Status
Available
Call number
Library's review
Grækenland i oldtiden
Jason har svigtet sin hustru Medea og hun tager en grusom hævn ved først at dræbe hans nye brud og denne far og derefter dræbe sine og Jasons børn. Forhistorien er at Jason vandt det gyldne skind og Medea ved at hun forrådte sin slægt, så det er svært at klandre hende
Fremragende historie og skuespil.
Jason har svigtet sin hustru Medea og hun tager en grusom hævn ved først at dræbe hans nye brud og denne far og derefter dræbe sine og Jasons børn. Forhistorien er at Jason vandt det gyldne skind og Medea ved at hun forrådte sin slægt, så det er svært at klandre hende
Show More
at hun bliver lidt sur.Fremragende historie og skuespil.
Show Less
Genres
Publication
[Kbh.] Gyldendal 1973, 8. oplag
Description
The Medea of Euripides is one of the greatest of all Greek tragedies and arguably the one with the most significance today. A barbarian woman brought to Corinth and there abandoned by her Greek husband, Medea seeks vengeance on Jason and is willing to strike out against his new wife and family-even slaughtering the sons she has born him. At its center is Medea herself, a character who refuses definition: Is she a hero, a witch, a psychopath, a goddess? All that can be said for certain is that she is a woman who has loved, has suffered, and will stop at nothing for vengeance. In this stunning translation, poet Charles Martin captures the rhythms of Euripides' original text through contemporary rhyme and meter that speak directly to modern readers. An introduction by classicist and poet A.E. Stallings examines the complex and multifaceted Medea in patriarchal ancient Greece. Perfect in and out of the classroom as well as for theatrical performance, this faithful translation succeeds like no other.… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member KaitlynEyre
Disturbing, uninteresting, melodramatic-which makes since it is a drama. Helpful for studying that time period and greek myths but not a fun read if you are otherwise inclined.
LibraryThing member booksontrial
Despair, Anger and Hatred
"Anger arises from offences against oneself, enmity may arise ...because of what we take to be their character. Anger is accompanied by pain, hatred is not;... for the one would have the offenders suffer for what they have done; the other would have them cease to
--Aristotle in "The Art of Rhetoric"
Medea, princess of Colchis and granddaughter of Helios, was both angry and hateful toward her husband Jason, who dishonored her by deserting her and their two children and marrying another woman, after he had sworn a solemn oath to her, and she had left her father, home and country to be with him. In revenge, she not only murdered Jason's bride and the bride's father by a cunning scheme, but also killed her own two children, for she knew that it would make him suffer the most, though she herself was also pained.
By killing Jason's bride and two children, Medea made him suffer for what he had done to her, he would feel the pain of losing everything and the only thing that he cared for -- for her the love of her husband and the honor and integrity their marital union, for him the advancement and security of his political status; Not only that, he would have no children to build his fame and continue his line, nor any chance of begetting others since his bride was dead. He, "the basest of men", would live to suffer, and yet cease to exist.
There is a precedent in Greek mythology. Procne, princess of Athens, killed her son and fed him to her husband King Tereus of Thrace, after the latter had raped her sister Philomela and cut out her tongue to silence her. The motive for the filicide was similar, i.e., to make the offender suffer and perish at the same time.
If the aim of tragedy is to arouse fear and pity, as Aristotle wrote in "Poetics", this Greek tragedy by Euripides has certainly achieved its aim: it arouses fear in men and pity in women.
Quote:
Jason: "Yea, men should have begotten children from some other source, no female race existing; thus would no evil ever have fallen on mankind."
"Anger arises from offences against oneself, enmity may arise ...because of what we take to be their character. Anger is accompanied by pain, hatred is not;... for the one would have the offenders suffer for what they have done; the other would have them cease to
Show More
exist."--Aristotle in "The Art of Rhetoric"
Medea, princess of Colchis and granddaughter of Helios, was both angry and hateful toward her husband Jason, who dishonored her by deserting her and their two children and marrying another woman, after he had sworn a solemn oath to her, and she had left her father, home and country to be with him. In revenge, she not only murdered Jason's bride and the bride's father by a cunning scheme, but also killed her own two children, for she knew that it would make him suffer the most, though she herself was also pained.
