Leonidas & Eftychia Loizides

Home , Orestes

Leonidas & Eftychia Loizides Theatrical Group 2008 - 2012 Articles, Blogs & Commentary on the Theatrical Group’s Performances, Greek Drama & Modern Life By Eftychia Loizides

Leonidas & Eftychia Loizides Theatrical Group 2008 - 2012

Articles, Blogs & Commentary on the Theatrical Group’s Performances, Greek Drama & Modern Life

By Eftychia Loizides

***

Most of the text herein has been translated from Greek into English. All rhetoric, diction, and editing are the choice of Eftychia Loizides and/or her translator. The ideas expressed in this text reflect the views held by Leonides and Eftychia Loizides and do not necessarily reflect the views of Western Connecticut State University (WCSU), any of WCSU’s students, faculty, staff, or its affiliates, or the Macricostas Family Foundation. WCSU and the Macricostas Family Foundation make no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information in this text.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without the permission in writing from the publisher.

Published May 2014 by Western Connecticut State University 181 White Street Danbury, CT 06810

ISBN: 978-0-692-22215-7

Library of Congress Control Number: 2014942360

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

The author would like to thank the Macricostas Family Foundation for their support and the Western Connecticut State University Center for Culture and Values for facilitating the compiling of the material for this text.

The author also wishes to acknowledge the efforts of her translators and supporters.

iii A few segments in this text were originally published in the following newspapers:

“Euripides Changes the Myth of Helen” by Eftychia Loizides was published 17 June 2012 in Haravgi, a Greek language newspaper published since 1956.

“Let's Talk About the End of the Performance: How Can an Ancient Drama be Associated with Christianity?” by Eftychia Loizides was published 5 August 2012 in Haravgi.

“Some of the reasons why we chose this play by Euripides,” "Question: If you were asked to end the play with a line what would it be?” and "The end of the performance" by Eftychia Loizides were published in May 2012 on Panhellicpost.com, an online newspaper dedicated to the study of ancient Greece.

“Join Us 9/11 for a Special Fundraiser: A Tragedy for a Tragedy” was written by and published in the New York Times in 2012.

The authors and publications for the articles in Chapter XX: “Theater Reviews” are indicated next to the review.

Table of Contents

I. About Me 1

II. Helen by Euripides 3

a. Join Us for a Special Fundraiser: A Tragedy for a Tragedy 5

b. The Story 9

c. Note from the Director 9

III. Euripides Changes the Myth of Helen 11

a. Question: If You Were Asked to End the Play with a Line What Would it Be "What you've seen, you think it's true?" 16

b. Some of the Reasons We Chose This Play by Euripides 20

IV. Why to the Modern Man 28

V. Let's Talk About the End of the Performance: How Can an Ancient Drama be Associated with Christianity? 32

VI. Helen 412 BC – Obama 2012 AD 37

VII. Samaras at Colonus? 40

VIII. In “Helen” Euripides uses the concept of illusion. Helen as a being and Helen as an image. Why does he do this and in what extent is this significant nowadays? 45

IX. What Would Euripides' Answer to Violence Nowadays? 51

X. Euripides' "Helen" in Times Square 56

XI. Euripides and Egypt 60

XII. Chorus and Theatre 65

a. How I justify my opinion 65

v XII. ELECTRA BY SOPHOCLES 70

a. The Story 70

b. Note from the Director 70

c. Electra 86-121 72

XIII. What is the role of fanaticism in the application of programs for change? Does fanaticism succeed in making a change? 74

XIV. Retribution: Old Law 78

A. Ancient Drama and Tradition 82

XV. Speech is dialogue 83

XVI. The audience wonders if Orestes had the right to kill his mother and waits for the poet to give an answer 84

XVII. Aristocratic thought versus a realistic theory of conduct 93

A. Idleness-Versatility 93

B. Prudence-intelligence 93

C. Prudence has two sides 94

D. The aristocratic ideal in Pindar’s work 94

E. Nature 95

F. Sophocles allows nature to evolve sometimes 96

G. Protagoras’ method of teaching 97

H. Thucydides presents people the way they are 98

XVIII. Man transcending the law 99

A. “Leader wanted” 101

vi XIX. Leonidas & Eftychia Loizides Theatrical Group 102

A. PRODUCTIONS 1. BACCHAE BY EURIPIDES 103

a. Director’s Note 106

2. TROADES BY EURIPIDES 109

3. ORESTEIA BY AESCHYLUS 111

a. 5 reasons to view Oresteia by Leonidas Loizides 111

4. IPHIGENIA IN TAURIS BY EURIPIDES

a. Director’s Note 113

5. ΠΑΝΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΙΑ 115

XX. Theater Reviews

A. Euripides’ “Bacchae” in Detroit, Michigan 116

B. ASTONISHING "BACCHAE" PRESENTED BY LOIZIDES IN A DC THEATRE OF CAMBRIDGE 118

C. Touring Group Explores Greek Tragedy ‘Iphigenia’ October 31, 2011 120

D. The New York Times Saturday, August 10, 2013 121

E. Stephanie Stylianou, Hellenic Student Association president, hopes to transport Greeks and non-Greeks back to ancient Greece if just for a moment with the production of the Greek tragedy Iphigenia in Tauris Friday. 123

F. Producer/Director Loizides Bows Off-Broadway With ‘Iphigenia’ 124

G. Iphigenia in Tauris' review: Play's passion is a double-edged sword 128

H. The Oresteia September 28, 2010 131

vii About Me

EFTYCHIA LOIZIDES (Actor/ Director)was born and raised in Athens. She is a distinguished graduate of Vassilis Diamantopoulos Acting School. Since her second year of school, she began working with award winning director, Leonidas Loizides in Vakches of Aischylous, in the dual main role of the Messenger and Angel. She went on a tour in Greece, the US, the UK, Germany and Cyprus under the auspices of the

Ministries of Tourism, Culture and the Internal & External Affairs. The following year, she appeared on the TV show Great Greeks – Pericles in the role of Atossa, then in Perses of Aisxylous under the guidance of the distinguished director/actor, Zaharias

Rohas.

In June 2009, she received her degree and began work on Troades of Euripides with the director L. Loizides, as Andromache. There she sang under the musical

composition of Mikis Theodorakis. She subsequently had a nationwide tour in 37

American states performing in both Greek and English. What is more, she presented and prologued the book of Eva Soldatos’ Night Ballads and the poetic collection of Grigorios

Davarinos. In 2010, she had the lead role of Kassandra and Electra in the ancient tragedy Oresteia of Aischylous, performed Off-Broadway at the Kirk Theatre. In 2011 she had the lead role in Ifigenia in Tauris by Euripides, which she was awarded for, which premiered Off-Broadway at the Lion Theatre. She co-produced and co-directed this piece with Leonidas Loizides and it received marvelous reviews. She has taught ancient Greek tragedy in universities and trained professional actors in New York. In

2011 she is directing the play, Euripides' Helen (La Mama Theater NYC) for which she won the Artemis Award by Loula Loi Alafoyiannis, the founder and president of the

Euro-American Women's Council (EAWC) and will be touring the US, Canada and

Europe. Subsequently, she will act as the Artistic Director of the first ever Ancient Drama

Festival in NYC.

She also writes for newspapers and blogs, drawing parallels between ancient

Greek drama and today's society. For more information, visit http://www.loizidis.com. In

2012 she is directing the play, Sophocles' Electra and she play the lead role, which premiered Off-Broadway at the theater Row.

HELEN BY EURIPIDES

The play will be performed Off Broadway at The First Floor Theater at 74

East 4th Street from September 11th to September 23rd, 2012.

After mounting two successful off-Broadway runs of Aeschylus’s

Oresteia (2010) and Euripides’s Iphigenia in Tauris (2011), Leonidas Eftychia

Loizidis’s acting troupe will return in the Fall of 2012 to present Euripides’s

Helen. Produced by the award-wining Leonidas Loizidis,and directed by acclaimed actress Eftychia Loizide and a new adaptation of the play into modern

English poetry by Louis Markos, English and Honors Professor and Scholar in

Residence at Houston Baptist University.

To watch a 17 minute introduction to Helen in which Professor Markos provides a synopsis of the plot, discusses the reasons he and Loizides chose Helen for 2012, and shares their vision for bringing Greek tragedy to a modern global audience, click this link: http://youtu.be/rfmZI0Uu3OE

Directed by critically acclaimed director-actor Eftychia Loizides

Join Us 9/11 for a Special Fundraiser: A Tragedy for a Tragedy

A TRAGEDY FOR A TRAGEDY: THEATRE GROUP DEDICATES OPENING PERFORMANCES OF EURIPIDES' HELEN OF TROY ON 9/11 TO 9/11-BASED CHARITY, NEW YORK SAYS THANK YOU FOUNDATION

NEW YORK, NY: On, Tuesday, September 11th, 2012, at 3pm and 7pm, at the

First Floor Theatre (La MaMA) in NYC, the Leonidas-Eftychia Loizides Theatre

Group will present the ancient Greek tragedy, Helen of Troy, and on this day, cast members will perform with their hearts open in remembrance and honor of those who passed, and for those who suffered loss on September 11th, 2001. To commemorate 9/11, a portion of the ticket proceeds for both Helen of

Troy performances that day will go to the New York Says Thank You Foundation to support the Foundation in its efforts to give back to communities in need.

The Leonidas-Eftychia Loizides Theatre Group presents Helen of Troy, the classic Greek tragedy by Euripides, directed by the critically acclaimed director-actor Eftychia Loizides and starring an extraordinary cast of young

American actors. Helen of Troy is a compelling alternative to the myth of Helen, which highlights the anguish and suffering of needlessly losing loved ones to the destruction and extremes of violence.

The mission of the New York Says Thank You Foundation is to commemorate the love and support given to New Yorkers by Americans from

across the country in the days, weeks, and months following 9/11, by sending volunteers from New York City each year on the anniversary of 9/11 to help rebuild communities around the country affected by natural or man-made disasters.

The New York Says Thank You Foundation inspires 9/11 responders, survivors, and victims' family members to work together to reciprocate the support New York received by completing service projects in areas hit by tragedy.

Since 2003, the organization has helped communities in need throughout the country. There are so many stories of how the Foundation's volunteers have given support to other communities in need. You are encouraged to read more about the

Foundation and ways to get involved at newyorksaysthankyou.org.

''Poor Greeks and Trojans slain for me. I am a creature made of mist and air. All for a trick of Hera's you have died. '' Helen was written at 412 B.C. and was presented to the audience for the first time at the same period just after the ending of the Sicilian expedition with the defeat of the Athenian ship and the disappointment of the Athenians. This exact outcry of the Athenian population is expressed by Aggelos in Helen when he learns that so many years they fought uselessly around an idol. Euripides condemns war and he considers that it only brings destructions. The war is a madness, a fallacy that has pitiful results. His faith for peace and his repulsion for war lead him to write this tragedy that is a cry of the heart of a pacifist.

Helen of Troy performed at Western Connecticut State University

THE STORY

In Euripides' compelling alternative to the classic myth of Helen, set 17 years after the famed Trojan War, we find the Spartan queen, Helen, in Egypt after having languished there for many years, awaiting rescue by her husband,

Menelaus.

The story is told of how the Trojan prince, Paris, had been closed to judge between the goddesses Aphrodite, Athena and Hera, and how Aphrodite had bribed him with Helen should he judge her the fairest. Contrary to Homer's The

Odyssey, Hera, unable to accept defeat, replaced the real Helen with a phantom, and it was this effigy that was carried off to Troy, while the real Helen was spirited off by Hermes to Egypt. It was for this inspired mannequin--for nothing-- that the Trojan War occurred, which needlessly caused the loss of so many human lives .

When Helen and Menelaus are finally reunited, they must devise a plan to escape from Egypt and the tyrannical rule of King Theoclymenus, who seeks

Helen's hand, and return to their beloved Greece.

NOTE FROM THE DIRECTOR

There are a lot of prevailing views about what kind of drama Euripides’ play “Helen” is. Perhaps it would be better to categorize it as tragedy, although

this play contains elements that are not a part of the art of Aeschylus and

Sophocles. “Helen” is an extremely serious philosophy. Euripides has the ability to look at matters from both sides simultaneously. He presents the antithesis between the truth and the look of things. He creates a play having as an essential factor the etymology of the name “Helen”= Light and Shadow. “Helen” is a drama of ideas. It is a misunderstood play that must be acted on stage for its beauty to be revealed. “In the beginning was the Word”, and the Word is dialogue.

Because being is coexisting and Euripides uses a woman, Helen, to give us the definition of life.

"Helen" by Euripides, Off Broadway at The First Floor Theater

Euripides Changes the Myth of Helen

Euripides changes the myth of Helen and tells us something different from what we know. Why does he do that though, and how can this work nowadays?

