What do you think?
Rate this book
Alcestis
Oklahoma Series in Classical Culture, V. 29
Euripides’ Alcestis—perhaps the most anthologized Attic drama--is an ideal text for students reading their first play in the original Greek. Literary commentaries and language aids in most editions are too advanced or too elementary for intermediate students of the language, but in their new student edition, C. A. E. Luschnig and H. M. Roisman remedy such deficiencies.
The introductory section of this edition provides historical and literary perspective; the commentary explains points of grammar, syntax, and vocabulary, as well as elucidating background features such as dramatic conventions and mythology; and a discussion section introduces the controversies surrounding this most elusive drama. In their presentation, Luschnig and Roisman have initiated a new method for introducing students to current scholarship.
This edition also includes a glossary, an index, a bibliography, and grammatical reviews designed specifically for students of Greek language and culture in their second year of university study or third year of high school. Luschnig and Roisman, who have published numerous articles and books on Greek literature, bring to this volume decades of experience teaching classical Greek.
“General readers could well benefit from using this book, as it contains valuable literary discussion and explication of the conventions of Greek drama.”—Daniel H. Garrison, author of Sexual Culture in Ancient Greece
C. A. E. Luschnig, Professor of Classics at the University of Idaho in Moscow, is the author of An Introduction to Ancient Greek and The Gorgon’s Severed Head: Studies in Euripides’ Alcestis, Electra, and Phoenissae. H. M. Roisman, Professor of Classics at Colby College in Waterville, Maine, is the author of Loyalty in Early Greek Epic and Tragedy and Nothing Is As It Seems: The Tragedy of the Implicit in Euripides’ Hippolytus.
Euripides’ Alcestis—perhaps the most anthologized Attic drama--is an ideal text for students reading their first play in the original Greek. Literary commentaries and language aids in most editions are too advanced or too elementary for intermediate students of the language, but in their new student edition, C. A. E. Luschnig and H. M. Roisman remedy such deficiencies.
The introductory section of this edition provides historical and literary perspective; the commentary explains points of grammar, syntax, and vocabulary, as well as elucidating background features such as dramatic conventions and mythology; and a discussion section introduces the controversies surrounding this most elusive drama. In their presentation, Luschnig and Roisman have initiated a new method for introducing students to current scholarship.
This edition also includes a glossary, an index, a bibliography, and grammatical reviews designed specifically for students of Greek language and culture in their second year of university study or third year of high school. Luschnig and Roisman, who have published numerous articles and books on Greek literature, bring to this volume decades of experience teaching classical Greek.
“General readers could well benefit from using this book, as it contains valuable literary discussion and explication of the conventions of Greek drama.”—Daniel H. Garrison, author of Sexual Culture in Ancient Greece
C. A. E. Luschnig, Professor of Classics at the University of Idaho in Moscow, is the author of An Introduction to Ancient Greek and The Gorgon’s Severed Head: Studies in Euripides’ Alcestis, Electra, and Phoenissae. H. M. Roisman, Professor of Classics at Colby College in Waterville, Maine, is the author of Loyalty in Early Greek Epic and Tragedy and Nothing Is As It Seems: The Tragedy of the Implicit in Euripides’ Hippolytus.
304 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 439
119 people are currently reading
4397 people want to read
About the author
Euripides
2,864 books2,002 followersEuripides (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.
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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 465 reviews
February 20, 2018
Last night, on our first evening of the Adelaide Fringe, we saw a fine production of Alcestis by the Scrambled Prince Theatre Company. It was most enjoyable, but I'm afraid that on returning home I immediately went and looked up an online translation. Could it really be the case that the dialogue between Death and Apollo in the second scene consisted mostly of off-colour BDSM jokes?
You will probably not be astonished to hear that the answer is no. I hang my head in shame. That I, of all people, should have been fooled so easily!
You will probably not be astonished to hear that the answer is no. I hang my head in shame. That I, of all people, should have been fooled so easily!
May 12, 2024
Give me anything by Euripides and I'll read it 🖤🇬🇷
April 11, 2012
I'm pretty sure this was either a masterpiece or a train wreck. I'm leaning towards masterpiece. Admetus knows he will die soon, but Death offers him the chance to live if he can find someone to take his place. Admetus' wife, Alcestis, accepts. As Lattimore writes in the introduction, the tale isn't so much "How noble must a wife be to take her husband's place in death," as "How selfish and cowardly must a husband be to let his wife die for him." But Heracles rescues Alcestis and brings her back to life in the last five pages. We don't hear from her after her revivification, which leaves the reader wondering how this family can ever be reconciled--can such a noble wife return to living with and loving a man who let her die for him? This is supposed to be a tragicomedy, but I think that the ending is intentionally lacking in satisfaction to force the reader to consider what's left unsaid.
I wonder if this myth had any bearing on Shakespeare's A Winter's Tale. The endings remind me of each other so.
I wonder if this myth had any bearing on Shakespeare's A Winter's Tale. The endings remind me of each other so.
January 17, 2026
یادداشتهای روزهای برزخی — شمارهی سه
---------------
بیشتر از نود درصد دوستان من در اینجا فارسیزبانند و ساکن ایران. نوشتن بیهوده بنظر میرسد، چون نه تنها کسی نیست که بخواند، که اساسن بعد از این همه جنایت، از کتاب نوشتن کاریست تجملی و بیفایده. هفت روز از تاریکی دیجیتال ایران میگذرد و هیچ کداممان نمیدانیم که کی قرار است دوباره فضای گودریدز فارسی پررونق شود. تصور اینکه هفتهها و شاید حتا ماهها تنها راه ارتباطیمان تماسهای شنودشدهی چنددقیقهای باشد دیوانهکنندهست. اما این روزهای تاریک هم بلاخره تمام میشود. اینها را اینجا مینویسم، چون مطمئنم دوباره دور هم جمع میشویم و بر گور رژیم فاشیستی اسلامی میرقصیم.
---------------
در توصیف بعضی نمایشنامههای شکسپیر عبارت نمایشنامهی مسالهساز¹ را به کار میبرند، یعنی نمایشنامهای که از نظر ژانر و لحن چیزی میان تراژدی و کمدیست و یا حتا با رگههایی از رمنس. این عنوان را نمیشود دربارهی تراژدیهای یونانی استفاده کرد، زیرا حتا تراژدیهایی که پایان خوشتری دارند و با بههم رسیدنِ شخصیتهای ازهمدورمانده و بازیابی نظم تمام میشوند (مانند ایون یا هراکلس) یا آنهایی که شخصیتهای فرعی کمیک دارند (مثل باکخانتها و فرزندان هراکلس) هم از نظر منطق تراژیک آنقدر محکماند که نمیشود نام دیگری برایشان گذاشت². اما الکستیس³ استثنایی بر این قاعده است.
الکستیس —قدیمیترین نمایشنامهای که از اوریپیدس به ما رسیده— در جشنوارهی دیونیزیای سال ۴۳۸ قبل از میلاد اجرا شد، اما به عنوان نمایشنامهی چهارم از چهارگانهای که اوریپیدس برای آن سال آماده کرده بود. رسم این بود که نمایشنامهی چهارم همیشه یک ساتیر باشد تا سنگینی سه تراژدی قبلی را بشورد و ببرد⁴. اما الکستیس سنتشکنی کرد و بدون رعایت اصول یک نمایشنامهی ساتیری تبدیل شد به تراژدیای کمدیوار با پایانی خوش. در الکستیس هراکلسی را داریم که برخلاف همیشه نه دیوانه و خشن، که خوشقلب و قدرشناس است. شراب میخورد، مست میشود و بعد شرمنده، اما در نهایت رسم دوستی را به جا میآورد. این روی هراکلس را در کمدیهای یونانی، از جمله قورباغهها، میبینیم، اما در تراژدیها هرگز. در آن سال اوریپیدس جایزهی دوم را برد اما دیگر —دست کم تا آنجا که ما میدانیم— این کار را تکرار نکرد.
اما بنیاد تراژیک الکستیس کجاست: اگر دم مرگ این انتخاب به تو داده میشد که یکی از نزدیکانت به جای تو بمیرد چه میکردی؟ سوالی ساده که جوابش به این سادگیها نیست. به آدمتوسِ پادشاه این انتخاب داده شده⁵، پدر و مادر پیرش —برخلاف انتظارش— درخواستش را نپذیرفتهاند، اما همسر جوانش الکستیس چرا. با وجود غلبهی نگاه مردسالارانهی اوریپیدس، نمایشنامه —دست کم برای خواننده امروزی— این مسأله را ایجاد میکند که آیا الکستیس آنقدری که مینماید فداکار هست؟ و از آن طرف، آدمتوس بیشتر عاشق است یا خودخواه؟ در جدال آدمتوس با پدرش آیا میتوان حق را به یک طرف داد؟ اصلن آیا جوانها حق بیشتری برای زندگی دارند؟ اوریپیدس این سوالها کنار طنازی هراکلس قرار میدهد (به اینها اضافه کنید گفتوگوی کوتاه اما درخشان آپولو و مرگ در ابتدای نمایشنامه را) و نتیجه میشود یکی از آثار او که بهنظر من بهاندازهی کافی قدر ندیده.