By killing Jason's bride and two children, Medea made him suffer for what he had done to her, he would feel the pain of losing everything and the only thing that he cared for -- for her the love of her husband and the honor and integrity their marital union, for him the advancement and security of his political status; Not only that, he would have no children to build his fame and continue his line, nor any chance of begetting others since his bride was dead. He, "the basest of men", would live to suffer, and yet cease to exist.
There is a precedent in Greek mythology. Procne, princess of Athens, killed her son and fed him to her husband King Tereus of Thrace, after the latter had raped her sister Philomela and cut out her tongue to silence her. The motive for the filicide was similar, i.e., to make the offender suffer and perish at the same time.
If the aim of tragedy is to arouse fear and pity, as Aristotle wrote in "Poetics", this Greek tragedy by Euripides has certainly achieved its aim: it arouses fear in men and pity in women.
Quote:
Jason: "Yea, men should have begotten children from some other source, no female race existing; thus would no evil ever have fallen on mankind."
Show Less
LibraryThing member stacy_chambers
Not sure what I think of the translation, but I liked that this was annotated.
LibraryThing member LaneLiterati
The ultimate story of betrayal and tragedy.
LibraryThing member David.Alfred.Sarkies
Surely, of all creatures that have life and will, we women
Are the most wretched. When, for an extravagant sum,
We have bought a husband, we must then accept him as
Possessor of our body. This is to aggravate
Wrong with worse wrong. Then the great question: will the man
We get be bad or good? For
Respectable; to repel the man, not possible. (Trans Phillip Veracott)
These few lines near the opening of Euripides' Medea pretty much describes what life was like for women in Ancient Greece: it was not pretty. What struck me when I read this play again (and it is one of my favourites) is how astute Euripides was to the plight of Greek women, and it was not as if it was any better elsewhere. Granted, women did have more rights in Ancient Rome (and would become very astute political maneuverers, such as Nero's mother Agripina) but in general the freedoms that women have won over the past 150 years are probably the furthest that they have come to participate in society than any other time throughout history (with a few exceptions).
I should talk about about the play and its background (the legend that is, not the writing of it, which took place just prior to the Peloponesian War). The play is set sometime after Jason's return to Greece after obtaining the Golden Fleece from Cholchis. When he was in Cholcis, he had wooed Medea, the daughter of the king, and with her aid managed to steal the fleece and escape, but in doing so Medea was forced not only to kill her brother but renounce her citizenship of Colchis never to return. Years later, after they returned to Greece, Jason and Medea married and had children. However, Jason received an offer from King Creon of Corinth to marry his daughter and thus take the throne, so he pretty much ditched Medea, arranged for her exile, and shacked up with his new wife.
If I can describe the play in one sentence, it would be 'hell hath no fury like a woman scorned'. Let all men out there understand this, and if there is one piece of literature I would recommend that all men who wish to have a relationship with a woman should read it should be this one. It is not so much that Medea is a noble character, she is not. She poisons Jason's wife and father-in-law, and then proceeds to murder both of her children, and this is after she forced an oath out of the King of Athens to provide her protection, no matter what. Medea is not a lovely person, and despite the argument that she was driven to this point by a nasty man just simply does not cut it. I agree that Jason is not a noble man either, but still does not justify Medea's actions.
One can simply feel the pain of Medea in this play as she struggles with this change to her life. Yes, she acts on instinct and out of vengeance, but she has renounced her country and her people and fled to an alien land, all over the love of a man, only to discover that this man discards her once she is no longer needed by him. As she says, a Greek woman still has family and friends, whereas she has nobody (not quite true, as she secured sanctuary in Athens). We are reminded, over and over again, of the plight that is to be a woman, and an alien woman, in Ancient Greece, and it is not pleasant.
