A play of two parts; Andromache, Euripides

 Why you might read Andromache?

Andromache adds another aspect to the Orestes story. We find Orestes dotted about in the Greek plays. Together they give us a fairly complete picture of the important parts of his life. Well, those after he returns to avenge his father, we have yet to see his growing years. 

While this is one of Euripides' less well-known plays I have included it for two reasons. First, is that of completion. I decided with this project that covering the breadth of an author is of more value than touching the highlights. This gives me a broader view and focus.

Second, is that of completing some stories that would otherwise be less than complete. In this example, we only see what Orestes does in his second exile because of this play.

The Story of Andromache

 We find Andromache at the altar of Thetis in Phthia as a supplicant. She is trying to save her life from Hermione, the King's wife. Hermione is desperate to kill Andromache. Andromache was the king's concubine before he married Hermione. She has also born him a son, while Hermione is barren. Hermione blames Andromache for both her barrenness and her husband's disregard of her. Neoptolemus, the King, is away on business and so is not there to protect Andromache. Andromache has sent her son away, for his own protection. She has also sent for Peleus, the King's father to stop this plan coming to fruition. On her side, Hermione has sent for her father, the King of Sparta.

Menelaus is Hermione's father. He arrives and convinces Andromache to leave the altar or he will kill her son. He has retrieved the son from where she sent him away. After she submits to being bound, he informs her that Hermione will kill her son anyway. Menelaus makes preparations for the killing but Peleus arrives. He challenges Menelaus' authority to kill a slave he does not own. He also asks why there has been no trial and concludes that this is murder. Menelaus concedes to Peleus who unbinds Andromache. She is wary that the two will overtake them and ambush them somewhere. Peleus tells her not to worry, that he may be old but he is still capable.

Hermione's nurse enters and tells of Hermione's regret. She has regrets for the actions that have passed to the point of attempting suicide. Hermione enters and pleads with the nurse to let her kill herself. Lest her husband comes home and throws her out of the house, or worse, kill her.

Orestes arrives and Hermione tells him her troubles. Orestes resolves to take her away and to take him as his own wife as was promised to him before the war on Troy. He tells of going to Neoptolemus and pleading with him to give her as his wife but to no avail. He also tells of a plot he has to kill Neoptolemus for that very slight at the Oracle. Orestes and Hemione flee together.

Peleus returns to hear that Hermione has fled with Orestes. He also hears that Orestes has a plan to kill Neoptolemus at the shrine. A messenger enters and tells Peleus that Neoptolemus is dead. He requests the story: Orestes stirred up the people of Delphi. He did so by telling them that Neoptolemus had come to rob the temple again; with this deception, Orestes gathers a group of men to fall on them as they enter the temple. It is here that Neoptolemus dies.

Peleus laments his age and how he is childlessness. He is visited by Thetis, a goddess and his once wife, she tells him where to take Andromache and her son. She promises that the line will live on through that son. She also tells him to take Neoptolemus' remains back to Delphi and bury him there as a sign to the people of Delphi. Finally, she tells him to wait for her in a seaside cave. From there she will come and get him and make him a god and that he will live with her. 

Reflections on Andromache

This is a play of two parts, it turns rapidly about halfway through. It starts as a play about jealousy and taking that to extremes. It then switches to being about Oreste's revenge on Neoptolemus for taking his wife. He does so by taking both his wife and his life. 

These parts are both rather discrete but also very intertwined. The jealous one is none other than that double promised wife. The first half of the play is a cautionary tale of having two lovers under the same roof. This is true, even if one is a concubine and the other a wife: this causes major strife. The wife is filled with jealousy about the concubine having given her husband a son when so far she has not. We assume from the text that he is no longer sleeping with the concubine. Rather, had her before he was married and yet that is not enough to forestall the jealousy.

Peleus' lament as the play starts to draw to a close is timely. The response of Thetis is both a reminder of the truths of the situation and a promise of the fantastical. It reminds Peleus there is an illegitimate heir even if there are not legitimate ones. If he follows instructions the line can continue through that illegitimate heir. He is also reminded that this is also a continuation of the Trojan line at the same time through the child's mother. Becoming a god is rather fantastical. We only see it mentioned in the play and we assume it comes to fruition later. It does give otherwise poor and lonely Peleus a good ending.

It seems more likely that Orestes hears of the problems with Hermione. He then comes to town at Andromache's request.  That is on his way to the Oracle, seems less likely. He must have already planned to put to death Neoptolemus and his escape with Hemione. The act he puts on that he will take her out of her circumstances is far more self-serving than altruistic. 

What others have to say about Andromache

"As with most of the plays written during this time, the audience was well aware of the myth concerning Andromache and her life after the Trojan War." Comments Ancient history encyclopedia

Greek Legends and Myths notes ​"Andromache was described as being loving, loyal and dutiful, all characteristics of the perfect wife to the Ancient Greeks." about Andromache herself.

Comparisons with other texts

Andromache begins with a supplicant at the altar of a god. This is seen in the beginnings of both Heracles and The children of Heracles., though with those plays we see the supplicant's prayer answered in the form of a defender. By contrast, Andromache is tricked into removing herself from the position of supplicant. This happens before help arrives. Thankfully, it does still arrive and is in time to keep her from being killed with her son. Heracles also involves deaths as we see in Andromache with the death of Neoptolemus. But Andromache feels a lot less like a tragedy as Neoptolemus is not cast as the hero; that being said, neither is he cast as the villain until the second half of the play. We end with the almost triumphant end of his grandfather, Peleus.

