Ορέστης

by Euripides

Based on the conviction that only translators who write poetry themselves can properly recreate the celebrated and timeless tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, The Greek Tragedy in New Translations series offers new translations that go beyond the literal meaning of the Greek in order to evoke the poetry of the originals. Under the editorship of Herbert Golder and the late William Arrowsmith, each volume includes a critical introduction, commentary on the text, full stage directions, and a glossary of the mythical and geographical references in the plays. Produced more frequently on the ancient stage than any other tragedy, Orestes retells with striking innovations the story of the young man who kills his mother to avenge her murder of his father. Though eventually exonerated, Orestes becomes a fugitive from the Furies (avenging spirits) of his mother's blood. On the brink of destruction, he is saved in the end by Apollo, who had commanded the matricide. Powerful and gripping, Orestes sweeps us along with a momentum that starting slowly, builds inevitably to one of the most spectacular climaxes in all Greek tragedy.

Genres: Plays, Classics, Mythology, Drama, Theatre, Poetry, Fiction

192 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 409

About the author

Euripides (Greek: Ευριπίδης) (ca. 480 BC–406 BC) was a tragedian of classical Athens. Along with Aeschylus and Sophocles, he is one of the three ancient Greek tragedians for whom any plays have survived in full. Some ancient scholars attributed ninety-five plays to him, but the Suda says it was ninety-two at most. Of these, eighteen or nineteen have survived more or less complete (Rhesus is suspect). There are many fragments (some substantial) of most of his other plays. More of his plays have survived intact than those of Aeschylus and Sophocles together, partly because his popularity grew as theirs declined—he became, in the Hellenistic Age, a cornerstone of ancient literary education, along with Homer, Demosthenes, and Menander.
Euripides is identified with theatrical innovations that have profoundly influenced drama down to modern times, especially in the representation of traditional, mythical heroes as ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances. This new approach led him to pioneer developments that later writers adapted to comedy, some of which are characteristic of romance. He also became "the most tragic of poets", focusing on the inner lives and motives of his characters in a way previously unknown. He was "the creator of ... that cage which is the theatre of William Shakespeare's Othello, Jean Racine's Phèdre, of Henrik Ibsen and August Strindberg," in which "imprisoned men and women destroy each other by the intensity of their loves and hates". But he was also the literary ancestor of comic dramatists as diverse as Menander and George Bernard Shaw.
His contemporaries associated him with Socrates as a leader of a decadent intellectualism. Both were frequently lampooned by comic poets such as Aristophanes. Socrates was eventually put on trial and executed as a corrupting influence. Ancient biographies hold that Euripides chose a voluntary exile in old age, dying in Macedonia, but recent scholarship casts doubt on these sources.

Reviews

[Ali Ahmadi · Rating 3 out of 5]

بازیافت، دادگاه و خدایی که در این نزدیکی‌ست

آگاممنون برمی‌خیزد/الکترای ۱/الکترای ۲/بازگشت اورستس/پیلادس: قاتل خاموش
نام‌هایی که امروزه می‌توانند متعلق به یک فرنچایز هالیوودی و اسپین‌آف‌های نت‌فلیکس و ریبوت‌های وارنر برادرز باشند، اما به‌شکلی نه‌چندان متفاوت در دنیای باستان هم وجود داشته‌اند. نیم قرن پس از اورستیا و یک دهه بعد از این الکترا و الکترای سوفوکلس، اوریپیدس دوباره سراغ ماجراهای خانواده‌ی آگاممنون می‌رود، با ماجراها و شخصیت‌های جدید. او از یک طرف می‌داند که این اساطیر، به‌عنوان بخشی جدایی‌ناپذیر از هویت یونانی، امتحان‌پس‌داده‌ و برای مخاطب جذاب‌اند، و از طرف دیگر فرصت را برای خلاقیت و آشنایی‌زدایی فراهم می‌کنند. در حقیقت اوریپیدس هنرش را بر تعادلی ظریف بنا می‌کند، نه آنقدر غریب که نیمی از زمان نمایش صرف شناخت پیرنگ شود و نه آنقدر کهنه که نشخوار کردن حرف گذشتگان به‌حساب بیاید. وفاداری حتا به الکترایی که خودش ده سال قبل‌تر نوشته هم لازم نیست. هر تراژدی‌ —با وجود قرار گرفتن در شبکه‌ی بینامتنیت با تراژدی‌های قبل— به شکلی مستقل قضاوت می‌شود.

