهاية ليها فلسفتها المجازية وعجبتنى بشكل ما.
المسرحية فيها تخاريف كتير زى الكلام عن الآلهه ده وجو العودة من الموت ده! بس القصة ف المجمل كويسه وان كانت صعب تحليلها.

The fact that the message of this play was "the most noble wives are the ones that die/give up their own life for their husbands" didn't sit well with me, even if I enjoyed the other themes discussed.