By hearing the name of Helen, the woman that left her husband, Menelaus, for the eyes of her younger beloved Paris comes in our mind. The one who sent a thousand Argitis boats for a war of revenge. He was the consul of all the sufferings that the Greeks and the Trojans had to pass through. Because of Helen, the Troy was ravaged. Euripides though tells us a different story.

Let's take the story he says from the very beginning. The three goddesses

Hera, Athena and Aphrodite chose a mortal human, Paris, to judge their beauty.

He gave the "award of beauty" to Aphrodite after she promised to him as a reward the most beautiful lady of all, Helen. We all know more or less how it all began.

Fine up to here. Euripides now, says something completely new from what we know as the continuation of the story. He says that Hera wanted to revenge Paris, as she couldn't face the feeling of losing, since Paris didn't choose her.

Are you wondering in what way? She made an effigy of Helen of the same appearance as the real one, using mist and air. That's the ghost Paris took to Troy, thinking it was the real woman. Hera ordered Hermes to take the actual Helen to

Egypt, with the promise that her husband, Menelaus, would return to take her

back.

Now, he says, that several years have passed from when she was taken to

Egypt, and she is still waiting with impatience for Menelaus to come, but he hasn't. But why with impatience? Because when she arrived to Egypt, the King

Proteus was in charge. (I specifically use -eus, instead of -eas seen in some translations of 'Helen of Euripides', because for me the etymology of the names used in the Homer's period and in the myths of some tragic poets is really important. I insist that in order to compose or build something, you first need to deconstruct it. Break it into pieces and create it all over again. Anyway, Proteus was the kind king who treated her with courtesy. When he was alive he did a fair allocation of work, and there was justice. He divided jobs to people according to their characteristics. Proteus died though, and he was replaced by his son

Theoklimenos who was exactly the opposite of his father.

Here's what happens: He desires Helen, so he kills every single Greek that comes to take his 'beloved' Helen. In this work it's said that Helen "has rotted for about twenty years in this brutal land where everyone is a slave except for the one that wears the crown of the tyrant," meaning Theoklimenos. Therefore, it's obvious that this man becomes a tyrant and he dominates the crowds himself without a sign of justice.

Why does he hate Greeks that much to kill them? Because in that season for Greeks, everything was related to cooperation. For an effort to be

accomplished, cooperation is required. The word itself does not relate to privacy but to 2 or more people, not a single one, and the Greeks hated those civilians, those who could quit from politics. For example when you did not vote it was bad for both the citizens and yourself. Civilian= the one who is enclosed into himself.

When now is parallel to today. We should not stick to the fact that the

Greek was him and the Egyptian the other, but go to a new international and universal level instead that can take up to the whole world, regardless someone's race, color or nation. We see that the Greek enemy of the King is the one who will try to change the establishment - the system, which the tyrant introduced. In which way? By taking back Helen, the King's fierce desire. In this way, when

Menelaus takes his legal wife back, he informs people about that misfortune of the king. This is because the King was trying to marry her in an illegal way, hiding the truth from public.

The truth is that Helen was innocent, and the two nations fought for a ghost, something fake, intangible, and completely vain. It's understood that if

Menelaus won and took Helen, the people would realize under which lie they used to live for so long. When we realize that we have been living with a lie, we can easily go insane and revolt for that crime. It is considered a crime, creating a ghost, an idea (specifically of the goddess Hera) and pushing thousands of millions of people fighting each other for that idea. Without revealing the truth, you left him fighting for ten whole years for that ghost and then several more

(actually seven as teukros says in his work), being tortured and storm tossed, in order to return to his motherland. Just like nowadays.

They created to us an idea by encouraging in us vanity. In other words, they cultivated us with fake dreams making us hope for things like money, houses and cars. We fight for an aspiration, for a better tomorrow. We suddenly reach a moment where not only they take what we managed to obtain so hard, with so much work, but also take us to a stage where we become sick from this situation, and even worse die for it.

So, Menelaus was the one that would try to rebel as soon as he learn the truth. Rebel in Greek means "επαναστατώ" in other words stand still once again.

Attention. Helen informs him that it's impossible to fight with the authority, as it is obvious that we would have a dramatic result. Fighting alone against a whole system is totally insane and definitely requires a second thought, in which we should look for calmness. We say that we are about to try and built a plan which will help us not only to fulfill our aim but to manage to get out old and harmless as well. We therefore need teammates.

In this case, this teammate is Theoklimenos' sister, Theonoe, who would never accept that someone would ever kill her brother. They should then convince her, using arguments, that it's a matter of life and death in order to help them not to "extinguish" her brother but to save their lives by returning to their home country. Further more, they would save their country from this delinquency. How

can the country and the people be "rescued" from this tyrant though? Surely, not from its extermination but rather from its correction. Democracy should come back with its substantial meaning. So, Theonoe will have to choose between her brother's debt and Menelaus and Helen's fair demand.

Ultimately, in terms of moral values she decides to defend the law. Our era is characterized by a crisis of values. People, mostly act based on their personal interest and profit. For this reason, Theonoe's choices deeply affect us while emphasizing the concept of ideal behavior. Of what I believe, idols are those who struggled, those who fought for the positive evolution of humanity.

Several people consciously denied goods and fought for world to be a better place.

I believe we must view Theonoe not as a fancy person but rather as an essential one, at least that is what I did.

Deliberately, I leave people's imagination to be considered by examining not only history but also those around them who fought against goods but conquered the essentials; as they fought for people's union and not their split with their Jesus . Love unites all contradictions but it seems that in nowadays, the meaning of Jesus and the meaning of justice has been lost. That is why we see

Maria Magdalene crying over His death but being with his resurrection. Given the speech of Saint Paul, the meaning of Jesus is resurrected as well. This is the meaning that we ourselves have buried for years but will resurrect us in the end.

Well in essence, the survival equals with coexistence. Euripides uses a woman to

give the definition of life; that is the coexistence within others.

Question: If You Were Asked to End the Play with a Line What

Would it Be? "What you've seen, you think it's true?"

Helen answers in her dialogue with Teucer. While trying to explain why I chose this title as the most important of all, I am given the opportunity to provide a comprehensible answer to the question examined by so many scholars: why did Euripides use the character of Teucer in this play? Teucer arrives as a victor at his homeland of Salamis island (Greece) and is banished from his country by his father Telamon, due to the fact that he did not support his brother's Ajax's claim for Achilles' armor, he did not prevent him from committing suicide and, even worse, he did not avenge his disgraceful death.

According to the ancient Greeks, a killer was a defilement, meaning he polluted his family and his compatriots. His exile would help purifying the city.

This penalty also helped rehabilitating the criminal, since, being in exile, he was deprived of his fortune and was not allowed to participate in any political activities.

Teucer, although he did not actually kill his brother, was considered by his father as an accomplish in the crime because he stood silent and did not try to prevent his brother from dying, nor did he fight afterwards for his brother's honor.

Teucer's actions gave Euripides the opportunity to sketch a character that would

shed light on the weaknesses of some people.

Teucer, although he is one of the victors of the Trojan War, does not feel happy and proud of this result. He was forced to fight for the sake of an unobtainable woman. He was exiled. He wanders for seven years searching for a new homeland. All these events denote the tragic traits of this character, the greatest factor being the fact that, upon reaching Egypt, Teucer cannot discern the real Helen.

He believes that this woman only looks like her and is not the same person.

So, this character has reached the stage of conjecture. This stage, according to the

Pythagoreans and later Plato in the myth of the cave, is the first stage of

Knowledge and represents the man who cannot tell the difference between shadows and reality. He thinks that Helen of Troy is the real one and not the woman he sees in front of him.

He answers to Helen when she asks him if he saw the woman who caused all these horrible events:

Teucer: - With my own eyes I saw magnificent Menelaus drag her by her hair all around the city.

And Helen asks him again: - Did you really see this?

Teu.:- Just like I see you now.

Hel.:- And what you've seen, you think it's true?

Teu.:- I saw her and so did my mind.

So, he expresses the universality of his character that actually lives trapped in the deception caused by his own illusions. This man trusts only his senses, the word "only" containing dogmatism and the word "sense" containing the present.

So this man, who surrendered to his senses, lives only in the present and does not let himself take off his blinders and look clearly at the truth: the future. Because the senses do not link us to the future but to the present. I believe this is the stage we have reached nowadays.

The political powers try to convince us that the path which leads to the deliverance of nations and people and, in consequence, to the rise of the economy is the path of stability, resulting in frugality and income cuts. However, the political powers will continue to follow the course they followed the previous years, which is the same course that led us to this point. Because they did not have the foresight to deal with their domestic affairs. They did not foresee finding ways of salvation for their people, giving them the opportunity to develop mentally, not by reducing their income but by creating opportunities for staff orientation. This means that we've been taught nothing from the pain of lifelong learning. We will continue borrowing money and when comes the time for paying back the loans, we will find ourselves in front of "Calvary", because we did not foresee increasing our income. In result, what we need is not stability but a mental change so that we are able to take off our blinders and look clearly at the truth.

On a smaller scale, we would say that this is also true regarding the

common man. He should stop chasing "Helens" who are essentially vain and ephemeral and start fighting for Ideas (the noun comes from ἰδεῖν=seeing) that he will be able not only to look at but also to really see. We propose that people should know their past and learn from their mistakes, thus securing a future full of positive and not dramatic prospects.

Returning to our play, we are left with an unanswered question. Why did

Euripides, among so many Homeric heroes, choose a victor of this war and especially Teucer? Teucer explains to Helen the purpose of his journey: "I came at this palace in order to meet with the prophetess Theonoe. In an oracle, I was commanded by Apollo to go to Cyprus, live there and found a city that I shall name Salamis." Salamis was the capital of Cyprus for a thousand years due to its geographical position. Evagoras, the son of Nicocles, descending from Teucer, was almost murdered, still being a teenager, by the tyrant of Salamis Abdemon, who feared that Evagoras would overturn him. His worst fear came true. In 411

BC, Evagoras killed the tyrant and became the ruler of Salamis. When he came in power, he tried to promote the spiritual and material welfare of his people, while staying on good terms with the neighboring states. Darius II did not react against Abdemon's murder, due to the fact that Evagoras continued paying taxes.

Helen with Teucer

Some of the Reasons We Chose This Play by Euripides

Menelaus appears on the stage, presenting the identity of his character.

Who he is, where he comes from, what he did and what state-condition he is in.

He has left his sailors in a cave with Helen, whom he recovered from Troy.

Actually, he has recovered a mannequin of the real Helen that he thinks to be real.

He has reached the palace to ask for food and clothing, the things he lost during the tempest he faced while trying to return to his homeland with his crew. This poorly dressed king asks for help and conjures "Xenios Zeus". The answer he received left him discouraged. The doorkeeper comes out of the palace and sends

him away insulting him. However, he doesn't give up easily and tries to change her mind. The doorkeeper feels sorry for him and expresses her fear by saying that "any Greek that sets foot here finds death! Theoclymenos hates all Greeks!"

"Why?" cries Menelaus. "For the sake of Helen." We see Menelaus staggering and trying to understand whom she is referring to. The answer he receives is "The daughter of Zeus that lived in Sparta." How is this possible? How can the world be turned upside down? Among the Gods, he says, there is only one name, that of

Zeus.

Since we mentioned names, let us examine the etymology of the name

"Ελένη" ("Helen"). It comes from the root " Ελ" of the verb "αἰρέω-ῶ" which means to snatch, to conquer, to deceive, to capture, to destroy, denoting a negative meaning. According to another theory, the name comes from the word " σελήνη"

("moon"), thus making Helen a woman of light. Hesychius confirms the positive meaning of the name and mentions that it comes from the noun "ελάνη" which means torch. The ambiguity of this name is obvious.

So what is the truth? The meaning of Helen is positive or negative?

Anaxagoras, Euripides' teacher, teaches us that everything is perceptible through its opposite: "the principle of polarity." Everything is double, has two poles. Everything has its own pair of contrast. Everything is made of a (+) and a (-

). Collision is a part of the unity and not a part of rupture as many people think.

The same and the opposite are equal in their nature. They differ only in their

rhythm. All the true elements are found in the extremes. All the paradox elements can converse. Everything has two poles, two opinions, two opposites that are actually two faces of the same coin.

Helen, having heard by Theonoe the good news that her husband is alive, comes out of the palace and . . . there! . . . she sees him in front of her! But she cannot really see him, due to the fact that this man does not look like her husband

Menelaus, the king of Sparta, being dressed in rags. She assumes he is a spy sent by Theoclymenos to capture her and deliver her to his master. Menelaus, from his part, recognizes her face and staggers seeing the resemblance between this woman and his companion. He asks her who she is and Helen gives him all the convincing answers that prove her identity. However, this is not enough to convince him.

This character has reached the second stage of knowledge, which is faith.