Like Euripides' Electra, we again see the vengeful side of Orestes. In Electra, he falls on his father's murderers and kills both his mother and his mother's new husband. Here in this play, we see him killing Neoptolemus for denying him a wife that had been promised to him. You could say that in both plays we also see his softer side in how he interacts with the women. In Electra, he gives hope and love to his sister by giving her to be married. This is after he kills Neoptolemus, while he himself goes to exile. We see this care again in his taking away Hermione from her troubles and taking her as his wife. This, as I have said is a little self-serving.

The Medea is exactly the kind of story that Hermione is afraid of. She is scared that a slave woman who used to be a queen would attack her - or even usurp her position as queen: unlike the Medea. It is this that drives Hermione to such lengths as to plot Andromache's death. She does so while her husband is not around to stop her.  

Conclusion

Andromache is a play of two parts. First, the plotting of the jealous Hermione. Second, the fear of Hermione for the consequences of the failed plot. We have looked at how these two halves intertwine. As well as how Orestes showing up being overly serendipitous. 

There are parallels to be drawn with other Greek plays like Medea or Electra. But these are no carbon copies but rather similar themes or situations. In all Andromache tries to tie off some of the loose ends after the battle of Troy and is an interesting read.

Have you read Andromache? If so what did you think of it? 
 
Want to read Andromache but haven't? Please leave me a comment and let me know why you want to read it.

Hopefully, this post inspires you to take the time to look into it on your own journey of Self Education.

Get a copy of Andromache. 

Refuge; The children of Heracles, Euripides and why it deserves a place in your Self Education

Why you might read The children of Heracles

If you have any interest in the true Greek story of Heracles then this play is an integral part. It is important because it deals with what happens to his family after his death. And from this, we see the start of Heracles' legacy. It's on my Self Education list for exactly this reason. I've stated earlier that these plays about and around Heracles life have been eye-opening for someone who only knew the Disney version.

The Story of The children of Heracles

 The story starts with Heracles' young sons and their guardian Iolaus as supplicants to the Altar of Zeus at Athens (though the scene direction says Marathon, Athens is what is in the text, though it may be that Marathon is the town and Athens is the ruling city, considering their locations.). Iolaus laments Heracles' death and lays out the desperation of his position with the boy. We later find out they also have their sisters and Heracles' mother in tow. They have been tossed out of every city they have approached. A messenger arrives from Argos demanding them be surrendered or the army of Argos will set upon them.

Copreus, the herald from Argos arrives. After a short discussion moves to take them bodily
from the altar. Iolaus calls out against the injustice against the gods. The chorus of locals arrive and start discussing the situation. Demophone son of Theseus and current king of Athens arrives. He is quickly petitioned by the herald for the ability to take the sons and Iolaus as prisoners. Demophone gives Iolaus the right to put forward his cause as well. Iolaus lays out the injustice to the gods if they are taken from the altar. She lays out the boy's kinship to Demophone. She also explains their exile from Argos and thus how they do not come under that king's sway. Demophone rules in favour of Iolaus and the children of Heracles. Stating that the decision had more to do with the reputation of Athens. That it is free and that they do not dishonour the gods. Copreus threatens Athens with war but Demophone stands firm. Demophone leaves to prepare for war with Argos.

The army of Argos arrives but does not move down to the plains. Demophone returns and announces he has seen the oracles. And that they have said to win he must sacrifice a princess to Persephone. But he is not willing to sacrifice one of his own or one of his citizens. They are at an impasse that suggests they cannot win the coming war. Then from inside come one of Heracles' daughters, Macaria. She simplifies the whole problem by offering herself up as that sacrifice. She states that it is better for her to die and for her brothers to live. But if they lose her brothers die and even if she survives what sort of life would it be. Macaria exits to be the sacrifice.

A runner arrives and tells of the arrival of an army to join their side lead by one of Heracles' elder sons. Iolaus insists on accompanying the runner back to the army to join the fight. The runner tries to dissuade him because of his age but to no avail.

Another servant appears announcing that they have won the fight. Miraculously Iolaus is young again. They all rejoice and Heracles' mother states that now she believes he has become a god. She has been told this before but has not believed it. The servant then relays the story of the battle. How Iolaus had jumped in a chariot and pursued Eurystheus king of the army from Argos. And how he had overtaken him and overcome him and that he had taken him, prisoner.

Eurystheus is bought to see Heracles' mother and she orders him killed. But the Athenians will not as he is a prisoner and no longer on the battlefield. They discuss this back and forth and eventually decided on killing him. To do so they must bury him in Athens so that he is still in the Athenians custody. 

Reflections on the Children of Heracles

Macaria's strength of will in this play is astounding. It is not that she is asked to die for the victory and thus her brothers. But that she willingly puts herself into the position of the sacrifice. This is true love but also her duty. She knows that the continuation of the house is part of her duty in life and in the telling of this story she lives up to it.
It is interesting to see the convention used here to bypass time. We see the arrival of the enemy army immediately after the exit of the herald who has threatened it. In some ways, there is no convention to hold to. Euripides just jumps from one moment to the next without the change of scene. We do not see changing of scenes in the Greek plays so far, or even a comment about time passing by the chorus. That being said we have seen the chorus used to pad time between when a character leaves and returns. The chorus is also used when something is happening off stage. In some ways, this time skip is just an extrapolation of the ways the chorus has already been used. It does make it hard to tell how much time has passed, though.

We tend to think of the ancient Greeks as a homogeneous group, which they weren't. We see that here with the rules of Athens around prisoners after a battle or war. In Athens, you cannot kill prisoners. Instead, they must be returned to their people after the hostilities have ceased. This is clearly not the case with Argos. Heracles' mother desperately wants to kill Eurystheus. Being from Argos she sees nothing wrong with doing so.
The miracle of Iolaus' regained youth is, as you would expect from a miracle, fantastical. It is though a great pay off for the character that has insisted on taking part in the battle despite his old age. To give Iolaus, and not Heracles' older son, the victory over the Eurysthes is interesting. We would expect Heracles' oldest son to take the throne of Argos. For his to take the throne of his father, following this victory would be fitting. Surely it would do more for the legacy of Heracles if his older son took Argos. And in doing so take out the despot who had overthrown his father and sent him on his labours. 

