What do you think?
Rate this book
Tiger at the gates: A play in two acts
Hector is back from a war in Asia and keen to close the trojan Gates of War and enjoy peace. However the Greeks have come in their ships to demand the Trojans return Helen and the Trojans are besotted with Helen.
Hector wants to prevent a war between Trojans and Greeks and does everything in his power to prevent it, giving up Helen, coming to an agreement with Ulysses -but in spite of his clear-headed efforts, war is not to be thwarted...
Hector wants to prevent a war between Trojans and Greeks and does everything in his power to prevent it, giving up Helen, coming to an agreement with Ulysses -but in spite of his clear-headed efforts, war is not to be thwarted...
78 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1935
46 people are currently reading
1846 people want to read
About the author
Jean Giraudoux
462 books76 followersGreek mythology or Biblical stories base dramas, such as
Electra
(1937), of French writer Hippolyte Jean Giraudoux, who also wrote several novels. He fathered Jean-Pierre Giraudoux.
People consider this French novelist, essayist, diplomat. and playwright among the most important French dramatists of the period between World War I and World War II. They note his work for its stylistic elegance and poetic fantasy. The relationship between man and woman or some unattainable ideal in some cases dominates themes of Giraudoux .
Léger Giraudoux, father of Jean Giraudoux, worked for the ministry of transport. Giraudoux studied at the Lycée Lakanal in Sceaux and upon graduation traveled extensively in Europe. After his return to France in 1910, he accepted a position with the ministry of foreign affairs.
With the outbreak of World War I, he served with distinction and in 1915 became the first writer ever to be awarded the wartime Legion of Honour.
He married in 1918 and in the subsequent inter-war period produced the majority of his writing. He first achieved literary success through his novels, notably Siegfried et le Limousin (1922) and Eglantine (1927). An ongoing collaboration with actor and theater director Louis Jouvet, beginning in 1928 with Jouvet's radical streamlining of Siegfried for the stage, stimulated his writing. But it is through his plays that gained him international renown. He became well known in the English-speaking world largely because of the award-winning adaptations of his plays by Christopher Fry (The Trojan War Will Not Take Place) and Maurice Valency (The Madwoman of Chaillot, Ondine, The Enchanted, The Apollo of Bellac).
Giraudoux served as a juror with Florence Meyer Blumenthal in awarding the Prix Blumenthal, a grant given between 1919 and 1954 to painters, sculptors, decorators, engravers, writers, and musicians.
He is buried in the Cimetière de Passy in Paris.
His son, Jean-Pierre Giraudoux, was also a writer.
People consider this French novelist, essayist, diplomat. and playwright among the most important French dramatists of the period between World War I and World War II. They note his work for its stylistic elegance and poetic fantasy. The relationship between man and woman or some unattainable ideal in some cases dominates themes of Giraudoux .
Léger Giraudoux, father of Jean Giraudoux, worked for the ministry of transport. Giraudoux studied at the Lycée Lakanal in Sceaux and upon graduation traveled extensively in Europe. After his return to France in 1910, he accepted a position with the ministry of foreign affairs.
With the outbreak of World War I, he served with distinction and in 1915 became the first writer ever to be awarded the wartime Legion of Honour.
He married in 1918 and in the subsequent inter-war period produced the majority of his writing. He first achieved literary success through his novels, notably Siegfried et le Limousin (1922) and Eglantine (1927). An ongoing collaboration with actor and theater director Louis Jouvet, beginning in 1928 with Jouvet's radical streamlining of Siegfried for the stage, stimulated his writing. But it is through his plays that gained him international renown. He became well known in the English-speaking world largely because of the award-winning adaptations of his plays by Christopher Fry (The Trojan War Will Not Take Place) and Maurice Valency (The Madwoman of Chaillot, Ondine, The Enchanted, The Apollo of Bellac).
Giraudoux served as a juror with Florence Meyer Blumenthal in awarding the Prix Blumenthal, a grant given between 1919 and 1954 to painters, sculptors, decorators, engravers, writers, and musicians.
He is buried in the Cimetière de Passy in Paris.
His son, Jean-Pierre Giraudoux, was also a writer.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 181 reviews
August 16, 2017
Common Sense Versus Irrational Passion: What are the odds for the pacifists?
After reading a sequel to the Iliad this week, The Aeneid, I thought it would make perfect sense to start the weekend by rereading a prequel to it!
And like many prequels, it is written long after the initial series. In this case, it dates 1935, approximately two millennia after the last installment of Antiquity’s epic poem, and some four years before the next war would break loose over Europe. The prophetic power of pessimist texts has been stated over and over again, and this one is of brilliant clarity- denouncing the mass populism and delusion that wins over rational humanism at critical moments in history.
Its first sentence, as spoken by the pacifist - and generally optimistic - Andromaque, hurt me more this time than two decades ago, when I last read the play. The reason, obviously, is that I now have personal experience of her trust in general common sense - only to be bitterly disappointed at the actual development of events. Twice, in 2016, I slipped into her role, and said, with confidence:
“La guerre de Troie n’aura pas lieu, Cassandre!” - And twice, in 2016, Cassandra replied, not scornfully, just sadly aware of the course of history set in motion:
“Je te tiens un pari, Andromaque!”
The setting for the play is Troy before the war, but facing the imminent danger, as Helen has arrived, and a delegation of Greek warrior-diplomats is expected to demand her back. Two political ideas within Troy clash when the city fears the catastrophe. Hector and Andromaque are representing common sense and pacifism, arguing and negotiating with the others to let Helen leave in order to keep the nation safe for the next generation’s prosperity.
The other party represents passion, as symbolised in admiration for the idea of beauty (Helen), which can be translated into a vague, undefined sense of honour and religious piety or nationalism. Helen’s attractiveness becomes a metaphor for virile militarism and populist slogans, her charm is almost hypnotising, and most definitely reduces critical thinking skills.
The voice of reason fades when it is confronted with the passionate emotionalism that is stimulated whenever symbolic Helen is present. She herself is unconcerned with anything but what she sees as “colourful”, mostly actions of vulgar visibility, that catch her distracted attention. She promises anyone anything, knowing full well she won’t keep her promises if she does not feel inclined to do so. Her word is worth nothing, but has major impact on the rest of the characters.
A so-called impartial expert on international relations and laws is no help at all either, interpreting acts and consequences differently depending on what is at stake for himself. It is easy to relate to Hector’s irony and sarcasm:
“Jamais poète n’a interprété la nature aussi librement qu’un juriste la réalité.”