He is a man who does not surrender to his imagination. He thinks for a while, "Is this really the way things are? Or are they different?" He lets Helen give him the information. He begins to exert a moderate critical control: "Is this woman telling me the truth? Is she a phantom? What is happening?" He is not dogmatic as we saw before with Teucer. He tries to explain the events logically. However, although the truth was presented in front of him, he did not have the strength to face it and prefers walking away. How many times did man look at the truth in the face and could not stand it? Menelaus prefers the delusion. He prefers the woman

in the cave, who is no other than the woman of shadows. He went through all of his misfortunes, he was able to leave the eidola and the shadows in the cave and reached a place where he saw the real light: the Helen-Truth. And still he throws away this truth, because he is not satisfied with this turnout of events. He cannot accept the fact that he spent all these years fighting "... for an empty shirt, a

Helen." He prefers, as it suits him, living in the dark. That's why people avoid lifting the cross of ignorance towards knowledge, considering it a weight of life.

Trying to avoid the uphill road of transition to knowledge, they choose security.

Their possessions. The do not have the courage to look at themselves in the mirror and they prefer standing in front of things and judging them from above, without implicating themselves in the situation. So, finally, Menelaus leaves Helen saying: "For seventeen years I've put up with sorrow and pain! And this pain is more real than you!"

He is about to leave when arrives the messenger-a faithful slave of

Menelaus, who claims that the pain he had to suffer was in vain. His wife (the phantom that he left at the cave) disappeared. He saw her ascent to the sky.

Before leaving she said some horrible things... "Poor Greeks and Trojans, you were killed for my sake! I'm a creature made of mist and air!" "Oh! Glorious day!", cries Menelaus. "This means that you told me the truth."

Next is the scene of recognition, where we see the meeting of Lights.

Menelaus looks at the Truth. Then we can hear the messenger talking, imparting

wisdom that we never expected coming from a man deprived of his freedom. He was marginalized, suppressed, exploited. However, he managed to do something that his master was not able to achieve. To preserve his qualities, reaching the point of having exquisite intellectual abilities. His devotion to his master is not a sign of servility but a choice of a free mind, a sign of nobility and character.

The most important is this: Helen of Troy left him, but his slave remains faithful to him. Menelaus fought for his "stolen Helen" but did not fight for his slave's freedom that he himself stole from him!

In addition, in the play, the slave condemns divination. The oracles played a political role similar to the one played nowadays by television. Tele-vision is the price one pays to see the world. The globalization of vision is promoted, as it is known by colossal business firms that control governments, politics, and strategies. The result? A lack of democracy. It leads to a very dangerous separation. It divides people into pessimistic and optimistic. The first category contains people who speak in a lamenting tongue about the evolution of mankind.

They present man as being worse than an animal, a mixture of mud, brutality, despair and pain that has no meaning in life. They prophesize a catastrophic future.

The other category has a diametrically different view of things. Optimistic people extol the achievements of mankind and believe in a bright future. But they cultivate utopia. The answer to this separation is given by the messenger. He informs the spectators-readers that God's Word is the only solution for reaching

the Truth. The slave, actually, frees the human mind from slavery, as far as people like Menelaus are concerned, who ignore God as God+Man.

We live in times of fear and oppressive space-time. Due to this fact, a great number of people turn to exotic religions and to the quest for spiritual experiences. The only thing they accomplish is becoming victims of astrology and fortune-tellers (the mass media lead us in this direction every day). However, in conclusion, we must understand that the "homo adorans," the functional adoring man that Euripides really appreciated, is a reality that cannot be neither approached-nor, most importantly, described- by computers and polls that lately are out of control!

All this is taught by a "slave!”

Helen with Menelaus

Messenger

Why to the Modern Man

A question asked by a spectator at the end of the performance of “Iphigenia in Tauris” comes to mind. The question was about the extent of Greece’s responsibility for the fact that people’s pensions cannot be paid. I don’t remember what my exact answer was, but I remember the feeling that this question gave me.

Actually, Greece is the black sheep. I can however give a lucid answer. Since

2002 (it’s ten years now), we joined a united Europe for a better future. This future did not only get better but we must reanalyze the word “Europe”

(“Ευρώπη”, from the verb ὁρῶ=see). We slave 80 hours a day, some die of starvation, women cannot have children, and those who can, prefer to eradicate them ... Why? Because they are not able to raise them and, most of all, they are afraid for their own life. Are Greeks responsible for this? Of course not. A number of important factors, like financial interests, the game of power, have turned everyday life into a hostile environment. This phenomenon exists not only in Greece but in the whole world. The lofty vision of united Europe ... the Future, has been destroyed... Man on a national, social, personal level has been destroyed.

How did we get into this Trojan war? Because this is what it’s all about.

Democracy and democratic values are the essence of Europe. Despite all that, democracy has become rigid and distorted. In this case, all we end up with is a figure, an illusion of democracy, while its real meaning is imprisoned. In a

previous chapter we mentioned the problem that the heroes came across regarding

Helen: if they really can see her or not. This situation can relate to Europe’s conditions nowadays:

1) The question of total trust (if not captivity) in things visible, material, ephemeral that our senses can see, embrace and savor.

2) The question of focusing on the present, here and now.

3) The mentality that considers opposition and competitive morality as the only means for success, thus leading to intense stress, depression and endless disputes and confrontations. These problems are affecting all members of European societies.

Note: I am not against the competitive spirit. I support fair play and competition. But not the kind that bows down before blind avarice and insatiable thirst for power and leads to the destruction of human life, driving people to a wild-goose chase for illusions of wealth and success (the ghost of Helen).

We must pursuit the rebuilding of a worthwhile life, with the right priorities and true values. We have reached a point of savage exploitation of the weak by the powerful. I fear that this frustration will evolve into an explosive rebellion due to injustice and inequality. We are responsible because we have loved hedonism. A tendency that plagued all of societies until the recent past. (I use the past tense because we do not have the luxury to savor anymore.) We have reached the point where a big percentage of young people are sinking into

depressive situations. They don’t care about life that no longer has significant things to offer (see the increase of drug use, emigration, lack of interest for politics and society). However, we still live in an era governed by shallow and superficial forms of human relations. Relationship problems are so intense that people, especially the young, are reclusive and find refuge in total and silent isolation. How is that possible? Young people are the future.

Although they were given great opportunities for education, free development and progress, the result is rather dramatic, as we see. One out of a thousand will succeed in making his dreams come true, while the other 999 will find that what they have dreamt of is gone and forgotten and not realized (the last phrase of Euripides in our play).

Also, another important question is that of similarity. The degradation of language is an important example of this problem. Since we perform in front of an

American audience we must point out that contemporary Americans believe that they live in a developing and pluralistic country, which evolves into a continuously larger differentiation. But, objectively, the meaning is the exact opposite, because pluralism lies behind the identical and shared expressions leading to the point of globalization.

In this play, written by Euripides approximately 2500 years ago, we follow our itinerary, where we come from. In times of chaos and confusion, we acquire a genuine relationship with the truth. And the most important: we are

obliged to change our priorities, unless we want to continue living as members of humanity enslaved by machines, numbers and matter. Euripides, showing respect for man, human freedom and human rights, became a pioneer in the fight for a genuine and accomplished democracy. I believe in a future with positive development. The new generation is the future (now still a present). I am a part of this generation. Only that this privileged new generation should not forget Saint

Paul’s “Epistle to Corinth”.

Finally, by presenting a play of this kind, I wish to remind America of the seed sown by Athens in 412 BC so that in 2012 AD American democracy comes to fruition.

Let's Talk About the End of the Performance: How Can an Ancient Drama be Associated with Christianity?

Let's talk about the end of the performance. How can an ancient drama be associated with Christianity? I'm referring to Helen singing St. Paul's Epistle and to the end of the performance featuring a cross, an element that invokes

Christianity.

You have forgotten Epiphany or in other words "deus ex machina".

The quest for God by man of all times and civilizations is a universal fundamental phenomenon. A phenomenon with various forms and expressed in various ways. The quest for God is part of man's effort to reach the

(transcendental) existence of God. This is certainly not a simple phenomenon and especially not an easy one to understand.

The vast amount of bibliography on this subject all around the world emphasizes the composite and difficult to investigate nature of this phenomenon of man's quest for God.

"What is God, what not God and what is that in between them?" (verse

1137). This is the verse that is part of the title of this present speech.

This verse presents man's unquenchable desire for seeking out God. It also expresses a distinctly human condition and man's tendency towards God.

Meaning who is the God we search for and which are his preceding qualities.

In the end of the play we come across an Epiphanic appearance: Dioscuri, the deified brothers of Helen. This appearance is neither momentary nor simple. It contains announcements of significant developments in the life of Theoclymenus as a leader also the lives of the rest of the parts of the play. A substantial part of

God's appearance is the dialogue between the god and the king. In this case we have an intervention by Theoclymenus for the sake of people's salvation (the

Egyptians' and also the Greeks'- everything is part of a chain). The irreverent has become fair. We would say that this is a divine appearance during which the human side is not a passive receiver but, through this opportunity, is intervening in the historical status quo.

In this case we see a God that appears in visible and tangible conditions in order to converse with man and make him participate drastically in formulating the historical developments towards a positive turn. This Epiphanic dialogue is a bright example of the search for a God who gives man the opportunity to intervene, which opportunity can modify even the plan of God himself.

In verses 1495-1505, the chorus implores Dioscuri for sympathy and assistance. I believe that Euripides reveals the tendency that people had up to that moment to look for a god that would appear in times of "emergency.” A god that would be an impartial judge of people and would guarantee the end of every kind of (social) injustice. It is distinctive that the word "justice" appears since the beginning through the end of the play at the tomb of Proteus, the good and fair

king that died and with whom justice also died, as we mentioned in a previous chapter.

We are looking for a buried justice. We are looking for a god that is above all a god of justice. And let's not fool ourselves. Since then till today, isn't he the one we are searching for?

A god that essentially guarantees and offers justice in its purest and most genuine form. A god that provides knowledge and wisdom. A god of mercy. A god of freedom. A real god. This quest is bringing all humans together. We are looking for a crucified and resurrected god. He may be walking among us, besides, he has promised this. What we need is eyes to discover him. Eyes to see him.

Euripides separated himself from the traditional god-centered perception of his era. For the first time, man is the center of dramatic poetry. Anything that the hero has to endure does not come from God. He is the only one responsible for his actions. Euripides enters the labyrinth of the human psyche to explain that man himself, and not his fate, is responsible for his life. He shows us the reasons that lead heroes to act the way they do. He shows us their weaknesses and the degree of influence these weaknesses have on their actions.

He was accused of being an atheist although the totality of his works is marked by a religiosity never seen before. Is it possible to characterize as an atheist a poet who depicts gods showing mercy for humankind and preaching the gospel of love? This is the new meaning that Euripides gave to the notion of God.

Isn't it a Christian meaning?

Perhaps you will say that he propagated an antireligious propaganda. That he attacks the oracles. Meaning that the audience at the end of the play realize this antireligious propaganda or are they smitten by the trick of Helen and Menelaus at the expense of Theoclymenus? Aren't they happy that two people have managed to leave this barbaric country?

If someone isolates some verses against the oracles and the gods he can convince himself and others also that Euripides is propagating antireligious propaganda. This is not a fair attitude. The poets aim was to educate through the stage (a philosopher through the stage) and not to have his plays read and especially in a fragmentary way that suits our own interests. Euripides, being a realist, knew that it is normal for man, in times of extreme sorrow and despair, in times of misery and while believing that he suffers in vain, to doubt and curse even gods. And that is a sign of faith. He cannot doubt if he doesn't believe and he cannot curse god if he doesn't admit his existence. Of course we must know that a lot of gods are not deities but the personification of natural or psychological forces of love, passion, etc.

With the help of the ancient drama we can have a greater bond with the immediate reality. What the ancient tragedy aims for is to make clear that a man of this kind or another may say or do this kind of things or he may not say and do this kind of things.

The most important: The hero, acquiring the knowledge of things, connects this knowledge to the weight and the standards of the moral choices.

Now the spectator and the reader of the ancient tragedy is urged to get on the stage and make these levels of knowledge his own by incorporating them to his life. However, this process is dramatic. Transition from evolution to knowledge is a drama. Why?

Because finding the courage to overcome your illusions is a very hard thing to do. Most people avoid carrying the cross of torment and willingly avoid the dramatic shift = transition of the soul.

Helen 412 BC – Obama 2012 AD

Critics have said a lot about the part of Theonoe. Some believe that this scene (Menelaus+Helen+Theonoe) is superfluous and the play will not sustain any harm if it’s removed. Some believe that the poet included the episode of

Theonoe to show his rhetorical skill, due to the fact that this episode contains rhetorical speeches. In my turn, I will quote the reasons that make this scene important, in its time and nowadays, without overlooking its rhetorical elements, which help any further clarification.

In v.973-974 Menelaus says: “... or you make Theonoe be less pious than your father.” Theonoe answers (v.998): “I was born pious and I want to remain so.

I will never pollute my father’s name and my name. Because, since I was born, there is inside me a –big- sanctuary of justice. That, I will keep alive.”