از لحاظ زمان اسطوره‌ای، اورستس پس از الکترا (یا بین نمایشنامه‌ی دوم و سوم اورستیا) قرار می‌گیرد. اورستس گناه کرده، اما مجبور بوده! هم خدا و هم عرف او را مجبور کرده‌اند و به‌نظر خودش همین برای تبرئه شدنش کافی‌ست. اما همه با این نظر موافق نیستند. آیسخولوس اورستس را به دادگاهی می‌برد که قاضی‌اش خداست و شاکی‌اش هم خدایی دیگر. با اینکه هیئت منصفه‌اش انسان‌اند، اما ساکت‌اند و تنها در انتهای رای‌شان را به صندوق می‌اندازند. برای اوریپیدس اما چیزهای رنگ‌وبویی زمینی‌تر دارد. او اورستس را وسط معرکه‌ای می‌اندازد که در آن هر شهروندی حق قضاوت دارد. «بخشش لازم نیست اعدامش کنید» را هر کس می‌گوید و ویرگول را جایی که می‌خواهد می‌گذارد و دست آخر هم انگار که تصمیم را از قبل گرفته باشند و اینها همه بازی باشد، اورستس گناهکار می‌ماند و مستحق مجازات. مقاله‌ی پایان کتاب از این می‌گوید که چطور همه‌ی این زورآزمایی‌های کلامی دادگاه احتمالن بازنمایی روحیه‌ی سوفسطایی‌گریِ آن زمانِ آتن بوده‌. حرف زدن، برای نشاندنش به کرسی، نه برای کشف حقیقت یا رسیدن به قضاوتی اخلاقی. آیا اوریپیدس، برخلاف آیسخولوس که به سامان آتنی افتخار می‌کرد، دل خوشی از دادگاه‌های شهروندان نداشت؟

یکی از چیزهای دیگری که اورستس را متمایز می‌کند این است که تنها تراژدی یونانی‌ایست که یک گروگان‌گیری را مستقیمن بر صحنه می‌برد. واکنشی که برخلاف کلیت داستان دیگر از نظر اخلاقی دوپهلو نیست و شدت استیصال شخصیت‌هایی را نشان می‌دهد که بر سر آنند که گر ز دست برآید، دست به کاری زنند که فقط دست به‌ کاری زده باشند. اوریپیدس با گنجاندن صحنه‌های سینمایی و زیر سوال بردن خرد و اقتدار خدایان در جای‌جای نمایشنامه، نشان می‌دهد که تا دم مرگ هم از کلیشه‌شکن بودن دست نمی‌کشد. (اورستس آخرین نمایشنامه‌ای‌ست که در زمان زنده بودنش روی صحنه می‌رود.)

اورستس، با همه‌ی نوآوری‌هایش، در پایان‌بندی بسیار کهنه‌ است و سخت می‌تواند مخاطب امروزی را راضی نگه دارد. اوریپیدس با امداد غیبی بیگانه نیست و در مده‌آ به شکلی راضی‌کننده از آن استفاده می‌کند. اما اینکه سرتاسر داستان از خدا و پیشگویی‌های دروغینش گله کنی و آن خدا در صفحه‌ی پایانی ظاهر شود و بگوید

پس تمامی شما به جایی که گفتم روانه شوید و هم‌اکنون به این دشمنی پایان دهید

و بشنود که

چنین می‌کنیم آپولو

تنبلانه‌ترین تصمیم روایی ممکن است. اما به هر حال در مورد دو هزار و چهارصد سال پیش صحبت می‌کنیم.