In the end, passionate emotions, stirring up empty words like honour and patriotism, make reasonable arguments obsolete, and the play ends with the prophetic words that the Trojan poet is dead, and the hour of the Greek poet has come. A new political wind is blowing - for no rational reason.
The victors of history write the epic poems - and they are not based on reason or truth. But they can be usurped, copied or rewritten if needed.
Giraudoux, the adamant pacifist, put Cassandra on stage - and played her role - in the political climate of the 1930s. A great read, as relevant as ever!
After reading a sequel to the Iliad this week, The Aeneid, I thought it would make perfect sense to start the weekend by rereading a prequel to it!
And like many prequels, it is written long after the initial series. In this case, it dates 1935, approximately two millennia after the last installment of Antiquity’s epic poem, and some four years before the next war would break loose over Europe. The prophetic power of pessimist texts has been stated over and over again, and this one is of brilliant clarity- denouncing the mass populism and delusion that wins over rational humanism at critical moments in history.
Its first sentence, as spoken by the pacifist - and generally optimistic - Andromaque, hurt me more this time than two decades ago, when I last read the play. The reason, obviously, is that I now have personal experience of her trust in general common sense - only to be bitterly disappointed at the actual development of events. Twice, in 2016, I slipped into her role, and said, with confidence:
“La guerre de Troie n’aura pas lieu, Cassandre!” - And twice, in 2016, Cassandra replied, not scornfully, just sadly aware of the course of history set in motion:
“Je te tiens un pari, Andromaque!”
The setting for the play is Troy before the war, but facing the imminent danger, as Helen has arrived, and a delegation of Greek warrior-diplomats is expected to demand her back. Two political ideas within Troy clash when the city fears the catastrophe. Hector and Andromaque are representing common sense and pacifism, arguing and negotiating with the others to let Helen leave in order to keep the nation safe for the next generation’s prosperity.
The other party represents passion, as symbolised in admiration for the idea of beauty (Helen), which can be translated into a vague, undefined sense of honour and religious piety or nationalism. Helen’s attractiveness becomes a metaphor for virile militarism and populist slogans, her charm is almost hypnotising, and most definitely reduces critical thinking skills.
The voice of reason fades when it is confronted with the passionate emotionalism that is stimulated whenever symbolic Helen is present. She herself is unconcerned with anything but what she sees as “colourful”, mostly actions of vulgar visibility, that catch her distracted attention. She promises anyone anything, knowing full well she won’t keep her promises if she does not feel inclined to do so. Her word is worth nothing, but has major impact on the rest of the characters.
A so-called impartial expert on international relations and laws is no help at all either, interpreting acts and consequences differently depending on what is at stake for himself. It is easy to relate to Hector’s irony and sarcasm:
“Jamais poète n’a interprété la nature aussi librement qu’un juriste la réalité.”
In the end, passionate emotions, stirring up empty words like honour and patriotism, make reasonable arguments obsolete, and the play ends with the prophetic words that the Trojan poet is dead, and the hour of the Greek poet has come. A new political wind is blowing - for no rational reason.
The victors of history write the epic poems - and they are not based on reason or truth. But they can be usurped, copied or rewritten if needed.
Giraudoux, the adamant pacifist, put Cassandra on stage - and played her role - in the political climate of the 1930s. A great read, as relevant as ever!
August 15, 2019
I read this book in English when I was 15 and had no idea what it was about. But seeing a cheap French copy in a Montreux bookshop the other day, I thought I would have another try. Well, I must say that Jean Giraudoux is easier to understand second time round, and he addresses some questions that have been occupying my mind of late. He's an intelligent and cultured Frenchman, writing in 1935. He's very fond of Germany's literature and music, though he fought in the Great War and was wounded and decorated. Now he sees that there's probably another war coming.
He's a member of the French diplomatic service, and one would one think better placed than most to avert the coming disaster. It sounds like he did his job conscientiously. But you get the impression from this play that he'd already come to the conclusion that nothing would help. It's the eve of the Trojan War. The Greeks have arrived, asking for Helen to be returned. Hector, portrayed here as a cool-headed and gifted statesman, is trying to arrange for that to happen. He talks Helen round and gets her to agree to his plan. He's pleased to find that his opposite number on the Greek side is the pragmatic and cynical Ulysses. In theory, it all should have a good chance of working, except we know all along that it won't. There is nothing Hector can do here, and his cleverness has no effect whatsoever.
I guess that was what it was like to be sitting there in 1935, one of the people who was in theory responsible for negotiating with a country you personally felt very friendly towards, but which you knew was going to invade you soon and unleash hell on most of Europe. What can you do? Perhaps some people pretended it wasn't happening, and some people worked desperately to find every last chance, and some people had nervous breakdowns. Giraudoux wrote a play about his world that's still being read eighty years later, an elegant and witty black comedy. Maybe it would have been better if he'd spent all his energies on fighting the menace he could so clearly perceive, but I can't bring myself to criticise him. I like the way he has reached out over three intervening generations and shaken my hand.
He's a member of the French diplomatic service, and one would one think better placed than most to avert the coming disaster. It sounds like he did his job conscientiously. But you get the impression from this play that he'd already come to the conclusion that nothing would help. It's the eve of the Trojan War. The Greeks have arrived, asking for Helen to be returned. Hector, portrayed here as a cool-headed and gifted statesman, is trying to arrange for that to happen. He talks Helen round and gets her to agree to his plan. He's pleased to find that his opposite number on the Greek side is the pragmatic and cynical Ulysses. In theory, it all should have a good chance of working, except we know all along that it won't. There is nothing Hector can do here, and his cleverness has no effect whatsoever.
I guess that was what it was like to be sitting there in 1935, one of the people who was in theory responsible for negotiating with a country you personally felt very friendly towards, but which you knew was going to invade you soon and unleash hell on most of Europe. What can you do? Perhaps some people pretended it wasn't happening, and some people worked desperately to find every last chance, and some people had nervous breakdowns. Giraudoux wrote a play about his world that's still being read eighty years later, an elegant and witty black comedy. Maybe it would have been better if he'd spent all his energies on fighting the menace he could so clearly perceive, but I can't bring myself to criticise him. I like the way he has reached out over three intervening generations and shaken my hand.
September 23, 2018
Όπως και σε άλλα σύγχρονα έργα που βασίζονται σε κείμενα της κλασικής ελληνικής γραμματείας, έτσι κι εδώ έχουμε μια διαφορετική προσέγγιση του ήδη γνωστού μύθου. Στο συγκεκριμένο θεατρικό έχουμε την εξιστόρηση των απαρχών του Τρωικού πολέμου, όπως τον έπλασε η φαντασία του Giraudoux σε άμεση αντιστοιχία με το κλίμα της εποχής του, στις παραμονές του Β' Παγκοσμίου Πολέμου.