Euripides wants to point out that if Proteus was pious and fair, his daughter must be equally pious and fair in order for her to administer justice. Besides, the duty of an offspring, born from a fair father, is to imitate the ways of this father (v.941-942). This conduct makes the offspring better than the father, not only because the father’s piety and justice are preserved, but also because they are further cultivated.

Here, Euripides does not compare the father and his children in order to slight the children, but tries to point out the need for the children to continue their father’s character and carry it forward even more.

At this point, we would say that Euripides is influenced by Pericles’

Funeral Oration. Pericles, after dividing Athenians in three generations says: “... each one of them preserves whatever it has inherited from the previous one but on the same time it gets better because, itself, adds something new to its inheritance.

Namely, it honors the ancestors, as it is fair and proper. Thanks to their valor, our contemporaries left the country free for our sake. They are worthy of praise, but even more our fathers. Because, in addition to all the things they inherited, after they gained all the power we have today, they passed this power on to us.” So, roughly, he analyzes how we got to the power we have today, under what regime and with the help of what habits our power grew stronger.

Barack Obama tried something similar in his presidential campaign speech: “...If some of you are successful, somebody has helped you with that.

Sometime in your life, there has been a great mentor. Somebody helped us build this incredible American system that permitted you to flourish...” and he concludes: “Whatever we have accomplished is due to our individual initiative but also to the fact that we endeavor things together.”

Referring to the previous generations that helped building this country, he tries to convince people before the elections that it would be wiser to tax the upper (from a financial point of view) social classes.

Obama received some negative criticism after this speech, as Pericles would say: “...because any man tolerates listening to the praise of others up to the

point where he believes he’s capable of accomplishing some of the feats presented.

But, envy comes over him, concerning anything that is beyond his power, and so he does not put his faith in it.”

However, since the previous generations put this principle to test, Obama felt obliged to comply to the law and cater, as far as possible, to the desires and beliefs of everybody.

I’m not trying to take a political stand. My goal is to make it known to everybody that poetry and history are on the same level, they both are part of inquiry (Aristotle). The most certain thing is that our leaders have studied history more than ourselves. Therefore, we could say, in certainty, that Ancient Greeks have shaped our world, infusing the conscience of citizens with the utility of democracy. How? Through the union of democratic Athens with its ancient past.

Without Pericles there wouldn’t be any tragic poets. Without these poets Pericles wouldn’t exist.

Ancient Greeks may not have been able to travel to Mars yet they managed to obtain Immortality. From this point of view, Ancient Greeks are the pillars and the shapers of our contemporary world. If America reaches the level of

Immortality of the Fifth-century BC (Golden Age of Athens), this country will have to study the mistakes the Athenians made thousands of years ago and break new ground in preserving democracy’s fundamental meaning.

Samaras at Colonus?

In a previous chapter we mentioned that the Athenian theatre in the form of art offered to the people the ideological arms they needed to defend their democratic, political and social institutions. Let's have a look at the immortality of the Greeks, understanding finally Theoclymenus' greatest fear that leads him to the elimination of every Greek that "comes in his turf."

L.154 "He kills any Greek he captures coming here as a stranger." L. 437

"Get away from the palace. Don't disturb my master or you will die because you're Greek. Greeks are not accepted here." L.446 "Stranger, I was given this order. No Greeks are allowed near the palace."L.468 "He is a big enemy of the

Greeks." L.479-480 "because if my master catches you he will welcome you with death."

Why all this hatred? Isocrates claimed that the myth of Helen triggered the passionate hatred against barbarians. This feeling led to the freedom of the Greeks and the beginning of the elimination of the Asian danger for Europe. How was this accomplished? As Isocrates points out, for the first time the Greeks agreed to cooperate and so they won a glorious victory. They proved and confirmed this later, during the Greco-Persian Wars, when they were able to protect Europe from

"the Asian hordes." We would say that something similar happened during the

Greek War of Independence in 1821. Dionysios Solomos, shaken by the Greek

Revolution of 1821, wrote in only a month the 158 stanzas of the poem "Hymn to

Liberty," the 25 year old poet's first major work. The Hymn (that we must note has been translated in most languages) is inspired by the Greek people's fights for freedom from Turkish servitude. If we look closely to the etymology of the words Ελ-ένη (Helen) and Ελ-ευθερία (Freedom) we will find many similarities.

Like we've mentioned in previous chapters, "ελ" symbolizes the positive side, meaning the bright one. However, these two Greek words have also a negative side.

Homer calls Helen "ριγεδανήν" ("horrible") because she caused the death of many heroes. Let's see how our national poet Dionysios Solomos recognizes her. "I recognize you by the fearsome sharpness of your sword, I recognize you by the gleam (in your eyes) with which you rapidly survey the earth. From the sacred bones of the Hellenes arisen..." I use these lines to point out her negative side. Homer and Solomos are two artists that did not define death as the end.

Their works are works of escape towards something greater than death, and

Solomos ends up crying "Hail, o hail, Liberty!" referring to this paramount blessing of freedom.

The heroes of the Trojan War, as well as the heroes of the Greek

Revolution of 1821, exceed their limits and so they are the only ones that achieve witnessing this paramount blessing.

Let's come back to our era. Recently, Prime Minister of Greece Antonis

Samaras gave an interview for the German newspaper "Bild" at the Maximos

mansion. The Prime Minister was photographed in front of the painting "Grateful

Hellas" by Theodoros Vryzakis (1858), a work of art bearing multiple national symbolisms. Long ago, we saw former Prime Minister George Papandreou giving an interview for Greece's state television sitting at the same desk, however, he avoided appearing in front of this painting but chose a blue background. George

Papandreou received many negative and defiant comments for this attitude. The comments being justified or not, the answer given to the Hellenic Parliament by the under-secretary was this: "The painting "Grateful Hellas" by Theodoros

Vryzakis (1858) belongs to the National art Gallery and Alexander Soutzos

Museum which has the institutional responsibility, among others, for the conservation of the works of art that are lent for use to other institutions whenever the Gallery finds it necessary. This particular painting has been returned to the

National Gallery and has been replaced by another one with the title "Endless field-Delphi", etc.

I would like to point out the phrase spoken two years ago, on October 1st,

2010 "whenever the Gallery finds it necessary" that makes necessary the return of the painting in the Prime Minister's office on August 25th, 2012. So, the Prime

Minister and the current government make the return of the painting at the

Maximos mansion necessary and intentional. Prime Minister Antonis Samaras recently chose to be photographed with confidence in front of this painting for the

German newspaper, a photograph that went around the world. We can analyze the

message he wanted to send with the help of his interview for the newspaper. First of all, there is the title adopted by many media: "We need some air to breathe."

We would say that this desire is inept and his use of the plural "we want " and "we breathe" is apt because he represents a nation. Why inept? Because personal freedom means that one is able to act (not only in a personal way but also) in the social sphere without being confined by coercion.

Social freedom is secured by equal opportunities for all the members of society and contains the freedom of employment. Next, he mentions that " a possible return to the use of the drachma would mean the destruction of Greece and the end of democracy. It would mean five more years of depression and unemployment would reach the percentage of 40%. A nightmare for the country, financial collapse, social turbulence, and unprecedented crisis of democracy. The return to the drachma would cause a further decline of the living standards by

70%. Which economy, which democracy can survive like this? In the end, (he notes) it would be like the Weimar Republic."

Here, we discern fear. He's afraid of the consequences of the collision with more powerful structures. But what is the Prime Minister actually doing? He deprives himself of the ability to use his freedoms. Dictatorships are a typical example of situations where political freedom does not exist. It's typical for societies to ask their government for more political freedom. And the solution for the Prime Minister's keen desire (which is freedom) is given by another

"Theoclymenus". According to Bloomberg L.P. , during the earnest meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Germany and Greece, Minister Westerwelle was adamant against the renegotiation of the terms concerning the austerity measures and Minister Avramopoulos stood "at attention" and noted in his turn that Greece would present in the next weeks the austerity plan containing the announced cuts as part of Greece's constancy concerning its commitments.

Prime Minister, if you think that these measures will prevent us from becoming a Weimar Republic, then please take down the painting behind your desk and place a new one invoking Oedipus.

Theonoe, Helen 2012

In “Helen” Euripides uses the concept of illusion. Helen as a being and Helen as an image. Why does he do this and in what extent is this significant nowadays?

He uses this concept in order that people understand that Helen of Troy (Helen ghost-seeming) basically reflects our inner world. She is a seeming illusion made by people. Helen became an idol and Greeks and Trojans fought for her . But why is she known in history as the most hated woman?

During the fifth-century BC, thanks to the new art of theatre and the dialogues of philosophers and orators, the story of Helen brings up staggering subjects:

1) citizen’s responsibility and personal ambition

2) death and duty

3) relations between relatives

4) the expediency of war

5) the role of women

6) why people tend towards self destruction.

Helen, mysterious and ambiguous, was introduced in theatre as paradox. With theatre, Greeks

(who loved analysis) pondered over who they were, how they had to think and function.

Euripides introduced Helen as a central figure in the scene of tragedy. He created Helen the way men wanted: on one hand a perfect woman and on the other hand a perfect scapegoat.

Euripides allegedly wrote the tragedy “Helen” in 413 BC, after the Sicilian Expedition that was disastrous for Athens. The poet, being liberal and against this expedition, in this play accuses all the people that try to solve not only their differences but also their “wants” with the use of war.

Besides the human casualties of war (not to be disdained at all) there are collateral casualties that

the poet aptly points out.

It is the role of woman during the fifth-century BC (Golden Age of Athens) and how she survives after the lamentable failure of Athenians in Sicily.

The men of Athens then believed that women are not to be trusted and the ones that are educated and charismatic are dangerous because besides being attractive they lead civilization to its death.

They hated Helen because they thought that she marked the end of the age of heroes and the end of the Mycenaean civilization. She distracted men from their one-dimensional development.

A man making love to a woman (they thought) cannot build foundations, he cannot write his own history, he cannot fight. In 413 BC, in the famous Pericles’ Funeral Oration, Pericles states that the greatest fame would be appointed to women that remain invisible. So, the ideal woman was a lady of the house who was not visible and her name was not heard of. In this way, Helen was the enemy of the civilized man.

In the play, the Chorus consists of Greek women prisoners. They are prisoners against their will.

At this point, we should enlighten a facet worth to examine closely. After the Sicilian Expedition there was a significant lack of men. Many women could not find a husband. Then there was passed a law permitting bigamy. In the text, Helen refers to her daughter Hermione whom she calls «πολιά»

(v.283). This word does not mean that she is old but that she is over the age suitable for marriage. In the v. 689... « άγαµος, άτεκνος, θρηνεί» : unmarried, childless, she mourns.

Euripides was accused of being a misogynist. He is perhaps the first of the ancient Greeks who fought for the emancipation of women. He openly taught Atheneans that the woman-wife, un-esteemed and brushed aside, has rich feelings and dares to commit acts worthy of admiration. So Helen is presented as an honest and faithful woman who suffers unjustly due to the bad reputation that

men (unjustly) have linked to her name.

I don’t believe that the play of “Helen” reaches the limits of comedy, as many people like to say. Wherever in the play we are inclined to laugh, this is in reaction to the frivolity of the male heroes of the drama: Menelaus and Theoclymenus.

Menelaus, Helen 2012

What a paradox! We mentioned before that Helen was an enemy of the civilized man and we discern this civilization in the rags of Menelaus (king of Sparta) and the absolute tyrant Theoclymenus. The former, before recognizing the real Helen fought for his vanity, and the latter eliminates all Greeks for the same purpose, vanity.

And in the end, since vanity, as a core of the play, is a truly negative concept, why do people adopt it as a way of thinking?

Do people wish for their own harm? Don’t they know what is bad? Do they know it but do not have the strength to fight it? First of all we must understand the meaning of the word «µαταιοδοξία»= vanity. The first part «µάταιος» means purposeless, foolish, lost, hollow. The second part is the noun «δόξα». Its meaning is sometimes positive and sometimes negative because there is some misunderstanding (as notes brilliantly Andreas

Kalvos in his poem «εις Δόξαν», “Ode to Glory”) concerning its true content. Since the play was written after the Sicilian Expedition, we are left with the impression that Alcibiades’ ambition caused suffering not only to himself but also to his country, his fellow countrymen.

Genuine glory is the acknowledgement of the value of a person or a group of people offering great services to their country and humankind.

What kind of great services can a country leader offer to mankind by murdering women and children and devastating whole countries?

Leonidas and his 300 men obtained glory because his valor and self sacrifice are still considered nowadays a paramount blessing. Thucydides writes in Pericles’ Funeral Oration:

“To special men, the whole earth serves as a grave and not only the place marked by a funeral stele in the country where they are buried, where people remember more their moral virtue than their deeds.”

