One Final Play
29 August 2018 – Sydney

tWell, as it turns out, this was Euripides’ last play, the reason being that he died before he could finish it. This is sort of a bit of a turn of events where Greek plays are concerned because most of the time the reason we don’t have the plays is because they have been lost (you can probably blame Julius Caeser for that, among other people, but then again the Great Library did seem to be a bit of a fire magnet). However, just because he didn’t finish it doesn’t mean that it is necessarily incomplete, namely because somebody else came along at a later date and decided to fix up what Euripides didn’t get to do. The problem is that when you have situations where a genius dies and his work is incomplete, basically anybody who comes along to finish it off is basically going to do an incredibly shoddy job – this was the case with Herge’s final Tintin album.

tSo, this play is basically about the time when the Greeks are trying to get to Troy but the gods seem to be against them because, well, the winds are blowing in the wrong direction. That can be a bit of a problem when all you have are ships that are powered by sail. Well sort of since not only were they powered by sail, but they were also powered by the fact that they also had lots of people with really strong arms pushing and pulling on the oars in unison (slaves if you will, but I don’t think the people who staffed the oars were slaves in every instance, but then again this is ancient Greek drama, so the normal people basically don’t matter anyway).

tYou could say that this is a tragedy namely because the events here in Aulis basically resulted in the whole mess that Orestes landed up in, though if we follow through his life we learn that he was a pretty hot headed individual anyway. However, the story isn’t so much about Orestes, but rather about Agamemnon, his daughter Iphigenia, and a few others – Clytemnestra probably shouldn’t be forgotten because she does happen to be Agamemnon’s wife.

tWell, long suffering Clytemnestra – it turns out that Agamemnon wasn’t her first husband, and the reason that she is the wife of Agamemnon is because he basically killed her first husband and took her as his wife. Gee, I sense a bit of hypocrisy here since I get the impression that while it was okay for him to steal somebody’s wife, when Paris did the same thing to his brother, the entire Greek nation gets up in arms and goes to war. Then again Paris wasn’t Greek, and even today there is still a lot of people who are incredibly uncomfortable with inter-racial marriage, especially when they happen to marry one of us white barbarians.

tThe thing is that Agamemnon is being pretty sneaky. Then again if he had went to his wife and said ‘can you send our daughter to me, I have to sacrifice her so that Artemis will change the direction of the winds’ I suspect that he wouldn’t have received a positive reply. So, instead, he says that he has arranged for her to be married. Well, sort of because it ends up being a lie, namely because he did actually want to sacrifice her so that Artemis would change the direction of the winds. Talk about a dedicated man – this guy is willing to sacrifice his own daughter to save the unfaithful wife of his brother. Then again, as some have suggested, there is the whole oath that they swore to defend Helen’s, or should I say Menelaus’, honour. Or was it, there is also the suggestion that Helen really was just an excuse to destroy a powerful city at the entrance to some very important trade routes – hey, it isn’t as if anybody else has gone to war based upon some really flimsy proposition.

tActually, let us consider the anti-war aspects here for a second, because there are some, particularly with Agamemnon wanting to sacrifice his daughter. The thing is that I never really thought about the whole idea of sacrifice when I initially read the play, but while this whole ‘oh, no, he’s going to sacrifice his daughter’ mentality, we sometimes forget that there are a whole bunch of men, somebodies son nonetheless, who are also going to be sacrifice into the meat grinder that happens to be a war. Funnily enough, these young men tend to be the ones who end up in the firing line, while the kings and commanders, the important people if you will, usually end up sitting the whole thing out from a tend at the top of a hill. You know, we can’t have the generals in the firing line because who is going to lead the men otherwise. Well, it seems that this didn’t particularly bother Alexander, or Napoleon.