Ο Έκτορας γυρίζει ύστερα από έναν πόλεμο, πίσω στην Τροία, στη γυναίκα του την Ανδρομάχη και τίποτα δεν επιθυμεί περισσότερο από μια ήρεμη και ειρηνική ζωή, δεν πιστεύει πια στον πόλεμο, τον απεχθάνεται γιατί γνωρίζει πλέον την αλήθεια που κρύβεται κάτω από την πλανερή επιφάνεια.
Εξομολογείται στην Ανδρομάχη:
Έκτορας: "Ξέρεις τι παθαίνεις όταν ανακαλύπτεις πως κάποιος φίλος είναι ψεύτης; Όλα του ηχούνε ψεύτικα πια. Ακόμα και οι αλήθειες του. Φαίνεται παράξενο να το λέω αλλά ο πόλεμος μου είχε υποσχεθεί την καλοσύνη, τη γενναιοδωρία, την περιφρόνηση της προστυχιάς. Πίστευα πως του χρωστάω την ορμή μου και την όρεξή μου να ζήσω... κι εσένα ακόμα.
Ανδρομάχη: Και δεν κατάλαβες πως η χειρότερη ψευτιά ήταν εδώ. Ο πόλεμος είναι μέσα στην Τροία, Έκτορα. Αυτός σας υποδέχτηκε στις πύλες.
Με αφορμή την απαγωγή της Ελένης από τον Πάρι, οι Έλληνες καταφθάνουν στην Τροία. Όμως ο Έκτορας είναι αποφασισμένος να κάνει τα πάντα για να αποφύγει μια νέα πολεμική σύρραξη. Ακριβώς όπως κάθε λογικός άνθρωπος θα σκεφτόταν στην εποχή του Giraudoux, στα 1935 οπότε και γράφτηκε το έργο. "Όλοι οι Τρωαδίτες που πήγαν στον πόλεμο και μπορούν να ξαναπάνε δεν τον θέλουν" λέει ο Έκτορας, "μένουν όλοι οι άλλοι Έκτορα" του απαντάει φοβισμένη η γυναίκα του.
Και παρουσιάζει ο συγγραφέας πολλές μορφές με διαφορετικές νοοτροπίες και ιδιότητες που αντιπαρατίθενται διαλεκτικά:
Είναι αυτοί που επιδιώκουν την ειρήνη. Είναι εκείνοι που συνηγορούν υπέρ του πολέμου. Είναι οι αδιάφοροι που δεν τους καίγεται καρφί. Είναι οι παραιτημένοι μοιρολάτρες που επινοούν ένα φανταστικό πεπρωμένο για να ξεφορτωθούν την αβουλία τους. Και είναι και οι απαισιόδοξοι εκείνοι, που δίνουν υπόσταση σε αυτό το πεπρωμένο μετατρέποντάς το από πιθανότητα σε βεβαιότητα. Ακόμα και οι θεοί δεν φαίνονται ιδιαίτερα σίγουροι, ο καθένας έχει και μια διαφορετική ιδέα για το τι θα μπορούσε να προκαλέσει τον πόλεμο ή τι θα εξασφάλιζε την αποφυγή του.
Και πρέπει κάποιος να προσπαθήσει πολύ για να δει τις πραγματικές προθέσεις πίσω από τα προσωπεία και τις επίσημες διακηρύξεις.
"Το ξέρουμε το λεξιλόγιο" λέει η Εκάβη "ο άνδρας σε καιρό πολέμου ονομάζεται ήρωας. Μπορεί να μην είναι πιο γενναίος από πριν και να τρέπεται σε άτακτη φυγή μα είναι τουλάχιστον ένας ήρωας που το βάζει στα πόδια" για να συμπληρώσει λίγο παρακάτω η Ανδρομάχη: "Οι γενναίοι είναι αυτοί που πεθαίνουν στον πόλεμο. Για να μη σκοτωθείς χρειάζεται ή μεγάλη τύχη ή μεγάλη ευκινησία. Πρέπει να έχεις σκύψει ή να έχεις γονατίσει τουλάχιστον μια φορά μπροστά στον κίνδυνο. Οι στρατιώτες που παρελαύνουν κάτω από τις Αψίδες του Θριάμβου είναι αυτοί που λιποτάκτησαν από το θάνατο. Πώς θα μπορούσε μια χώρα να κερδίσει περισσότερη τιμή και δύναμη, χάνοντάς τα και τα δυο;"
Όμως όλως περιέργως φαίνεται πράγματι πως ο πόλεμος της Τροίας δεν θα γίνει. Τα πράγματα πάνε καλά για τον ειρηνόφιλο Έκτορα. Ο Πάρις συμφωνεί να αφήσει την Ελένη, η Ελένη ανασηκώνει τους ώμους μέσα σε ένα σύννεφο αδιαφορίας και αποστασιοποίησης - ποτέ δεν τον αγάπησε, ίσως και να μην είναι άλλο παρά μια σκιά της πραγματικής ηρωίδας, ένα άβουλο φάσμα χωρίς ψυχή και συναισθήματα - και ο Οδυσσέας που έρχεται να κάνει τις διαπραγματεύσεις από την πλευρά των Ελλήνων συντάσσεται κι αυτός, τελικά, στο πλευρό της ειρήνης.
Κι όμως αρκεί μια στιγμή.
Μια μικρούλα στιγμή, αυτό που αλλιώς θα μπορούσαμε να αποκαλέσουμε ως "θερμό επεισόδιο" για να έρθουν τα πάνω κάτω. Εκεί όπου η ψυχραιμία χάνεται. Εκεί όπου οι υπονομευτές και οι λαοπλάνοι βρίσκουν την ευκαιρία να χύσουν το δηλητήριό τους.
Και η προδοσία έρχεται πρώτα από εκείνον που έχει την μεγαλύτερη επιρροή επάνω στους ανθρώπους. Τον ποιητή. Που στο πρόσωπό του συνοψίζει όλους εκείνους τους πνευματικούς ανθρώπους της εποχής του Giraudoux, που είπαν ψέματα στους λαούς τους, που έστησαν πλεκτάνες παραχαράσσοντας την αλήθεια, που θυσίασαν στο βωμό μιας φθηνής προπαγάνδας τόσες ζωές, ακόμα και τη δική τους τη ζωή, θύματα και θύτες ενός τυφλού φανατισμού, ενός παράλογου μίσους, ενός αρρωστημένου εγωισμού.