خواندهشده از ترجمهی انگلیسی ریچموند لاتیمور⁶. آلکستیس و ایون جزو چند نمایشنامهی اوریپیدس هستند که تنها یک بار و آن هم بیشتر از نیم قرن پیش، توسط سناتور محمد سعیدی به فارسی برگردانده شده و امروز در قالب کتاب «هلن و سه نمایشنامهی دیگر» انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی چاپ میشوند.
-------------
¹ problem play
² اساسن این نوآوریهای سبکی را در آیسخولوس و سوفوکلس بسیار کمتر از اوریپیدس میبینیم.
³ السستیس (انگلیسی) و السست (فرانسوی)
⁴ برای توضیحات بیشتر در مورد ساتیر نگاه کنید به ریویوی سیکلوپس
⁵ اوریپیدس چندان از چرایی و چگونگی این هدیه نمیگوید، جز این که تصمیم آپولو بوده که الاهگان سرنوشت را فریب دهد. در منابع دیگر میخوانیم که آپولو عاشق آدمتوس بوده و باز این خودخواهی یک خداست که موقعیت تراژیک انسانی را میسازد.
⁶ Richmond Lattimore
---------------
بیشتر از نود درصد دوستان من در اینجا فارسیزبانند و ساکن ایران. نوشتن بیهوده بنظر میرسد، چون نه تنها کسی نیست که بخواند، که اساسن بعد از این همه جنایت، از کتاب نوشتن کاریست تجملی و بیفایده. هفت روز از تاریکی دیجیتال ایران میگذرد و هیچ کداممان نمیدانیم که کی قرار است دوباره فضای گودریدز فارسی پررونق شود. تصور اینکه هفتهها و شاید حتا ماهها تنها راه ارتباطیمان تماسهای شنودشدهی چنددقیقهای باشد دیوانهکنندهست. اما این روزهای تاریک هم بلاخره تمام میشود. اینها را اینجا مینویسم، چون مطمئنم دوباره دور هم جمع میشویم و بر گور رژیم فاشیستی اسلامی میرقصیم.
---------------
در توصیف بعضی نمایشنامههای شکسپیر عبارت نمایشنامهی مسالهساز¹ را به کار میبرند، یعنی نمایشنامهای که از نظر ژانر و لحن چیزی میان تراژدی و کمدیست و یا حتا با رگههایی از رمنس. این عنوان را نمیشود دربارهی تراژدیهای یونانی استفاده کرد، زیرا حتا تراژدیهایی که پایان خوشتری دارند و با بههم رسیدنِ شخصیتهای ازهمدورمانده و بازیابی نظم تمام میشوند (مانند ایون یا هراکلس) یا آنهایی که شخصیتهای فرعی کمیک دارند (مثل باکخانتها و فرزندان هراکلس) هم از نظر منطق تراژیک آنقدر محکماند که نمیشود نام دیگری برایشان گذاشت². اما الکستیس³ استثنایی بر این قاعده است.
الکستیس —قدیمیترین نمایشنامهای که از اوریپیدس به ما رسیده— در جشنوارهی دیونیزیای سال ۴۳۸ قبل از میلاد اجرا شد، اما به عنوان نمایشنامهی چهارم از چهارگانهای که اوریپیدس برای آن سال آماده کرده بود. رسم این بود که نمایشنامهی چهارم همیشه یک ساتیر باشد تا سنگینی سه تراژدی قبلی را بشورد و ببرد⁴. اما الکستیس سنتشکنی کرد و بدون رعایت اصول یک نمایشنامهی ساتیری تبدیل شد به تراژدیای کمدیوار با پایانی خوش. در الکستیس هراکلسی را داریم که برخلاف همیشه نه دیوانه و خشن، که خوشقلب و قدرشناس است. شراب میخورد، مست میشود و بعد شرمنده، اما در نهایت رسم دوستی را به جا میآورد. این روی هراکلس را در کمدیهای یونانی، از جمله قورباغهها، میبینیم، اما در تراژدیها هرگز. در آن سال اوریپیدس جایزهی دوم را برد اما دیگر —دست کم تا آنجا که ما میدانیم— این کار را تکرار نکرد.
اما بنیاد تراژیک الکستیس کجاست: اگر دم مرگ این انتخاب به تو داده میشد که یکی از نزدیکانت به جای تو بمیرد چه میکردی؟ سوالی ساده که جوابش به این سادگیها نیست. به آدمتوسِ پادشاه این انتخاب داده شده⁵، پدر و مادر پیرش —برخلاف انتظارش— درخواستش را نپذیرفتهاند، اما همسر جوانش الکستیس چرا. با وجود غلبهی نگاه مردسالارانهی اوریپیدس، نمایشنامه —دست کم برای خواننده امروزی— این مسأله را ایجاد میکند که آیا الکستیس آنقدری که مینماید فداکار هست؟ و از آن طرف، آدمتوس بیشتر عاشق است یا خودخواه؟ در جدال آدمتوس با پدرش آیا میتوان حق را به یک طرف داد؟ اصلن آیا جوانها حق بیشتری برای زندگی دارند؟ اوریپیدس این سوالها کنار طنازی هراکلس قرار میدهد (به اینها اضافه کنید گفتوگوی کوتاه اما درخشان آپولو و مرگ در ابتدای نمایشنامه را) و نتیجه میشود یکی از آثار او که بهنظر من بهاندازهی کافی قدر ندیده.
خواندهشده از ترجمهی انگلیسی ریچموند لاتیمور⁶. آلکستیس و ایون جزو چند نمایشنامهی اوریپیدس هستند که تنها یک بار و آن هم بیشتر از نیم قرن پیش، توسط سناتور محمد سعیدی به فارسی برگردانده شده و امروز در قالب کتاب «هلن و سه نمایشنامهی دیگر» انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی چاپ میشوند.
-------------
¹ problem play
² اساسن این نوآوریهای سبکی را در آیسخولوس و سوفوکلس بسیار کمتر از اوریپیدس میبینیم.
³ السستیس (انگلیسی) و السست (فرانسوی)
⁴ برای توضیحات بیشتر در مورد ساتیر نگاه کنید به ریویوی سیکلوپس
⁵ اوریپیدس چندان از چرایی و چگونگی این هدیه نمیگوید، جز این که تصمیم آپولو بوده که الاهگان سرنوشت را فریب دهد. در منابع دیگر میخوانیم که آپولو عاشق آدمتوس بوده و باز این خودخواهی یک خداست که موقعیت تراژیک انسانی را میسازد.