پ.ن. ترجمه‌ی دیگری از مقداد جاوید برا نشر مهرگان خرد هم وجود دارد که از کیفیتش بی‌خبرم.

[dana · Rating 5 out of 5]

orestes and pylades gossiping about menelaos being helen’s bitch is something that can actually be so personal...

[Anisha Inkspill · Rating 3 out of 5]

(3.5 stars)

This is my second read and better for it. This is not a leisurely read, it’s alarming, bloody, angry and very anti-women.

The ending comes suddenly, where the rage is cooled by the appearance of Apollo. This should feel like a cheat ending if it wasn't a directive for Orestes to kill his mother because she killed her husband and Orestes’s father.

Orestes by Euripides is hardly produced for the stage today but worth a read if, like me, you’re trying to put all the pieces together that makes mythology.

[Negar Afsharmanesh · Rating 5 out of 5]

همیشه عاشق تراژدی های یونان و رم قدیم بودم از وقتی که بچه مدرسه ای بودم کتاب ایلیاد و اودیسه هومر رو خوندم،عاشق فرهنگشون و خدایانشون و افسانه هاشون شدم.
اوریپید نمایشنامه هایی مینویسه که درباره این موضوعات هستن و من عاشقش هستم.
خب بریم سراغ خود کتاب اگر کتاب مده آ رو خونده باشید اونجا میبینید قهرمان کتاب زن هست و کتاب تماما درباره رنج زن هاست. اما اینجا قهرمان مذکر عه و از اعمال ناپسند پدرکشی حرف میزنه و میخواد انتقام پدرش و بگیرعه.

[Mahvar · Rating 5 out of 5]

اورستس یکی از شاهکارهای تراژیک اوریپیده که در اون، به پیچیدگی‌های اخلاقی، روان‌شناختی و خانوادگی انسان‌ها به‌شکلی بی‌رحمانه و در عین حال عمیق پرداخته می‌شه. این نمایشنامه نه‌تنها داستان انتقام و عدالت، بلکه کاوشیه در روان انسان و مرزهای بین خیر و شر.
اورستس، پسر آگاممنون، به سرزمین خودش برمیگرده تا انتقام مرگ پدرش رو از مادرش، کلاِمِنسِترا، بگیره. اما مسئله پیچیده‌تر از یه انتقام ساده‌ست. اورستس با دست خودش مادر رو می‌کشه و در نهایت با بحران روانی روبه‌رو می‌شه. در واقع، نمایشنامه بیشتر از اینکه به قصه‌ای انتقامی بپردازه، به درون‌مایه‌های روان‌شناختی و اخلاقی این تصمیم‌ها پرداخته و اثر عمیقی بر مفهوم انتقام، عدالت و سرنوشت می‌گذاره.
یکی از ویژگی‌های برجسته این نمایشنامه اینه که اوریپید به‌جای ساده‌سازی شخصیت‌ها، اون‌ها رو با تضادهای درونی پیچیده نمایش می‌ده. اورستس درگیری شدیدی با وجدانش داره و همزمان با نیاز به اجرای عدالت، از این عمل دچار عذاب وجدان می‌شه. کلاِمِنسِترا هم، حتی با وجود خیانت به شوهرش، به‌نوعی قربانی شرایط خودشه و در اینجا هیچ‌کدوم از شخصیت‌ها در قالب‌های ساده "خوب" یا "بد" قرار نمی‌گیرن.
در نهایت، این نمایشنامه اثریه که با پرداختن به پیچیدگی‌های درونی انسان‌ها و تبیین تضادهای اخلاقی، درگیرکننده و تفکربرانگیزه. چیزی‌ که اوریپید تو این اثر به‌طور ماهرانه‌ای به تصویر می‌کشه، اینه که که حتی در جستجوی عدالت، انسان‌ها اغلب در خودشون گرفتار می‌شن و در تلاشی بی‌پایان برای تطبیق واقعیت با آرمان‌هاشون، خودشون رو نابود می‌کنن.