What others have to say about the Children of Heracles

 GreekMythology.com has this to say, "The problem is that after Heracles’ death, Eurystheus, the King of Argos and Heracles’ archnemesis, decided to kill all the remaining members of Heracles’ family."

"Like other playwrights of the era, Euripides makes reference to Greek mythology, and, in this case, it’s the hero Heracles." from Ancient History Encyclopedia

And finally "“Heracleidae” is usually considered to be essentially a patriotic piece by Euripides, written to the greater glory of Athens, during a period of great instability and uncertainty, as it came under repeated attacks from Sparta in the early stages of the Peloponnesian War." from Classical Literature

Comparisons with other texts

Like Helen, we have a positive ending, but unlike Helen, we do not see that same wish fulfilment. Or the retconning of the events that have happened prior, by the author. Helen is positive from beginning to end with little conflict. But this play has the sacrifice of a daughter to give a bit more balance to the plot points.

This is the second time we have seen sons of Heracles sitting as supplicants to an altar. The first was in Heracles by Euripides. Here his first wife and sons sitting at the altar in their own city while a tyrant threatens to kill them. Unfortunately by the end of the play, they are dead at their father's hand. In this play we see his second set of sons sitting at an altar in a foreign land. All the while a king, through his messenger, tries to get them thrown out so they can arrest them and put them to death. This time Heracles is not alive to save them. Their salvation instead comes from the ruler of the city and the willingness to die of one of his daughters.

In the chronology of Heracles does not seem to follow after Euripides Heracles. Instead, it seems to follow the events of his death in Sophocles' Woman of Trachis. The first tells the story of the destruction of Heracles' first family. Whereas the second deals with his second wife and Heracles death. In this play, Heracles both has sons, which I'm going to assume come from that second marriage, and is himself dead. This is also the first of the plays with Heracles that has a rather happy, or at least positive ending. Though it does still end with death it is the death of the enemy rather than that of one of the families of Heracles.

Conclusion

The children of Heracles deals with the fate of the family of Heracles after his death. This makes it important to a broad Self Education and a better understanding of the Heracles Mythos. It covers the attempts of the tyrant of Argos to capture and kill Heracles' family. This is prevented by the king of Athens where the family have travelled to. The main themes are supplication to the altar and sacrifice. We see this through the sacrifice of Heracles' daughter for the survival of her family. Finally, we have looked at how it compares to other works both by Euripides and by other Greek authors.

 

Have you read The children of Heracles? If so what did you think of it?

Want to read  The children of Heracles but haven't? Please leave me a comment and let me know why you want to read it.

Hopefully, this post inspires you to take the time to look into it on your own journey of Self Education.

Get a copy of  The Children of Heracles.

Christ's Church and Eternity; Augustine, City of God (2B) A quickish guide

Why you might read the City of God?

The City of God is one of the oldest well known Christian theological works outside the Bible. Augustine is considered one of the church fathers. His work helps to expand on the Bible. In doing so he sets the foundation for theologians to come after him.

As history, it gives a snapshot of the Roman empire. It does this by reacting to what is going on in the empire. It also gives us a snapshot of early Christian Theology. Thus, we can compare to modern-day examples.

The Story of the City of God

Book XVII:

This book covers, from the establishment of the kingship to the minor and major prophets. Augustine is focused on the prophecies of Christ and his bride, the Church. He starts with David and his reign and what the prophets said to and about David and his son Solomon. 

He then sidesteps and spends some time in David's own prophetic works, the Psalms. He attributes all 150 psalms to David. He then picks a few out for specific treatment.  In an aside, he apologises to those of his readers who know more about the psalms. This aside explains why he is not more thorough in his dealings with the psalms, that this explanation does not fit into his purview of this work.

He finishes up with the works of Solomon, both of the canon and deuterocanonical. From these works, he pulls the prophecies of Christ and his church.

Augustine does not spend much time on the prophets themselves. He sees the prophets as more straight forward. Simpler in the understanding of their allegory and simpler to discern where there is an allegory. Where there is historical fact and where there is both. It brings us to the New Testament but does seem to leave quite a bit lacking. 

Book XVIII:

The first half of this book is dedicated to going through biblical times and placing the Kings of Israel. Then, matching those Kings with their Assyrian and Roman counterparts. The translation notes say that only some of these are correct but they were correct at the time Augustine wrote them. Augustine then moves onto the prophets. His main point is, to show how the prophets prophesied Christ. He continues to give a list of kings of Isreal and Judah, as well as every prophet in the scriptures.

Augustine spends the tail end of this book discussing and refuting some pagan heresy. These are around the length of Christianity's survival. He also deals again with heresy inside the church. He discusses the accepted, even today, idea that some in the church are not true disciples.

Book XIX:

This book starts with a secular look at the Supreme Good and the Supreme Evil. Augustine defines the Supreme Good as what is to be desired and the Supreme Evil as what is to be avoided. He first discusses the philosopher's definitions of good and evil. Though they do differ, they can be distilled down to the two ideas of virtue and pleasure. 

He continues in the following chapters to contrast this with the Christian view. This is the view that the Supreme Good is to praise and worship God. As well as that, all other things (like virtue) flow out of this, rather than being things to pursue in their own right. 

The rest of the book flutters through a range of topics from friendship to allegiances. From war, to slavery, to sin. Finally, from hope to oracles about Christ, from those worshipping other "gods".