⁶ Richmond Lattimore
June 19, 2023
প্রাচীন গ্রীক নাট্যকার ইউরিপিদেস-এর নাটক 'আলসেস্টিস'। যদিও ট্র্যাজেডি নাটক হিসেবে স্বীকৃত, অনেকেই একে ট্র্যাজিকমেডি বলেও অভিহিত করেন। ট্র্যাজিক নাটকে সচরাচর যা হয়, আপাত চোখে একজন নায়ক-যিনি ভালোমানুষীর প্রায় সকল গুণ নিজের মাঝে ধারণ করেন-তিনিই হঠাৎ ছোটখাটো কোন দোষ/ ত্রুটির কারণে স্বর্গ থেকে নিক্ষিপ্ত হন বিড়ম্বনার আস্তাকুঁড়ে। এ ধরণের প্রাচীন ট্র্যাজিক নাটকে নায়কের ভিলেনে পরিণত হওয়া, কিংবা ভাগ্যের সুদৃষ্টি থেকে ছিটকে পড়া-ইত্যাদি বিবিধ রকম পতনের পেছনে নাট্যকারেরা সাধারণত দেবতার ষড়যন্ত্র বা লীলাখেলাকে দায়ী করেন, যেমনটা আমরা সফোক্লিসের 'ইডিপাস সাইকেল'-এ দেখতে পাই। 'আলসেস্টিস'কে ট্র্যাজিকমেডি বলার কারণ এই নাটক চিরাচরিত গ্রীক ট্র্যাজেডির উল্টোরথ; এ নাটক শুরু হয় নায়কের দুর্দশা দিয়ে, এবং শেষ হয় নায়কের প্রাপ্তিতে। নাটকের মধ্যপথে কিছু "কমেডি" দৃশ্যের সাথেও আমাদের পরিচয় ঘটে। ট্র্যাজেডি না ট্র্যাজিকমিক-সে নিয়ে গ্রীক নাটকের পণ্ডিতেরা একে অপরের চুল ছিঁড়তে থাকুন, সাধারণ পাঠক হিসেবে আমার কাজ শুধু দূর থেকে এঁদের দেখা আর পপকর্ণ চিবোনো।
ইউরিপিদেস সফোক্লিসের সমসাময়িক ছিলেন, এবং তাঁরা একাধিকবার প্রতিযোগীতায়ও নেমেছিলেন। বস্তুতঃ 'আলসেস্টিস'-এর জন্য ইউরিপিদেস ২য় হন এমনই এক প্রতিযোগীতায়; ১ম হন সফোক্লিস। খ্রীষ্টপূর্ব ৪৩৮ সালে, অর্থাৎ, আজ হতে ২৪০০ বছরেরও বেশী আগে লেখা এই নাটক খুব যে নতুন কিছু শেখায় আমাদের, তা নয়। নাটকের মূল গল্পটিও ইউরিপিদেস-এর নিজস্ব কোন উদ্ভাবন নয়। নাটকের মূল যে প্রস্তাবনা, গত ২৪০০ বছরে স্থান-কাল-পাত্রভেদে তার বিভিন্ন ব্যখ্যা মানুষ দাঁড় করিয়েছে। অন্তর্জাল ঘাঁটলে এই নাটকের অনেকরকম ওস্তাদী ব্যখ্যার সন্ধান পাওয়া যায়। শনিবারের দুপুরগুলোয় ‘বাবা কেন চাকর’ বা বউ-শ্বাশুড়ির চিরাচরিত দ্বন্দ্বময় বাঙলা সিনেমা দেখে আসা আমার কাছে আর সবকিছু ছাপিয়ে বউ বড় না বাবা বড়-এই দ্বন্দ্বই মুখ্য হয়ে থাকলো। ইউরিপিদেস একটি পৌরাণিক কাহিনীর ওপর ভিত্তি করে 'আলসেস্টিস' নাটকটি লেখেন-যেমনটি তিনি তাঁর অন্য আরো বেশ কয়েকটি নাটকের ক্ষেত্রেই করেছেন। ইউরিপিদেস-এর নাটকটি পুরোপুরি বুঝতে চাইলে পৌরাণিক গল্পটি আগে জানা থাকলে ভালো। সংক্ষেপে গল্পটি তাই নিচে টুকে রাখলামঃ
ইওলকাসের রাজা পিলিয়াস তাঁর সবচেয়ে সুন্দরী কন্যা আলসেস্টিস-এর বিয়ের জন্য পাত্র খুঁজে বিজ্ঞাপন দিয়েছেনঃ যে ব্যক্তি তাঁর রথে একইসাথে একটি সিংহ এবং একটি ভালুক জুড়তে পারবেন তাঁর সুযোগ্য হাতেই আলসেস্টিসকে তিনি তুলে দেবেন। ফিরি’র (phere) রাজা অ্যাডমেটাস এই প্রতিযোগীতায় বিজয়ী হন। অ্যাডমেটাস যে একেবারে হেসেখেলে ভালুক-সিংহকে একঘাটে জল খাওয়ালেন তা-ও নয়; তাঁকে এ কাজে সাহায্য করেন ধনুর্বিদ্যা ও সংগীতের দেবতা অ্যাপোলো, যিনি স্বর্গ থেকে এক বছরের জন্য নির্বাসিত হয়েছেন। এই এক বছর অ্যাপোলোকে অ্যাডমেটাসের অধীনে তাঁর মেষপালক হিসেবে কাজ করতে হয়, এবং সে দায়িত্বের অংশ হিসেবেই তিনি অ্যাডমেটাসকে আলসেস্টিসের পাণি জেতার প্রতিযোগীতায় সাহায্য করেন। অ্যাডমেটাস খুশীমনে আলসেস্টিসকে বিয়ে করলেন বটে, কিন্তু বিয়ে নামক এ মহাযজ্ঞের হুটোপাটিতে তিনি দেবী আর্টেমিসের উদ্দেশ্যে দেয় বলী’র কথা বেমালুম ভুলে গেলেন। দেব-দেবীর রাগ বড় কঠিন; অ্যাডমেটাসের ওপর মৃত্যুর অভিশাপ নেমে এলো বলীদানের কথা ভুলে যাওয়ায়। আবারো অ্যাডমেটাসের সাহায্যে এগিয়ে এলেন অ্যাপোলো। তিনি কৌশলে ভাগ্য রচনাকারী ফিউরিস ভগ্নীত্রয়ীকে (ক্লথো, লাখেসিস, ও অ্যাট্রোপোস) মদ খাইয়ে একটি চুক্তি করিয়ে নিলেন। অ্যাডমেটাসের পরিবর্তে তাঁর পরিবারের অন্য যেকোন সদস্য যদি স্বেচ্ছায় মৃত্যুবরণ করে, তাহলেই প্রাণে বেঁচে যাবেন অ্যাডমেটাস। বৃদ্ধ বাবা-মা’র কাছে গিয়ে অ্যাডমেটাস এবার তাঁদের যেকোন একজনকে স্বেচ্ছামৃত্যু বেছে নিতে বলেন, কিন্তু তাঁরা কেউই এতে রাজী হননা। মৃত্যুচিন্তায় তরুণ অ্যাডমেটাস যখন পাগলপারা, তখন তাঁর স্ত্রী আলসেস্টিস স্বামীর প্রাণরক্ষায় স্বেচ্ছামৃত্যু বেছে নেন।
ইউরিপিদেস তাঁর নাটক শুরু করেছেন আলসেস্টিসের মৃত্যুশয্যায়। অ্যাডমেটাস ও তাঁর সন্তানদের থেকে শুরু করে প্রাসাদের দাস-দাসী, রাজ্যের জনগণ-সবাই-ই আলসেস্টিসের শোকে কাতর। মৃত্যুশয্যায় শুয়ে আলসেস্টিসও স্বামীর কাছ থেকে প্রতিশ্রুতি আদায় করে নিলেন, তাঁর মৃত্যুর পর অ্যাডমেটাস আর কখনোই যেন বিয়ে না করেন (রাজা-রাজড়াদের প্রতিশ্রুতি-তার কতখানি দাম সে আমরা সক্কলেই জানি)। মৃত্যুপথের যাত্রী স্ত্রীকে স্বান্তনা ও প্রতিশ্রুতি দেবার ফাঁকে ফাঁকেই অ্যাডমেটাস তাঁর বাবা ফিরেস (Pheres)-কে বকাঝকা করে আসেন, কেন তিনি এই বুড়ো বয়েসে বেঁচে থাকার গোঁ ধরে আছেন, তিনি মরে গেলেই তো ল্যাঠা চুকে যায়; অ্যাডমেটাসের কমবয়েসী কচি বউটাকে মরতে হয় না। ফিরি নগরীর প্রতিষ্ঠাতা ফিরেস পুত্র অ্যাডমেটাসকে কে দয়া করে রাজার সিংহাসনে বসিয়েছে তা মনে করিয়ে দিয়ে পাল্টা ধমক দিয়ে বলেনঃ
ইউরিপিদেস সফোক্লিসের সমসাময়িক ছিলেন, এবং তাঁরা একাধিকবার প্রতিযোগীতায়ও নেমেছিলেন। বস্তুতঃ 'আলসেস্টিস'-এর জন্য ইউরিপিদেস ২য় হন এমনই এক প্রতিযোগীতায়; ১ম হন সফোক্লিস। খ্রীষ্টপূর্ব ৪৩৮ সালে, অর্থাৎ, আজ হতে ২৪০০ বছরেরও বেশী আগে লেখা এই নাটক খুব যে নতুন কিছু শেখায় আমাদের, তা নয়। নাটকের মূল গল্পটিও ইউরিপিদেস-এর নিজস্ব কোন উদ্ভাবন নয়। নাটকের মূল যে প্রস্তাবনা, গত ২৪০০ বছরে স্থান-কাল-পাত্রভেদে তার বিভিন্ন ব্যখ্যা মানুষ দাঁড় করিয়েছে। অন্তর্জাল ঘাঁটলে এই নাটকের অনেকরকম ওস্তাদী ব্যখ্যার সন্ধান পাওয়া যায়। শনিবারের দুপুরগুলোয় ‘বাবা কেন চাকর’ বা বউ-শ্বাশুড়ির চিরাচরিত দ্বন্দ্বময় বাঙলা সিনেমা দেখে আসা আমার কাছে আর সবকিছু ছাপিয়ে বউ বড় না বাবা বড়-এই দ্বন্দ্বই মুখ্য হয়ে থাকলো। ইউরিপিদেস একটি পৌরাণিক কাহিনীর ওপর ভিত্তি করে 'আলসেস্টিস' নাটকটি লেখেন-যেমনটি তিনি তাঁর অন্য আরো বেশ কয়েকটি নাটকের ক্ষেত্রেই করেছেন। ইউরিপিদেস-এর নাটকটি পুরোপুরি বুঝতে চাইলে পৌরাণিক গল্পটি আগে জানা থাকলে ভালো। সংক্ষেপে গল্পটি তাই নিচে টুকে রাখলামঃ
