آدمیان را همان گونه که می‌یابی داوری کن، پیمانه پاک زادی منش است.

Far from my favorite Euripides. I feel like this play can't decide if it wants to be a comedy or a tragedy, with Electra, bristling with vengeful energy, existing right next to the comically wimpy portrayal of Orestes that Euripides gives us. This doesn't seem to be done in a way that's compelling, as a tragicomedy is, but just seems inept to me. There are also a number of choral interludes that narrate a bunch of history, including the entire Trojan War, that seems superfluous. A small blunder in Euripides's otherwise brilliant oeuvre.

Clytemnestra: Oh, women are fools for sex, deny it I shall not.
Since this is in our nature, when our husbands choose
to despise the bed they have, a woman is quite willing
to imitate her man and find another friend.
But then the dirty gossip puts us in the spotlight;
the guilty ones, the men, are never blamed at all.
If Menelaus had been raped from home on the sly,
should I have had to kill Orestes so my sister's
husband could be rescued? You think your father would
have borne it? He would have killed me. Then why was it fair
for him to kill what belonged to me and not be killed?
I killed. I turned and walked the only path still open,
straight to his enemies. Would any of his friends
have helped me in the task of murder I had to do?

Given the variety of dramatic treatments the story of Orestes killing his mother receives, Euripides's Electra is the most visceral. Electra and Orestes coordinate their efforts for justice for their father Agamemnon, who was struck down by his wife Clytemnestra and her lover Aegisthus. Orestes kills Aegisthus while Aegisthus is at an altar sacrificing a bull for the gods. Clytemnestra is killed in the very act of entering her daughter's house to perform prayers for the birth of a son. As an audience, we hear Clytemnestra's reaction after entering the house, her horror at finding her children ambushing her. We hear her harrowing pleas.

Clytemnestra and Helen are sisters, of course. Helen, whether she absconded with or was abducted by Paris, is the reason Clytemnestra loses her daughter Iphigeneia. Her justification for her subsequent actions, though dismissed by her children, is convincing. She argues there is a double-standard at work: besides herself, no one sought vengeance for Iphigeneia because Iphigeneia is a girl; on the other hand, Electra and Orestes seek vengeance for Iphigeneia's murderer, Agamemnon, because he is a father and a man. Her feminist argument, however, is dismantled by Electra, who believes Clytemnestra had begun betraying her husband long before the Iphigeneia incident. It's food for thought both ways. The ending weakens the work, by having a divine apparition (related to Clytemnestra at that) proclaim how Orestes' murder trail will have a long-lasting impact on legal verdicts.

Still, this is a good play. The characters are more real, their emotions and thoughts more realistic. A good afternoon read and a good work to compare to the others dramatizing the same story.

In this version of the famous myth, Electra not only has great complicity in her mother's murder, but more explicitly takes part in the planning and execution. This was clearly derivative of previous dramatizations of the same events, as Euripides gives nods (and gentle prods) to Aeschylus throughout.

The most interesting character for me is the farmer who married Electra. He is an honest, honorable, and noble commoner who stands in stark relief to the scheming, melodramatic, and morally dubious nobility and heroes. Unfortunately, the farmer disappears about one-third of the way through the play, so we are left with what turns out to be another perspective on an old story, but one that lacks the tension of previous portrayals. If only the farmer could have hung around longer...or maybe even become the primary character! But then it would have been less ancient and more modern. Maybe that might make a great contemporary update of this play--if it hasn’t been done already.

I'm still casting about trying to find a justification for the killing of Clytemnestra. This Electra faults Clytemnestra for lust, and says her (Electra's) exile is twice as bad as Iphigenia's death. Fail!

Orestes almost balks, wondering if it was a demon pretending to be a god telling him to do this. Interesting. And Electra feels some remorse afterwards. ...This was a tough one for the Greeks.

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.

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

ريفيو مسرحية هيلين

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).

they were rlly just out here committing matricide and then saying oopsie time to atone

I like that they go on a whole monologue of explaining themselves and the other dude will just go mmmmm nah

Tragedy of weakness

An uneventful drama that is carried by its writing, at least in the Raeburn translation.

orestes: hey maybe we’re going a bit overboard ://
electra: what did you just say? that you’re a pussy?

Η Ηλέκτρα αποτελεί μια από τις πιο γνωστές τραγωδίες του Ευριπίδη και διδάχθηκε το 413 π.Χ.
Όπως φαίνεται και από τον τίτλο, δίνεται έμφαση στον ιδιαίτερο ρόλο που διαδραματίζει η Ηλέκτρα, η οποία παριστάνει την σύζυγο κάποιου Μυκηναίου και στην συνέχεια με την άφιξη του εξορισμένου αδερφού της, Ορέστη, εκδικούνται την Κλυταιμνήστρα και τον Αίγισθο.
"Σχέτλια μεν έπαθες, ανόσια δ’ ειργάσω."