Augustine finishes off this book with a discussion of eternal life. For believers the felicity with God. And for non-believers in eternal separation and the "second death". 

Book XX:

This book deals with the final judgement and the resurrection of the body, as part of the final judgement. Augustine starts with the book of Revelations, then progresses on to support his view with the Old Testament books of Daniel, Isaiah and Malachi. His view is centred around the idea that Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead. He spends some time discussing whether those living will die and then be resurrected. He concludes that this is most likely as the prophecy's all talk about the resurrection of all humans. He explains that being caught up in the air is the death phase for those still alive at the time of the resurrection.

He also spends some time on the 1000 years that the devil is bound. He questions whether that is the same as the 1000 years that the church and Christ reign before the final judgement. Finally, he weakly concludes that they must be the same: that the three and a half years the devil is loosed must be either included or directly after the 1000 years but that the 1000 years cannot be precise. This is because scripture says that no one knows the day or time of the second coming but God himself. We see 1000 years used approximately in other parts of scripture as well.

Book XXI:

This book is focused on the eternal damnation of those who are not Christians. As well as the various heresies that had come up against the eternal nature of the fire. Also, whether God in his mercy could ever leave someone in the fire.

First, Augustine combats the non-believers' objections to the eternal fires of hell. In doing this, he goes off on a seeming tangent into the wonders found in the world. The eventual point of this tangent is that the pagans are quick to believe those wonders. Even though they seem to be contrary to nature and logic. How can they then refuse to believe in hell and its conditions? When their objection is that its existence is illogical and unnatural.

Then he gets into the meat of his argument. He is against the idea that eternal damnation would be escapable for unbelievers. But that through a raft of possible avenues they would only serve some time in the fires. If this is true of unbelievers, would God's grace not extend to the demons and to Satan himself? He counters this with scripture which describes hell as both eternal and going on forever and ever. He concludes that these other ideas are heretical, that is contrary to scripture. He also concludes that there is no basis for them.

Book XXII:

Augustine wanders a little bit in this book. But his main focus is the fate of Christians and what eternal life will look like. 

Miracles are dwelt on at some length. Augustine first spends a large amount of time recounting miracles. These were miracles he had either known about or heard about. His point was to show that miracles of God were still evident in his time and that their purpose is to point people towards Christ. He contrasts these miracles of God with the work of the demons. The demon's works are always of lesser impact and often not being a full blessing. He points to the Egyptian magicians in the Exodus account. How there "miracles" were of lesser scale. As well as the possible use of trickery in their ability to replicate the plagues.

He then returns to the question of bodily resurrection. He refutes the Platonists who argue that something physical can not be made eternal as well as those who deny we will have a any physical body after the Resurrection. He then spends some time talking through what exactly our bodies will look like. Will we all be made equal? Do we take the idea literally of being made like His son? Is there still male and female?

He concludes that we will have our own bodies, that there will be male and female and that we will be fully formed and adult in our prime.

He finishes with a short discussion of eternal life as the perpetual sabbath for man and God's good.

What others have to say about the City of God

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says "The monumental apologetic treatise De civitate dei (City of God) argues that happiness can be found neither in the Roman nor the philosophical tradition but only through membership in the city of God whose founder is Christ."

And from Columbia College, "To do this, Augustine puts forth two main arguments in City of God. The first speaks directly to those who had criticized the Christian God for failing to protect Rome and its citizens."

Reflections on the City of God

Book XVII:

It struck me that Augustine believed all the Psalms to be written by David though he remarked carefully that others disagreed with him. The rebuttal he offered for known challenges was uncharacteristically weak.  He uses the prophetic nature of some to try and pass off the uses of names from later periods. In modern times the first half of Psalms is generally attributed to David. While the second half to an author or authors unknown.

It seems at times in Augustine's writing that he is grasping a little. Grasping to call sections prophetic of Christ and the Church. He seems to be of the opinion that every piece of the Old Testament can be interpreted as prophetic. While some modern scholars agree, there is also a lot who would say that it is stretching. 

Book XVIII:

 Augustine argues that the Septuagint is divinely inspired in its translation. It was ascribed to 72 translators that translated separately.  Yet they came to the exact same version of the translation. This has been debunked in more modern times. Found to be unsupported by the historical evidence. He tries to explain the differences between the two translations of the day. These being the Septuagint and the Vulgate. The Vulgate was, in Augustine's time, recently translated from the Hebrew. The Septuagint by contrast was translated through two languages. He tries to show both being true even though they were different. He seems to not want to discredit the older translation. It is more commonly acknowledged now, that there were errors in the Septuagint. These errors mainly arose from double translation. It is also acknowledged that the Vulgate was more accurate to the original Hebrew texts.

Augustine also spends some time refuting the 10 persecutions theory. This theory was common in his day. He does so by pointing out that it makes little sense to start from the Roman persecutions. Because the martyrdom of the early church needs to be taken into account. This is an interesting heresy around when Christ will return. It is not one we would tend to be taken in by today. Not because we are any smarter or more Godly. But rather that we have the evidence of many, many persecutions all around the world to look to. 

Book XIX:

The hard thing about this book has been a plethora of topics. This time I'm struggling to see a central connecting thread. It's not the first time that Augustine has spanned a huge amount of topics. But, previously, I found it a little easier to see his central topic.

Augustine's comments on the Oracles about Christ from outside the Hebrew scriptures. This is quite interesting to me and I'll do a little more research into it at a later date. It would be interesting to know if they were actually written before the time of Christ. I wonder if, with a modern understanding, they are now seen to be retrospective of that time. The other possibility is that Augustine has overreached. The Oracles may not be about Christ but are just that normal level of vague that we see from ancient world Oracles.