tStill, we shouldn’t forget that this is Ancient Greece that we are talking about, and as it happens, these guys are going to be in the thick of battle – we know that from the Iliad. However, I guess Euripides is drawing on the fact that while wars are played out between the kings and the generals, the pieces they are fought with armies, and it is the individuals who make up these armies that end up being the ones who suffer the consequences, and in fact they happen to be the ones that never come home. Does that make the generals and kings cowards though? I guess that is a question that I’ll leave up in the air for the time being because it does raise some interesting thoughts.

tWell, the story is great, but the play itself, well, honestly, I can’t tell which is Euripides and which isn’t, but then again I read the English and not the Greek, and even though I sort of understand Greek, I certainly am not fluent in it so I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference anyway. Actually, I suspect that you have to have a pretty good eye, and also a pretty good understanding of the author’s style, to be able to pick up some of these differences. Honestly, while I do like my books, I’m certainly not that good that I’d be able to spot such things.

This play brings to the fore the events preceeding the sacrifice of Iphigenia, daughter of Agamemnon and Clytemnestra, for the glory of Argos against Troy.There are several interesting points regardign this play. First, the cowardice of king Agamemnon. Instead of tryign to save his daughter, he laments and acts as if he is bringing her for the sacrifice in front of his brother and the other chiefs. He fools his wife in a letter saying he is giving his daughter to Achilles while he is bring her to his doom. But when Iphigenia comes, she is not alone so it becomes harder to sacrifice her, as a man who is ready to use lies to kill his daughter also fears the wrath of a wife ready to save her daughter no matter what. Agamemnon is filled with sorrow but his love for his daughter does not mach his fear of his soldiers. He decides to sacrifice her, with tears in his eyes.
The second point concerns Iphigenia who, at first could not accept being ascrifised: first because she thought she was brought with other better intentions, and second because she found it unfair to die because of the betrayal of Helene. Even though she pleads her father and Achilles to have her life spared, but at the end she accepts her fate with dignity because she knew she didn't have another choice and because Argos needed it.
The third point is that Achilles tried to protect Iphigenia better than her own father. Even though Achilles was shocked when he was told that Agamemnon pretended, in his letter sent to his wife, that Iphigenia was to become Achilles wife; even though it was just a way to bring his daughter to her doom rather than the truth, Achilles still decided to save her, and he was ready to sacrifice his own life for her. (while it was a father's duty to do the same instead of crying her loss before she even died.)
At the end, Iphigenia does not die, but she disappears to join the gods. Her courage won her a place among them.

Simply a breathtaking story.

Full disclosure: I've known Edward Einhorn for well over 20 years, and have had the good fortune to see many of his plays on stage during that period. Somehow I missed seeing this one, his translation of Iphigenia in Aulis, which premiered in NYC at the famed off-off-Broadway theater La MaMa in 2013. (I must have been invited; I hope I sent one of my staffers to see it; I almost certainly begged off because I probably saw a dozen versions of this play by Euripides during the two decades I was reviewing theater.)

In any event, Edward kindly sent me this published version of his translation, and I am very pleased that he did. It contains the full script of the play, but there is much more here that makes it a very worthy addition to one's library! First, there are numerous illustrations accompanying the text; these are drawn by cartoonist Eric Shanower, whose work I was not at all familiar with but am now most impressed by. The pictures transform this Iphigenia into a kind of Classics Illustrated (I mean that as a compliment). Pictures, someone said, speak a thousand words, and that's the case here: since we can't see and hear actors perform the text as we read it, Shanower's images bring them to life in a wondrous and imaginative and beautiful way.

But there is much more. The book opens with a map of the world of the play, allowing us to locate Troy and Athens and Sparta and other places from Greek myths. I don't think I've ever seen that before! (There's also a pair of hugely detailed genealogy tables in the Appendix that show the House of Atreus and the House of Troy.)

Perhaps best of all are essays written by Edward that talk about the history of the project and the way the translation was made, the important themes of the play, and an analysis of a single potent line from his perspective as not just the writer but the director. These are smart and thought-provoking and, indeed, have saved me the trouble of having to write about the important ideas brought out in this play, Edward having illuminated them so much better than I could ever hope to.