[Nercs · Rating 3 out of 5]

تا اینجا اورستس برای من منفورترین شخصیت یونان باستان بوده.

[Andrei Bădică · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un singur cuvânt pregnant a fost prezent, pe tot parcursul lecturii: răzbunare. Fiecare personaj are motivele sale de răzbunare.

"MENELAOS: Ce vrei să spui? Vorbirea limpede vădește omul înțelept; obscuritatea nu."

"MENELAOS: Căci în se-ascunde milă și simțăminte mari se-ascund, comori de seamă pentru cine stă la pîndă ."

"ORESTES: Ce dulce întîlnire! În ceasuri grele, un prieten credincios e mai plăcut vederii decît marea molcomă pentru navigatori."

[Kiana · Rating 3 out of 5]

و من شبحی زنده‌ام ،
عمرم گذشت و پژمرده‌ام ،
اندوهانم را فریاد می‌زنم.

[Manny]

Jan Kott, whose Shakespeare Our Contemporary had been on my reading list for years, produced Euripides' Orestes. Orestes and Pylades appeared on motorcycles, Menelaus was a general, Tyndareus a southern politician, and Helen - well, Helen was a common whore. "He must have changed many lines," I said to Alan, who had supervised the production. "He didn't change a single line," Alan replied. And yet all the parts fitted perfectly, as if the play had been written today.

- from Killing Time: The Autobiography of Paul Feyerabend

[Roya · Rating 3 out of 5]

[13]

اکنون تنها خداست که باید در بلاهایی که بر سر من می‌باراند خست به خرج دهد.

• آنچه باید پیش از خوندن نمایشنامه بدونیم:
این نمایشنامه در ادامه‌ی نمایشنامه‌های "الکترا" و "زنان تروا" روایت میشه پس بهتره که قبلش این دو تا نمایشنامه رو خونده باشین.
• خلاصه‌ای از اتفاقاتی که در این دو نمایشنامه میفته (قطعا با اسپویل):
توی نمایشنامه‌ی "الکترا"، اورستس طبق پیشگویی آپولو و با نقشه‌ای که خواهرش (الکترا) میکِشه، برای خون‌خواهی و انتقام دست به قتل مادر خودش (کلوتایمنسترا) می‌زنه.
توی نمایشنامه‌ی "زنان تروا" هم شاهد داستان هلن و پاریس هستیم که با هم فرار می‌کنند به تروا و منلائوس برای برگردوندن هلن وارد جنگ با تروا میشه.
نمایشنامه اورستس بعد از به قتل رسیدن کلوتایمنسترا و بازگشت هلن اتفاق میفته.

• آپولو هم مسبب عذاب و هم ناجی اورستس هست. باز هم به اهمیت خواست خدایان در تعیین سرنوشت انسان تأکید میشه. علاوه بر دستورات آپولو (که دلیل اصلی قتل کلوتایمنستراست) نقشه‌ها و تشویق‌های الکترا هم بی‌تأثیر نیست. یعنی اورستس به نحوی قربانی تصمیمات دیگران و سرنوشت از پیش تعیین شده‌ست. سرنوشتی که اورستس رو به جنون میکشه.
با وجود این سرنوشت سراسر رنج و عذاب، اورستس وفادارترین دوست رو داره. پیلادس یه شعله شمع کوچک توی تاریکی زندگی اورستسه. زمانی که مردم سرزمینش و حتی خانواده‌ش از جمله عموش (منلائوس) بهش پشت میکنن و به عذابش اضافه میکنن و براش حکم مرگ صادر میکنن، پیلادس همیشه کنارش می‌مونه و به حمایتش ادامه میده. به طوری که اورستس میگه:
"هیچ چیز ارزشمندتر از دوستی ثابت‌قدم نیست. نه دارایی و نه قدرت یک پادشاه با آن برابری نمی‌کند و هرآن کس که دوستی انبوه مردم را از یاری راستین و هم‌رأی برتر بداند ابله است."
اورستس با یادآوری کمکی که آگاممنون در جنگ تروا برای بازگرداندن هلن از منلائوس دریغ نکرد، سعی میکنه منلائوس رو مدیون خودش کنه تا بتونه به سمتش دست یاری دراز کنه اما منلائوس منافع و موقعیت خودش رو در اولویت قرار میده و دست رد به سینه اورستش می‌زنه. همین باعث میشه که همچنان چرخه انتقام ادامه داشته باشه.
علارغم اینکه اوریپید می‌خواست به قدرت خدایان و بی‌اختیاری میرایان در تعیین تقدیر خودشون اشاره بکنه، پایان نمایشنامه اصلا رضایت‌بخش نیست.
هلن واقعا کرکتر بحث‌برانگیزیه. علاوه بر اینکه توی نمایشنامه‌ی "زنان تروا" خودش رو از گناه مبری می‌دونه و میگه که مسؤول و مقصر این جنگ و بی‌شمار فرزندان کشته شده در جنگ نیستم، بلکه هیچ مجازاتی شامل حالش نمیشه و حتی نجات پیدا میکنه و به جمع خدایان می‌پیونده! در صورتی که اورستس با کشتن مادر و آیگیستوس دچار عذاب و مجازات شد.
شاید این طعنه‌ی اوریپید به عدالت الهی باشه. عدالتی که نیروی محرکه چرخه‌ی انتقامه.