There is also the chapter on an Oracle of Apollo. A man asks the Oracle what should he do about his wife being Christian. The Oracle advised that he should leave her because of the Christian faith. He is quoted as saying "let her go as she pleases, persisting in her vain delusions." This gives us an interesting view of how Christianity was seen by the Greeks in antiquity. It would also be very interesting to know Augustine's source. 

Book XX:

Augustine believed the 1000 years that the Devil was bound had started. This, in the bible, is directly before the last judgement.  We can see now, in modern times, that one of two things is true due to the final coming not having come yet. One that he was wrong and we will see this binding of the devil at a later date. Two that 1000 years is a very approximate time in this part of scripture. In saying that the bible does also say that a day is like a thousand years to the Lord. So who knows how long in absolute terms the 1000 years in the text is. But to take most of the bible literally you can't pick and choose too much on what is and isn't literal. I tend to think he was mistaken in thinking that the 1000 years had begun.

Book XXI:

Augustine's conclusions in this book are correct about these heresies. He does not deal with the grief and disbelief that goes with the formulations of those heresies. That those unbelievers are destined for suffering in the fires of hell for all eternity is hard to grasp. For the unbeliever, it can bring him to faith with fear of that eternity. But for the Christian, it holds fear for others. We want there to be a way for those who do enough good or those who are loved by us to still go to eternal bliss with God. And being fundamentally lovers of God we try to wrestle with not seeing them again in eternity. This can feel that God is being too harsh or unmerciful. We must remember that God's mercies are for this life and that we as believers have a duty to help others into belief. This is the time of opportunity not after they have fallen to the first death. If we hold instead to these heresies, we will miss the opportunities now. 

Book XXII:

The sheer amount of miracles recalled and written by Augustine is astounding. The great thing is that he does not lose sight of the purpose of those miracles, to bring people to faith. His discussion on whether we would have physical bodies was an eye-opener. I had not considered any reason that they wouldn't be. That is the simplest reading of the text. The views he disputed brought the discussion back to that simple reading of the text. 

While I do not think the Ages of Revelation and the Church is analogous to the 7 days of the week.  I especially do not think the Sabbath holds as much weight as Augustine thinks it does. It is still interesting to look at the Resurrection as a perpetual sabbath. That is as the perpetual Day of the Lord. A perpetual time of being with and praising God in all His goodness and majesty. I don't remember there being anything in the scriptures about the week being done away with. That would suggest that work 6 days and rest one as the Sabbath would continue. Work would be fulfilling and with our eyes fixed on God.

Comparisons with Other Texts

Again I will only be comparing this book to itself. This is due to my lack of peripheral knowledge due to starting this list before finishing my BC list. 

Augustine continues in dealing more with scripture as we have seen in the first half of this Part. Again he does occasionally reference Plato or other philosophers. He does spend more time focused on Heaven and Hell.  Which to my way of thinking is more of what he has said he is setting out to do. 

Unlike Dante's Divine Comedy, Augustine's versions of heaven and hell are more in line with the bible. He does not posit a Purgatory which is an idea that came to rise in the Church between Augustine's and Dante's times. Augustine is a Bishop of the Church in his own time. Dante is a layman with an over-inflated sense of his own place in the world and history. It is no wonder their views on heaven and hell differ. For more on the works of Dante have a look at some of my earlier posts. Have a look at the discussion on the first book of the divine comedy,  The Inferno.

Conclusion

We have finally finished the City of God, thanks for sticking with me. We have looked at the final six books of this text. This is where Augustine finally gets into describing Heaven and Hell. He spends time dealing with heresies. These heresies are ones he sees around him, and some we still see today. Augustine has been focused and unfocused at different points in the work. His main point through the whole book has been, join the city of God. That is, join with Christ.

Have you read The City of God? If so what did you think of it? 
 
Want to read The City of God but haven't? Please leave me a comment and let me know why you want to read it.

Hopefully, this post inspires you to take the time to look into it on your own journey of Self Education.

Get a copy of the City of God 

Tragedy after hope; Everything you need to know about Heracles by Euripides and why you'll want to add it to your Self Education

Changes

What's new? 

I've made some changes to the blog. First I've changed up the formating which I hope will make it easier to read. Second I've added some new sections. I hope these changes can increase clarity and interest value. 

Why might you read Heracles?

This book is one of the main sources for this part of the Herculean mythos. Heracles is a name variation on Hercules. This book details his madness and the killing of his first family. He did go on to have a second wife but that ends in tragedy as well. For more information on this see the Comparisons with other texts section below. Heracles is one of the most well known Greek Mythologies today. It is always worth going back to the original sources to read them for yourself. Rather than relying on just the scholarship of others.

For me going more in-depth into the Herculean myth was an eye-opener. I had only seen the Disney version before and the storybook version. The truth is more brutal than I had expected. 

I have gained a better appreciation of the fickleness of fate in the Greek understanding. As well as the pettiness and vindictiveness of the Greek gods. This has been reinforced by the rest of my reading too.

The Greek authors hold a prime place in my project. This is because the Greeks are the civilization that the western world stands on. There have been many things that have come after that have also shaped the western world. Much of it though starts with the Greeks.

Don't have time to read it? Want to get more of an idea about it before you choose to read it for your own Self Education? My next section will give you a brief summary.

The story of Heracles

As the play starts meet Amphitryon, known as the father of Heracles the one who raised him on earth. With him, we meet Megara, Heracles wife, and his three sons clinging to the altar of Zeus. They cling to the alter because they have been thrown out of their home by a usurper to the throne.  

Amphitryon and Megara are lamenting that Heracles has not arrived home. He is returning from the underworld which is his last labour. They also lament that the new ruler, killed Megara's father to take the throne. And is now planning on killing both them and Heracles sons. He includes the sons because he is afraid they will grow up and avenge their grandfather.