Ο πόλεμος της Τροίας θα γίνει.
Κι έγινε. Και δεν ήταν ούτε ο πρώτος πόλεμος. Ούτε ο τελευταίος. Κι ο Giraudoux τον έβλεπε να έρχεται και έγραψε αυτό το έργο για να προειδοποιήσει. Κι αν απέτυχε στις νουθεσίες του, ωστόσο άφησε πίσω του ένα αντιπολεμικό τεκμήριο. Ένα πολύτιμο έργο που καταδεικνύει τον παραλογισμό του πολέμου και ξεσκεπάζει τη χυδαιότητα όσων τον υπερασπίζονται.
Ο Έκτορας γυρίζει ύστερα από έναν πόλεμο, πίσω στην Τροία, στη γυναίκα του την Ανδρομάχη και τίποτα δεν επιθυμεί περισσότερο από μια ήρεμη και ειρηνική ζωή, δεν πιστεύει πια στον πόλεμο, τον απεχθάνεται γιατί γνωρίζει πλέον την αλήθεια που κρύβεται κάτω από την πλανερή επιφάνεια.
Εξομολογείται στην Ανδρομάχη:
Έκτορας: "Ξέρεις τι παθαίνεις όταν ανακαλύπτεις πως κάποιος φίλος είναι ψεύτης; Όλα του ηχούνε ψεύτικα πια. Ακόμα και οι αλήθειες του. Φαίνεται παράξενο να το λέω αλλά ο πόλεμος μου είχε υποσχεθεί την καλοσύνη, τη γενναιοδωρία, την περιφρόνηση της προστυχιάς. Πίστευα πως του χρωστάω την ορμή μου και την όρεξή μου να ζήσω... κι εσένα ακόμα.
Ανδρομάχη: Και δεν κατάλαβες πως η χειρότερη ψευτιά ήταν εδώ. Ο πόλεμος είναι μέσα στην Τροία, Έκτορα. Αυτός σας υποδέχτηκε στις πύλες.
Με αφορμή την απαγωγή της Ελένης από τον Πάρι, οι Έλληνες καταφθάνουν στην Τροία. Όμως ο Έκτορας είναι αποφασισμένος να κάνει τα πάντα για να αποφύγει μια νέα πολεμική σύρραξη. Ακριβώς όπως κάθε λογικός άνθρωπος θα σκεφτόταν στην εποχή του Giraudoux, στα 1935 οπότε και γράφτηκε το έργο. "Όλοι οι Τρωαδίτες που πήγαν στον πόλεμο και μπορούν να ξαναπάνε δεν τον θέλουν" λέει ο Έκτορας, "μένουν όλοι οι άλλοι Έκτορα" του απαντάει φοβισμένη η γυναίκα του.
Και παρουσιάζει ο συγγραφέας πολλές μορφές με διαφορετικές νοοτροπίες και ιδιότητες που αντιπαρατίθενται διαλεκτικά:
Είναι αυτοί που επιδιώκουν την ειρήνη. Είναι εκείνοι που συνηγορούν υπέρ του πολέμου. Είναι οι αδιάφοροι που δεν τους καίγεται καρφί. Είναι οι παραιτημένοι μοιρολάτρες που επινοούν ένα φανταστικό πεπρωμένο για να ξεφορτωθούν την αβουλία τους. Και είναι και οι απαισιόδοξοι εκείνοι, που δίνουν υπόσταση σε αυτό το πεπρωμένο μετατρέποντάς το από πιθανότητα σε βεβαιότητα. Ακόμα και οι θεοί δεν φαίνονται ιδιαίτερα σίγουροι, ο καθένας έχει και μια διαφορετική ιδέα για το τι θα μπορούσε να προκαλέσει τον πόλεμο ή τι θα εξασφάλιζε την αποφυγή του.
Και πρέπει κάποιος να προσπαθήσει πολύ για να δει τις πραγματικές προθέσεις πίσω από τα προσωπεία και τις επίσημες διακηρύξεις.
"Το ξέρουμε το λεξιλόγιο" λέει η Εκάβη "ο άνδρας σε καιρό πολέμου ονομάζεται ήρωας. Μπορεί να μην είναι πιο γενναίος από πριν και να τρέπεται σε άτακτη φυγή μα είναι τουλάχιστον ένας ήρωας που το βάζει στα πόδια" για να συμπληρώσει λίγο παρακάτω η Ανδρομάχη: "Οι γενναίοι είναι αυτοί που πεθαίνουν στον πόλεμο. Για να μη σκοτωθείς χρειάζεται ή μεγάλη τύχη ή μεγάλη ευκινησία. Πρέπει να έχεις σκύψει ή να έχεις γονατίσει τουλάχιστον μια φορά μπροστά στον κίνδυνο. Οι στρατιώτες που παρελαύνουν κάτω από τις Αψίδες του Θριάμβου είναι αυτοί που λιποτάκτησαν από το θάνατο. Πώς θα μπορούσε μια χώρα να κερδίσει περισσότερη τιμή και δύναμη, χάνοντάς τα και τα δυο;"
Όμως όλως περιέργως φαίνεται πράγματι πως ο πόλεμος της Τροίας δεν θα γίνει. Τα πράγματα πάνε καλά για τον ειρηνόφιλο Έκτορα. Ο Πάρις συμφωνεί να αφήσει την Ελένη, η Ελένη ανασηκώνει τους ώμους μέσα σε ένα σύννεφο αδιαφορίας και αποστασιοποίησης - ποτέ δεν τον αγάπησε, ίσως και να μην είναι άλλο παρά μια σκιά της πραγματικής ηρωίδας, ένα άβουλο φάσμα χωρίς ψυχή και συναισθήματα - και ο Οδυσσέας που έρχεται να κάνει τις διαπραγματεύσεις από την πλευρά των Ελλήνων συντάσσεται κι αυτός, τελικά, στο πλευρό της ειρήνης.
Κι όμως αρκεί μια στιγμή.
Μια μικρούλα στιγμή, αυτό που αλλιώς θα μπορούσαμε να αποκαλέσουμε ως "θερμό επεισόδιο" για να έρθουν τα πάνω κάτω. Εκεί όπου η ψυχραιμία χάνεται. Εκεί όπου οι υπονομευτές και οι λαοπλάνοι βρίσκουν την ευκαιρία να χύσουν το δηλητήριό τους.