[Adelina Traicu · Rating 4 out of 5]

"noi stăm sub jugul crâncen al necesității"

[Stratos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Πόσο επίκαιρος ο λόγος του Ευρυπίδη. Οι σχέσεις εξουσίας και οικογένειας, η δικαιοσύνη, ο λαϊκισμός, οι λαοπλάνοι, θέματα που σήμερα κυριαρχούν στον δημόσιο βίο. Αυτό και μόνο δεν δικαιώνουν την έννοια των κλασικών έργων αλλά και την αδήριτη ανάγκη να διαβάζουμε και να ξαναδιαβάζουμε αυτούς τους μεγάλους Ελληνες τραγωδούς

[Sinem]

euripides korkunç bir kadın düşmanı, anneyi öldürme motifinin işlendiği bir kitap için normal görünebilir fakat kitaptaki tüm kadınlardan istikrarlı bir şekilde nefret ediliyor. aiskhylos'un yazdığı versiyonu bulup okumayı çok isterim acaba o nasıl yazdı, çünkü hikayeyi ilk o yazmış. çeviri ve notlar harika. Ari beyle yolumuz uzun. <3

[David Sarkies · Rating 4 out of 5]

Orestes is Judged
30 July 2018

Well, that was interesting. When I bought this book I did so believing that the only play in it that I hadn’t read was the Heraclidae, however as I look over my collection I suddenly realised that I hadn’t doubled up on any of the other plays, I had just thought that I had read them when in reality I hadn’t. Well, I guess I have sorted that out now, well, at least all but two of them, and it seems that the satyr play The Cyclops isn’t included in any of the volumes that I already have, which is a real shame. Actually, it is one of the reasons that I am not a huge fan of Penguin in that for some reason they simply just don’t print certain books, like half of Plutarch. Then again, they generally target their books to the mass market (and my old Classics department only read them if there was nothing else available).

Orestes is sort of set during the time when he is being driven mad by the Euryines (or the Furies). He had killed his mother, and is currently in Argos waiting for a sentence of death. We know, or at least those of us familiar with the myth, know that he gets out of this little pickle because he ends up in Athens where Athena ends up acquitting him of all charges, namely because he was only following Apollo’s instructions. Actually, come to think of it, that is a pretty poor excuse, and almost reeks of the statement ‘the devil made me do it’. Then again, we are looking at a mythological world where many people actually believed in the gods, and honestly, when a god tells you to do something, it does tend to be pretty hard to say no.

So, as we are aware, Orestes killed his mother because while his father, Agamemnon, was out fighting at Troy she basically shacked up with a lover, and when Agamemnon returned home she killed him. Well, he was probably asking for it, considering that he did pretty much take all of the young men out of Greece for something like ten years, and many of them never came back, which makes me wonder what on Earth Aegisthus was doing all this time (though it might have been the case that he was too young to go to war when they set off, but that probably would have made him a baby, because honestly, these are the Greeks we are talking about here).