Lycus, the current ruler, enters and taunts them about being at the altar as if it will extend their lives. Both Megara and Amphityon plead with him to let the sons live in exile. Lycus orders that they are to be killed by the fire where they stand.

Megara relents and says if they must die they will do it honourably. She asks to first, go and get into burial clothes to fit the occasion. Lycus relents and opens the palace for them to do so and leaves. Megara and the boys enter the house getting ready. The chorus recounts Heracles' labours. Then they start also lamenting their old age and inability to stop this killing.

The family returns to the Alter in their funeral clothes weeping. 

Low and behold Heracles arrives and questions them on their state of dress and their tears. They fill Hercules in on what has been happening. Hearing this he pledges to kill the new ruler as well as the friends that have deserted the family in this time. Amphityon calls for a softer hand towards the friends. Heracles agrees and takes the family inside.

Lycus arrives with Amphityon to carry out the killings and finds them still inside. Amphityon will not go and get them so Lycus enters the house and is quickly killed by Heracles. 

Iris and madness arrive and quickly layout the plan for Heracles downfall. Iris leaves and madness enters the house, much commotion is heard. A messenger comes to the chorus on stage and retells that nights events. He tells of how Heracles in a fit of madness killed his sons and his wife. Heracles is now sleeping and is tied to the altar.

Heracles wakes up with no memory of the gory events and is confused and a little dazed. Amphityon has to inform him that there was no enemy but that he has done these awful things. Heracles hides his face under his cloak. Theseus arrives with an army from Thebes. He heard the news that a tyrant had taken over Thebes and has come to help Heracles reclaim it. 

Finding the gruesome scene he enquirers what happened and Amphityon fills him in. He comes to
Heracles as a friend and finds Heracles ready to kill himself. He eventually convinces him to live and come to Athens with him. Heracles pleads with this father to bury his sons as by law as their killer he cannot. Then satisfied about that he bid his father farewell.

Reflections on Heracles

 What cruel fate to have saved your sons from death only to have a god put you under madness to kill them yourself. It is no wonder he is suicidal to start with when he hears. Theseus is a good quality friend here. He is not worried by defilement or by Heracles' talk but rather there to help him move through it.

What I found odd with Heracles' madness that the chorus fills in time. Well OK, they are lamenting the madness. It feels a bit like filling time. While filling time the chorus mentions Enceladus who we have not seen anywhere in the play. He also doesn't get another mention in the play either. So, I have a bit of a search and found the Enceladus is one of the giants. The sons of earth and Saturn, and was mentioned by Hesiod. It is also, as a side note, the sixth-largest moon of Saturn's. So the passage that uses his name is saying he will destroy it all the same way Athene destroyed one of the giants.

We know little about Lycus other than that he is a foreigner. He also becomes the tyrant. As a non-
Theban who did not conquer by the war, he is a usurper to the throne he is currently holding. It is interesting that he is painted in such a light and it colours all the interactions we see with him. He is ready to put his predecessors family to the sword. And if they will not come away from the altar he will burn them alive there where they sit begging for a reprieve. As such he is portrayed as the villain of the piece and gets his comeuppance. You almost expect the play to be a comedy, in the old sense of the word. It leaves you hoping to have a happy ending but no such luck the play is only half done.

What others have to say about Heracles

Kathleen Riley writes, that the play is “violently broken into two apparently discrete dramatic entities or movements”. Yet they complement each other in a way only Euripides does in Greek.

Greekmythology.com says "One would expect from a traditional Greek play of the fifth century to end with Heracles killing Lycus, an act that simultaneously attests to Heracles’ heroism and validates the benevolence of the gods." As well as making the point that "this grand narrative is primarily one of friendship, something only humans seem to appreciate"

Ancient-literature.com says about Heracles' madness "that Heracles' madness follows anyway from his inherently unstable character." which is something I didn't pick up from the text but is evidently true.

Comparisons with other texts

In Medea we see a woman take bloody revenge for her husband taking another woman as his wife.
Here, by contrast in Heracles, we see a very laid back Amphitryon. Amphitryon seems at peace with Zeus having slept with his wife. He even raises the son as his own. It is that it is hard to take revenge on a god but he still could have taken revenge on his wife or the son that was born. I am unsure whether this is an unusual reaction of whether it is different between men and women. It may give us insight into how the Greeks saw these differences.

Woman of Trachis has a small reference to the story we see here in Heracles. There we see it mentioned offhand that Heracles had killed his first wife, it makes no mention of his sons. Woman of Trachis is a continuation of Heracles story after the events we see here in Heracles. This is interesting in that it suggests that the story of Heracles was well known earlier than I have it dated. Woman of Trachis in my chronology of authors it comes before Heracles. They may be closer in time than it seems by my list as I have not dated the individual works but rather the author.

Ion shows a very different treatment of the child of a god, where Apollo does everything in his power for Ion. By contrast, we do not see Zeus taking even the slightest hand in the event of Heracles. Zeus allows, by negligence, his wife Hera to cause such suffering.

Conclusion

Heracles by Euripides is the story of Heracles madness and his killing of his family. The themes are around family and friendship. These are shown in the interactions that deal with the time before and the aftermath of the madness. The fickleness of fate and the vindictiveness of Hera are on full display in this play. I have explored how Heracles fits into the landscape of Greek plays. We have also looked into how others see the play. There I found that other writers resonate with the idea that the play could have ended with the death of Lycus. Finally, I explained Heracles' importance to Greek mythology. As well as why it has a place in my Self Education.

Have you read Heracles? If so what did you think of it? 
 
Want to read  Heracles but haven't? Please leave me a comment and let me know why you want to read it.

Hopefully, this post inspires you to take the time to look into it on your own journey of Self Education.