This is a fine modern version of a timeless story of superstition and faith, cowardice and nobility, brought together in an exemplary package.

i’m not crying, you are

having read the Oresteia trilogy, this really gives some context to all of those events. it’s a constant back and forth between a wide range of opinions and feelings. this play is full of sorrow, it’s full of ambiguity and it’s definitely full of bravery. let it be known that Iphigenia and Clytaemnestra are the most well-spoken characters in this play. Achilles and Agamemnon are just there because everyone knows them (this is an incredible exaggeration, every single character in Greek tragedy is a deeply developed consciousness that struggles with the dynamics of the tragedy-filled, god-controlled ambiguity of life)

don’t let anyone ever tell you women were just side-characters in Greek plays. Iphigenia deserves a shrine fr

Se desprenden varios temas de análisis de esta obra. Están presentes los elementos de la tragedia griega como el destino. El papel de las mujeres es importante tanto por el sacrificio de Ifigenia como por la determinación de la mamá por salvar la vida de su hija. Los elementos fantásticos no faltan al presentarse los dioses, los adivinos y el ascenso de Ifigenia con los dioses.

Agamemnon a menace

"How indeed could it have been credible in Euripides' time to Greeks who had outgrown human sacrifice centuries before? One obvious answer is that, as in all Greek tragedies, the dramatist is skilful enough to make the audience accept the conditions of the tragic dilemma as set forth in the myth. But the second reason - related to the first - is that the play really is not about the institution of human sacrifice at all. It might have been, but it isn't. What then is the play about?

(...)

"Helen, through selfish love, has brought 'travail and trouble' upon all the Greeks. Iphigenia, by selfless sacrifice, rescues the Greek expedition from futility and becomes, so both she and the other characters believe, a 'true savior of Greece.' Perhaps there is a hint of the meaning of the play in this contrast of the two women. Again the reader or spectator will inevitably compare Iphigenia, the girl who loves her father in spite ofhis weakness and his intention to kill her, with Clytemnestra, who hates her husband and will one day kill him (as the legend tells us) when here-turns from Troy.

(...)

But they perhaps also point toward what Euripides was saying in the play. She [Iphigenia] is wholly blind to his weakness. To her - and to her alone in the play - he is a great man, committing her to her death for the sake of Greece. Her attitude toward him is one of love throughout." (pp
212-213).


-------------------


"But perhaps he believed that Iphigenia and Clytemnestra were both 'right'." This sentence cinfused me at first, but then reading both character's statements it's very hard to say that only one or the other is correct. Their arguments are solid, their motivations seem legitimate and are condoned by the other characters of the play. Also, Achilles makes a point that both characters come to an impasse could be right at the same time. He doesn't elaborate, but we can see as the dialogue develops that the hero is both marriage bound - and not bound - to Iphigenia and to the army. It wouldn't be a first (nor second, nor third) when it comes to principles that are completely contrary which, notwithstanding, coexist. It's complicated though, because such principles never seem to lead to a very satisfying conclusion (duh). Every single character seems to judge their own and one another's actions, yet there is never a verdict. Vengeance creates more vengeance. Selflessness doesn't stop carnage. Giving in is unthinkable, stubbornness is condemnable. Justice seems to confuse the debtor. Honour and reputation always have their tolls and not one character knows if they're worth it, but they just can't stand doing without. Euripides obviously sums it all up a lot better:

"High honors are sweet
To a man's heart, but ever
They stand close to the brink of grief.
Many things can bring calamity.
At one time, it is an enterprise
Of the gods which, failing,
Overturns a man's life. At another,
The wills of men, many and malignant,
Ruin life utterly."

"I don't like words
Like these from a king. Agamemnon,
Atreus begat you, but not to have
All good things in your life. No,
It is necessary and it is fated
That you be glad and that you
Be sad too, for you were born
Human, and whether you like it or not,
What the gods will comes true."