Και η προδοσία έρχεται πρώτα από εκείνον που έχει την μεγαλύτερη επιρροή επάνω στους ανθρώπους. Τον ποιητή. Που στο πρόσωπό του συνοψίζει όλους εκείνους τους πνευματικούς ανθρώπους της εποχής του Giraudoux, που είπαν ψέματα στους λαούς τους, που έστησαν πλεκτάνες παραχαράσσοντας την αλήθεια, που θυσίασαν στο βωμό μιας φθηνής προπαγάνδας τόσες ζωές, ακόμα και τη δική τους τη ζωή, θύματα και θύτες ενός τυφλού φανατισμού, ενός παράλογου μίσους, ενός αρρωστημένου εγωισμού.
Ο πόλεμος της Τροίας θα γίνει.
Κι έγινε. Και δεν ήταν ούτε ο πρώτος πόλεμος. Ούτε ο τελευταίος. Κι ο Giraudoux τον έβλεπε να έρχεται και έγραψε αυτό το έργο για να προειδοποιήσει. Κι αν απέτυχε στις νουθεσίες του, ωστόσο άφησε πίσω του ένα αντιπολεμικό τεκμήριο. Ένα πολύτιμο έργο που καταδεικνύει τον παραλογισμό του πολέμου και ξεσκεπάζει τη χυδαιότητα όσων τον υπερασπίζονται.
January 11, 2022
this play screams mansplain, manwhore & manipulate stay safe besties 🥴
August 16, 2017
- La deuxième guerre civile américaine n'aura pas lieu !
- Mais--
- Ta gueule, Cassandre !
- Mais--
- Ta gueule, Cassandre !
May 13, 2020
Ulysses comes to Troy to try to negotiate a way out of the coming war. The Trojan Hector and Andromache agree war should be avoided. The people, though .... They want their flag-waving. Well we know what's coming.
Would have been more poignant in when originally performed right before WWII. The black humor would come across better on the stage than on the page. But still I'm glad I read it.
French version available for free on WikiSource.
Would have been more poignant in when originally performed right before WWII. The black humor would come across better on the stage than on the page. But still I'm glad I read it.
French version available for free on WikiSource.
January 9, 2023
● Où est la pire lâcheté? Paraître lâche vis-à-vis des autres, et assurer la paix? Ou être lâche vis-à-vis de soi-même et provoquer la guerre?
○ Dans la première moitié du XXe siècle, la nostalgie de la mythologie grecque et de la beauté hellénique resurgit. On la voit dans le théâtre de Jean Giradoux. Pacifiste ardent, il cherche à montrer la fausseté de la guerre dans 《La Guerre de Troie n'aura pas lieu》. L'homme n'y est qu'un jouet des dieux ; il se soumet de nouveau à une fatalité absurde. S'il faut que la guerre ait lieu, elle aura lieu. Personne ne peut arrêter le Destin. Même rêver de l'emporter sur le Destin, c'est dérisoire.
○ Dans la première moitié du XXe siècle, la nostalgie de la mythologie grecque et de la beauté hellénique resurgit. On la voit dans le théâtre de Jean Giradoux. Pacifiste ardent, il cherche à montrer la fausseté de la guerre dans 《La Guerre de Troie n'aura pas lieu》. L'homme n'y est qu'un jouet des dieux ; il se soumet de nouveau à une fatalité absurde. S'il faut que la guerre ait lieu, elle aura lieu. Personne ne peut arrêter le Destin. Même rêver de l'emporter sur le Destin, c'est dérisoire.
June 12, 2019
Giraudoux penned this take on the Trojan War just before Europe was about to again explode in flames in 1939. This is a revisionist take on Homer, but one informed by Freud and Clausewitz. The temerity of Hector to outdistance fate is rather compelling , all the while Casandra sings her warning-- like an Abbey Lincoln at Armageddon. The caprice of Helen was a marvel to behold. The traditional tropes of fidelity and nascent nationalism are spun about like childish amusements --though with very grave consequences. This is highly recommended.
April 9, 2018
La réécriture du mythe troyen dans la langue contemporaine est passionnante ! Le meilleure livre de Giraudoux!
April 19, 2021
4½ stars.
This play written on the precipice of WW2 proves that war is unavoidable because men are dumb pigs, women are objects and poets are pretentious.
Stay tuned to see if in reading everything inspired by the Trojan war, but not reading the Iliad, I find a book where I like Odysseus.
Would've given it five stars if Odysseus didn't take up 20% of the book.
This play written on the precipice of WW2 proves that war is unavoidable because men are dumb pigs, women are objects and poets are pretentious.
Stay tuned to see if in reading everything inspired by the Trojan war, but not reading the Iliad, I find a book where I like Odysseus.
Would've given it five stars if Odysseus didn't take up 20% of the book.
February 12, 2019
There's something about this book and Giraudoux's writing style that really moves me. I must have read 6 or 7 times already, and yet everytime I discover something new and more profound about it. A true favorite.
August 18, 2023
Une très belle réécriture contemporaine de l'Illiade et la guerre de Troie! Le dialogue est à la fois juste et percutant.
May 22, 2011
My edition (a Methuen paperback reprinted in 1967 from a 1955 hardback translation by the poet Christopher Fry) is the English performance edition of the 1950s but the play is very much a product of the remorseless move to war in the mid-1930s.
Giraudoux, originally a career diplomat, the sort of person who is now the back-bone of the modern European Project, is a quintessential high caste liberal.
This play represents his despair at what he saw as the root of war – the way that good professionals within the elite are driven forward by public opinion to bad ends despite their best and most honourable endeavours.
The hero is Hector who knows war and has turned against it. Civilised elitism is contrasted with wonderfully witty caricatures of the chattering classes who drive the ideology of warfare.
Giraudoux crushes the pretensions of the media (poets), the intelligentsia (mathematicians) and experts (international lawyers). He coruscates all idealisms, especially the romantic cant of love and war, which are not rooted in the facts of the family, the city and the land.
The weasel behaviour of the visiting international lawyer, Busiris, makes us laugh and cry as we recognise that such men still exist today at the very heights of our Atlantic system, still justifying insane policies from sophist principle.
His hero figures are practical men of business, war and diplomacy (Hector and Ulysses) who, alongside the dignified consorts of these powerful men, strive for peace against ideologues, destiny, greed and an ignorant populace alike. But Giraudoux is also aware of mass pride in the nation.
Twice, interventions from the ‘ordinary’ destroy the chances of peace, as if Giraudoux is reflecting back on past as well as present examples of how public sentiment, no doubt mediated through the media, stopped an intelligent compromise negotiated by rational enemies.
In the end, despite all this blame game, Giraudoux makes his nod towards the blind forces of history. The tone is highly pessimistic. Professionals meet almost in friendship to make peace, only to be driven to war by the desire for plunder or some cultural logic that defies explanation.