Does Euripides' write a decent female character then? Well, that is difficult since we have fragments of only one female Greek poet, and that is Sappho. Everything else is written by men, though not necessarily about men. I believe Medea's character is representative of a woman scorned, seeking vengeance upon he who discarded her. She cries, and is in deep emotional pain, but then lines like 'it is the nature of a woman to cry' is clearly the writing of a man. However Euripides is different from the other Greek playwrights in that he stands up for the woman, and we see this clearly in this play. There are others where he covers such themes as well, but we will look at them when we do. Further, not all of Greek literature deals only with strong men and weak women. Homer's Odyssey is a clear example of this as Penelope is painted as a strong, loyal, and dedicated woman that we resist even the wise men to remain faithful to a husband that she believes is still alive. Further, we have gods like Athena and Artemis, who clearly break out of that mould that we like to put Greek women into (both of these gods are major gods, not married to any other gods, are warriors, and are worshipped by many Greeks of the time).
Another thing that struck me in this play this time is the nature of children. Medea weeps about how it is difficult to know how a child turns out. Is all that time wasted in raising the child, only to see him either turn bad, or die in a war? Many parents fret and worry about that, and sometimes the more we worry, the less we actually look into ourselves and ask what can we do to make the situation better. This is a fallen world, and people die in fallen worlds: it is a fact of life. Death will always be painful, but sometimes we need to accept this. The more we try to mould our children into what we want, the more we force them away from us: many a piece of literature explores this (especially these days, just see Dead Poet's Society). However, Medea slays her children, if only out of spite.
I have heard many people suggest that Christianity has made the world worse, not better, and that is something that I must heartily dispute. All we need to do is to look at the pre-Christian world to see how horrid and barbaric it was. In many of the Greek tragedies there are no noble characters. There are only two truly noble characters that I can think of in Greek antiquity, one of them being Penelope, the other being Leonidas. Athens, the beacon of freedom and democracy, oppressed women and maintained a slave economy. Further, during the early days of the Peloponesian War, they attacked the island of Mytilene, sacked the place, killed all of the men, and enslaved all of the women and children. While we may have had issues with the way the United States (and Britain) have acted in other lands, I cannot think (with the exception of the period of slavery) of any time where they have acted in such a way. Further, while birth control has always been around, the ancients would deal with unwanted pregnancies by breaking the baby's legs, and then leaving them in the wilderness to die.
Are the most wretched. When, for an extravagant sum,
We have bought a husband, we must then accept him as
Possessor of our body. This is to aggravate
Wrong with worse wrong. Then the great question: will the man
We get be bad or good? For
Show More
woman, divorce is notRespectable; to repel the man, not possible. (Trans Phillip Veracott)
These few lines near the opening of Euripides' Medea pretty much describes what life was like for women in Ancient Greece: it was not pretty. What struck me when I read this play again (and it is one of my favourites) is how astute Euripides was to the plight of Greek women, and it was not as if it was any better elsewhere. Granted, women did have more rights in Ancient Rome (and would become very astute political maneuverers, such as Nero's mother Agripina) but in general the freedoms that women have won over the past 150 years are probably the furthest that they have come to participate in society than any other time throughout history (with a few exceptions).
I should talk about about the play and its background (the legend that is, not the writing of it, which took place just prior to the Peloponesian War). The play is set sometime after Jason's return to Greece after obtaining the Golden Fleece from Cholchis. When he was in Cholcis, he had wooed Medea, the daughter of the king, and with her aid managed to steal the fleece and escape, but in doing so Medea was forced not only to kill her brother but renounce her citizenship of Colchis never to return. Years later, after they returned to Greece, Jason and Medea married and had children. However, Jason received an offer from King Creon of Corinth to marry his daughter and thus take the throne, so he pretty much ditched Medea, arranged for her exile, and shacked up with his new wife.