ইওলকাসের রাজা পিলিয়াস তাঁর সবচেয়ে সুন্দরী কন্যা আলসেস্টিস-এর বিয়ের জন্য পাত্র খুঁজে বিজ্ঞাপন দিয়েছেনঃ যে ব্যক্তি তাঁর রথে একইসাথে একটি সিংহ এবং একটি ভালুক জুড়তে পারবেন তাঁর সুযোগ্য হাতেই আলসেস্টিসকে তিনি তুলে দেবেন। ফিরি’র (phere) রাজা অ্যাডমেটাস এই প্রতিযোগীতায় বিজয়ী হন। অ্যাডমেটাস যে একেবারে হেসেখেলে ভালুক-সিংহকে একঘাটে জল খাওয়ালেন তা-ও নয়; তাঁকে এ কাজে সাহায্য করেন ধনুর্বিদ্যা ও সংগীতের দেবতা অ্যাপোলো, যিনি স্বর্গ থেকে এক বছরের জন্য নির্বাসিত হয়েছেন। এই এক বছর অ্যাপোলোকে অ্যাডমেটাসের অধীনে তাঁর মেষপালক হিসেবে কাজ করতে হয়, এবং সে দায়িত্বের অংশ হিসেবেই তিনি অ্যাডমেটাসকে আলসেস্টিসের পাণি জেতার প্রতিযোগীতায় সাহায্য করেন। অ্যাডমেটাস খুশীমনে আলসেস্টিসকে বিয়ে করলেন বটে, কিন্তু বিয়ে নামক এ মহাযজ্ঞের হুটোপাটিতে তিনি দেবী আর্টেমিসের উদ্দেশ্যে দেয় বলী’র কথা বেমালুম ভুলে গেলেন। দেব-দেবীর রাগ বড় কঠিন; অ্যাডমেটাসের ওপর মৃত্যুর অভিশাপ নেমে এলো বলীদানের কথা ভুলে যাওয়ায়। আবারো অ্যাডমেটাসের সাহায্যে এগিয়ে এলেন অ্যাপোলো। তিনি কৌশলে ভাগ্য রচনাকারী ফিউরিস ভগ্নীত্রয়ীকে (ক্লথো, লাখেসিস, ও অ্যাট্রোপোস) মদ খাইয়ে একটি চুক্তি করিয়ে নিলেন। অ্যাডমেটাসের পরিবর্তে তাঁর পরিবারের অন্য যেকোন সদস্য যদি স্বেচ্ছায় মৃত্যুবরণ করে, তাহলেই প্রাণে বেঁচে যাবেন অ্যাডমেটাস। বৃদ্ধ বাবা-মা’র কাছে গিয়ে অ্যাডমেটাস এবার তাঁদের যেকোন একজনকে স্বেচ্ছামৃত্যু বেছে নিতে বলেন, কিন্তু তাঁরা কেউই এতে রাজী হননা। মৃত্যুচিন্তায় তরুণ অ্যাডমেটাস যখন পাগলপারা, তখন তাঁর স্ত্রী আলসেস্টিস স্বামীর প্রাণরক্ষায় স্বেচ্ছামৃত্যু বেছে নেন।
ইউরিপিদেস তাঁর নাটক শুরু করেছেন আলসেস্টিসের মৃত্যুশয্যায়। অ্যাডমেটাস ও তাঁর সন্তানদের থেকে শুরু করে প্রাসাদের দাস-দাসী, রাজ্যের জনগণ-সবাই-ই আলসেস্টিসের শোকে কাতর। মৃত্যুশয্যায় শুয়ে আলসেস্টিসও স্বামীর কাছ থেকে প্রতিশ্রুতি আদায় করে নিলেন, তাঁর মৃত্যুর পর অ্যাডমেটাস আর কখনোই যেন বিয়ে না করেন (রাজা-রাজড়াদের প্রতিশ্রুতি-তার কতখানি দাম সে আমরা সক্কলেই জানি)। মৃত্যুপথের যাত্রী স্ত্রীকে স্বান্তনা ও প্রতিশ্রুতি দেবার ফাঁকে ফাঁকেই অ্যাডমেটাস তাঁর বাবা ফিরেস (Pheres)-কে বকাঝকা করে আসেন, কেন তিনি এই বুড়ো বয়েসে বেঁচে থাকার গোঁ ধরে আছেন, তিনি মরে গেলেই তো ল্যাঠা চুকে যায়; অ্যাডমেটাসের কমবয়েসী কচি বউটাকে মরতে হয় না। ফিরি নগরীর প্রতিষ্ঠাতা ফিরেস পুত্র অ্যাডমেটাসকে কে দয়া করে রাজার সিংহাসনে বসিয়েছে তা মনে করিয়ে দিয়ে পাল্টা ধমক দিয়ে বলেনঃ
“খামোশ! কার লগে কথা কইতাছত, সেই হিসাব রাখছত?
আমারে কি তর বাজার থিকা কিনা বান্দীর পোলা ভাবছত?
তুই কি ভুইলা গেছত কোন ফ্যামিলির পোলা আমি?
যেই কমোডে বহি আমি, আন্দাজ আছে তর, ঐডা কত দামী?
আবে হালায়, তরে তো আমিই পয়দা দিছি বে
তর লিগা হুদাই আমি জান দিবার যামু ক্যা?
বাপের জন্মে এমুন কথা হুনিনিকা হালায়
নিজে বাঁচনের লিগা পোলায় বাপের জান এক্সচেঞ্জ করবার চায়।
টেগা-পয়সা, জমি-জিরাত, মাইয়া-পোলা, বাদ রাখছি কি?
যখন যা চাইছত, খোদার কসম, দুই হাতে বিলাইছি
কোন মুখে তুই আমারে কস, “এইবার আপনে মরেন, বস”!
লম্বা টাইম বাঁইচা বহুত মজা লইবি-এইডা কি তর একার মনেই চায়?
আমি হালায় বুড়া হইছি, মাগার ইমানে কই, যন্ত্র ভি আমারো ____”।
July 2, 2024
An okayish play praising a wife’s sacrifice for her husband. I didn’t quite feel there was justice within the story, but I suppose that’s often simply how things went back then.
August 1, 2024
The goddesses agreed to let Admetus escape his designated day of death
if he could satisfy the gods below by sending in his place another corpse.
Admetus went to everyone who loved him: his father, and his old mother—who gave him life—
and asked them one by one if they would do it.
No one except his wife would die for him and see the light no more.
if he could satisfy the gods below by sending in his place another corpse.
Admetus went to everyone who loved him: his father, and his old mother—who gave him life—
and asked them one by one if they would do it.
No one except his wife would die for him and see the light no more.
July 3, 2017
Death and Resurrection in Ancient Greece
9 April 2012
I can now understand why they call this a problem play: for most of the play it is a tragedy but suddenly, at the end, everything turns out all right. One commentary I have read on this raises the question of whether it is a masterpiece or a train wreck. What we need to remember though is that this would have been one of the seven plays of Euripides that were selected to be preserved (and I say this because unlike the other two classic playwrights, he have a whole volume of Euripidean plays that came down to us along with the seven masterpieces).
However it is the myth sitting behind this play that we need to consider, and it seems that Euripides actually added nothing to the myth, and the resurrection of Alcestis at the conclusion of the play is something that existed in the original myth. The story was that Alcestis was an incredibly beautiful woman (surprise, surprise) and her father held a contest to see who would be the most worthy suitor - Admentus won the contest. With regards to Admentus, he had helped Apollo by taking care of the god after he had been kicked out of Olympus, and Apollo rewarded Admentus by helping him complete the task to win over Alcestis' father.
However, after the marriage, Admentus did not make the required sacrifice and was to die, but once again Apollo intervened and saved his life by making the furies drunk. The catch was that somebody had to die in Admentus' place. This is a little different than what I gathered from the play, and that was that for helping Apollo, Admentus was given the gift of a longer life, but there was a sting in the tail, and that was that somebody else had to willing give up their life. Admentus' parents basically told him to bugger off, but Alcestis, his wife, stepped in as the sacrifice, much to Ademntus' horror.