"Zeus' breath - it brings delight -
And doom - to mortals;
At one time the sails laugh
In a favoring breeze,
At another, Zeus the Almighty
Blows down upon mortals
Delay and doom.
O toil-bearing race, 0 toil-bearing
Creatures living for a day -
Fate finds for every man
His share of misery.

----------


These quotes by the chorus kind of reminded me of Sophocles, they felt that much more ¿moral?

"O blest are those who share
In Aphrodite's gifts
With modesty and measure,
(Agamemnon and Menelaus go out.)
Blest who escape the frenzied passion.
For Eros of the golden hair
Shoots his two arrows of desire,
And the one brings happiness
To man's life, the other ruin."

"Many are the natures of men,
Various their manners of living,
Yet a straight path is always the right one;
And lessons deeply taught
Lead man to paths of righteousness;
Reverence, I say, is wisdom
And by its grace transfigures-
So that we seek virtue
With a right judgment."

However, both the multiplicity of men's characters and the story that unfolds contradict the idea that a single path, a single judgement could be perfectly right, which kijnd of brings us back to the irony above.

----------


Another problem!! The Clytemnestra in this play is not the same one as in Electra.

"Oh, what a power is motherhood, possessing
A potent spell. All women alike
Fight fiercely for a child."

I don't understand how she could then proceed to abandon Electra and Orestes. She seems genuinely eager to protect and care for her children.

From what is said she seems to have a temper, a dominant character, a thirst for revenge which doesn't fall that far from Medea's (perhaps she "kills" her children by agamenon off of her life for that reason?). Even her adulterous marriage, we don't have any reason to suppose she's been faithful before Agamamnon's betrayal and she makes it quite clear that her marriage is not a loving one.

But I can't quite pin it down, why she would mistreat her own children like that. Is it just out of anger and fear? Out of spite? Even after she's already killed Agamemnon? But what could ever be justice for a child murdered by the hands of the same man that ought to protect her, and through such a hateful lie? Worse yet, the second child that he murders.

"And this reproach I first hurl in your teeth,
That I married you against my will, after
You murdered Tantalus, my first husband,
And dashed my living babe upon the earth,
Brutally tearing him from my breasts."

Maybe that act, her revenge, is the turning point, where something inside her changes or some potential develops into action?

"No! by the gods, do not
Force me to become a woman of evil!
Or to betray you! And you, against me
Do not commit this sin! Tell me now,
After the sacrifice of your child, what prayer
Can your mouth utter? What things of good
Can you ever pray for when you have
Slain the girl?"

Maybe she's in fact incapable of love, but living a peaceful life she manages to do what is expected of her (to an extent at least?). Or she has a competitive spirit that is way too fierce, but which left unprovoked had been sleeping up until then? She keeps a new family after the deed is done. Perhaps she believes that nothing can be saved of her first one? But something about Euripides' Clytemnestra is very different from the former ones. She has done monstruous deeds, none of which we see ourselves. We see the other side, her losses and hurts. One side can never erase the other, because both have been taken to extremes. However, this is all in all a more complex character.

This was a pretty good story. I just had a bit of a hard time reading it. I would recommend it to others to read if they want to read an interesting story.

"Pup nemoj zgazit - slast je gledat sunca sjaj -
I ne sili me, svijet pod zemljom da vidim!
Ja prva zvah te ocem, kćerkom mene ti;
Ta tebi prva koljenu priljubih se
I milovah te, a ti meni uzvrati."

Prvi deo Eshilove trilogije Orestija (Agamemnon), govori o Klitemnestrinom ubistvu muža. Čekala ga je 10 godina da se vrati kao slavni pobednik Trojanskog rata, a presudila mu sekirom isto veče. Vreme neke stvari ne leči - žrtvovanje ćerke Ifigenije je jedna od tih.