If I can describe the play in one sentence, it would be 'hell hath no fury like a woman scorned'. Let all men out there understand this, and if there is one piece of literature I would recommend that all men who wish to have a relationship with a woman should read it should be this one. It is not so much that Medea is a noble character, she is not. She poisons Jason's wife and father-in-law, and then proceeds to murder both of her children, and this is after she forced an oath out of the King of Athens to provide her protection, no matter what. Medea is not a lovely person, and despite the argument that she was driven to this point by a nasty man just simply does not cut it. I agree that Jason is not a noble man either, but still does not justify Medea's actions.
One can simply feel the pain of Medea in this play as she struggles with this change to her life. Yes, she acts on instinct and out of vengeance, but she has renounced her country and her people and fled to an alien land, all over the love of a man, only to discover that this man discards her once she is no longer needed by him. As she says, a Greek woman still has family and friends, whereas she has nobody (not quite true, as she secured sanctuary in Athens). We are reminded, over and over again, of the plight that is to be a woman, and an alien woman, in Ancient Greece, and it is not pleasant.
Does Euripides' write a decent female character then? Well, that is difficult since we have fragments of only one female Greek poet, and that is Sappho. Everything else is written by men, though not necessarily about men. I believe Medea's character is representative of a woman scorned, seeking vengeance upon he who discarded her. She cries, and is in deep emotional pain, but then lines like 'it is the nature of a woman to cry' is clearly the writing of a man. However Euripides is different from the other Greek playwrights in that he stands up for the woman, and we see this clearly in this play. There are others where he covers such themes as well, but we will look at them when we do. Further, not all of Greek literature deals only with strong men and weak women. Homer's Odyssey is a clear example of this as Penelope is painted as a strong, loyal, and dedicated woman that we resist even the wise men to remain faithful to a husband that she believes is still alive. Further, we have gods like Athena and Artemis, who clearly break out of that mould that we like to put Greek women into (both of these gods are major gods, not married to any other gods, are warriors, and are worshipped by many Greeks of the time).
Another thing that struck me in this play this time is the nature of children. Medea weeps about how it is difficult to know how a child turns out. Is all that time wasted in raising the child, only to see him either turn bad, or die in a war? Many parents fret and worry about that, and sometimes the more we worry, the less we actually look into ourselves and ask what can we do to make the situation better. This is a fallen world, and people die in fallen worlds: it is a fact of life. Death will always be painful, but sometimes we need to accept this. The more we try to mould our children into what we want, the more we force them away from us: many a piece of literature explores this (especially these days, just see Dead Poet's Society). However, Medea slays her children, if only out of spite.
I have heard many people suggest that Christianity has made the world worse, not better, and that is something that I must heartily dispute. All we need to do is to look at the pre-Christian world to see how horrid and barbaric it was. In many of the Greek tragedies there are no noble characters. There are only two truly noble characters that I can think of in Greek antiquity, one of them being Penelope, the other being Leonidas. Athens, the beacon of freedom and democracy, oppressed women and maintained a slave economy. Further, during the early days of the Peloponesian War, they attacked the island of Mytilene, sacked the place, killed all of the men, and enslaved all of the women and children. While we may have had issues with the way the United States (and Britain) have acted in other lands, I cannot think (with the exception of the period of slavery) of any time where they have acted in such a way. Further, while birth control has always been around, the ancients would deal with unwanted pregnancies by breaking the baby's legs, and then leaving them in the wilderness to die.
Show Less
LibraryThing member janerawoof
Penetrating psychological study of Medea, the wronged wife, and Jason, the unfeeling, selfish contemptible husband. Classic revenge tragedy.
LibraryThing member London_StJ
While my experience with Greek theatre is far from extensive, I feel comfortable proclaiming a general interest in and enjoyment of the genre. I find the level of bawdiness in the satyr plays and comedies extremely entertaining, and I find myself moved and repulsed by the tragedies in such a way
That is, until reading "Medea." Rarely do I come across a protagonist so static and repulsive in her inability to invoke emotion; Medea's actions, rather than her words or character, propel the plot, and the presentation of those actions is wooden at best. As a reader I felt myself moved only for the fate of her sons, and for that I credit my own maternal state over the development of the text.