The play begins with Alcestis dying, and this happens pretty quickly. However, while Admentus and his household is in mourning, Heracles rocks up on his way to Thrace to complete one of his tasks. Now, hospitality is very, very important to the Greeks, and despite his mourning, Heracles is welcomed into the house and given guest quarters, however he is not told what is happening. Heracles finds out after speaking to a servant, and in appreciation for Admentus opening up his house, he goes and defeats death and brings Alcestis back to life.
Now, here is another instance of resurrection in Greek mythology. Here we have Heracles defeating death to bring someone back to life, however this differs from Christian mythology in that a second person steps in to overturn death, even though he is the son of Zeus. This is more like Jesus bringing Lazerus back to life as opposed to Christ returning from the dead. However we do see glimpses here of the concept of the son of God defeating death.
Admentus is truly a tragic character, probably one of the most tragic of the Greek heroes that I have read, though I note that it is Euripides that seems to use this the best. However, it does not end badly for Admentus, and his tragic flaw: his desire for a long life; does not truly bite him. In a way it causes division within his family, such as with the death of Alcestis and the fact that he drives away his father. Admentus is a truly selfish individual - what right does he have demanding the life of his father-in-law so that he might live longer. It does not work like that, and it seems that Euripides is in agreement.
This play is about death, pure and simple, and how death destroys relationships. We also get a glimpse into the mind of Admentus, as he mourns over the death of his wife. We see that despite his longer life it is no longer a life worth living and in fact he no longer wants to spend any time where he will be reminded of Alcestis' sacrifice. I guess the main reason he mourns so hard is not the futility and meaninglessness of death (as some Christians might suggest) but rather because the death came about through his own selfish desire to live longer.
Yet he does not learn from this, and in fact he is rewarded for his selfishness. Okay, it is clear that the reward comes not from his own failings as a human being, but rather because despite his grief and mourning (though I doubt a psychologist would suggest that this is the natural grief process) he still fulfilled his duty towards his guest. Also, despite his lying to Heracles, Heracles still saw fit to reward him for his hospitality. Still, those last five pages where Alcestis returns from the dead, despite her no longer having a voice in the play, just does not seem to sit right.
9 April 2012
I can now understand why they call this a problem play: for most of the play it is a tragedy but suddenly, at the end, everything turns out all right. One commentary I have read on this raises the question of whether it is a masterpiece or a train wreck. What we need to remember though is that this would have been one of the seven plays of Euripides that were selected to be preserved (and I say this because unlike the other two classic playwrights, he have a whole volume of Euripidean plays that came down to us along with the seven masterpieces).
However it is the myth sitting behind this play that we need to consider, and it seems that Euripides actually added nothing to the myth, and the resurrection of Alcestis at the conclusion of the play is something that existed in the original myth. The story was that Alcestis was an incredibly beautiful woman (surprise, surprise) and her father held a contest to see who would be the most worthy suitor - Admentus won the contest. With regards to Admentus, he had helped Apollo by taking care of the god after he had been kicked out of Olympus, and Apollo rewarded Admentus by helping him complete the task to win over Alcestis' father.
However, after the marriage, Admentus did not make the required sacrifice and was to die, but once again Apollo intervened and saved his life by making the furies drunk. The catch was that somebody had to die in Admentus' place. This is a little different than what I gathered from the play, and that was that for helping Apollo, Admentus was given the gift of a longer life, but there was a sting in the tail, and that was that somebody else had to willing give up their life. Admentus' parents basically told him to bugger off, but Alcestis, his wife, stepped in as the sacrifice, much to Ademntus' horror.
The play begins with Alcestis dying, and this happens pretty quickly. However, while Admentus and his household is in mourning, Heracles rocks up on his way to Thrace to complete one of his tasks. Now, hospitality is very, very important to the Greeks, and despite his mourning, Heracles is welcomed into the house and given guest quarters, however he is not told what is happening. Heracles finds out after speaking to a servant, and in appreciation for Admentus opening up his house, he goes and defeats death and brings Alcestis back to life.
Now, here is another instance of resurrection in Greek mythology. Here we have Heracles defeating death to bring someone back to life, however this differs from Christian mythology in that a second person steps in to overturn death, even though he is the son of Zeus. This is more like Jesus bringing Lazerus back to life as opposed to Christ returning from the dead. However we do see glimpses here of the concept of the son of God defeating death.
Admentus is truly a tragic character, probably one of the most tragic of the Greek heroes that I have read, though I note that it is Euripides that seems to use this the best. However, it does not end badly for Admentus, and his tragic flaw: his desire for a long life; does not truly bite him. In a way it causes division within his family, such as with the death of Alcestis and the fact that he drives away his father. Admentus is a truly selfish individual - what right does he have demanding the life of his father-in-law so that he might live longer. It does not work like that, and it seems that Euripides is in agreement.
This play is about death, pure and simple, and how death destroys relationships. We also get a glimpse into the mind of Admentus, as he mourns over the death of his wife. We see that despite his longer life it is no longer a life worth living and in fact he no longer wants to spend any time where he will be reminded of Alcestis' sacrifice. I guess the main reason he mourns so hard is not the futility and meaninglessness of death (as some Christians might suggest) but rather because the death came about through his own selfish desire to live longer.
Yet he does not learn from this, and in fact he is rewarded for his selfishness. Okay, it is clear that the reward comes not from his own failings as a human being, but rather because despite his grief and mourning (though I doubt a psychologist would suggest that this is the natural grief process) he still fulfilled his duty towards his guest. Also, despite his lying to Heracles, Heracles still saw fit to reward him for his hospitality. Still, those last five pages where Alcestis returns from the dead, despite her no longer having a voice in the play, just does not seem to sit right.
March 28, 2025
این همه زحمت بکش بزا بچه بزرگ کن، بعد که بزرگ شد بابت اینکه حاضر نشدی بهجاش بمیری فحشبارونت کنه:)
November 26, 2017
Por Esculápio (*) ter dado vida aos mortos, foi punido por Zeus que o eliminou com um raio. Apolo (**), irado, matou os Ciclopes (***). Como castigo, Zeus condenou o filho a pastar vacas na cidade grega de Feres, cujo rei era Admeto.
Quando Admeto adoeceu, Apolo, por bondade (****), negociou a vida dele com Tânatos (a Morte). Admeto aceitou a dádiva, convencido que algum servo, ou os pais, se ofereciam imediatamente para morrer por ele. Todos recusaram. Apenas a esposa, Alceste, aceitou o sacrifício.
Hércules visita Admeto durante as exéquias de Alceste. Por o amigo lhe ter escondido que o luto era pela esposa, o herói, no seu quarto e para escândalo dos servos, embebeda-se e canta em altos berros. Ao saber a verdade, Hércules redime-se lutando com Tânatos para lhe arrebatar Alceste.
A peça de Euripides decorre durante o dia da morte de Alceste, dando relevo à sua despedida dos filhos, do marido e da vida.
A parte que achei mais original, e "estranha", foi o diálogo entre Admeto e o pai. A revolta do filho com os pais por se recusarem morrer por ele, e a defesa do pai que, embora chocante para quem tem filhos, está muito bem argumentada. Afinal, Admeto aceita, naturalmente, que outro ser morra no seu lugar...
Agora, vou "armar aos cucos" (mais) um bocadinho...
Estas histórias maravilhosas - que atravessaram séculos e continuam a encantar e comover - foram fonte de inspiração para muitos outros artistas.
— "No entanto ser e não ser são coisas muito diferentes", diz o Hércules de Euripides;
"Ser ou não ser, eis a questão.", diz o Hamlet de Shakespeare.
— Frederic Leighton criou esta beleza. (Ah, o magnífico corpo de Hércules lutando pelo de Alceste!)
(Hercules Wrestling With Death For The Body Of Alcestis)
— Christoph Willibald Gluck compôs a ópera Alceste. Andei horas no YouTube a ouvir árias cantadas por vozes milagrosas. Escolhi, para aqui, Divinites Du Styx, na voz da divina Callas (que não morreu por amor mas, talvez, de amor... "Morrer por amor é um doce sacrifício")
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WXOFWLT...
(*) Esculápio - deus da medicina
(**) Apolo - filho de Zeus e pai de Esculápio
(***) Ciclopes - artesãos dos raios usados por Zeus (Júpiter)
(****) Segundo Ovídio e outros autores foi por estar apaixonado por Admeto.
Quando Admeto adoeceu, Apolo, por bondade (****), negociou a vida dele com Tânatos (a Morte). Admeto aceitou a dádiva, convencido que algum servo, ou os pais, se ofereciam imediatamente para morrer por ele. Todos recusaram. Apenas a esposa, Alceste, aceitou o sacrifício.
Hércules visita Admeto durante as exéquias de Alceste. Por o amigo lhe ter escondido que o luto era pela esposa, o herói, no seu quarto e para escândalo dos servos, embebeda-se e canta em altos berros. Ao saber a verdade, Hércules redime-se lutando com Tânatos para lhe arrebatar Alceste.
