Reviews for Electra (Greek Tragedy in New Translations Series)

The average rating for Electra (Greek Tragedy in New Translations Series) based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2012-03-02 00:00:00 Darshna Dave Euripides' take on the vengeance of Orestes 9 March 2012 I 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. The 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. The 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. We 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. It 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. However 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). One 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. We 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.

Review # 2 was written on 2014-01-27 00:00:00 Nancy Matson You may find a fascinating case study in artistic approach when you compare the Libation Bearers of Aeschylus and the Electra plays of Sophocles and Euripides. The three great Greek tragedians all wrote a play about the same story: Orestes's and Electra's revenge on their mother Clytemnestra for the murder of their father Agamemnon. The format and general outline is the same in all three plays; yet the effect is unique to the playwright. Aeschylus's play is resonant with mythical symbolism. This is exemplified in the recognition scene between Electra and Orestes: Electra recognizes Orestes from a lock of hair he leaves on Agamemnon's tomb. It seems unlikely to us that a person would be able to recognize a long-lost relative from a single lock of hair; but leaving hair on a tomb was a ritualistic act, only performed by people close to the deceased'such as a son. Aeschylus's worldview is also fundamentally irrational. Orestes is duty-bound to punish his mother; yet doing so invokes the punishment of the Furies, who pursue him for his evil deed. Somehow, the killing of Clytemnestra is simultaneously good and evil, honorable and shameful, in the eyes of the gods. Euripides's version can be seen as the rational and realistic version of Aeschylus's play. Euripides invites this reading himself, when he parodies the recognition scene between Electra and Orestes: the suggestion that Electra could recognize her brother from a single strand of hair makes her laugh with contempt. Additionally, in Euripides, as in Aeschylus, the killing of Clytemnestra is morally ambiguous; but this ambiguity results not from the will of the gods, but from the emotional complexity of the characters. Sophocles's version differs from both Aeschylus's and Euripides's in matter and form. For one, the particulars of the plot are all different. But the most striking difference is Sophocles's treatment of morality. In his play, the killing of Clytemnestra is triumphant, glorious. It evokes neither pity from the characters nor the wrath of the gods. It seems that Sophocles had a more clear-cut conception of right and wrong; this, in fact, is what makes his portrayal of Antigone so compelling'she is noble and right, and her enemies are ignoble and wrong. I really have no conclusion to draw from this discussion, other than the obvious: there isn't just one way to produce great art.