As always, I am willing to shift some blame to the particular translation, because no translator can help but influence the text in his work. My desire to read Euripides has been sated. I'll return to Sophocles and Aristophanes with pleasure.
Show More
that I would never deny their literary superiority.That is, until reading "Medea." Rarely do I come across a protagonist so static and repulsive in her inability to invoke emotion; Medea's actions, rather than her words or character, propel the plot, and the presentation of those actions is wooden at best. As a reader I felt myself moved only for the fate of her sons, and for that I credit my own maternal state over the development of the text.
As always, I am willing to shift some blame to the particular translation, because no translator can help but influence the text in his work. My desire to read Euripides has been sated. I'll return to Sophocles and Aristophanes with pleasure.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Helenliz
This is rather though provoking. Medea has history here, we come in at the end of her story, this is set in just a few hours. But it would make little to no sense without understanding how she came to be in Corinth and why Jason, her husband in all but the legal sense, feels that he can up and
When the play opens, Jason's marriage to Creon's daughter (who, I think, goes unnamed throughout, which is interesting) has been planned and Creon banishes Medea, for fear that she may do him or his daughter harm. He allows her one day to leave - and calls himself a fool for allowing her the time - how right he is proven.
I struggle to see how the chorus fit in here, if they were ladies of Corinth, would they really have stood by when Medea expands on her plot against the bride and her father? It feels unlikely, so I'm uncertain of who they are. In the play they serve as a foil to the action, taking the news and digesting it as we do the same, casting it into a different light or reviewing it.
Medea leaves the stage under her own agency, relying on her lineage as the daughter of the son of the Sun, but she does so under her own agency. She leaves Corinth in a very different state than it was a few hours earlier. I can;t say that I understand her, or her actions, but she does feel real, which is a thing when this was written 2.5 thousand years ago.
I wonder what this is like staged...
Show More
marry someone else. Medea, unsurprisingly, doesn't see it that way. The play is dominated by her, with her presence on stage for the majority of the play. She faces Jason, Creon (the king of Corinth) and Aegeus (King of Athens) and manages to shock the first 2 severely. When the play opens, Jason's marriage to Creon's daughter (who, I think, goes unnamed throughout, which is interesting) has been planned and Creon banishes Medea, for fear that she may do him or his daughter harm. He allows her one day to leave - and calls himself a fool for allowing her the time - how right he is proven.
I struggle to see how the chorus fit in here, if they were ladies of Corinth, would they really have stood by when Medea expands on her plot against the bride and her father? It feels unlikely, so I'm uncertain of who they are. In the play they serve as a foil to the action, taking the news and digesting it as we do the same, casting it into a different light or reviewing it.
Medea leaves the stage under her own agency, relying on her lineage as the daughter of the son of the Sun, but she does so under her own agency. She leaves Corinth in a very different state than it was a few hours earlier. I can;t say that I understand her, or her actions, but she does feel real, which is a thing when this was written 2.5 thousand years ago.
I wonder what this is like staged...
Show Less
LibraryThing member ericlee
I bought this book and read it just before seeing the play in London last week (starring the amazing Sophie Okonedo). Reading it and then seeing it made it absolutely clear to me why a play written almost 2,500 years ago is still being performed — and still shocking audiences. This is the
Show More
ultimate revenge fantasy, a play about women and men, about racism and immigration, about power and corruption. The violence, which takes place largely off-stage, is horrific. This play will give you nightmares. Highly recommended. Show Less
LibraryThing member leslie.98
To be frank, I found this play in print to be less than my memory of seeing this on stage. In particular, Medea's murder of her two sons didn't come through as believable. … Of course, all plays suffer from this to some extent, and it may have been that this translation by Frederic Prokosch
Show More
dampened some of the drama. I did find this translation quite easy to read though. Show Less
LibraryThing member crabbyabbe
Probably the most badass woman in all of mythology.