Euripid piše o tom događaju. Ifigenija je na prevaru dovedena u Aulidu, gde Artemida sprečava hiljade grčkih brodova da otplove za Troju, sve dok Agamemnon ne prinese najtežu žrtvu. Ali zašto? Zbog čega isto to Bog traži od Avrama? U čemu je fora takve žrtve, nije jasno ni nama a ni Grcima.
"I vojska je na okupu, u redu sva,
U Aulidi sjedimo, vjetra ni otkud,
U bijedi ovoj reče nama Kalhant vrač,
Kćer neka rođenu - da, Ifigeniju
Artemidi, što krajem vlada, žrtvujem,
I na put ćemo moći, zatrt Frižane."

Kralj najpre ne želi ("Jer kćerke ubit nikad neću moći ja"), ali se predomišlja i pristaje na grozno delo, iz kombinacije patriotizma (sve za Heladu) i kukavičluka ("Raspalit on će vojsku svu, Argivci tebe, mene će na zapovijed pogubit, zaklat kćer").

Tu je i Klitemnestra, koja je Ifigeniju dovela na lažno venčanje, a sad treba da je gleda kako umire. Porodična tragedija par ekselans. Na kraju, Euripid je ublažava - Ifigenija sama odlučuje da treba da umre, ljubi je tata - i ne samo to. Neposredno pre nego što joj mač na žrtvenom kamenu preseče vrat, u Euripidovoj verziji Artemida menja Ifigeniju košutom, a devojku odnosi sa sobom. Klitemnestri to izgleda nisu javili, otišla je da oštri sekiru.

"Čuj me, majko, što u misli meni dođe na pamet!
Mrijet odlučih, ali to baš slavno izvest želim ja -
Iz srca ću kinit svaki neplemenit osjećaj.
Na me svekolika velika sad gleda Helada,
I do mene stoji lađam' put, a propast Frižana.
Budu l' ubuduće ženam zasjedali barbari,
Više neće ih otimat iz sretne Helade,
Sve to moja smrt će spriječit, a slave će moje sjaj,
Jer slobodu Heladi izvojštih, dovijek sretno sjat.
Od tisuću žena vrijedi više jedan junak živ."

Festival grčke tragedije (za jednog gledaoca)
Otac u čitaocu ne želi da prepozna zašto je Agamemnon ovo učinio, ali ipak su delovi kad najpre objašnjava zašto NE, a onda i zašto DA, sjajni. Za razliku od Car Edipa, na primer, gde tragična sudbina junaka dolazi kao deo sudbine, ovde je tragedija posledica potpune slobodne volje junaka (kao i u Antigona, gde ona odlučuje da sahrani brata, uprkos svemu).

I tako, Euripid se probija na drugo mesto. A tek sledi Medea.

1. Car Edip (Sofokle)
2. Iphigenia in Aulis (Euripid)
3. Agamemnon (Eshil)
4. Antigona (Sofokle)
5. Eumenides (Eshil)
6. Bahantkinje (Euripid)
7. The Libation Bearers (Pokajnice - Eshil)
8. Oedipus at Colonus (Sofokle)

love the anti (glorification of) war theme, hate agamemnons victim mindset like get up and do something about your life !!!

Uma tragédia que se foca num dos episódios mais negros da Ilíada, o sacrifício da filha de Agamemnon para aplacar os deuses e garantir o triunfo grego na guerra troiana. Um episódio que costuma ser apresentado sob o prisma da ambição desmedida de um rei que não hesita em sacrificar a filha mais querida para conseguir o que quer, mas que nesta tragédia de Eurípides ganha outra dimensão. Aqui, Agamemnon é um pai atormentado, que tenta evitar o sacrifício da filha, e é Ifigénia, a vítima sacrificial, que se oferece à morte, assumindo que a guerra contra Tróia é muito mais do que o vingar do rapto de Helena, e sim uma afirmação da necessidade de independência grega face às ameaças vindas a oriente. E assim deixa-se sacrificar, para pesar do pai, despertando o ódio de Clitmenestra, sua mãe (que Ésquilo explorará de forma magistral na Oresteia), morrendo em nome da liberdade do povo grego.