Get a copy of  Heracles.

Euripides, Electra; A different story

 

So this weekend we have a friend staying from about an hour away, she doesn't drive so I went and picked her up and we had a fun but short road trip back. Its been really nice having her here even if both my husband and I are tired from the week. We went driving both to the south out to Kinloch and out north to Lichfield just for some time in the countryside.

The Story
The play opens with Electra outside a peasant's home, who she has been married off to by her stepfather Aegisthus. Aegisthus has married Electra's mother after the two of them conspired and killed her father Agamemnon. Aegisthus has married Electra off to a peasant because he is scared that if her sons were to be of noble birth they would grow up and avenge their grandfather. The peasant reveals that he has not slept with Electra because he does not believe himself worthy of her. Electra also has an exiled brother who the king and queen are also scared of returning for vengeance. Electra leaves the home to go and fetch water.
Orestes, Electra's brother, and his friend arrive and discuss how they may find Electra to plot with her for revenge against their mother and her new husband. They choose to hide and observe the peasant women who are approaching carrying water. This peasant turns out to be Electra and she is openly lamenting the situation. Orestes chooses to approach but not to reveal himself. Electra is frightened and assumes they are there to do no good but Orestes quickly explains that they are friends of Orestes looking to find his sister and report how she is fairing. The peasant returns and invites them into his home, Electra sends him to an old friends house, the very one who smuggled out Orestes, to return with the old man and something to feed to their guests. 
The old man arrives and greets Electra and gives her a young lamb to prepare for the guests. When he is introduced to Orestes he observes him closely and then declares him to be Orestes. Electra does not initially believe him but he points out a childhood scar.
The siblings then plot to kill Aegisthus and their mother, which develops into two separate plots. One where Orestes kills the king at a feast he is preparing in a field and two that Electra will kill their mother after summoning her to meet her newly born son.
A commotion is heard off stage and Electra assumes the worst, that Orestes has failed, but before she can kill herself a messenger arrives telling of Oreste's victory. Orestes arrives with the body and head of Aegisthus in tow and regales Electra with the tale of how they were invited to the feast. And how while processing the bull for the feast he turned on Aegisthus and stuck him down in one blow. They also quickly convinced the servants not to attack them as it was a vengeance killing.
Electra instructs them to hide the body as she does not want her mother seeing it. Orestes gets cold feet and does not want to also kill their mother but Electra steels him to the task. Their mother arrives in all her finery and asks why she has been summoned. Electra informs her she needs help with the offerings to the gods for a birth as she had no one to help her deliver the baby. This entices her mother inside to give the offering, but Orestes is there laying in wait. The two siblings emerge in horror at what they have done together.
The spirits of Castor and Polydeuces arrive and speak of the two and predict their exile from Argos and that they will never see each other again. Orestes gives Electra to his friend as a bride and the spirits send them to Pallas, whereas, Orestes is sent to the Temple at Athens to seek the god's judgement and escape the furies. 

Reflections
It is interesting at the end of this version that Electra is part of the deed of killing her mother and also that she is not to be punished to the same extreme as her brother. You would think that they were equally guilty from their description of the death and yet they are not treated as equals by the furies, was it that Orestes was the one that fate had destined to do the killing and that is all that mattered or is it simply that exile is a new punishment for Electra but Orestes is already exiled, so is heaped with more punishment. Or is the crime a bigger affront to a man's honour in that culture than a woman's?

It is a little fantastical that the old friend can recognise Orestes not having seen him since he was a baby, but there is nothing in these works to suggest that they are seen as historical fact but rather for the entertainment of the masses, so maybe it's meant to be fantastical. That being said they were also a way of passing down common lore and, while exaggerated in places, the history of the peoples. 
The actions of the peasant show the strength of the class structure in the time of both the setting and the writing. It even shows with the fact he is never named in dialogue or even in the script. He sees himself as below his supposed wife, though it later comes out that he doesn't believe that the one who gave her to him, Aegisthus, had the right to do so. This calls into question whether he is truly married to her, which may also, at least in part, help to explain how he treats her.
The spirits of Castor and Polydeuces introduction, at the end, offer a great way to bridge the ending of the story and keep it from feeling like it ends quite so abruptly as some plays do. It is also a way to bridge this version of Electra with the continuing Orestes saga that we have already seen.

Comparisons
Let's start with the most obvious. Like Electra, by Sophocles, this tells the story of the death of Clytemnestra, Electra and Orestes's mother, from Electra's side of the coin. That being said it is a very different story with Electra not still being in the palace but rather being married off to a peasant. The inciting incident is the same and, due to the spirits at the end, the end result is much the same. You could probably even use the two versions interchangeably, even if you were doing the full Orestes saga.
The Libation Bearers has more in common with Sophocles' Electra than Euripides version, as it again has Electra still in the Palace and events all being based around the Palace.
The differences here, considering I am reading them in a rough chronology of the authors, can be seen as a development and embellishment of the same story and further research would probably show if these differences in version are due to time or a shift in location.
Like Medea, we are predominantly dealing with a revenge story. You could see a space for a play much like Electra after Medea, though as the revenge in Electra comes about as, from Clytemnestra's point of view, the revenge to the revenge that she reaped on her husband. In Electra, we are given extra information though: Clytemnestra was not faithful to either husband and that rather she killed her husband so she could be with another.

Have you read Electra by Euripides? If so what did you think of it?

Want to read  Electra by Euripides but haven't? Hopefully, this inspires you to take the time to do so.
Get a copy of  Electra by Euripides.