Therefore vanity is an attempt to obtain glory that is purposeless, foolish, condemned to failure. Because you do not chase glory. It’s a reward that appears spontaneously after the accomplishment of great work. A vain way of thinking cannot comprehend this important difference. Theoclymenus (the Authority) comes along with a deficiency. He lacks the real value that virtue offers. He admires his father’s true greatness but believes that it comes from wealth, social influence, political power and, even worse, that these attributes come from violence and cruelty, that they derive from war, savagery, the bashing of others

(“divide and conquer”).

Theoclymenus, Helen 2012

Vanity as a prevailing thought does not allow the spirit to examine itself and especially to look deeper into the problems of the world. Vanity does not nurture the personality in depth but only decorates its surface. Thus it gives life a shallow meaning that is acknowledged only in extreme situations – perhaps close to death. Then vanity is no longer prevailing and the soul cries: “Vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas”.

The thought on the future is erased by the pursuit of glory. This was, is, and will be the meaning of Helen. However, it all depends on the point of view we choose!

What Would Euripides' Answer to Violence Nowadays?

In a previous chapter we examined the fine line between democracy, in its fundamental meaning, and the utopian democracy. Our goal now is to examine the causes that led to this situation, meaning the difference between Helen-reality and Helen- appearances.

After Theoclymenus finds out by the messenger's mouth that Helen and Menelaus escaped, he cries: "Oh! What ineffable shame I have to endure because of a woman and a

Greek (l.1621).” He continues (l.1625): "But now I will punish my treacherous sister for not revealing to me that Menelaus was in the palace.” He is about to kill his sister.

Later, we hear the slave trying to prevent him from performing this act by saying that this is a forbidden act (it is taboo). If we analyze this word, we will understand the point of this enraged slave talking against his king.

So, we have the word "taboo." According to zoology, the term "herd" refers to the way that animals of the same species are organized and coexist in small or large groups.

These animals live free in the wild or are brought together by man for economical reasons. In the herd, the individuals are behaving in a congenial way. Each member's activities are monitored by the orders of another member: the leader-adviser. The necessary prerequisites for the formation of the herd are: a) the control of the individual's self-centered passions and b) the prevention of collective sufferings. The leader's rights are at odds with the individual's rights. Specifically, the adviser (sovereign) performs his leading duties and coordinates the masses. Meaning, he makes sure that the team has discipline and does not stray away. However, we would say that, in a preferential way,

the adviser acts in his own accord (somewhat like the father of the primeval horde). All the members are restrained while the leader (of the herd) is free. And this attribute makes him forbidden, sacred, and demonic (taboo). Why taboo? Because the governed members

(of the herd) have a dual attitude: a) they wish to cast off this constraint, but b) they are afraid exactly because they have this desire. Fear is stronger than desire (something that political powers are well aware of).

According to psychology, the prohibition of desire imposed by the leader causes the birth and advancement of conscience, because conscience means consequence of the desire. So, the development of the individual is the result of a) the tendency for personal happiness (egoistic) and b) the tendency for uniting with others and forming a community

(altruistic).

However, forbidden (taboo) is not only the leader but also the rebel who breaks the laws given by the leader. So, he is taboo because he is dangerous due to his acting in a forbidden way. Why? Because he tempts people into following his example. He is a dangerous role model. This wrongdoer against power is bound to try and take over the

Adviser's power (his authority). There are two possible consequences: the old leader loses his power or the new contender is defeated. It is certain though that stability is shaken.

The result of this battle will lead to a new (note: on the social level) set of rules. However, the rules remain always the same as far as their causality is concerned.

If the male goat loses the tragic fight for taking over the power, he will be sent to exile, out of his herd. This lonely creature will then be mourning because he will have realized his inability to act in a collective manner. This creature bursts into tragic song, hence the word tragedy (τράγος = male goat + ωδή = song).

Theoclymenus, La MaMA 2012

Let's get back to our drama. What would happen if the slave had not tried to prevent the murder of Theonoe? Theoclymenus would be a role model and, since he is so capable of it, somebody else would try to be a leader in his place. After what we mentioned before, the individual that breaks the rules gives credit to an important and absolute (complete) action.

These days, we watched another tragedy. I'm referring to the incident of August

24th that shocked the American public. The perpetrator of this incident, Jeffrey Johnson, age 58, according to the New York Times, killed a 41 year-old former coworker with a 45- caliber handgun, shooting him three times. The culprit did not have a record and, as the

New York Police Department states, this crime is not related to terrorism.

A lot of people criticize the fact that it is very easy for anyone to acquire a handgun in this country (USA). The mayor of New York has been asking for the prohibition of handguns for years. In another country, Greece (although, recently, at the

London Olympic Games the great sponsor of Coca-Cola chose not to include Greece in the universal map that the company had prepared for the games) bearing arms is forbidden. However, the Greeks, after the elections of 2012, used another kind of weapon to express violence (see the increase of extremism, suicide, fights and crime).

The deeper reasons that lead people globally to despair should be examined. We can give a possible reason: both perpetrators (the American and the Greek) took action because they were fired from the jobs to which they devoted themselves for several years.

On the same day (August 24th) we heard the statement of the Chancellor of Germany

Angela Merkel at her meeting with Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samaras: "I wish that

Greece remains a member of the Eurozone, I'm working for this goal and I know of nobody inside the government who is against this."

What kind of advice would Euripides give to Mrs. Merkel? Euripides wrote in his plays: "Beware! Anything that does not agree with Justice does not last long." Troy was burnt to the ground, but the Greeks are at fault because they went too far and murdered women and children. Euripides was kind of foretelling, as if he knew the end of those

who talk about the law and Justice. Yet, they should know that the words they're using

(law, justice) are ambiguous.

The answer that Euripides would give to the question about violence: (l.512-514)

"There is a saying, it's not mine (he is influenced by his teacher Aeschylus and his play

(Prometheus Bound", l.125) but it still is wise: there is nothing stronger than a horrible need."

Euripides' "Helen" in Times Square

Our positive or negative view of matters depends on the way we perceive and decode time. We find this element of time in Euripides' play. Helen asks Teucer how long it has been since the sack of Troy. She receives the answer: "It's been seven years that feel like ten." And she asks again: "and before that, you were in Troy for how long?" The answer: "Ten." Surely, we understand that time is very important for the heroes of our drama. What is happening? Has time stopped existing for Helen? A possible answer is that Helen does not speak about time from an objective point of view but from a subjective point of view. She talks about her inner sense of time. I could give you some clear-cut examples to clarify any possible misunderstandings of the concept of time.

The time spent rehearsing and preparing for the play "Helen" is objective.

However, the stressful period until the premiere of the show is subjective for the people involved in the play. Meaning, they perceive differently what time offers and what it takes away.

In New York, we come across skyscrapers. We understand that time seems to outclass the element of space. We feel the tension in matters. American people accept the responsibility of bearing the cost of change contrary to the situation in Greece where we face the problem of the increase in the number of civil servants and the construction of a lawless, timeless, made-of-cement Athens. Even worse, Greece has come up to the point of becoming a country that does not resolve to make some structural changes. Namely, crime has reached such a high level that people are afraid of going out on the streets, of moving around freely, and they prefer living shut in their homes because they don't have the courage, under these circumstances of financial misery, to go out and find new ways

of communicating. Our house may not let us move around freely, but it can make us feel safe.

Isn't this too a kind of tyranny?

Let's go back to New York. New York is a place far away but also very close to our everyday life. Tourists feel like they are lifted up high (Manhattan). They perceive the energy of a superpower on 5th Avenue, at Dow Jones, on 42nd Street, in the famous

Times Square, where all cultural events take place. However, there is a danger that is not easily perceived. Americans have turned time into money. Money=feeling=present. Let's cite an example.

The skull is a very familiar symbol. Lately, we find skulls in different colors and sizes everywhere. This new fashion trend is a part of many collections, bracelets, hairpins, dresses, and T-shirts. For this print on a T-shirt people pay the (not to so small) sum of

380 €.

Recently, I visited the Metropolitan Museum of art and witnessed the queues of visitors, fans, and otherwise, of the exposition dedicated to the designer Alexander

McQueen called "Savage Beauty." The symbol of the skull became prominent after the designer's unexpected death.

Despite his death, the Alexander McQueen brand continued promoting deathly and aggressive creations. Undoubtedly, this is a creator in vogue. I think so because thousands of people wait in line for this exposition and perhaps neglect other timeless works that remain eternal and immortal. I'm talking about works of art that were created thousands of years ago and offer us a glimpse of immortality.

To sum up: The human skull is a sign of warning against lethal danger. Which is

that danger for me?

Time. Because when does death become cruel? When it is a part of time.

For the Ancient Greeks death was never cruel, because the way of life was different. Contemporary cultures are afraid of death.

Euripides does not consider death as the end. His heroes overcome their passions and reach something grander than time. At the end of the play, Theoclymenus says: "Oh!

Great sons of Zeus! I threw my pride away!" Time is the enemy of the Ego, because Ego dies.

Euripides complains because time has taken the place of eternity, hence the tomb of Proteus. That's the reason why I use a clock in the show. "The abyss of time is a mass grave for all of us."

Like in his time, Euripides would still believe nowadays that we have entered an era of Time. However, he gives us an answer that can be helpful.

Time is not alone. Euripides, like all the ancient dramatists, taught his dramas in the most suitable place for communication: the theatre!

This is where the fundamental communication between people is found. The heroes, by transcending their limits, are able to witness the ultimate prize. After the end of the tragedy the audience can manage time with the help of an inner rebirth (catharsis).

Nowadays we face problems that lead to this question = In the end, are we free?

Those of us who have the ability to overcome our passions are free.

With this play, Euripides tried to teach us that our absolute tyrant is our utopia.

Our whole life is a chase, an "empty shirt" as George Seferis said, the chase of an ideal situation that we will never reach, but still, we torture ourselves being its servants. Yet,

we should realize that we serve a tyrant that rules over us and to whom we will never be able to say "no".

Because Helen is Καλλιπάρηον= has a beautiful face.

Euripides and Egypt

The Greeks, under the impression that Helen was real, fought a long lasting and bloody, real war in a real world. For one prize: death. However, the real woman, Helen, is in Egypt. The Ancient Greeks consider this place a Utopia. Egypt represents the opposite of the social and political conditions of the Fifth-century BC. There, women are of primary importance. Helen is a prevailing figure among Greek women prisoners and is accompanied by a woman called Theonoe who incarnates the highest truth. Who is she?

Helen says in her monologue about Theonoe: "She sees matters existing and those that are about to happen". Besides, the etymology of her name leads us also to this conclusion. Θεονόη:(Θεός +Νούς) (God and Mind)= she who understands the divine. She has great prophetic powers. She knows the intimate thoughts, the desires of others: "the whole truth has been exposed to me. I know the name of the man standing next to you! I know what he has endured in the sea." She has the gift of the second thought. She represents rationality, the Mind (Nous) that many philosophers talked about.

So, this goddess of wisdom and logic can easily be compared to the goddess

Athena, the favorite daughter of Zeus (born from her father's forehead) who is the goddess of wisdom.

More or less, we've all heard of the common saying: "I would like to have a

Greek's second thought." The meaning of this saying is that the first thought comes with impulsiveness and consequently leads to destruction. But the second thought comes with logic. We can see matters more clearly and soberly and we are led to actions calmer and not catastrophic. Therefore, we understand that Euripides tries to teach us through

Theonoe that when people possess a blind, impulsive, irrational fury they are led to

devastating (on many levels) situations. When can we defeat this blind fury? When we use logic. Logic is the one that confines limits and not impulsiveness. That's why logic and wisdom always defeats irrationality. Knowledge always defeats blind emotion.

On a social level

There are demagogues, who can talk eloquently and fire up the people leading them to catastrophic results.

On a personal level

There is television whose goal is to cultivate irrational feelings. On one day you're a leader and the next... "Oh! Gods! to be treated like thus!" (- Menelaus) It makes us act offensively, impulsively and not at all logically.

Theonoe "Helen" 2012

So, Theonoe or in other words Ειδοθέα=who sees God. Possessor of a superhuman cosmic wisdom, she embodies the highest truth. Free of passions and illusions, she is the possessor of knowledge, a knowledge that transcends the limits of development. A truth beyond logic, the equivalent of the truth as Plato perceived it in his theory of Forms. Using this platonic language we should say that Troy represents the appearance , the µη ον= non existing , while Egypt is the ον = the matter , the being.

Helen lies between these two spaces bearing the form of glory.

The real Helen is in Egypt but, in order for one to accept her, one must first shatter the illusion of her idol.

The idol is connected to its prototype, like Helen ("light") is connected to the

moon. The moonlight gives us a false vision of reality because in the penumbra our visions are misrepresented. The moon deludes, deceives, overshadows, misleads.

The idol makes the vision an end in itself. It prevents the sight from expanding further away and keeps man imprisoned in the material world.

Ειδοθέα (who sees God) and Plato.

Platonic philosophy is bipolar and divides the cosmos into the material world and the world of Forms.

