Please read Euripides' Andromache for Thursday's class (November 3).Choose one of the five narrative essentials (plot, character, theme, setting, tone) and compare this play to one of the other tragedies we've read in terms of that "essential." Does Euripides do something particularly impressive with that feature of his story, something that makes you especially like this play? Is there anything in Euripides treatment of this essential that makes you not like this play as much as some of the others?
The narrative essential that I picked was tone. I believe that the tone in Euripides' Andromache is different from his other plays and esp. the plays of the other greek playwrites. This play just reads different then the other ones we have read. I don't know if it is a good different or a bad different, just different. I defentely like the other plays by the other playwrites better.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to creating setting with words, Sophocles does a better job than Euripides. In Oedipus Rex, Sophocles describes the dire situation the city is in whereas in Andromache, Euripides does not describes only a little what is going on in the Thetis. Euripides discusses briefly the life after the Trojan War for the losing side in slavery, but the play would be better set up is he gave a little bit more information on the life as a slave.
ReplyDeleteRobbi Kannas
Euripides does a great job at setting up the character of Andromache. The downfall of Troy along with the deaths of her husband and son and her enslavement really make the reader pity her. We care for her character and are drawn in by the story and are anxious to see what happens. I think that is one of the best parts of this playwright.
ReplyDeleteR. Casey Oberle
I think the theme of this play was fundamentally different than any other play we have read. Euripides was really blunt in the fact that he did not like Sparta, no other writer seemed to be so blunt about a fact like that. Also the plays overall theme was really good. It had a universal theme yet a specific theme for that time. I believe the theme was to not have slaves or go to war in foreign land. It seemed that Euripides thought there was no point in taking Troy or taking slaves. Also being married to slaves and having kids with them only caused tension back home. I believe that this play was better than all the other plays we have read because it seemed to be easier to read and the universal theme still lasts. There may be no slaves but people have kids with multiple people a lot these days and this theme still applys today.
ReplyDeleteEuripide's Andromache has a very different feel to it than other plays we've read. There is not really a setting at all, there is a decent amount of background. The characters seem more deep, it reminded me of Neoptolemus, character in Philoctetes. Yet the read of this play was much more dull than even Philoctetes. I could kind of know what the characters were going to do before they did it, but I did keep expecting either Andromache or her son to be killed...
ReplyDeleteWyatt Loftesness
Overall, I did not think Andromache was as good as the other plays we have read, but one aspect I did like was the theme. Euripides was not shy in his dislike for Sparta and he was not afraid display it. The other theme in Andromache was the problem of slavery and how it affected people. Andromache was forced into slavery with the fall of Troy where she was queen. It seemed to me that Euripides did not support the conquest of Troy or the taking of slaves because of the problems they caused back in Athens. Andromache caused a rift within the household. This was ment to represent a problem with Athenian culture that slaves caused problems within families and it was bad for Athens. Slaves pushed Athenian families farther apart.
ReplyDeleteOne big similarity is that i have noticed throughout most of these poems that we have read is the reference back to the Trojan War. such as the beginning of the play where Andormache talks about where she is from and also in her message after the maid leaves when she says "For her sake, Troy, did eager warriors, sailing from Hellas in a thousand ships, capture and make thee a prey to fire and sword; and the son of sea-born Thetis mounted on his chariot dragged my husband Hector round the wall".
ReplyDeleteJoseph Adam
While Andromache does address Sparta to some degree, the theme of the play concentrates more on marriage. Euripides seems to be making a statement about the sorry state of marriage.
ReplyDeleteFirst, although we sympathize with Andromache, she is still the "other woman" in Neoptolemus's marriage to Hermione. The friction between those two is the source of much anguish. Neoptolemus did not esteem his own marriage highly enough and precipitated this struggle in his home.
Second, Orestes was promised a marriage to his cousin Hermione (disturbing in itself) but Menalaus passed him over and gave Hermione to be married to Neoptolemus. Perhaps because of all the bad things already going on in his own family, Orestes wanted to direct his anger outside his family this time around. He forgave his uncle Menalaus but murdered Neoptolemus for refusing to release Hermione from her marriage. All the marriages and promises getting crossed results in a murder.
Third, Peleus is distraught at the death of the only son of his only son because it puts his own family line in jeopardy - only his great-grandson is left alive. Thus enters Thetis to elevate Peleus to a god so that their own marriage can continue and Peleus can be relieved of some of the anguish afflicting mortals. Andromache is also given a real marriage to Helenus and they go to rule a different land. The gods value both family lines so they work to protect the Peleus line and Trojan line.
Euripides did well weaving several episodes around this theme of marriage. I think he wanted to point out some problems that arise from thinking little of marriage and how broad the consequences could be for belittling marriage. He accomplished this by allowing the story to range quite far and wide. That "grandness" appealed to me but it took some extra work to put together an appreciation for what might at first appear to be a disjointed play. That same grandness is also a weakness because it can be easily overlooked. Andromache stops speaking half way through the play and there are the side plots of Orestes going off to Delphi and Thetis popping in out of nowhere. We lose a lot of the continuity of the play because of Andromache's silence and some side stories.