This is the problem – Orestes killed his mother, which is a pretty shocking thing to do, but then again he did so to exact revenge for her killing his father. Oh, and Electra was also involved in the conspiracy, so she is basically chained up with him. The problem is that nobody is willing to stick up for him, but then again they probably don’t buy the ‘but Apollo made me do it’ rubbish at all. Anyway, if that was the case, it really did put Orestes into a bit of a tight corner. However, I guess there is also this ‘she killed my father’ thing, even though I suspect that he never really knew his father because when Agamemnon set off for Troy he would have been a boy (if he was a teenager, he probably would have sailed with him). Yeah, then we have this whole ‘let’s kill my daughter so that Artemis changes the winds to allow us to get to Troy quicker’. It seems as if the gods really weren’t on Agamemnon’s side. In fact I get the feeling that the gods really weren’t on the side of the house of Atreus (though he wasn’t a particularly nice fellow, and the whole feeding his enemies a pie made out of human really doesn’t go down all that well).

So, what do Orestes and Electra decide to do – blame Helen. Of course they do because she was the one that apparently caused all of these problems. Then again, it does take two to tango, but I believe by this time Paris was well and truly dead, and it seemed that Helen and Menelaus basically kissed and made up (if you ignore the story about her actually being kidnapped by Pharoah as opposed to running away with Paris). Yeah, so, let’s cast the blame onto somebody else, so they decide that the best thing to do is kill her. Well, I guess there is this whole Menelaus refuses to stick up for them as well, so they also want to get back at him – considering that it was his brother that they were avenging, but the fact that Menelaus didn’t actually do anything to Clytemnestra and Aegisthus does suggest that maybe, just maybe, Agamemnon really wasn’t the type of person that anybody would probably bother avenging. Well, except for his son of course.

This is where it gets all weird with all of those Apollo ex Machina things. Helen is whisked away to heaven (seems like the gods didn’t particularly care about this whole running away with Paris thing either), and then Apollo steps in and basically saves the hide of both Orestes and Electra (though he does end up marrying Electra off to Pylaides, who happens to be Orestes’ best friend), and tells Orestes to go to Athens where he will get a somewhat farer trail. I guess this is the ancient version of the appellate court, though in Orestes’ case he needed to god to come down, and ironically the god who apparently ordered him to avenge his father. Come to think of it, why didn’t Apollo just deal with the matter then and there – if he ordered Orestes to kill his mother, then surely he could have also rectified the situation, but it seemed that that wasn’t all that possible because it was Athena who eventually provided to circuit breaker.

[Marianna · Rating 4 out of 5]

it is always enlightening to see how ancient greeks viewed life, and how little they valued women. The whole play focuses on whether Orestes was jutified in killing his mother, beacuse she had cheated on his father and she had disgraced him, and his whole family.
Dear old Apollo gave the order, which should come as no surprise, since he has always been the most revengeful of the gods.
But, judging the play in the ancient time frame, I cannot argue that it is a work of art.

[Nora · Rating 4 out of 5]

Honestly, how can you go wrong with the Greeks. Perhaps the best part of the play is Orestes argument as to why he should be pardoned for killing his mother. "She killed my father, and if you punish me then what will stop women from killing their husbands all over Greece?" Excellent point Orestes

[Giorgia · Rating 5 out of 5]

La ferocia degli Atridi non può che migliorare questo inizio d'anno.
Ti condannano a morte perché hai ammazzato tua madre, a sua volta assassina di tuo padre che ha sacrificato ad Artemide tua sorella? Nemmeno il fratello di tuo padre Agamennone ti supporta contro la folla inferocita?
Ma certo, minacciamo di morte sua moglie e sua figlia!
A DO RO

[Mike · Rating 2 out of 5]

I feel like my ambivalence to this play is due to my position as a 21st century reader who is unfamiliar with the social and political contexts that would have informed audiences in the time of Euripides. I appreciate how he focuses on a part of the myth that hadn’t been dramatized by Aeschylus and makes it relevant for his Athenian viewers, but for me, this drama does not read as well on the page as it supposedly played out on stage for those ancient audiences. This was especially disappointing as I had just finished reading The Oresteia, which still retained its power for me as a modern reader with only a basic understanding of ancient history and politics. I feel like this might be a drama that I can revisit in the future after a few more years of reading and studying ancient literature along with the associated historical context.