His view of knowledge was clearly rationalistic. He believed that the Ideas

(Forms), the deepest knowledge of the world's nature, could be perceived only with the use of reason (Nous). The perceptions of our senses, according to Euripides and Plato, were uncertain and even false. However, logical investigation will lead to the insight of the equivalent transcending ideas. Knowledge is a matter of developing the way of seeing.

Dioscuri are connected to knowledge, meaning to vision, light. Castor and Pollux.

The former is related to the sun, the insight= the future and the latter is related to the moon, the intellect = the past.

Heroes must escape from their prisons to see the truth. Meaning that the heroes visit Egypt to see Helen (=moon= torch) who is the greatest prize: the Truth!

Chorus and Theatre

The protagonist of ancient Greek drama will always be the Chorus.

In my opinion, the Chorus, which represents the essence of team spirit, affects the thoughts and the feelings of not only the spectators but also of the roles of the drama.

How I justify my opinion:

The Chorus represents the Unconscious of people. Unconscious: the stage between the conscious and the subconscious. Subconscious: all the desires we were unaware of having or unaware of having suppressed them or having even buried them.

The Chorus observes the problems that trouble the actors. Each member of the

Chorus has its own thoughts but, the minute something happens, these members react to it as a group: “...While we were washing our robes in the sea, we heard a cry of pain.

Lady, share all of your problems with us...”

However, Plato thought that the Chorus had no rhythm no harmony in its movements. He said that the bodies of the dancers were not expressive, their movements were clumsy and their voices out of tune (Laws, 665e).

I believe, though, that the notion of individuality is not incompatible with the notion of the Chorus. In the Chorus we find the trace of the current events (that even the

Chorus itself does not understand, hence its comparison to the Unconscious). “There are some wheat branches moving and we sense that there is wind there.” (Tarkovsky).

Chorus, Captive maidens of Greece. Helen 2012

In what extent can it help? Individuality: the particle seems to be made of energy.

In order to modify the particle we would have to modify its inner energy.

Einstein said that the field that holds everything together is the Managing

Authority. He said that the field defines the individual’s attitude. The field is made of electric and magnetic energy, meaning of particles.

Nowadays, science teaches us that by modifying the electric or magnetic field we modify the particle. How can it change?

The strongest electric and magnetic field in our body is our heart. There lies our sentiment. Sentiment: the union of our Feeling and our Thought. In our hearts there is

Hate, Sorrow, Compassion, Happiness. The sentiment creates waves of electric and magnetic energy in our hearts, which waves change our body (and in extent our world).

Our beliefs also modify the electric and magnetic fields.

The Chorus expresses a view on the relationship of man and god, on peace in the world. Specifically: while addressing Helen after the exit of the first messenger, “He speaks the truth, my lady. Be friends with gods and not with prophets.”

In the scene of Helen-Theonoe-Menelaus, the Chorus says to Helen: “... your words and your appearance have made us feel sorry for you.” “Those who are fair prosper, while those who are unfair should be cursed.”

“Till when will hate and blood take the place of peace?”

“Who can look for god? And who was able to put god in a box? Man is floating on the tide of fortune. Only the word of god is certain and true.”

Euripides sometimes used odes that are not in concordance with the plot of the play, that’s why they are called inserts. Some scholars condemned this innovation calling

it an anachronism. What were ancient Greeks aware of?

They were aware of the fact that the heart’s electric field is 100 times more powerful than that of the brain. The heart’s magnetic field is 5000 times more powerful than that of the brain.

In conclusion, what was Euripides’ purpose in having the Chorus recite old songs and hymns? He wanted to create feelings in the hearts of the members of the Chorus (and consequently in the hearts of spectators).

In accordance with the poet’s expectations, the Chorus implores Dioscuri, the brothers of Helen, for their aid. They believe and hope that Dioscuri will appear and so they do in the end. In addition, the king came to his senses (he changed his mind).

In 1901, during an experiment, scientists proved that the spectators could affect the reality of what they were witnessing. Consciousness affected the king’s behavior.

This leads us to the conclusion that we are not mere observers of our world. Our existence in this world has a constant effect on it. John Wheeler said that the word

“observer” should be replaced by the word “participant”. Hence, the Chorus participates.

In 1998, the above-mentioned experiment took place again with the same results and with a more interesting observation: it was discovered that the longer the observation, the bigger the effect it had.

Euripides does not let the Chorus interfere in a great extent. However, it still participates in the play.

Scientists, in 1998, discovered that the more we observe our natural environment, the bigger the influence we have on it, with merely our active presence!

Chorus. Captive maidens of Greece. Helen 2012

Monday, September 17, 2012 Artemis Award Goes to Helen of Troy's Director, Eftychia Loizides!

The Artemis Award as presented to Helen of Troy's director, Eftychia Loizides, by Loula Loi Alafoyiannis, the Founder and President of the Euro-American Women's Council (EAWC).

Electra by Sophocles performed Western Connecticut State University

ELECTRA BY SOPHOCLES

THE STORY

Sophocles' play Electra (410 B.C.) tells the story of a young woman anxiously awaiting the return of her brother whose sole purpose in life is to avenge their father's death by murdering his killers: their mother, Clytemnestra, and her new husband,

Aegisthus.

The backstory is that Electra's father, Agamemnon, the king of Mycenae, returned from the Trojan War with a new concubine, Cassandra. During the war, Clytemnestra, had taken Agamemnon's cousin Aegisthus as her lover.

Clytemnestra kills the king and his concubine, believing the adultery was justified, since

Agamemnon had sacrificed their daughter Iphigeneia before the war, for the goddess

Artemis commanded it this way.

Electra manages to rescue her infant brother Orestes from her mother, by sending him to Strophius of Phocis.

The tragedy begins, years later, with Orestes returning for revenge. Orestes arrives together with his tutor. Their plan is to announce Orestes has died in a chariot race accident, and to deceive everybody that he is a man from Phocis delivering the remains of

Orestes in an urn.

NOTE FROM THE DIRECTOR

The ancient Greek drama was born at a time of transition from a more collective energy (the family, the tribe) to a more personal one, courtesy of the benefits afforded by

democracy: namely freedom of speech and the right to deviate in opinion from the consensus. The result was a realization that these previously deemed privileges constituted in fact, basic human rights that one was entitled to, and should these be breached, one ought to fight for them.

Today, 2500 years later, we see that, sadly, human rights are still in regression, even in the civilizations of the West. When we speak of human rights, we are referring to our basic liberties, the way one deserves to be treated.

Electra is not a single person; she represents a collective force. She is the global person who is "electrified" by injustice and fights to right wrongs; she could be a child, a mother, a father, or a teacher.

Sophocles wrote his play at a time of great upheaval. Today too is a time of immense upheaval and it is times like this that man begins to question everything: who he is, where he comes from, his purpose of existence. Even if he does not have the answers to these plaguing questions, the mere fact that he refuses to take anything for granted, is compliant with the spirit of the ancient Greek drama.

From the Director

Eftychia Loizides

Electra by Sophocles Theater Row 2013

Electra 86-121

O thou pure sunlight, and thou air, earth's canopy, how often have ye heard the strains of my lament, the wild blows dealt against this bleeding breast, when dark night fails! And my wretched couch in yonder house of woe knows well, ere now, how I keep the watches of the night, how often I bewail my hapless sire; to whom deadly Ares gave

not of his gifts in a strange land, but my mother, and her mate Aegisthus, cleft his head with murderous axe, as woodmen fell an oak. And for this no plaint bursts from any lip save mine, when thou, my father, hath died a death so cruel and so piteous!

But never will I cease from dirge and sore lament, while I look on the trembling rays of the bright stars, or on this light of day; but like the nightingale, slayer of her offspring, I will wail without ceasing, and cry aloud to all, here, at the doors of my father.

O home of Hades and Persephone! O Hermes of the shades! potent Curse, and ye, dread daughters of the gods, Erinyes,- Ye who behold when a life is reft by violence, when a bed is dishonoured by stealth,- come, help me, avenge the murder of my sire,- and send to me my brother; for I have no more the strength to bear up alone against the load of grief that weighs me down.

"Classical Greek is the language of our ancestors. And any sort of connection with their civilization could ameliorate our own. I wish, through this endeavor, to transmit the wealth of this language, the beauty of its rhythm and melody, as well as its power." Eftychia Loizides

What is the role of fanaticism in the application of programs for

change? Does fanaticism succeed in making a change?

First of all, the phrase: “I want a change” means : I refuse and reject a view or position, I do not accept the world and civilization as they are created (in general or in part).

I do not agree with the means and ways of acting and behaving that this world has established and I am trying to establish new means and ways.

Sophocles’ Electra longs for change as we can see in these lines: l.165 “...He (Orestes) who unwearyingly waits for him...” l.173 “... did not have the chance to show me...” , l.303 “... and me, constantly waiting for Orestes to end all this.” It looks like change is a vital need for Electra because it satisfies her desire for freedom.

A change that will save her from boredom and the emptiness of her soul. These two had destroyed all the goals she had in her life (l.166 “... I go on without destiny and without a husband”). Her only goal now is becoming a mechanical character in action.

Electra’s fanaticism

Fanaticism is a curious combination of passion and virtue. We would say that it is a bond of contradictory elements that cannot coexist in theory. It contains qualities worthy of admiration but also evils that threaten to cause the most terrible disasters.

In order to grasp its content, let’s think of the fanaticism of Islam (in the text of

Sophocles we come across fanaticism under the name of TRIAL)

The core of fanaticism is a stable, rigid, uncut faith in the value of an ideology aiming at the progress of society.

Clytemnestra believes in this Ideology, worships it as a god and promotes it as the

savior of mankind. It is a program with specific rules, commands and actions that demand absolute application, execution to the letter and blind obedience.

Electra answers to her mother in lines 578-583: “...Did he have to die by your hand? Be careful, by giving out this law, you place a hot knot around your neck and you will be sorry for it. If you must kill each other, you first will die due to this law.”

However, we come across the element of fanaticism in Electra too. Anything foreign to her own truth, whether it is a person or an ideology, must be destroyed. (l. 115

“... Come, help, pay for my father’s murder.” l.348-349 “... I think about my father and you don’t help me and you turn me off my path.”)

This viciousness often exceeds the limits of muscular ferocity and always causes horrific disasters, like the hideous crime at the end of the play: matricide. Electra believes that in order to combat her mother’s cruel and rigid attitude she will need a new change.

In the dialogue between mother and daughter the fanaticism of conservation

(Clytemnestra) is confronted by the fanaticism of change (Electra).

Ancient tragic poets believed that change comes at a price for peoples, but, through destruction, progress timidly appears and mankind moves forward at a slow pace.

A vicious circle, then.

Without fanaticism it is hard to have a change and with fanaticism, a new narrow- minded conservative spirit takes over the adjustment of society.

Changes are always planned by theoretical minds (that may not have the power to enforce them). The devoted followers play their role.

Fanaticism cultivates in Electra the spirit of heroism and self-sacrifice, coating the purpose with sacredness.

It creates groups with common ideas and goals (l.343-344: “... All your advice is her own saying, not even a word is yours...” l.358: “... However, in reality, you’ve made up with the killers...”)

It makes imminent the reality of the purpose – it fills hearts with enthusiasm and makes the soul eager for action.

It makes fighters strict and rigid, determined to kill and be killed with no mercy.

“Hit again, if you can! (l.1417). “Courage! We are almost at the end” (l.1435). For those that possibly have not examined this point of view I add an extract from Eric Hoffer’s

“The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements”:

“Though there are some obvious differences between a fanatic Christian, a fanatic

Muslim and a fanatic nationalist, the fanaticism that characterizes them can be considered as the same. This is also true about the force that pushes them towards expansion and worldwide domination. All kinds of faith, devotion, ambition, unity and self-sacrifice, share some similarities. Although there are some great differences in the content of every “sacred cause” or theory, we constantly discover correlations between the factors of this cause or theory that support their influence. Whoever – like Pascal – finds out the real reasons for the effectiveness of communist, National Socialist and nationalistic dogma. No matter how different the “sacred cause” that people sacrifice their lives for, they may actually be dying for the same thing.

Judging from the fact that the first followers of every mass movement are recruited mostly by all kinds of disappointed people, and that they join the movement voluntarily, we reach the conclusion that: 1) Failure and disappointment can create most of the characteristics of the “orthodox”. 2) An effective technique for influencing public

opinion is the assimilation of the disappointed...”

Electra when she learns her brother's death. Row Theatre 2013

Retribution: Old Law

The dead cannot rest unless their keen desire to be avenged is satisfied. This is a remnant of the old as time perception that blood must be avenged with blood.

This old as time saga of vengeance is one of the unwritten rules of the old law, the

Retribution.

Unlike Aeschylus (as we can see in his play “The Libation Bearers”) Sophocles adopts Homer’s point of view. In Homer’s work, we do not find the perception that the dead asked for vengeance. They don’t get mad and they don’t tell the living what to do.