Euripides certainly has more complex themes than Sophocles. In Oedipus Rex, we watch the development of the search for justice and truth, even as it imperils Oedipus. Sophocles' theme is readily apparent but Euripides hides his themes deeper. There might even be some statements on the treatment of women swirling around amongst the marriage examples - since they're getting promised, given, taken and fought over like baseball cards. I think Sophocles is easier to enjoy while Euripides takes more mental work.
The 'essential' I'd like to write about from Andromache is character. Although some aspects of Andromache and Hermione's relationship seem irrational, such as Hermione blaming Andromache for her inability to conceive, the way Euripides develops character is thorough. Throughout the play one gets a very good feel for just how jealous and obsessive Hermione really is and how ruthless she can be. Many times Andromache is displaying toughness and bravery even though she is now temporarily a lowly slave. Her lamentation and intense statements have ebb and flow but also many times have climaxes that make the speeches very powerful and got me, as the reader, on her side. Andromache and Hermione's relationship is multifaceted, too. Besides jealousy there is tension from the Trojan war, exploitation of Hermione's 'ills', the fear that Andromache is more wise than she is, false accusations, etc. These make for a very dynamic and intense conversation between the two. Peleus is really drawn out to be a once strong man passing 'over the hill' per se, but still having some heroic blood in him. Within his statements there are signs of his progressing weakness and fatigue but also signs of his passion to do what is right and to correct the odd and barbaric situation happening within his traveling distance. The theme is a little bland and the plot is pretty simple, but the development of the characters is very well done. They show a lot of true human emotion, even if there is ridiculously irrational logic behind it, which happens a lot in every-day life, so this play is a useful tool to instill anticipation of such events that can lead to useless and unfair suffering. In order to see the ridiculousness and the mistakes that these characters made on a personal basis they must be developed well and their lines must clearly portray what they are feeling. Such is the case in Andromache because the characters are very nicely and thoroughly developed.
ReplyDelete- Jefferson Gunderson
I agree very much with Thad about the theme of Andromache. While the tendency would be to view the more obvious anti-Sparta theme as the central message of this play, Euripides' real focus is the issue surrounding marriages and the family in Athens. It is his tone, though, both in this play and the Alcestis, that really impresses me. Euripides is passing judgement on a troubling social problem of his day, but he does this in a subtle and artistic manner. His works can definitely lead to a catharsis.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Thad. I think by making the arguement about marriage more subtle, Euripides might be making it more effective. If the audience is just watching all these marriages and lives slowly fall apart, it would definitely cause many of them to try and change their ways. However, I think be making the theme less obvious and the tone more quiet and subtle, Euripides made the play harder to read and follow. I didn't like this play as much as some of the others.
ReplyDelete-Brianna Hamil
Character for Andromache, Oedipus Rex, and Alcestis is the essential that I like best about these tragedies. All three of these somehow want the reader to know more and more about what is going to happen because of the decisions of the other characters in those stories. With Oedipus Rex, it was all about finding out the truth. Alcestis, how the characters deal with what happens to other characters in the story. For this one, it seems like there is a mixture of the two but it deals more with the fact on how one character might act if another character does something the other one might or might not like.
ReplyDeletethe characters that Euripides sets up in his plays are what makes his plays so good. The characters of Oedipus Rex, Alcestis, and Andromache all have something in common, that they came from being something great and they have it taken away in one way or another. Oedipus is haunted by his past and it comes back to take away his throne (from his own pursuit). Alcestis takes a bullet for her king and loses everything(and is brought back later). But Andromache went from being a wife of a Prince of Troy, and the general of the army, to being a slave and a mistress to another someone else husband. you can tell by the way she speaks to her "superiors" that she is not used to being a slave and through the development in the play how she fights back against being put to death for something that was not even her fault.
ReplyDeleteBaker Haar
Euripides’ Andromache exemplifies all of the narrative essentials really well and he finds a way to intertwine them together for an interesting and entertaining story. As mentioned above, I agree that the characters of Andromache definitely are memorable but I don’t think the audience would have as strong of a connection with the characters if a corresponding tone wasn’t present. The audience feels connected to Andromache, for instance, partially because we understand her struggles and the play aims to instill sympathy for her. It’s also important to consider the era/time when the play was written because having this understanding promotes a stronger connection to the setting of the play. Even though a distinct location for the play is not really provided, there is still a great deal of background details that strongly aids to the play’s greatness.
ReplyDeleteThe character and tone of Andromache was just dark and kind of cruel in a way. It was a heavy play to read, even heavier than Aeschylus' Agamemnon. I found the characters very depressing and the overall tone was simply dark and without hope. It was the bleakest lesson in manners in a play form that I have ever read. This play made Oedipus look like a joyful detective story. Especially how Andromache admits to basically being a door mat for Hector's other wives. It put my favorite hero in an entirely different light. It's like this play showed me dark manners. I think, maybe, in a way, this is a good play in that it shows the people of Euripides' day their own behavior. Showing them what not to do or making them aware of what is being done. It actually creeped me out, so I hope it did that to the ancient audience as well.
ReplyDeleteI would say that the characters in Andromache really caught my attention. Not just the number of characters or who they were, but the fact that three of them were spotlighted. As interesting as it was to see the story play out, the ending grinded my gears. When a story ends with a god making everything better the writer couldn't think of a better ending. It is such a cop out. That being said, I didn't like Andromache very much.
ReplyDelete