[Cymru Roberts · Rating 5 out of 5]

don the unholy cloak and whisper
these dark prayers of Euripides
most tragic of tragedians
who sought that we read of the acts of heros and gods
as if the characters of myth were real
so that we might feel the realistic pain of sorrow and death
and apply this insight to our own lives

––Houshmandides, apocryphal

I am grateful to the essential Complete Greek Tragedies edition of this play, with intro and translation by William Arrowsmith, one of the foremost scholars of Euripides. In the intro Arrowsmith says that Euripides intended the events of the acclaimed Oresteia to take place in the then contemporary climate of law and order, courts, and civilized jurisprudence. This is a crucial aspect of the play, and a very interesting twist on the part of Euripides; in essence it is what makes him a genius. Whereas Aeschylus used the power of poetic language to make us feel the pain and sorrow of war, of a tradition of familial angst, and the crushing weight of guilt when combined with an inpenetrable sense of duty––Euripides (not the best poet, although there are some awesome lyrics in this) deliberately sets the events in the modern day, therefore playing with convention rather than words to do much of the same thing as his more-treasured fellow playwright. There are key differences in how this affects the reader as well: Where the Oresteia is psychological, inward, and thoughtful––essentially abstract––the Orestes has the feel of a True Crime narrative; it has all of the sensational callousness of hearing about constant murder that we get from local news.

The play was written four years before the end of the Peloponnesian War, a war mind you, that has Pelops (great-grandfather of Orestes and Electra) in its name: the Orestes is today, Euripides is telling us. It is happening right now. How you deal with "enemies", who you take your anger and frustration out on, the unwholesome biproducts of revenge––these aren't just poetic concepts to deal with in the abstract, they are real and have real consequences.

Everywhere here we see characters display the most meanspirited aspects of human nature. If one of them makes a point, they quickly contradict it in the name of their own thirst for vengeance. Orestes himself is a serial killer who at one point says, "I can never have my fill of killing whores." Absolutely brutal stuff. I think where some see this as an example of Euripides rancid outlook on life, I tend to think he is showing how women, and women's sexuality, is used as a scapegoat for male insecurity, and to justify war and murder. I think the point is that you get disgusted, because Euripides was hoping that people transfer that disgust to the war their city-state was currently engaged in, one that eventually ended in their town burning to the ground at the hand of the Spartans.

Blackest of black, here. Leave it to Euripides to drive home the point that some things––murder, revenge––are not merely æsthetic.

[Leslie · Rating 3 out of 5]

My tepid rating of this play is due in part to the translation by Theodore Buckley (this is the most commonly available one in the public domain) & partly due to Euripides' writing. I read this as part of the Kindle omnibus, "The Tragedies Of Euripides Volume I" and also listened along to the Librivox recording.

While the plot of this play includes a considerable amount of bloody action, it almost all takes place off stage. This is basically a "talking" play -- the various characters tell each other about the action rather than portray it. Because of this, the late Victorian style of Buckley's translation has a large impact on the effect of the play on the reader. I found that in some passages, I was drifting off even as murder and revenge were being discussed.

I would recommend anyone considering this play to seek out a more modern translation. The plot itself is quite interesting, dealing with fate & punishment, revenge & murder.

[Julesmarie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Again, this came across to me as ancient Greek fanfiction. Euripides took characters from other works and changed the way their events unfold. And honestly, changed the characters themselves as well. Practically every character in this is just despicable.