They are not “angry at the killer” as Plato himself admits (Laws, 8655 d). They don’t interfere with the lives of those still alive. The only thing they ask for is to be buried (if they haven’t already been buried) and to have the necessary libations, offerings and honors appointed to them.

In Hades, they move around like “lifeless heads” (Odyssey, 11. 29, 49), “images of dead mortals” (Odyssey, 11. 476). They walk around like helpless shadows, without wit, without fibers (Iliad, 23.104, Odyssey, 11.219).

Homer and Sophocles tell us that: when one commits murder, he is exposed to the wrath of the victim’s relatives, which wrath, however, is not appointed by the dead.

Sophocles’ heroes, Orestes and Electra, are led by their personal passion for revenge and a higher sense of honor.

Sophocles and Aeschylus examined the unwritten rules of Old Law because they could see that this law, in a new form, still regulates and has impact on human relations, despite the fact that the state has substituted this law with a new one.

According to the old law, the son of the murder victim had the sacred obligation

to avenge his father’s death. Thus, Orestes, the only son of Agamemnon (who, according to the etymology of his name, comes from the mountains), has an “alpine” point of view and plans to do credit to his father’s memory and to avenge his dishonorable death. In these tragic circumstances, his enemy is his own mother.

In order to do his duty against his dead father, he must commit the most hideous of crimes: matricide. He is a young man that lived away from his home for so many years

(this was Electra’s doing since she gave him away to be raised by the tutor) and has stayed clear from all the blood spilling that polluted his family.

He is a young man with an immaculate soul, who has committed no unholy act on his own, but who bears the weight of a grave and unforgivable sin committed by his ancestors, for which, though, he has to pay. He has to acknowledge the great debt he is obliged to pay.

Nowadays, anything relating to tradition is often considered as an element dead or inhibiting progress. So how can this play of Sophocles, and ancient Greek tragedy in general, be of any help to us?

The word “dead” brings to mind the corpse, something useless and susceptible to endanger its environment. It’s something that people must get rid of, it inhibits, in a way, the progress and evolution of civilization, it stops the improvement of the way of life.

However, there is another point of view, with which I agree, that reaches a compromising solution after examining the relations between these concepts. We think of the word

“tradition”. We often hear so much about it. However, the reality it represents is not easily understood.

Parents pass on to their children the best things they have , that they earned and

acquired at their own effort, their language, their abilities, their ethics, their customs, their virtues and vices that they’re unaware of, their perceptions of life and death.

This act of passing on values that takes place every day in the families has been silently repeated in social life for centuries. The previous generations bequeath and deliver to the young people whatever they consider as prime material in order to help them make their lives better and easier. Hence, we understand that tradition is not only elements of civilization created in the past. It is actually an all-time process of uniting the past and the present. We would say it is a function of humanistic and educational character.

Because it helps young people of all eras, and their children, to overcome the obstacles and ordeals that their ancestors suffered from.

It passes on, through words and actions, selected elements of previous forms of civilization.

Tradition is the basic cultural function that roots from the ancestors’ love and will to help the next generations.

Tradition presents ideal examples that must be imitated, surpassed or even avoided, as we mentioned in previous chapters: it connects the present to the past while preparing the future. It is perhaps the most important factor for natural unity and independence.

Peoples that have no tradition find it hard to deal with the future and are always in danger of falling apart or getting absorbed by other peoples. Tradition pushes peoples towards the creation of a better future. These are some of the positive elements of tradition. However, returning to the introduction of this text, we must consider this

question:

What good things can someone expect from superstitions, national and social prejudice, racial disputes and war? No matter how strange it seems, these are traditional elements. They were preserved for the following reasons:

In the past, these elements were effective during difficult times of a people’s history, for example, the hatred for a neighboring nation kept the people ready for war, a fact that saved them from slavery in several occasions. This conclusion helps us explain when and in which way traditional elements play an inhibiting role.

Younger generations that receive these traditional elements find them totally correct, perfect and therefore effective, thus reaching the point of sterile adoration of the forefathers and rigid conservatism.

Although they see that some of these elements have no meaning at the present time, they refuse to replace them with other more practical elements. They consider them sacred and privileged and they don’t think of judging them in order to prove their legitimacy. They object to progress because they think that any change will destroy tradition, so they fight against change.

Instead of turning their gaze towards the future, they look all the way back at the past.

The conclusion is this: Tradition is a process of love and union of knowledge.

The usefulness of its elements depends on the way the recipients use them.

Tradition = the conscience of peoples.

Strange as it seems, tradition is the conscience that evaluates, selects and transports elements of culture from the past, incorporating them, unabridged or slightly

changed into the present.

Therefore, whatever good exists today was, at its most part, born as an idea and realized in the past.

The process of tradition gives the young people the chance to acquire the knowledge coming from the experience of others.

Ancient Drama and Tradition

In my opinion, ancient drama has offered a lot, since it contains some final and some temporary solutions to basic problems of life. Thus, tradition is a sacred support helping us deal with our current problems and also a motive for us to approach new problems.

At the same time, tradition achieves the union of time, a concept that man is used to grasp in fragments. We would say that tradition prepares the entrance of peoples and individuals into eternity.

In conclusion, I cite the beautiful scene described by Plutarch, where three successive generations of Spartans execute a triple dance. Each generation lists its virtues and accomplishments and all of them together plan the future of their country. The younger generation promises: “We will be much better than you”.

Speech is Dialogue

In the dialogues between mother and daughter and between the two sisters

(Electra and Chrysothemis) we see clearly that they have alienated each other.

We feel their differences, the distance between them, their loathing, their hatred, their dispute.

Relationships of this kind cause anomalies in social life and have the tendency to disrupt the unity and to dismantle society.

If we look closely at the relationships of this kind, we will realize that their common factor is disagreement and lack of emotional connection.

Thus, we could say, with a certain degree of skepticism, that these relationships are “anti-spiritual.” Their origin lies in a tragic misunderstanding regarding the role of others, which role has been described by Jean-Paul Sartre in his quote “My hell is the others.”

Roger Garaudy looked deeply in this issue and reached the exactly opposite conclusion: “My heaven is the others.” He even dedicated his book “Human Speech” to proving the great importance of dialogue.

Psychoanalysis - as everyone knows - used effectively the dialogue as a way of curing mental illness.

When we disagree with someone, isn’t dialogue the suggested solution? Therefore, we are well aware of its role, judging from our personal experience.

Dialogue in Ancient Greek Drama

The texts of the ancient Greek drama were especially created for the use of

dialogue. As we can see in the dialogue between Clytemnestra and Electra, they both talk about the law and justice. So, what is their dispute about? I will answer that with the help of a historical event.

Criton suggests that Socrates escapes from prison. He even justifies his suggestion using a number of arguments and tries to convince his friend of accepting his proposition.

Socrates starts the conversation in good faith, without scolding his friend for his immoral suggestion. The first thing he says is: “My friend Criton, your eagerness is valuable, if only your words had a shred of rightness.”

So, Socrates, and also the tragic poets are concerned about rightness and we, as spectators, are prompted to check if the dialogues we hear are in fact correct. The point of the dialogue is that spectators understand this rightness.

Let’s look closer at the content of the notion “διάλογος” (“dialogue”) in connection to the notion “λόγος” (“speech”) [since these notions are related both through their etymology and their meaning]. The preposition “δια” means that we deal with speech between two or more persons. The “λόγος” (“speech”) is the expression, the revelation of our mental world with the help of language. Language is considered as a tool for communicating and speech is the act of communicating in a logical manner, because “λόγος” means also justification and rational thought. The dialogue always

“means well” since, in order for it to start, good will is required. Line 554: “But if you let me, I will tell you good things about the dead man and my sister.” Line 556: “I leave you and if you start talking this way, then your words will not fall heavy on my ears.”

This question arises: Do the ancient Greek texts provide us with solutions?

These texts were written in order to educate citizens and help them reach a deep level of

consciousness. The structure itself of these texts is meant to allow the different ideas collide.

When it comes to us, these texts offer us the greatest lesson of democracy.

Oresteia by Aeschylus Performed at Western Connecticut State University

The audience wonders if Orestes had the right to kill his mother and waits for the poet to give an answer.

Sophocles and other tragic poets have not always offered an answer (a given answer).

In Homer’s work, the son’s (Orestes) vengeance for Agamemnon’s murder is mentioned several times.

The Twelve Olympians consider the murder of Aegisthus a fine example of a son’s devotion. They don’t say much about the death of Clytemnestra.

As for Aeschylus, many people think that the poet approves of matricide, since

Orestes is acquitted in the end because his act was necessary for the preservation of society.

In his play “The Eumenides,” Aeschylus acquitted Orestes, not because he doesn’t consider him responsible for his actions, but because he wanted to stop the vicious circle of blood-spilling. As we mentioned in a previous chapter about the Old

Law (Trial), the killer would have to be punished by another killer: an eye for an eye.

Aeschylus, by including Orestes’ trial in the last play of his trilogy, puts an end to this strife and says:

“Stop killing each other, justice is the one who will judge criminals.”

The goddess Athena, mainly the goddess of Wisdom and Justice and the daughter of Zeus, is presiding over this court. Euripides, in his play “Electra,” has a totally different opinion than Aeschylus, and the heroes Electra and Orestes, having committed the crime of matricide, cannot find satisfaction in this act of vengeance.

There were also some other poets like Stesichorus (a lyric poet) who found

nothing ethically wrong with this matricide. As far as we can tell from the few existing fragments of his work “Oresteia,” Stesichorus praised this act and called it a victory of the oppressed over their oppressors.

Sophocles could not possibly have ignored Clytemnestra’s death, let alone omit it from his play. In the end, which point of view does Sophocles agree with?

1) With the point of view of Aeschylus, so that he justifies Apollo’s order as a

decision deriving from a son’s higher duty to his father, rather than his mother?

2) With the point of view of Euripides, so that he places human passions

(feelings) above the gods?

Perhaps he traces a path of his own and tries to discover a new solution.

Orestes has to deal with a dilemma. Should he avenge his father’s death, as the gods dictate (Apollo), or should he respect his mother, as Plato suggests. Plato thought that matricide, under any circumstances, is a monstrous act and no punishment fits this terrible crime. It’s an unjustifiable act, even if the killer was acting under the influence of an uncontrollable passion.

Sophocles may not offer a solution in the way that Aeschylus does, nor does he present the heroes of the play discussing if vengeance is right or wrong, however, a number of insinuations in the play urge us to think about the consequences of this drama.

These consequences are presented in a dramatic way and we end up with this question:

What are the dramatic characters doing and saying?

The conclusion may not be as clear as that of Aeschylus it is, however, satisfactory.

One by one, the dramatic characters of this play express their expectation that the

gods will assist this vengeance (lines 82, 110-118, 173-175, 411, 626, 637-659, 792, 825).

All these characters believe that the gods will offer their assistance because they are punishers and protectors of the murder victims. We would say that Sophocles carefully creates the defense of this matricide, because he considers it to be moral, religious and legal.

This is also demanded by the human justice, which is in turn authorized by the gods.

Euripides asks a very serious question: “Is it really right, under any circumstances, that someone should kill his mother, and why?

If in fact Clytemnestra should die, couldn’t the perpetrator of her murder be someone else?”

In Sophocles’ play, Electra hears the untrue story of Orestes’ death and decides to finish off the vengeance herself.

However, in the end, Sophocles does not preserve this ending. Why? Why does he change the turn of events? Isn’t Electra, because of her nature, capable of accomplishing the will of the gods?

The couple that committed the murder was placed above the law because of the fact that they were not content only with the crime but also they usurped the dead man’s power. So the law itself (which, as we can see, was created by themselves as rulers of the state) cannot be turned against them.

In consequence, the act of exterminating the killers cannot be an “inside job”, but it falls on people that they cannot control and that are capable of changing things.

When the power is in the hands of people that show no respect for the law, justice

can be served only by people that have the will and the duty of doing what could, of course, be considered as a crime.

Sophocles reaches this conclusion, having already created the character of

Clytemnestra and portraying her as a woman who is no longer a mother. He created her character in such a way that Orestes does not feel any strong guilt about killing her.

Electra – always according to the text - says that she no longer considers Clytemnestra as her mother, since her actions are in no way maternal. To sum up, we would say that she does not deserve her children’s affection and respect, because:

1) She killed Agamemnon.

2) She usurped his power.

3) She appointed to her lover the post of her murdered husband Agamemnon.

4) Aegisthus sits on the dead man’s throne.

5) He wears his clothes.

6) He offers libations on the hearth where Agamemnon was murdered and he

sleeps in his bed.

7) Clytemnestra organizes monthly feasts in memory of the murder, meaning that

she praises her crime. She treats badly not all of her children but only those that

have a different opinion and show it with their attitude and their behavior.

We understand that Democracy is abolished. Another sign of her bad behavior towards her children is this: As soon as she hears about Orestes’ death, her motherly love fights with fear and hate.