Hector is offset by the ‘casus belli’, Helen, a complex character in her simplicity, whose cold detachment about her own situation and the fate of nations is presented as beyond good and evil. She is simply life lived for the moment rather as an investment in the future.
This is undoubtedly a great play. It is also representative of a European elite’s attitude towards the masses that would later be expressed in the late Hegelian philosophising of Kojeve and the construction of the European Union.
No doubt similar figures to Giraudoux watch now in pessimistic despair as the masses once again rise, currently in Greece and Spain, against the ‘logic of the situation’ and position their own emotions against practical reality – as the bureaucrats and men of business see things.
The Trojan pride in the novel is set against Greek energy, perhaps an expression of contemporary ‘Roman’ elitism standing against Germanic barbarism but there is no demonisation of the enemy. The enemy is within.
From this point of view, although ostensibly a decent liberal play about peace (and taken as such by the world since), it is also propaganda for government by elites. This wears less well now after several decades of discovering that our modern Trojan royals seem unable to organise a whelk stall.
But the conceit of the Trojan War works well because we know the end of the play from the beginning. In 1935, Giraudoux saw the end of the game – war – in much the same way. The play is a last ditch attempt perhaps to turn the tide of destiny but it lacks conviction in doing so.
His gloomy prognosis, implicit in the play, was proved right. Diplomacy would fail. Hector’s and Ulysses’ best effort would collapse on ‘incidents’ driven by the political will of the representatives of the masses. Elite conservatism and Roman values never looked so attractive.
Giraudoux, originally a career diplomat, the sort of person who is now the back-bone of the modern European Project, is a quintessential high caste liberal.
This play represents his despair at what he saw as the root of war – the way that good professionals within the elite are driven forward by public opinion to bad ends despite their best and most honourable endeavours.
The hero is Hector who knows war and has turned against it. Civilised elitism is contrasted with wonderfully witty caricatures of the chattering classes who drive the ideology of warfare.
Giraudoux crushes the pretensions of the media (poets), the intelligentsia (mathematicians) and experts (international lawyers). He coruscates all idealisms, especially the romantic cant of love and war, which are not rooted in the facts of the family, the city and the land.
The weasel behaviour of the visiting international lawyer, Busiris, makes us laugh and cry as we recognise that such men still exist today at the very heights of our Atlantic system, still justifying insane policies from sophist principle.
His hero figures are practical men of business, war and diplomacy (Hector and Ulysses) who, alongside the dignified consorts of these powerful men, strive for peace against ideologues, destiny, greed and an ignorant populace alike. But Giraudoux is also aware of mass pride in the nation.
Twice, interventions from the ‘ordinary’ destroy the chances of peace, as if Giraudoux is reflecting back on past as well as present examples of how public sentiment, no doubt mediated through the media, stopped an intelligent compromise negotiated by rational enemies.
In the end, despite all this blame game, Giraudoux makes his nod towards the blind forces of history. The tone is highly pessimistic. Professionals meet almost in friendship to make peace, only to be driven to war by the desire for plunder or some cultural logic that defies explanation.
Hector is offset by the ‘casus belli’, Helen, a complex character in her simplicity, whose cold detachment about her own situation and the fate of nations is presented as beyond good and evil. She is simply life lived for the moment rather as an investment in the future.
This is undoubtedly a great play. It is also representative of a European elite’s attitude towards the masses that would later be expressed in the late Hegelian philosophising of Kojeve and the construction of the European Union.
No doubt similar figures to Giraudoux watch now in pessimistic despair as the masses once again rise, currently in Greece and Spain, against the ‘logic of the situation’ and position their own emotions against practical reality – as the bureaucrats and men of business see things.
The Trojan pride in the novel is set against Greek energy, perhaps an expression of contemporary ‘Roman’ elitism standing against Germanic barbarism but there is no demonisation of the enemy. The enemy is within.
From this point of view, although ostensibly a decent liberal play about peace (and taken as such by the world since), it is also propaganda for government by elites. This wears less well now after several decades of discovering that our modern Trojan royals seem unable to organise a whelk stall.
But the conceit of the Trojan War works well because we know the end of the play from the beginning. In 1935, Giraudoux saw the end of the game – war – in much the same way. The play is a last ditch attempt perhaps to turn the tide of destiny but it lacks conviction in doing so.
His gloomy prognosis, implicit in the play, was proved right. Diplomacy would fail. Hector’s and Ulysses’ best effort would collapse on ‘incidents’ driven by the political will of the representatives of the masses. Elite conservatism and Roman values never looked so attractive.
April 21, 2017
Je suis un peu déçue. Je ne sais pas à quoi je m'attendais mais je n'ai pas trouvé cette pièce si extraordinaire. Même en considérant le contexte et l'époque. C'était plutôt banal et un peu vulgaire. Je n'ai pas apprécié le portrait des femmes. Mais à vrai dire, les hommes non plus! Et bien-sûr, puisque tout la splendeur de la guerre de troie repose sur le mélodrame d'Achille et des Dieux, leurs présences me manquaient.
Bref... je n'ai pas vu le génie. Très francais. Très drame de moeurs.
Bref... je n'ai pas vu le génie. Très francais. Très drame de moeurs.
September 9, 2014
Il y a eu de tous les temps des Francais qui aimaient l'Allemagne. Pendant mes annees a l'universite le celebre plaidoyer pour une reconcilation entre les deux peuples voisin, la chanson Gottingen etait sur les levres de tout le monde avec son eloquent refrain final.:
O faites que jamais ne revienne
Le temps du sang et de la haine
Car il y a des gens que j´aime,
A Göttingen, à Göttingen.
Jean Giraudoux qui etait un des grands germanophiles de l'epoque entre les deux guerres etait navre quand il voyait l'approche de la deuxieme grande guerre mondiale ce qui l'a pousse a monter La guerre de Troie n'aura pas lieu. Ici on trouve Giraudoux en grande forme avec des personnages bien dessinees et des dialogues droles. C'etait quand meme triste de l'avoir lu comme moi trente ans apres la fin de la guerre parce que l'on savait d'avance que le dramaturge avait perdu. On pouvait seulement se consoler du fait qu'il y avait des francais qui aimaient trop leurs voisins les boches pour vouloir les tuer.