Euripides, Hecabe; A mothers sorrow

 

Well what a week, things have been crazy for my hubby at work so he has been pulling 12 hour days most days this week, so I haven't really seen much of him. I also ran myself out of energy Friday and had a lazier day, which was a nice change but at the same time I'm trying not to be annoyed at myself for taking a week day off. Other than that there hasn't been too much new, we did have some stunning days at the start of the week so I spent sometime outside in tee shirt and shorts, it was almost like summer. The rest of the week was cooler to remind me its only spring.

The Story
Hecabe starts with her son, Polydorus' ghost telling of the suffering to come. He tells of his death at the hand of Polymestor the king of Thrace where he had been sent for protection while Troy was under attack by the army of Agamemnon. Polymestor killed him for the gold he was sent with as a possible ransom for buying back his brothers in case the Trojans lost, his body was then thrown in the ocean. He also tells that his sister will be killed at the hands of the Achaeans as a sacrifice to the tomb of Achilles. And that his mother would see them both laid out dead the same day.
Hecabe enters with her daughter and is lamenting being taken into slavery. the chorus informs her that he has just come from the Achaean assembly and they have decided to sacrifice her daughter to Achilles, just as her brother ghost had predicted. Hacabe laments but her daughter laments only for Hacabe as she welcomes death as a princess to life as a slave.
Odysseus arrives to take her daughter to the tomb of Achilles. Hacabe pleads with him to go back and argue against this as repayment of her saving his life when he was spying on Troy. He argues that to do so would to be to not give Achilles his friendship in death and that is something he will not do. Hacabe then suggests her daughter pleads with him also but she replies that she is ready for death and will not oppose him and plead with her mother not to physically oppose him taking her away.
A messenger, Talthybius arrives and informs Hacabe that he daughter is dead and tells he of her noble death, and how she refused to be taken by force but gave herself to the priest, Achilles son, to be sacrificed. He also tells her how the Achaeans are preparing a tomb for her. Hacabe tells hims to go back and see that none of them touch her but leave her for her mother to prepare for burial. She also instructs her attendant to go and collect sea water for washing her daughters body and then head inside herself.
Hacabe's attendant returns with a body and calls Hacabe back outside. Initially Hacabe is confused as to why they have bought her daughters body to her but its is not long before they show her the body and she identifies her son.
Agamemnon comes looking for her as she has not arrived to bury her daughter and finds her distraught on the ground. she begs him to seek vengeance for her, at first he is hesitant because he will not avenge her daughter but once it transpires that her son has also been killed by the king of Thrace, he is much more sympathetic but will not raise a hand least his own Achaeans, who are also allies of Thrace be angered. Hacabe answer that with the help of the women she will take vengeance, all Agamemnon has to do is call Polymestor and his sons to come and see her at once.
Polymestor and his sons arrive and are quickly invited inside under the pretense of giving them hidden gold. Once inside the sons are killed and Polymestors eyes gouged out. He escapes the tent and calls for help from the Acheaens. Agamemnon arrives and wants to hear both  side to judge them. Polymestor confesses to killing Polydorus, but tries to argue that it was to please the Acheaen allies. Hacabe argues that he did it for the gold, Agamemnon agrees with her. Polymestor lists of some prophecies he has been given about Hacabes death and the death of her one surviving daughter Cassandra. Agamemnon has him taken away.

Reflections
It is interesting to me that Euripides found the need to have the Ghost of Polydorus at the start of the play as we do see the same information unfold as the play goes on, a modern writer would probably have let you find out those details as they came to light. that being said it does set the scene very clearly for what is about to transpire.
Agamemnon's slight about whether the woman/women could indeed reap vengeance upon a man in his prime is rather misguided but it is also a relic of his time, when woman were mainly seen in the softer side of the ledger. We wouldn't think too much about the idea that a woman might seek vengeance herself, but both the seeking vengeance and the feebleness of women has been put aside in this day and age. That being said Hacabes does give examples where a group of women have overcome in violence a group of men by sheer numbers, so it is not that woman is the more docile but rather the physically less capable without training to change that. I mean its why we still gender segregate most sports.
At first this seemed like it would be your average revenge story and then it would end abruptly after the violence, Euripides surprised me a little with continuing to have Agamemnon judge between the two and therefore show Hacabe's position as in the right and to condemn Polymestor to his fate without retribution. The play still ends abruptly with Agamemnon sending Polymestor away.
There is a tidbit about the battle of Troy that we have not yet seen in the texts to date, that is that Odysseus entered Troy as a spy, and not only that but was found out by a couple of the women. It would be very interesting to find out what he said, or is supposed to have said, to the women to get them to let him go free, hopefully we can see this in later texts.

Comparison
Unlike Medea we do have some context going into this story of revenge rather than the abrupt start of Medea. We know the outline of the Trojan war and that Troy lost so to find the queen of Troy as a slave of the Acheaens is a logical next step in the overarching story. That being said like Medea that play starts with an explanation of new wrongs committed against the mother figure Hacabe. Both stories are that of a woman in a compromised position reaching out and dealing vengeance to those who wronged her. the big difference being that Hacabe was judged as just following her violence where as the Medea just ends with Medea escaping. I wonder if this is because there is no taboo at the time against revenge killing, as we see in Hacabe, but there is a big taboo about killings ones own offspring, as we see in Meade.
In a way this story follows on from The Trojan Women though if it was a true sequel in the modern sense we would have expected some mention of Polydorus in the Trojan Women. In both plays Hacabe is lamenting being taken into slavery although The Trojan women is set before it has truly happened while the Medea is after they have been taken away by sea, if not very far. Both plays though deal with the death of children of the defeated faction, In Hacabe it is Hacabe's daughter and therefore the sister of Hector and in The Trojan women it is his son.

Have you read Hacabe? If so what did you think of it?

Want to read Hacabe but haven't? Hopefully this inspires you to take the time to do so.
Get a copy of Hacabe.