All About Books discussion

It is almost time for our next group read of a play to start. For our Spring play (March 20-June 20), we will be reading and discussing one of the ancient Greek plays by Euripides, Medea.

This is a very old (obviously!) and well-known play, still being performed today. Because of that, and because in Euripides' time the plot would have been known to the audience already, I am not going to request spoilers.

Oh, and I think that it would be good if people could mention which translation they are reading, if possible.

I'll be reading the penguin translation by Philip Vellacott, hopefully I'll go on to read some other Euripides after Medea (this being a much looked forward to re-read)

I'm looking at using the Gilbert Murray version that is in public domain.

Icydove wrote: "I'm looking at using the Gilbert Murray version that is in public domain."

I actually have two different translations from the public domain, one by Murray and one by Theodore A. Buckley (this is a collection of Euripides' tragedies). And my library book on Greek plays has yet another translation, this one by Frederic Prokosch.

I am thinking that I might compare the different translations...

Hope to be able to joyin

Leslie wrote: "I actually have two different translations from the public domain, one by Murray and one by Theodore A. Buckley..."

I started reading the Murray version last night. I looked at the Buckley version today, and it appears to be an easier read both in language and form (prose instead of verse). I also liked the footnotes linked in the Kindle version of Buckley.

I'm reading the only copy available in my library. It's from Oxford University Press and is translated by Michael Collier and Georgia Machemer. I hope I'll be happy with it.

I think I have the same translation as Terri - also the only copy from my library. :)

I read it a few months ago. How is everybody finding it?

Charbel wrote: "I read it a few months ago. How is everybody finding it?"

I haven't gotten to it yet - I will read it after I finish my March books!

Probably same here!

I am reading this today. I have also requested Christa Wolf's Medea from the library as I think that it will be an interesting companion read!

It will be a while before I get to this. I wondered if I should plan on reading a few different translations?

amber wrote: "It will be a while before I get to this. I wondered if I should plan on reading a few different translations?"

I am planning to, so I will let you know how I feel they compare.

I saw this play performed in 2002 with Fiona Shaw as Medea (The Abbey Theater of Ireland was touring in the U.S. - here is one of the reviews). Even though it was 12 years ago, I still have a powerful image in my head of that performance and reading the text didn't come up to my expectations. But that might have been the translation I read.

I won't be able of starting it before a week / ten days ...

Thank you Leslie!

I have the Dover Thrift edition which is translated by Rex Warner, so I'll be reading that one for sure, and there are a lot of different editions at the library.

I've seen a staged reading of Medea, but not a full production.

I read my second translation of this play the other day... This was the Gilbert Murray translation in the public domain Kindle edition. I didn't find huge differences, but I think that it was slightly better than the Frederic Prokosch translation.

I then read Christa Wolf's book Medea, which is a different take on the Medea myth. It was wonderful, with the people quite believable, although of course it gave a very different story.

I've just taken this out of the library and am reading the Penguin classics version, transl. by Philip Vellacott. I became interested in classic Greek plays when I was teaching my community college Intro to Literature class. The students were really connecting with Oedipus Rex by Sophocles and now I've decided to read more of that type of play. I'm glad to be able to do this with a group.

Hope everyone is enjoying this! This play increased my understanding of Greek tragedies!

The thing that stuck in my mind reading Medea that never crossed my mind watching it performed was why Medea comes up with killing the new wife and the kids as a punishment in the first place. I mean won't Jason just run out and marry some new virgin and have more kids? If he could get a king's daughter before having the sob story about his evil ex offing his loved ones, he'll probably get someone even better next time around. Can you tell my greatest impulse both watching and reading this play is wanting to kick Jason where it hurts? And yes I know hating the non-killer more then the killer is a little morally questionable. :p

A little side note on the reading I saw of this, it took place on Valentine's day and they cast a real life husband and wife as Jason and Medea.

amber wrote: "The thing that stuck in my mind reading Medea that never crossed my mind watching it performed was why Medea comes up with killing the new wife and the kids as a punishment in the first place. I me..."

In this version (Euripides') of the legend, Jason makes the claim that the only reason he is leaving Medea is that by marrying the king's daughter, he is providing security for his family (!!!). So, if you believe that, he wouldn't go out and marry some other woman. However, Medea does say that she is going to revenge herself on the princess (whose name escapes me at the moment) and Cleon & although it takes place before the start of the play, there is an implication that the princess "came on to" Jason...

Leslie wrote: "amber wrote: "The thing that stuck in my mind reading Medea that never crossed my mind watching it performed was why Medea comes up with killing the new wife and the kids as a punishment in the fir..."

I would understand that reasoning if Medea believed Jason's claim, but she seems to think that story is hog wash which makes me wonder why she would think any of this would have a long time affect on Jason. I was just thinking that the kids were collateral damage in her attempt to do in the new wife, but then she seems to include their deaths as an actual part of the plan and not just a consequence of needing to get the poison past whatever security there may be for the princess. This isn't an area of myths I know a great deal about though, so there may be more going on in the background that I'm just missing out on by not knowing more about the backstory.

I have always struggled with the killing of the boys, but when I saw it performed I had an "aha" moment - Medea is killing them because she can only see poverty, starvation, and/or worse in their future once Cleon banishes them from Corinth. She is so sure of this that killing them quickly seems to her to be the kindest thing she can do.