This was my second work by Euripides, and likely my last. I just really dislike what he does with these characters.

Some Favorite Quotes:
For those friends have the name, not the reality, who are not friends in adversity.

whither dost thou roam in thought

The populace is a terrible thing, when they have evil leaders.

for where shall I show myself thy friend, if I assist thee not when them art in perilous condition?

behold how contrary to expectation fate comes.

[Steve]

Read in the translation by William Arrowsmith.

[Noah W · Rating 4 out of 5]

"don't fucking look at me or i will stomp you to death with my hooves" - orestes

[Emin Anılmaz · Rating 4 out of 5]

İlk defa böyle bir deus ex machina okudum, Apollon resmen peri masalına çevirdi tragedyayı. Ve anladığım kadarıyla Atreus soyunun intikam-için-cinayet-döngüsü sona erdi Orestes'in hayatta kalışıyla -zaten bir tanrı el atmasaydı öç almaların biteceği yoktu- o yüzden "Herkese mutlu son!" bayağı bir tuhaf hissettirdi...

[İlkim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bu kitapla ne dinlenir:

A Perfect Circle - Orestes

[Yas · Rating 3 out of 5]

پایانش قشنگ بود.

پ.ن: همش تقصیر الکتراست🐳

[Andrea Giovanni Rossi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Giustizia e vendetta si confondono nell’eco della guerra e di appelli a divinità arcane e imperscrutabili

[... · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars
im such an orestes stan tbh

[Emi Cordos · Rating 3 out of 5]

asta nu mi-o super placut

[Naomi · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found it extremely interesting to compare the interpretations of the Greek tragedians to this classic myth, and having already read the Sophoclean version, the Euripidean provided a fascinating contrast. This is an area of Classics which I find to be particularly interesting, since I feel that the different ways that the playwrights choose to portray the tales show us much more about the playwrights themselves as well as the society they were living in, than can be gained through evidence of an arguably more direct manner. In this particular version of Orestes, there were some striking features characteristic of Euripides which I found exciting to be able to note myself.

Firstly, the characterisation of the three main characters (Orestes, Pylades and Electra) seemed to change significantly throughout the play. They went from being miserable and sympathetic characters, to dehumanised crazed individuals, difficult to empathise with. Inconsistencies such as this have been noted in Euripides' plays before (perhaps most notably in his "Iphigenia at Aulis") and so I would be tempted to argue that these almost unrealistic character arcs are part of his writing style as opposed to later corruption of the texts, which has been suggested by some Classicists. However, the intention behind this rather interesting decision to not create realistic characters in a play is somewhat obscure. Does the disintegration of the characters' morals add to the tragedy of the play? Are the character changes simply necessary for the play to proceed in the way dictated by the myth? It is hard to tell, though the stark shift of psyche in Euripidean characters through his plays certainly does add to the drama and excitement experienced by the audience.

Secondly, the use of 'deus ex machina' at the end of the play with the appearance of Apollo was again something I found to be particularly noteworthy in the play. Although this technique could be relatively common in plays, I still found the appearance of Apollo at the end of the play to be somewhat disappointing, Tension had been gradually rising throughout the play and anger was running high, with Euripides seemingly bringing the action to a head in a tantalising battle between the two strongest characters (Orestes and Menelaus), only to be let out like air in a balloon with the appearance of Apollo. This was a somewhat unsatisfying anti climax to what had been a highly emotional and tragic play thus far, and I was left feeling almost cheated of a proper ending. This is because none of the characters were forced to actually work things out for themselves- all the answers to their questions were simply to given to them by an infallible authority, and thus all they had to do was to follow those orders. Those who had been built up throughout the play to be troubled and complex characters suddenly had everything sorted for them in a matter of one short speech, thus making all the action and anguish up until that point appear almost trivial or a waste of time since a solution was able to be reached so easily. I do wonder why Euripides chose to end his play in such an easy and insubstantial manner, but I think his use of 'deus ex machina' is interesting in itself by showing some of the Ancient Greek beliefs surrounding the deities at the time.