LibraryThing member alanteder
A Basic Medea
Review of the Dover Thrift Editions paperback (2022) of the Dover Publications original (1993) of the John Lane: The Bodley Head hardcover The Medea of Euripides (1944) translated by Rex Warner from the Ancient Greek language original Μήδεια (431 BC).
I read this 1944 translation
I'm also planning on reading a more recent translation in a more scholarly edition. The Oxford University Press's Medea (2006) with a translation by Michael Collier and Georgia Ann Machemer looks like an ideal candidate for that.
Trivia and Links
Some of the earlier English language translations of Medea are in the Public Domain. You can read several of the 19th century translations online at Wikisource.
Review of the Dover Thrift Editions paperback (2022) of the Dover Publications original (1993) of the John Lane: The Bodley Head hardcover The Medea of Euripides (1944) translated by Rex Warner from the Ancient Greek language original Μήδεια (431 BC).
I read this 1944 translation
Show More
in parallel with reading Liz Lochhead's adaptation Medea (2023) for the National Theatre of Scotland. I wanted to have a basic comparison in order to see how far Lochhead differed from the original. The Dover Thrift edition was ideal for that purpose, but it provided no background information and only a very few brief footnotes to explain some references in the text.I'm also planning on reading a more recent translation in a more scholarly edition. The Oxford University Press's Medea (2006) with a translation by Michael Collier and Georgia Ann Machemer looks like an ideal candidate for that.
Trivia and Links
Some of the earlier English language translations of Medea are in the Public Domain. You can read several of the 19th century translations online at Wikisource.
Show Less
Subjects
Language
Original language
Greek (Ancient)
Original publication date
431 B.C.E.
Physical description
86 p.; 20.4 cm
ISBN
8700773816 / 9788700773813
Local notes
Omslag: Meidias
Omslaget viser Medea tegnet af en vasemaler fra sidste fjerdedel af 5. århundrede. I hånden holder hun et skrin med trylleurter.
Indskannet omslag - N650U - 150 dpi
Oversat fra oldgræsk "Mēdeia" af Sigurd Müller, Chr. Thomsen
Gutenberg, bind 35451
Omslagsbilledet er også angivet på side 18 og med i billedfortegnelsen sidst i bogen.
Side 8: Den, som hun er fjende med, vil sent få lov at smykke sig med sejerskrans.
Side 56: Med sorg og rædsel har du hærget kongens hus - det hører du med fryg og frygter ingen straf?
Side 56: Fortæl mig først, hvordan de døde. Dobbelt glad du gør mig, hvis de led en ond og grusom død.
Side 58: Fra pigens hoved gik en strøm af blod og ild. Som harpiksdryp fra fyrrens bark flød kødet ned fra knogler og fra ben for giftens skjulte bid.
Side 65: Når smilet dør på dine læber, dør min sorg.
Omslaget viser Medea tegnet af en vasemaler fra sidste fjerdedel af 5. århundrede. I hånden holder hun et skrin med trylleurter.
Indskannet omslag - N650U - 150 dpi
Oversat fra oldgræsk "Mēdeia" af Sigurd Müller, Chr. Thomsen
Gutenberg, bind 35451
Omslagsbilledet er også angivet på side 18 og med i billedfortegnelsen sidst i bogen.
Side 8: Den, som hun er fjende med, vil sent få lov at smykke sig med sejerskrans.
Side 56: Med sorg og rædsel har du hærget kongens hus - det hører du med fryg og frygter ingen straf?
Side 56: Fortæl mig først, hvordan de døde. Dobbelt glad du gør mig, hvis de led en ond og grusom død.
Side 58: Fra pigens hoved gik en strøm af blod og ild. Som harpiksdryp fra fyrrens bark flød kødet ned fra knogler og fra ben for giftens skjulte bid.
Side 65: Når smilet dør på dine læber, dør min sorg.
Similar in this library
Pages
86
DDC/MDS
| 882.01 |