Helas, cette piece est rendu problematique pour une deuxieme raison. Le travail des historiens a decouvert que Hitler ne voulait pas vraiment s'emparer du territoire quand il a menace d'attaquer la Tchtecoslovakie ou la Pologne. Son but principale etait de provoquer la guerre que malgre tout de desir de la part des francais et des anglais de lui faire des concessions. Donc on sait maintenant que cette "guerre de Troie" dont parlait Giraudoux a ete bel et bien inevitable et non la faute des politiciens francais et anglais qui manquait la sagesse d'arriver a une entente a l'amiable avec les Allemands. Les Allemands avaient cede leur volonte collectivement a Hitler qui voulait une guerre a tout prix.
Giraudoux, un grand ecrivain, a tres mal juge son temps. On peut lui pardonner parce que tout le monde fait des mauvais jugements dans sa vie. La valeur de cette piece, c'est qu'elle mont que les gens intellgients puissent se tromper.
O faites que jamais ne revienne
Le temps du sang et de la haine
Car il y a des gens que j´aime,
A Göttingen, à Göttingen.
Jean Giraudoux qui etait un des grands germanophiles de l'epoque entre les deux guerres etait navre quand il voyait l'approche de la deuxieme grande guerre mondiale ce qui l'a pousse a monter La guerre de Troie n'aura pas lieu. Ici on trouve Giraudoux en grande forme avec des personnages bien dessinees et des dialogues droles. C'etait quand meme triste de l'avoir lu comme moi trente ans apres la fin de la guerre parce que l'on savait d'avance que le dramaturge avait perdu. On pouvait seulement se consoler du fait qu'il y avait des francais qui aimaient trop leurs voisins les boches pour vouloir les tuer.
Helas, cette piece est rendu problematique pour une deuxieme raison. Le travail des historiens a decouvert que Hitler ne voulait pas vraiment s'emparer du territoire quand il a menace d'attaquer la Tchtecoslovakie ou la Pologne. Son but principale etait de provoquer la guerre que malgre tout de desir de la part des francais et des anglais de lui faire des concessions. Donc on sait maintenant que cette "guerre de Troie" dont parlait Giraudoux a ete bel et bien inevitable et non la faute des politiciens francais et anglais qui manquait la sagesse d'arriver a une entente a l'amiable avec les Allemands. Les Allemands avaient cede leur volonte collectivement a Hitler qui voulait une guerre a tout prix.
Giraudoux, un grand ecrivain, a tres mal juge son temps. On peut lui pardonner parce que tout le monde fait des mauvais jugements dans sa vie. La valeur de cette piece, c'est qu'elle mont que les gens intellgients puissent se tromper.
September 27, 2014
Tiger at the Gates; or: Jean Giradoux, way to toy with my emotions, dude; or: why almost the entire internet is fired for not telling me about this play
[tw: violence]
[tw: violence]
Priam: The victorious general must always speak in honour of the dead when the Gates are closed.
Hector: An Oration for the Dead of a war is a hypocritical speech in defence of the living, a plea for acquittal. I am not so sure of my innocence.
Demokos: The High Command is not responsible.
Hector: Alas, no one is: nor the Gods either. Besides, I have given my oration for the dead already. I gave it to them in their last minute of life, when they were lying on the battlefield, on a little slope of olive-trees, while they could still attend me with what was left of their sight and hearing. I can tell you what I said to them. There was one, disemboweled, already turning up the white of his eyes, and I said to him: ‘It’s not so bad, you know, it’s not so bad; you will do all right, old man’. And one with his skull split in two; I said: ‘You look pretty comical with that broken nose’. And my little equerry, with his left arm hanging useless and his last blood flowing out of him; and I said, ‘It’s a good thing for you it’s the left arm you’ve splintered’. I am happy I gave them one final swig of life; it was all they asked for; they died drinking it. And there’s nothing else to be said. Shut the Gates.
Polyxene: Did the little equerry die, as well?
Hector: Yes, puss-cat. He died. He stretched out his right arm. Someone I couldn’t see took him by his perfect hand. And then he died.
September 16, 2018
It deserves a higher rating objectively but it... lacks width, it feels very mundane and I don’t think it should. Also, the misogyny is grating, amazing how vocal men felt comfortable being about their altogether gross disdain for women’s agency and humanity! Helene sounds like Claudel’s Ysé, she’s a man made femme fatale and she’s not as interesting as she could be as a concept (since that’s apparently all she can be).
Hector and Andromaque are touching, Cassandre absolutely captivates, she embodies the tension in the most lunar and poetic of ways. I’ll even admit that there and there can be found moments I thought to be incredible and that the way it resonates with the anxiousness of the 30’s, on the brink of war felt far more than just interesting but I’m afraid that’s when taste comes to play!
I love passion and I love humility in theatre and more broadly, in literature. I love things that make you feel and think rather that things that seemed to me to disregard and darken with overthought distance considerations we’re always bound to return to. This is the world just before the Iliad, before the tragedy, before the end of the world, before WW2 and it simply doesn’t weight a pound on you. I read it and moved on. The war will happen and right before it, right before the destruction of a world, nothing stood but snickers and ideologically repelling, bourgeois exchanges about marriage, women and somewhere in there, a few striking reflections on war inevitably drowned out in drivel.
I found all that rather depressing.
Hector and Andromaque are touching, Cassandre absolutely captivates, she embodies the tension in the most lunar and poetic of ways. I’ll even admit that there and there can be found moments I thought to be incredible and that the way it resonates with the anxiousness of the 30’s, on the brink of war felt far more than just interesting but I’m afraid that’s when taste comes to play!
I love passion and I love humility in theatre and more broadly, in literature. I love things that make you feel and think rather that things that seemed to me to disregard and darken with overthought distance considerations we’re always bound to return to. This is the world just before the Iliad, before the tragedy, before the end of the world, before WW2 and it simply doesn’t weight a pound on you. I read it and moved on. The war will happen and right before it, right before the destruction of a world, nothing stood but snickers and ideologically repelling, bourgeois exchanges about marriage, women and somewhere in there, a few striking reflections on war inevitably drowned out in drivel.
I found all that rather depressing.
October 21, 2023
more like 3.5
This was a quick read, considered to be a French classic of the 20th century. I liked it for the most part, there were some funny bits to it. It is a play so you can’t really grow too attached to the characters. Still enjoyable though!
This was a quick read, considered to be a French classic of the 20th century. I liked it for the most part, there were some funny bits to it. It is a play so you can’t really grow too attached to the characters. Still enjoyable though!
November 21, 2012
"Anh Quan ne mangera pas du caca!"
[Une vingtaine de scènes plus tard]
"Il mangera du caca."
[Une vingtaine de scènes plus tard]
"Il mangera du caca."
April 5, 2025
Agréable surprise !