A peça de Euripides decorre durante o dia da morte de Alceste, dando relevo à sua despedida dos filhos, do marido e da vida.
A parte que achei mais original, e "estranha", foi o diálogo entre Admeto e o pai. A revolta do filho com os pais por se recusarem morrer por ele, e a defesa do pai que, embora chocante para quem tem filhos, está muito bem argumentada. Afinal, Admeto aceita, naturalmente, que outro ser morra no seu lugar...
Agora, vou "armar aos cucos" (mais) um bocadinho...
Estas histórias maravilhosas - que atravessaram séculos e continuam a encantar e comover - foram fonte de inspiração para muitos outros artistas.
— "No entanto ser e não ser são coisas muito diferentes", diz o Hércules de Euripides;
"Ser ou não ser, eis a questão.", diz o Hamlet de Shakespeare.
— Frederic Leighton criou esta beleza. (Ah, o magnífico corpo de Hércules lutando pelo de Alceste!)
(Hercules Wrestling With Death For The Body Of Alcestis)
— Christoph Willibald Gluck compôs a ópera Alceste. Andei horas no YouTube a ouvir árias cantadas por vozes milagrosas. Escolhi, para aqui, Divinites Du Styx, na voz da divina Callas (que não morreu por amor mas, talvez, de amor... "Morrer por amor é um doce sacrifício")
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WXOFWLT...
(*) Esculápio - deus da medicina
(**) Apolo - filho de Zeus e pai de Esculápio
(***) Ciclopes - artesãos dos raios usados por Zeus (Júpiter)
(****) Segundo Ovídio e outros autores foi por estar apaixonado por Admeto.
November 3, 2024
Questa è la tragedia del sacrificio e dell’amore incondizionato: la protagonista Alcesti, donna decisa e moglie devota, decide di morire al posto di suo marito. Apparentemente, Alcesti potrebbe sembrare un'eroina tragica, ma mi chiedo se il suo sacrificio sia davvero mosso da un amore viscerale, o piuttosto dalla pressione di una società greca che imponeva alle donne di essere subordinate agli uomini, fino al punto di sacrificarsi per loro. Admeto, dal canto suo, rappresenta chiaramente la figura comune dell'uomo terrorizzato dall’idea della morte, disposto a lasciare che sua moglie perda la vita al posto suo senza opporre una ferma resistenza. Un certo dinamismo è introdotto dal personaggio di Eracle che, scendendo nell'Ade per salvare Alcesti, trasforma la tragedia in un racconto a lieto fine. Questo finale felice però rende l'opera meno tipicamente tragica, avvicinandola forse più al mito o all'epos, suggerendo una commistione di generi con un altalenarsi di toni tragici e comici che a dire il vero non ho apprezzato particolarmente. Ad essere onesta, nonostante Euripide abbia uno stile più ricco e vario rispetto ai suoi predecessori, forse è l’autore che apprezzo meno tra i grandi tragediografi greci, ma attendo di leggere altre opere per formare un giudizio più completo sulla sua poetica.
June 26, 2021
“…com efeito, as almas nobres cumprem seu dever vencendo todas e quaisquer barreiras.
Os sentimentos bons são o apanágio dos homens dotados de sapiência.
Somos admiradores incontidos dos mortais realmente generosos e temos a mais firme convicção de que eles afinal serão felizes.”
Apolo conseguiu convencer as Parcas (divindades que controlam o destino) que Ádmeto rei da Tessália se livrasse da morte no dia marcado pelo destino desde que alguém estivesse disposto a morrer em seu lugar. Alceste sua esposa foi a única que se dispôs a se sacrificar por ele. Em meio a tristeza da morte da esposa Ádmeto recebe o herói Héracles como seu hóspede sem contar a ele o acontecido. Quando descobre, Héracles resgata Alceste da Morte e a traz de volta ao palácio.
Os sentimentos bons são o apanágio dos homens dotados de sapiência.
Somos admiradores incontidos dos mortais realmente generosos e temos a mais firme convicção de que eles afinal serão felizes.”
Apolo conseguiu convencer as Parcas (divindades que controlam o destino) que Ádmeto rei da Tessália se livrasse da morte no dia marcado pelo destino desde que alguém estivesse disposto a morrer em seu lugar. Alceste sua esposa foi a única que se dispôs a se sacrificar por ele. Em meio a tristeza da morte da esposa Ádmeto recebe o herói Héracles como seu hóspede sem contar a ele o acontecido. Quando descobre, Héracles resgata Alceste da Morte e a traz de volta ao palácio.
September 4, 2019
Ted Hughes' translation and adaption breathed a freshness and modernity to Euipides' ancient Greek play. In 438 B.C., the Ancient Greeks would have been unfamiliar with Hughes' choices to use in his translation, electro-technocrats, hypodermic syringes, anesthesia, morphine, and asbestos. However, they did not detract but updated the play. I picked up Alcestis after reading about the play in The Silent Patient by Alex Michaelides.
Death has come for Admetos, King of Thessaly. He can live another day if one of his kinfolk will take his place. Everyone he asks, including his elderly parents, refuse. His young wife, Alcestis, volunteers to take his place, and he willingly accepts her sacrifice. He promises her not to marry again and abstain from merrymaking. Admetos faces anger, suffering, despair, grief, and cowardice in his decision to allow the queen to replace him. However, when Heracles appears as a guest immediately after her death, Admetos decides not to tell him and instructs his household not to either. Heracles joyfully drinks and recounts his 12 labors. However, upon learning of Alcestis' death and Admetos' grief, Heracles confronts death to atone for his behavior.
Death has come for Admetos, King of Thessaly. He can live another day if one of his kinfolk will take his place. Everyone he asks, including his elderly parents, refuse. His young wife, Alcestis, volunteers to take his place, and he willingly accepts her sacrifice. He promises her not to marry again and abstain from merrymaking. Admetos faces anger, suffering, despair, grief, and cowardice in his decision to allow the queen to replace him. However, when Heracles appears as a guest immediately after her death, Admetos decides not to tell him and instructs his household not to either. Heracles joyfully drinks and recounts his 12 labors. However, upon learning of Alcestis' death and Admetos' grief, Heracles confronts death to atone for his behavior.
May 19, 2018
In Alcestis, the god Apollo rewards Admetus, king of Pherae in Thessaly, for his hospitality by arranging that on the day of the king's death someone else perishes instead of him. Admetus's old parents (selfishly?) refuse to take his place—his wife Alcestis, however, agrees to die for him. After she dies, in dramatic fashion, Heracles visits Admetus's house; not wanting to turn away a friend by making him feel that he cannot stay and enjoy himself in times of mourning, he conceals the news of his wife's death and receives him with great hospitality. Yet Heracles soon discovers what has happened through the deeply saddened servants. In gratitude to his friend's unwavering hospitality, Heracles goes off to wrestle with Death, duly defeats him, and brings Alcestis back.
There is quite a bit of debate about whether Alcestis is actually a tragedy, given its happy ending. I personally don't think it matters much how we categorize it.
There is quite a bit of debate about whether Alcestis is actually a tragedy, given its happy ending. I personally don't think it matters much how we categorize it.
March 14, 2025
Ladies, if he asks you to die for him in his place, it's time to pack it up.
January 30, 2021
Mmm... posso dire che mi aspettavo di meglio da una tragedia tanto famosa?
Speravo che lo spazio dedicato ad Alcesti fosse maggiore, ma in realtà ho trovato gli scambi tra personaggi piuttosto piatti, eccezion fatta per il dialogo di Admeto con il padre e la conclusione con Eracle.
Speravo che lo spazio dedicato ad Alcesti fosse maggiore, ma in realtà ho trovato gli scambi tra personaggi piuttosto piatti, eccezion fatta per il dialogo di Admeto con il padre e la conclusione con Eracle.
January 6, 2022
تراجيديا يونانية عن تضحية الكستيس زوجة الملك أدميتيوس بحياتها مقابل بقاء زوجها على قيد الحياة وظور البطل هرقل الذي أعادها الى الحياة. هنالك دوماً متعة مختلفة للمسرحيات
April 10, 2024
It made me tear up, Euripides never disappoints.
Read
January 12, 2024Prevodi Aleksandra Gatalice večno bizarna kombinacija istančane pažnje posvećene metrici, osećaja za dramski efekat i anahronih izraza poput "boks", "svetica" i "komandovati".
Svađanje dva kukavna muškarca, oca i sina, o zakonu i običajima nad grobom junački usmrćene žene svakako je scena koja ne gubi na svežini.
Svađanje dva kukavna muškarca, oca i sina, o zakonu i običajima nad grobom junački usmrćene žene svakako je scena koja ne gubi na svežini.