Leslie wrote: "I have always struggled with the killing of the boys, but when I saw it performed I had an "aha" moment - Medea is killing them because she can only see poverty, starvation, and/or worse in their f..."

That makes sense, she's trying to protect them from a worse end and it doesn't really have to do with punishing Jason. That's just something she tells people as a sort of 'look at what he's driven me to' thing.

Another motivation that Medea may have had for killing her children is that (if I'm remembering my time periods correctly) only male children in ancient Greece could inherit, and the family lineage was traced through the male line. By killing Jason's new bride, Medea destroyed his chances of fathering more children with his new wife and while it is possible that Jason could remarry again and could have more children, there is no guarantee that he would be able to father another child - and even if he did, that it would be a male. In effect, killing her children very well could have destroyed Jason's entire family. I believe that his sons would very likely have been one of the most (if not the most) important things to Jason. When he betrayed her, Jason destroyed the most important thing to Medea (their union, which she'd sacrificed everything for) so she may have reasoned that sacrificing her children to her plan was the only way to make Jason feel the pain that she'd felt when he set her aside.

I can see the other side of it too, however - Medea's sons likely would not have had a future once their mother killed the daughter of a king. When I read it, though, I felt like she planned the murders to revenge herself on Jason, but justified it to herself by reasoning that they would never be able to have normal lives after what she'd done. It's interesting that we can all have such different interpretations from the same text! :)

Christie wrote: "Another motivation that Medea may have had for killing her children is that (if I'm remembering my time periods correctly) only male children in ancient Greece could inherit, and the family lineage..."

It is very interesting! That is a good point about inheritance. I also tend to forget that people used to think to the woman had something to do with the baby's gender, so the next wife could be a girl maker.

Our group play is being performed, and the live broadcast shown at cinemas across the UK on 4th September, see link below:

http://www.nationalmediamuseum.org.uk...

I'm hopefully going to see it, as I have now seen Macbeth, Coriolanus and King Lear, and all three have been excellent!

Very last minute really, but I started reading Medea in translation by Gilbert Murray, which is not really a piece of cake I have to admit. Unfortunately there's no public domain version in German apparently.
Did most of you read a verse translation?

What's interesting is that I've read the Medea's the wrong way around. My idea of Medea is very influenced by Christa Wolf's version, so it is interesting to now read the original source. If I can find the time, I will try to also read Medea by Franz Grillparzer, yet another adaptation.

Jenny wrote: "Very last minute really, but I started reading Medea in translation by Gilbert Murray, which is not really a piece of cake I have to admit. Unfortunately there's no public domain version in German ..."

I read it in prose. I think that Murray's translation is OK but dated (especially in the style!). I think it might be worth reading it in a modern translation if your library has any.

I read one final translation by Theodore Buckley - prose translation. It isn't the easiest to read but he does provide many footnotes in which he discusses the translation of specific words or phrases.

I guess that Medea was the original "woman scorned"!

I'm coming to this very late, primarily because there is a live streaming of Medea in the near future in my local cinema. So I intend to read this thread through before I actually go to see the streaming.

Gill wrote: "I'm coming to this very late, primarily because there is a live streaming of Medea in the near future in my local cinema. So I intend to read this thread through before I actually go to see the str..."

Oh, lucky you! Do you know who is playing Medea?

Leslie wrote: "Gill wrote: "I'm coming to this very late, primarily because there is a live streaming of Medea in the near future in my local cinema. So I intend to read this thread through before I actually go t..."

I've checked Leslie, it's Helen McCrorie.

Finished Medea last night, and thought it was really powerful. I changed to a German translation halfway through which increased the reading pleasure tremendously I must say. I find it really powerful, and very detailed and complex as a psychological study.
The copy I got from the library has 6 other Medea adaptations in it, including Seneca for example and I am toying with the idea of reading them all. I am also thinking about re-reading Christa Wolf's version, as I last read it 15 years ago and don't remember much of it other than that I thought it was brilliant.

Jenny wrote: "Finished Medea last night, and thought it was really powerful. I changed to a German translation halfway through which increased the reading pleasure tremendously I must say. I find it really power..."

I am so glad that you found some good translations! It makes a big difference, don't you think?

I hadn't realized that Seneca had written a version of this myth - I might check that out too.

I'm a little late on this one. Due to toile constraints, I was not planning on reading it. But, when I was in New York last week, I saw an exhibit on poison and the story was told. I got inspired. Better late than never?

Katy wrote: "Better late than never?..."

Certainly!! Hope that you get a good translation (some of the free ones in the public domain are pretty bad!).

Katy wrote: "I'm a little late on this one. Due to toile constraints, I was not planning on reading it. But, when I was in New York last week, I saw an exhibit on poison and the story was told. I got inspire..."

There is no such thing as too late in this group, any time you get it read we're here to discuss. :)
Considering the age of the play it could be argued that we are all better late then never on this one. ;)

I read the Murray translation and found the story very powerful. I always viewed mothers killing their children as a modern phenomenon but I am proven otherwise. Did anyone find a good dramatization on line? I would love to see it performed.

Katy wrote: "I read the Murray translation and found the story very powerful. I always viewed mothers killing their children as a modern phenomenon but I am proven otherwise. Did anyone find a good dramatizat..."

I didn't really look. However, I agree that seeing it performed is worthwhile so if I run across any, I will post here.