✅ Je suis tombée sous le charme des répliques mordantes et de l'inéluctabilité de la guerre malgré tous les efforts de certains personnages, accompagnées de quelques réflexions philosophiques et sur la société.
❌ Je n'ai cependant pas bien compris l'intérêt de certains personnages qui, je trouve, avaient plus tendance à interrompre l'intrigue qu'autre chose. Et il faut noter que le portrait des femmes n'est pas très réjouissant (après, la pièce a été écrite en 1935...).
📒Citations :
- « Hector : Si toutes les mères coupent l’index droit de leur fils, les armées de l’univers se feront la guerre sans index… Et si elles lui coupent la jambe droite, les armées seront unijambistes… Et si elles lui crèvent les yeux, les armées seront aveugles, mais il y aura des armées, et dans la mêlée elles se chercheront le défaut de l’aine, ou la gorge, à tâtons…
Andromaque : Je le tuerai plutôt.
Hector : Voilà la vraie solution maternelle des guerres. »
- « Andromaque : Où est la pire lâcheté ? Paraître lâche vis-à-vis des autres, et assurer la paix ? Ou être lâche vis-à-vis de soi-même et provoquer la guerre ? »
- « Hector : Mon cher Busiris, nous savons tous ici que le droit est la plus puissante des écoles de l’imagination. Jamais poète n’a interprété la nature aussi librement qu’un juriste la réalité. [...] Si le droit n’est pas l’armurier des innocents, à quoi sert-il ? »
- « Hector : La guerre me semblait la recette la plus sordide et la plus hypocrite pour égaliser les humains. »
- « Ulysse : Le privilège des grands, c'est de voir les catastrophes d'une terrasse. »
✅ Je suis tombée sous le charme des répliques mordantes et de l'inéluctabilité de la guerre malgré tous les efforts de certains personnages, accompagnées de quelques réflexions philosophiques et sur la société.
❌ Je n'ai cependant pas bien compris l'intérêt de certains personnages qui, je trouve, avaient plus tendance à interrompre l'intrigue qu'autre chose. Et il faut noter que le portrait des femmes n'est pas très réjouissant (après, la pièce a été écrite en 1935...).
📒Citations :
- « Hector : Si toutes les mères coupent l’index droit de leur fils, les armées de l’univers se feront la guerre sans index… Et si elles lui coupent la jambe droite, les armées seront unijambistes… Et si elles lui crèvent les yeux, les armées seront aveugles, mais il y aura des armées, et dans la mêlée elles se chercheront le défaut de l’aine, ou la gorge, à tâtons…
Andromaque : Je le tuerai plutôt.
Hector : Voilà la vraie solution maternelle des guerres. »
- « Andromaque : Où est la pire lâcheté ? Paraître lâche vis-à-vis des autres, et assurer la paix ? Ou être lâche vis-à-vis de soi-même et provoquer la guerre ? »
- « Hector : Mon cher Busiris, nous savons tous ici que le droit est la plus puissante des écoles de l’imagination. Jamais poète n’a interprété la nature aussi librement qu’un juriste la réalité. [...] Si le droit n’est pas l’armurier des innocents, à quoi sert-il ? »
- « Hector : La guerre me semblait la recette la plus sordide et la plus hypocrite pour égaliser les humains. »
- « Ulysse : Le privilège des grands, c'est de voir les catastrophes d'une terrasse. »
January 16, 2020
I can see why this play – a semi-recreation of the days leading up the Trojan War – resonated with 1930s audiences. Giraudoux’s observations on the machinery and social constructs of war are apt if chilling. The play’s suggestion that war is inevitable is nihilistic but struck me as a depressingly accurate portrait of humanity. Surprised this hasn’t seen more revivals in recent years. Recommended.
August 10, 2023
That Troy and Greece will go to war is inevitable; but one can't help root for poor Hector, who employs everything at his disposal (reason, lies, brute force) to stop war from happening. What a clever and funny story, heartbreakingly told. I have a sort of sympathetic constriction in my throat from reading it: how trapped all these characters are! Comical, tragical, I would kill a mediocre poet to see it performed live.
July 31, 2017
Loen seda nüüd juba mitmendat korda. Ja tänases päevas kõneleb see palju enam, kui eelmistel lugemiskordadel. Ratsionaalsus ja mõistlikkus versus irratsionaalne karjamentaliteet ja loosungid, milles lõpuks viimane peale jääb ning viib sõja puhkemiseni. Kibe huumor, mis on samaaegselt ka mõnevõrra õudne, eriti tänases päevas, kus loosungeid on kogu maailmas üha enam.
December 29, 2017
Who or what causes wars? Politicians? Soldiers? Or ... could it be people? People who actually seek "truth"?
Very insightful after all these years. Wonder why Giraudoux's books are not very available in English; I had to read the Japanese translation. (Ondine is great, too.)
Very insightful after all these years. Wonder why Giraudoux's books are not very available in English; I had to read the Japanese translation. (Ondine is great, too.)
January 18, 2025
Drôle intelligent surprenant incisif, vraiment très beau style d’écriture (vif précis élégant et fin)
Banger/10!!!!
Chaque réplique est iconique
Hector <3 vive la paix <3
Utile de savoir que ça a été écrit juste avant la 2e guerre mondiale mais reste infiniment contemporain
Banger/10!!!!
Chaque réplique est iconique
Hector <3 vive la paix <3
Utile de savoir que ça a été écrit juste avant la 2e guerre mondiale mais reste infiniment contemporain
September 18, 2025
آندروماخه: چیزی هست که تمام عالم دنبالش میگردد. از امروز صبح، به نظرم میرسد که همهچیز برای همان چیز به التماس افتاده، آدمها، حیوانات، حتی برگبرگ درختها و بچۀ خودم که هنوز به دنیا نیامده.
هلن: برای چی التماس میکنند؟
آندروماخه: برای این که تو پاریس را دوست داشته باشی.
هلن: برای چی التماس میکنند؟
آندروماخه: برای این که تو پاریس را دوست داشته باشی.
October 13, 2007
در مجله ی "صحنه" دیده ام که این نمایش نامه ی ژیرودو را عفت برادران رحیمی به فارسی برگردانده و انتشارات توس آن را چاپ و منتشر کرده است.
January 14, 2016
Une lecture refraîchissante, remplie de sagesse et d'humour lucide. 4,5/5
February 12, 2019
Well , this was quite a disappointment, I really struggled to be interested by the story, the writing style didn't really work for me, and all the characters felt very bland and nonsensical.
February 17, 2019
The remarkable speeches and Characters define how remarkable are the story so as the background.
I recommend it .
I recommend it .
Displaying 1 - 30 of 181 reviews