November 27, 2024
Admet: gurl, get yourself together
Alkestis: you didn’t have to do this girliepop, he doesn’t deserve you
Alkestis: you didn’t have to do this girliepop, he doesn’t deserve you
January 8, 2020
Tragedia que acaba bien, la verdad. Por un lado, tenemos el sacrificio de la amante esposa, por otro, la lucha con la Muerte. Ya quisiéramos poder arrebatarle un cuerpo a la Muerte, lo que parece muy moderno, pero todo está en los griegos.
May 12, 2017
3.5/5
I think it’s hard to judge a version of a play when you haven’t read the original, so forgive me for dropping critics on the story line instead of on the adaptation.
I thought this play was very interesting. Admetos is going to die, but he is afraid to. Since no one wants to die in his place, his wife Alcestis decides to do so. Everything that comes from this is quite thought-provoking. Admetos begs Alcestis to stay with him and he mourns her loss, which is all very ironic since he let her die. The most powerful part, though, is when Admetos gets mad at his father for not dying for him and they start arguing over whose fault it is that Alcestis died, and I thought these parts were the best, because it's about the real reason that Alcestis died:
Which develops into an even bigger argument (where I was totally like OOOOHHHH. TELL HIM BOIII :)) ).
So to me, everything involving the selfishness of Admetos was really interesting. And I thought the part where Heracles gets totally wasted and is reenacting all his heroic deeds with his servants was pretty comical.
What I didn’t like, however, was that Alcestis is being brought back, for two reasons. One, Heracles is being the hero again, which he really doesn’t deserve because it just boosts his ego. Two, Admetos doesn’t deserve it at all! I read in other reviews that this happy ending is to think about what’s left unsaid, but I just didn’t experience it that way. (Three, no juicy details about how it went - just two sentences about it from Heracles). I also got a bit annoyed by how God is being portrayed as non-omnipotent, and I thought it didn’t really add much to the story.
All in all it's surely not a bad read and it reads pretty easily so it's worth the try! :)
I think it’s hard to judge a version of a play when you haven’t read the original, so forgive me for dropping critics on the story line instead of on the adaptation.
I thought this play was very interesting. Admetos is going to die, but he is afraid to. Since no one wants to die in his place, his wife Alcestis decides to do so. Everything that comes from this is quite thought-provoking. Admetos begs Alcestis to stay with him and he mourns her loss, which is all very ironic since he let her die. The most powerful part, though, is when Admetos gets mad at his father for not dying for him and they start arguing over whose fault it is that Alcestis died, and I thought these parts were the best, because it's about the real reason that Alcestis died:
Pheres:
(...)
You call me a coward?
Be careful what names you use for us
Who failed to die for you, at your request.
Think of the names that will be found for you.
Admetos:
(...)
Let the noblest woman on this earth
Die because he dare not.
He knows he made a mistake.
Pheres:
The only mistake would have been
Dying for you. The mistake
Made by that poor fool there, Alcestis.
Which develops into an even bigger argument (where I was totally like OOOOHHHH. TELL HIM BOIII :)) ).
So to me, everything involving the selfishness of Admetos was really interesting. And I thought the part where Heracles gets totally wasted and is reenacting all his heroic deeds with his servants was pretty comical.
What I didn’t like, however, was that Alcestis is being brought back, for two reasons. One, Heracles is being the hero again, which he really doesn’t deserve because it just boosts his ego. Two, Admetos doesn’t deserve it at all! I read in other reviews that this happy ending is to think about what’s left unsaid, but I just didn’t experience it that way. (Three, no juicy details about how it went - just two sentences about it from Heracles). I also got a bit annoyed by how God is being portrayed as non-omnipotent, and I thought it didn’t really add much to the story.
All in all it's surely not a bad read and it reads pretty easily so it's worth the try! :)
August 1, 2019
Όχι τυχαία ο Ευρυπίδης έχει χαρακτηριστεί ως ¨από σκηνής φιλόσοφος". Ένα δραματικό έργο που κάθε στίχος αποτελεί μια ευκαιρία να στοχαστείς, να συγκινηθείς, να απορήσεις όταν συνειδητοποιείς πότε γράφτηκε...
Το έργο αφορά στην εθελοθυσία της βασίλισσας Άλκηστις που προθυμοποιείται να θυσιαστεί για να μην πεθάνει ο βασιλιάς άνδρα της και εμείς την "συναντούμε" όταν αυτή πλέον ψυχορραγεί. Ο χορός αναρωτιέται αν όντως πέθανε εγκωμιάζοντας τη βασίλισσα για την θυσία της.
Στο πρώτο "επεισόδιο¨η θεράπαινα υπηρέτρια μιλά για το θρήνο των παιδιών αλλά και των δούλων της Άλκηστις και την προετοιμασία της ίδιας για το θάνατο. Το έργο κορυφώνεται με την συνάντηση των συζήγων με το βασιλιά να υπόσχεται ισόβιο πενθος.
Στο πρώτο "στάσιμο" ο χορός κακίζει τους γέροντες γονείς του Άδμητου που δεν προθυμοποιήθηκαν οι ίδιοι να θυσιαστούν. Στο δεύτερο επεισόδιο ο Ηρακλής φιλοξενείται α��ό τον Άδμητο νομίζωντας ότι πενθεί για κάποιο μακρινό ξένο. Μετά από μια εκρηκτική συνάντηση-κατηγορητήριο του Άδμητου με τον πατέρα του Φέρητα, ο Ηρακλής μαθαίνει τον πραγματικό λόγο του πένθους και αποχωρεί αποφασισμένος να βοηθήσει και καταφέρνει να απομακρύνει την βασίλισσα από τον Θάνατο φέρνοντας την πίσω τάχα ως έπαθλο από κάποιον αγώνα. Τελικά ο βασιλιάς την αναγνωρίζει και ο χορός κλείνει δίνοντας έμφαση στις θεεικές δυνάμεις που μπορούν να αλλάζουν όσα θεωρούμε αναπόφευκτα.
"Αφέντρα μου, έρχομαι πια κι εγώ κάτω στη γή
προσπέφτοντάς σου θα σε παρακαλέσω για τελευταία φορά
τα ορφανά παιδιά να προστατέψεις, στο γιο μου αξιαγάπητη γυναίκα δώσε και στην κόρη μου άνδρα καταγωγής μεγάλης. Μήτε όπως χάνομαι εγώ που τα γέννησα να πεθάνουν πρόωρα τα παιδιά μου, αλλλά ευτυχισμένα να περάσουν ευχάριστη ζωή.
Το έργο αφορά στην εθελοθυσία της βασίλισσας Άλκηστις που προθυμοποιείται να θυσιαστεί για να μην πεθάνει ο βασιλιάς άνδρα της και εμείς την "συναντούμε" όταν αυτή πλέον ψυχορραγεί. Ο χορός αναρωτιέται αν όντως πέθανε εγκωμιάζοντας τη βασίλισσα για την θυσία της.
Στο πρώτο "επεισόδιο¨η θεράπαινα υπηρέτρια μιλά για το θρήνο των παιδιών αλλά και των δούλων της Άλκηστις και την προετοιμασία της ίδιας για το θάνατο. Το έργο κορυφώνεται με την συνάντηση των συζήγων με το βασιλιά να υπόσχεται ισόβιο πενθος.
Στο πρώτο "στάσιμο" ο χορός κακίζει τους γέροντες γονείς του Άδμητου που δεν προθυμοποιήθηκαν οι ίδιοι να θυσιαστούν. Στο δεύτερο επεισόδιο ο Ηρακλής φιλοξενείται α��ό τον Άδμητο νομίζωντας ότι πενθεί για κάποιο μακρινό ξένο. Μετά από μια εκρηκτική συνάντηση-κατηγορητήριο του Άδμητου με τον πατέρα του Φέρητα, ο Ηρακλής μαθαίνει τον πραγματικό λόγο του πένθους και αποχωρεί αποφασισμένος να βοηθήσει και καταφέρνει να απομακρύνει την βασίλισσα από τον Θάνατο φέρνοντας την πίσω τάχα ως έπαθλο από κάποιον αγώνα. Τελικά ο βασιλιάς την αναγνωρίζει και ο χορός κλείνει δίνοντας έμφαση στις θεεικές δυνάμεις που μπορούν να αλλάζουν όσα θεωρούμε αναπόφευκτα.
"Αφέντρα μου, έρχομαι πια κι εγώ κάτω στη γή
προσπέφτοντάς σου θα σε παρακαλέσω για τελευταία φορά
τα ορφανά παιδιά να προστατέψεις, στο γιο μου αξιαγάπητη γυναίκα δώσε και στην κόρη μου άνδρα καταγωγής μεγάλης. Μήτε όπως χάνομαι εγώ που τα γέννησα να πεθάνουν πρόωρα τα παιδιά μου, αλλλά ευτυχισμένα να περάσουν ευχάριστη ζωή.
