«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.

با اینکه ۲۴۰۰ سال پیش نگاشته شده اما بیش از حد خوب 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.

euripides you are not my homie

« Vous ne pouviez agir sinon ensemble.
Vous n’avez qu’un destin.
Une malediction unique vous a tous deux broyés. »

yknow that tiktok audio of all the girls screaming with the violin music in the background? yeah this is what this play feels like

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.

”– and ’Electra the wretched’ is the name my countrymen call me. Ah, what miserable suffering I endure, how loathsome is my life!”

Electra follows, as one might deduce, Electra, the daughter of Clytaimnestra, who killed her husband (and Electra's father) Agamemnon years ago. Now, Electra has been given in marriage to a lowly farmer to degrade her and make sure her children will not threaten Clytaimnestra's new husband's reign. One day, though, Electra's exiled brother, Orestes, arrives, and the two begin plotting their mother and stepfather's murders in order to avenge their dead father.

I've read many versions of the myth surrounding Clytaimnestra, Orestes and Electra, but I'm still always excited to read new takes on the story and see the different ways it has been interpreted and written. For example, I had never read a version of this story where Electra had been married off to a Farmer (who, by the way, was very lovely and I liked him a lot), and in this version Electra also played a much more active role in her mother's death. These little differences between versions keep me from getting tired of reading the same myth over and over again: it's never really the same myth, after all.

I liked how in this play Electra takes the center stage. She is an interesting woman and one of my favorite female characters of greek mythology, and I loved reading about her thoughts on her messed up family history, the loss of her father, her murderous mother and her beloved brother whom she has not seen in years. She is angry and capable of great violence, but she also has a soft, loving side, which comes out especially beautifully in her relationship with her brother, Orestes. Orestes is another favorite of mine, and I liked him once again. His complex emotions for his mother and for what he has to do is always fascinating and quite heartbreaking. Clytaimnestra is a formidable, fascinating woman, and though this was not my favorite version of her (she is still at her best in Aeschylus's play Agamemnon), she was still interestingly written.

One of my favourite aspects of this play was the sequence between Electra and Clytaimnestra. No other version I've read has included such a long and deep conversation between the pair. In that scene you get to see how unlike each other they are and how drastically different their views on what has happened to their family in the past few years are. It was also fascinating to read that scene and realise that though I love Electra and felt for her throughout this play, in that moment I felt for Clytaimnestra as well, despite Electra's fury at her. This is not to say that Clytaimnestra didn't do some messed up shit, but let's face it, Agamemnon kinda had it coming after what he did to Iphigenia. I loved that moment between mother and daughter a whole lot.

I'd happily recommend this play! Euripides has not failed me yet: this play was, as all the others I've read by him have been, an interesting and enjoyable, and occasionally rather intense, story about messy complex people and moral dilemmas.

Euripides's version of the classic House of Atreus tragedy brought out the humanity in many of the main characters. In Aeschylus's version of the same timeline, Orestes and Electra are caricatures -- much of their reasoning is condensed into the typical revenge and honor plotline, mythical in exectuion. However, here, the characters are contradictory, confused, uncertain, brave, scared. They are logical and real. His female characters are undeniably strong and at the center of attention, their arguments and speeches revealing a clarity and intelligence that was surprising.

It is said that Euripides wrote in two keys, and this is none the more clear than in Electra, where the bleak is met with the humorous, seriousness met with parody. At times ruthless in its gruesomeness, this tragedy was at the same time infused with dark humor, sardonic and full of irony, comical in its parody of Aeschylus.

Euripides has quickly risen to the top of my favorite Greek tragedians.

"هر زنی در دوری از شویش پروای زیبایی خود داشته باشد از جمله بدکاران به شمار می‌رود. چنین زنی نیاز نیست چهره‌ش را گلگون کند مگر اینکه به دنبال پلیدی باشد" از الکترا تو دوران معاصر یه خانم جلسه‌ای خوب در میومد. :)))))

An excellent play by Euripides that captures what makes the Agamemnon-Orestes cycle of Greek mythology so powerful.

It might be my favourite cycle in Greek myth because of the way that there’s a strong sense of Electra and Orestes righting a deep and old wrong. But the fact that Clytemnestra is nevertheless not entirely evil for avenging the death of Iphigenia and the slight done to her by Agamemnon bringing Cassandra home to Argos makes the myth even better. And the way that Orestes is tormented by the Furies afterwards reflects the moral complexity of the crime that Orestes and Electra commit.

This particular play does the best job of capturing that complexity of any I have read. It opens with Electra living with a farmer that Aegisthus has married her to, when Orestes and Pylades arrive with their identities hidden from Electra. When she learns who they are, Orestes and Pylades kill Aegisthus brutally in a ritualistic-sacrifice kind of way. The group then eventually turns on Clytemnestra, before Clytemnestra’s brothers, the Dioscuri, reveal the moral complexity I mentioned earlier: on the one hand, these children have killed their mother, but on the other hand, it isn’t an unjustified act. Electra and Orestes go their separate ways as each faces their own unique punishment, and Euripides left me with some considerable unease as Orestes has to go seek justice in Athens.

Cant put 5/5 because there's fucking misogynist remarks, and even though its like 2500 years old, that does not please me. Besides, everyone knows Agamemnon is an asshole, its been quite clear in history.