Read
February 18, 2021Euripides'in bu tiyatrosunda ölümün çepeçevre sarmaladığı bir kralın kendi yaşamına karşı yaptığı bir pazarlık ve bundan duyduğu suçlulukla birleşen bir hikaye anlatılıyor. Ancak hikayenin yüzeyini kazdığınızda yaşamın ve ölümün anlamı, her şeyin kısalığı, zaman, mekan ve hatta misafirperverlik gibi sayısız konunun felsefi olarak sorguya açıldığı görülüyor. Okurken sürekli "acaba ne olacak" dediğim bu tiyatroda, final bölümünde giderek artan gizem ve merak "acaba sahnede izlesem nasıl olurdu" düşüncesini uyandırmıyor değil.
Bu yılki hedeflerimden birisi olan okumadığım antik Yunan ve Shakespeare tiyatrolarını bitirme planım dahilinde okuduğum ilk kitap oldu. Devamı gelecek.
Bu yılki hedeflerimden birisi olan okumadığım antik Yunan ve Shakespeare tiyatrolarını bitirme planım dahilinde okuduğum ilk kitap oldu. Devamı gelecek.
May 5, 2025
Lo único que supo hacer bien Admeto es darle hospitalidad a Heracles. De ahí en fuera no hace más que lamentarse y quejarse con su papá de porqué no murió por él. Alcestis lo tuvo que querer demasiado para sacrificarse por semejante hombre.
No obstante, los diálogos de Feres y Heracles son los que dan vida a esta obra llena de tantos dilemas y una ligera ironía en la trama. Esta obra termina siendo más una sátira que una tragedia.
No obstante, los diálogos de Feres y Heracles son los que dan vida a esta obra llena de tantos dilemas y una ligera ironía en la trama. Esta obra termina siendo más una sátira que una tragedia.
July 4, 2024
Admetus is so annoying. Why are you blaming your father for not dying for you when you had your wife die for you??? He should have been punished....
December 14, 2024
Mein Herz schlägt für Euripides <3
September 14, 2025
6.0 / 5.0
I remembered this play in a wrong context from somewhere, and kept expecting Admetus to betray Alcestis as soon as she died. To my pleasant surprise, Admetus proved to be as loving and virtuous in their marriage as was Alcestis. That was nice.
There are certainly layers to this play which Euripides so skillfully constructed. But above all this is just a pretty good story, and a beautiful portrayal of married life vs the realities (Necessity) a human life is set against.
~ 5 Sept, 2025
I remembered this play in a wrong context from somewhere, and kept expecting Admetus to betray Alcestis as soon as she died. To my pleasant surprise, Admetus proved to be as loving and virtuous in their marriage as was Alcestis. That was nice.
There are certainly layers to this play which Euripides so skillfully constructed. But above all this is just a pretty good story, and a beautiful portrayal of married life vs the realities (Necessity) a human life is set against.
~ 5 Sept, 2025
February 20, 2022
El amor es representado por el sacrificio de Alcestis, esposa de Admeto. Ella decide perder su vida por salvar la de su esposo. Gran ejemplo de amor.
August 7, 2013
Admetos, king of Thessaly, is cursed to die young. Being a good king, the call goes out for someone to take on his early death. After everyone declines, including his aging parents, his wife, Alcestis, chooses to die.
First and foremost, this play is a meditation on the horror of profound loss. In the stark wailing language of Greek plays, that emotion is distilled and magnified.
ADMETOS
"...a pain too huge to utter.
Pain, dark pain.
Instead of light-pain
No refuge anywhere in me
From this fire, this huge dark single flame
that caresses my whole body "
While Admetos grief forms the center of the play, there are a number of satellite scenes that circle this dark core, each of which explores some aspect of the experience of death and grief. I'll go through some of them so you can see how this play worked for me and how it earned five stars.
**************
Admetus admits Hercules as an honored guest and hides the death of his wife, for fear his friend would avoid burdening his grieving host. Hercules gets drunk, and acts out his labors, all twelve of them, including those he's yet to complete as well as the freeing of Prometheus. Afterward, he wakes from his stupor and learns the truth: He's been partying while his best friend's wife lies dead.
This play within a play is fun for mythology buffs who get to count off the labors of Hercules (as it must've been for the ancient Greek audience). It also further explores how we hide death from ourselves. Hercules labors, completed in a drunken stupor, could easily correspond to the labors of humanity, undertaken in ignorance of the tragedy of death. We feel that same sudden shock when we remember that we have been working and playing in the shadow of death.
Another seeming digression is Admetus's argument with his parents. Who deserved to die, who deserved to take this death that was ultimately meant for Admetus? Who among us doesn't suppose, when a death occurs that someone else could have taken it for themselves? The questions people like to ask is, was Admetus selfish to stay alive? Was he sexist? (Probably, yeah.) But the point isn't to judge but to expose this emotional and poisonous reasoning that each of us carries within us. The chorus sees it's not really a quarrel between the king and his parents:
CHORUS
"Admetos is trying to gnaw himself
free from Admetos. Admetos
is spitting out the torn flesh and blood
of Admetos"
How devastatingly gory and profound!
******************
I can't do justice to the scope of this play. Here we explore the public and private spheres of grief. We explore duty and selfishness and the potential worth of one life over another. There are enough puzzles here for years of study. In the end, it's not important that we make sense of this massive work. It is enough that it cracks open the inner experience of grief, the agonies of life, hope, and despair in the face of fated death. Admetus's burden, and the burden of every human being, is transmuted into something inexplicably fine. Here is the essential power of the theater on full display.
A note on the translation: This translations is that of UK poet laureate Ted Hughes, and I think it's superb (I've no comparisons). It does contain anachronisms. I'm usually not cool with that, but as you can tell from my review, it didn't seem to bother me. I'm no scholar, but I suspect he took other liberties. As a stand alone work, this is one of the most incredible books I've ever read, but I wouldn't use this translation if I were making a serious study of Euripides.
First and foremost, this play is a meditation on the horror of profound loss. In the stark wailing language of Greek plays, that emotion is distilled and magnified.
ADMETOS
"...a pain too huge to utter.
Pain, dark pain.
Instead of light-pain
No refuge anywhere in me
From this fire, this huge dark single flame
that caresses my whole body "
While Admetos grief forms the center of the play, there are a number of satellite scenes that circle this dark core, each of which explores some aspect of the experience of death and grief. I'll go through some of them so you can see how this play worked for me and how it earned five stars.
**************
Admetus admits Hercules as an honored guest and hides the death of his wife, for fear his friend would avoid burdening his grieving host. Hercules gets drunk, and acts out his labors, all twelve of them, including those he's yet to complete as well as the freeing of Prometheus. Afterward, he wakes from his stupor and learns the truth: He's been partying while his best friend's wife lies dead.
This play within a play is fun for mythology buffs who get to count off the labors of Hercules (as it must've been for the ancient Greek audience). It also further explores how we hide death from ourselves. Hercules labors, completed in a drunken stupor, could easily correspond to the labors of humanity, undertaken in ignorance of the tragedy of death. We feel that same sudden shock when we remember that we have been working and playing in the shadow of death.
Another seeming digression is Admetus's argument with his parents. Who deserved to die, who deserved to take this death that was ultimately meant for Admetus? Who among us doesn't suppose, when a death occurs that someone else could have taken it for themselves? The questions people like to ask is, was Admetus selfish to stay alive? Was he sexist? (Probably, yeah.) But the point isn't to judge but to expose this emotional and poisonous reasoning that each of us carries within us. The chorus sees it's not really a quarrel between the king and his parents:
CHORUS
"Admetos is trying to gnaw himself
free from Admetos. Admetos
is spitting out the torn flesh and blood
of Admetos"
How devastatingly gory and profound!
******************
I can't do justice to the scope of this play. Here we explore the public and private spheres of grief. We explore duty and selfishness and the potential worth of one life over another. There are enough puzzles here for years of study. In the end, it's not important that we make sense of this massive work. It is enough that it cracks open the inner experience of grief, the agonies of life, hope, and despair in the face of fated death. Admetus's burden, and the burden of every human being, is transmuted into something inexplicably fine. Here is the essential power of the theater on full display.
A note on the translation: This translations is that of UK poet laureate Ted Hughes, and I think it's superb (I've no comparisons). It does contain anachronisms. I'm usually not cool with that, but as you can tell from my review, it didn't seem to bother me. I'm no scholar, but I suspect he took other liberties. As a stand alone work, this is one of the most incredible books I've ever read, but I wouldn't use this translation if I were making a serious study of Euripides.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 465 reviews