However, after this inner battle, evil wins. She believes that she is now free to

pass the remaining of her days in peace, free of the threat that distressed her. The situation that Sophocles has created is that when injustice has reached the highest point.

Electra realizes that she is wrong but she thinks that her acts are inevitable. She has no other choice. Electra and Orestes are obliged to commit this crime because of the terrible situation created by the original crime of their mother.

Sophocles accepts this evil act. Of course, in no way does he try to belittle this evil but also he thinks that duty is necessary and fair. This terrible situation can be changed only by terrible means.

In conclusion of this chapter, I provide an answer to a question addressed to me by an actor. Why is the play called “Electra” and not “Orestes”, since he is the one who kills the two usurpers and the one who takes the power afterwards?

Electra is the one who has lived in the presence of evil for many years and not

Orestes.

In order to give an answer to this question, I quote the following dialogue. I also explain my point of view, as a director, concerning “Electra-People” (λαός=people), since she is being referred to elsewhere by the name of “Laodice” (λαός=People +

δίκη=Trial)

Orestes: I cannot hold my tongue anymore... Is this the famous face of Electra?

Electra: Yes, the one that has become like this...

Orestes: Alas! Poor woman! What a horrible disaster... Oh, body! You are ruined, in an indecent and unholy way!

Electra: Since I am living with killers.

Orestes: Of whom?

Electra: Of my father; and I am forced to work for them.

Orestes: Who forces you?

Electra: She is called “mother”. She is not a mother, though.

Orestes: What does she do? Does she insult or does she hit with her hands?

Electra: She uses her hands, she insults, and many more.

Orestes: Is there anyone helping you?

Electra: No one.

Orestes Row Theatre, 2013

Aristocratic thought versus a realistic theory of conduct.

Keywords for the two groups:

Aristocrats: idleness, prudence and honor

Realists: versatility, intelligence and self-knowledge.

Idleness-Versatility:

Versatility is the characteristic of an Athenian democrat according to Thucydides.

Euripides taught us about the difference between versatility and idleness. Amphion, the ideal of an educated young Athenian aristocrat, prefers a peaceful man rather than a reckless seaman or governor. We find the resonance of this opposition in the work of

Sophocles who also believes in idleness.

Prudence-intelligence:

Mental intelligence is the main important characteristic of an Athenian democrat- and of Themistocles in Thucydides’ Book 2 of the “History of the Peloponnesian War”.

However, this characteristic does not have an ethical element, which is the one thing creating a difference between mind and intelligence.

Sophocles looks for the ethical element of shame (l.249). A man that feels ashamed cannot lie. However, Sophocles that lies will not prevail in the end. An intelligent man will use any resources he has in order to achieve his goals.

On the other hand, Sophocles rejects beautiful words that mask idiotic acts.

At this point, we should say that eloquence (the beautiful words or even the political

double-speak) of demagogues has always been and still is nowadays a very serious problem.

Opposite to the mental intelligence of the realists we find Sophocles and his aristocratic idea of prudence. Prudence helps us with discovering the “limits” of the human potential and with logically and carefully observing the changes in our life.

Prudence can help people and protect them from stubbornness, extreme self –confidence and misleading hope, things that nowadays are serious dangers. People like the heroes of

Sophocles deal with this kind of dangers.

Prudence has two sides:

• Unethical side (modesty and absence of exaggeration)

• A mental side (knowing the limits of human potential)

We should keep in mind that “Thoughtlessness is called the true sister of

Wickedness.”

So, Prudence means restraint, modesty. Modesty is the opposite of all forms of outrage and passion.

If we examine the gap (that we cannot bridge) between the aristocrats (prudence) and the realists (intelligence without conscience) we end up at a crossroads:

Do we wish to rule everything? Or, do we prefer an honorable failure rather than a dishonoring victory?

The aristocratic ideal in Pindar’s work

Pindar praises on one hand the physical power and beauty of victors and, on the

other hand, their ethical strength and restraint. He thought that these qualities were inherited from demigod ancestors. He believed that ideals were based on the innate personal virtue.

Nature

Sophists applied to the human behavior the principles of mechanical causality- the principles used by the physical or natural philosophers of the 6th century BC. Pindar thinks that man is the creation of circumstances. “He is good, if his luck is good, and vicious, if his luck is bad”.

Sophocles did not agree with the Sophists’ opinion that man’s behavior is merely a result of natural elements. Being himself aware of the dangers of life, he adopted the opinion that the gods watch over the world and that human behavior has a deeper meaning.

Nature

Above all, nature means a course of evolution. In one way, it has to do with this common phrase: “it’s in a man’s nature to do this or that”. This phrase refers to a superior or more modest nature. As to what exactly these two kinds of nature mean, aristocrats and realists (philosophers of the 5th century BC) are divided in two different sides.

For the realists, nature, besides meaning a course of evolution and the development of the whole world, also means man’s modest nature (his passions).

The sophist Antiphon (who is placed at the group of realists) says: “Most of the rights that are registered in the law are against nature” (Hippias, C.1. Antiphon.) Law and

convention are powers that constrain nature.

For Sophocles, whose ideas matched those of the aristocrats, the word “φύσις”

(“nature”) means that growth comes from a seed that somebody has planted.

Like Aeschylus, he thinks that this seed has been planted by the father (l.1413, 1509) and not by the mother. The child inherits the father’s nature and the child’s nature consists of characteristics inherited by its father.

Chrysothemis has inherited her nature and her ideas from her father and when she accepts the attitude and behavior of Clytemnestra, this means that she has abandoned her own nature.

Her nature is not only the character she inherited but also the highest level of conduct that this character could achieve.

At this point we would like to say that Sophocles appears as a precursor of Plato.

Plato builds his ideal of the state on the principal that each citizen is predestined, due to his inherited nature, for specific acts.

What is Sophocles’ response to Pindar’s view that: “If nature is defined by birth, change via education is impossible”?

Sophocles allows nature to evolve sometimes.

An important factor that can help the young people’s natural growth (so that they can have a stable nature and choose a right path) is the city they live in. Sophocles, creating his play “Electra,” seems to regret the little effect that Athens has on its citizens.

At his point, I would like to make clear that the two groups of Realists and Aristocrats are not contradicting each other but they are influencing each other.

Sophocles was deeply impressed by Protagoras (the most important sophist and teacher of virtue). Sophocles, like Protagoras, describes the evolution of human civilization and man’s spirit. However, Sophocles in his play “Electra” states clearly the dangers of rationality and puts the theory of moral contamination in the words of an infuriated Clytemnestra (l.528: “It was Trial who killed him also, not only me.”)

The fact that different heroes use the same word but with a different semantic content (ambiguity), like for example the word “prudent” used by Electra and by

Chrysothemis, shows us that Sophocles was influenced by Prodicus and his “synonyms”.

The divergence or the convergence of the two groups of realists and aristocrats is aptly described by Busse: “Sophocles agrees completely with the sophists when they honor the creativity of man’s spirit in the sphere of cultural progress, but he also explicitly attacks their immorality, when they consider the ethical law as the creation of specific humans and they place themselves above it without any scruples.”

The sophists’ biggest influence is obvious at the process of reasoning. Sophists’ arguments appear in the works of Euripides, pseudo-Xenophon, Sophocles, Aristophanes,

Herodotus.

Protagoras’ Method of Teaching

His method of teaching was “antilogiae,” contradicting arguments on a subject, known as weak and strong logos. Training his students in this way he meant to familiarize them with alternative ways of reasoning.

Almost all the writers of that period, even, Thucydides, used pairs of arguments in order to present more clearly an antithesis of opinions.

The battle of arguments portrayed the basic questions examined in the play.

Sophocles, during the decade of 450-440, is influenced by the new rhetorical process. A fact that is confirmed by the political content of the speeches he uses in his plays.

A kind of sophists’ argument is the interest: “men have the tendency of doing whatever is in their own interest.”

However, this idea is against the ideals of justice, honor, rightness, and virtue.

Unlike Herodotus, Thucydides devotes his work to the analysis of the real (and therefore material) aspects of war. Sophocles’ observation on Euripides is analogue to that of the elder historian on the younger one: “I present people the way they should be” (Aristotle,

“Poetics”).

Thucydides Presents People the Way They Are

Antiphon is generally interested in showing that the human behavior is more influenced by the laws of nature rather than the explicit and inconsistent laws of society.

His argument was that of people break the laws of nature they are immediately punished by being unable to survive, but if they break the laws of society there may or may not be a loss.

We find this very interesting matter of the influence of nature and convention

(nature-law) in Plato’s “Gorgias” and Aristotle’s “Politics”.

Many people supported the idea expressed by Callicles in the dialogue “Gorgias” that powerful people are meant by nature to act at liberty according to their personal interest. This extreme idea appeared for the first time among argumentative circles when democracy reached the point of its worst excesses.

Man Transcending the Law

Aegisthus. Row Theatre, 2012

This chapter treats the subject of man’s condition when he defies the laws and places himself above the law.

The state demands that the citizens obey the laws and the government, but under one condition: that the governor does not only care about the interest of his citizens but also knows what that interest is.

Reading many translations and renditions of Sophocles’ text brought on some political thoughts.

• Infringement of the law.

• Lies that must be denounced.

• Vicious circle-chain reaction.

• Reparation of justice.

• Reinstatement of the law.

• Shame, lawlessness, tyranny covered by the mantle of democracy.

Nowadays, people should be interested in these things. We live in times when the

“Golden Boys” and governments “make profane love” without any scruples (l.271 “I look at their latest profanity”).

L.275: “All this stupidity”. This is a wonderful expression from a human who sees and experiences these profanities. And this universal being that is “electrified” bears the name of “Electra.”

Because people with authority use whatever laws they like trying to safeguard their private privileges. And this kind of authority is surely tyrannical. I’m aware of the fact that this word is not going to please certain people, however, I must point out that hubris, as the Chorus in Sophocles’ “Electra” says, is part of a tyrant’s nature. A tyrant rejects the fundamental right of the freedom of speech and annuls equal opportunities

(minimum wages exist-and they represent a humiliating number-and the six-figure salaries . . . no comment!)

And this is what a democratic Europe demands.

Sophocles could not accept that the state was supposed to be exploited only for the privileges of a few people. He thought that there should be equal opportunities for all people. “The unimportant people could easily be saved along with the important ones and vice versa.” Their collaboration would be for the benefit of both the unimportant and

100

important people, thus leading to the progress of the society, rather than the self-interest of a tyrant or demagogue.

“Leader Wanted”

Sophocles said that he created the kind of people that had to be created (Aristotle,

“Poetics,” 1460). So, we would say that Sophocles’ political ideal example is a governor that runs the city in the citizens’ interest and is obeyed by the citizens.

What happens if this fails?

Clytemnestra (l.1410 “Oh, child, have mercy on your mother!”)

101

Leonidas & Eftychia Loizides Theatrical Group

The Theatre Scheme of Leonidas and Eftychia Loizidis is an established non- profit organization, which aims to share the rich variety and importance of classical

Greek culture with the world. Travelling with remarkable theatrical productions of ancient Greek drama throughout the world. The Theatrical Scheme has won awards and received excellent reviews wherever they have performed.

Leonidas Loizides

Leonidas Loizides is a critically acclaimed theatre and film director, a Cypriot by birth.

102

He attended New York University, at Tisch School of the Arts, earning a degree in Film Directing. At the same time, his artistic quest led him to Sonia Moore’s School of acting, teaching and directing, getting immersed in Stanislavski’s earth-shaking theatre, film and acting techniques.

Upon finishing, he returned to Greece where he launched on an acting career, participating in productions with great actors, directors, and producers. This became the fertile ground for his talent to spring forth and thus receive rave reviews and significant awards for a period of time. He cut his acting career short because the real passion in his life, directing theatre and films, became his “calling.” In this, he was highly encouraged by actors, directors, producers, and critics with “heavy” names in the Greek Theatre.

In Athens, he worked in famous theatres and staged a series of demanding plays, which carried his personal touch, ranging from ancient tragedy to the contemporary scene. With his theatrical group, he also gave performances to audiences in many cities in Cyprus,

England, France, and the USA.

PRODUCTIONS

BACCHAE BY EURIPIDES

Aiming at the promotion of the excellent theatrical play of Euripides, “Bacchae,”

Leonidas Loizides starts a long journey, presenting this diachronic play, with some innovations (like the cast which totally consists of women) in several countries and festivals, in a translation of Marikas Thomadaki.

We also point out that in this attempt of ours we have the support of the Greek state and the honor, this theatrical production to be under the auspices of the Greek

103

ministries of Foreign affairs, Transport and Communications, the Greek National

Tourism Association, the Hellenic Culture Organization, as well as under the auspice of the Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of Cyprus.

All the above factors render the above performances perfect from the artistic point of view, at a level that it can satisfy even the most demanding audience.

The theatre company consists of 8 members and along with the director, the technician

(operator of lights and sound) and the production organizers, constitutes the twelve- member team that will travel for the materialization of this inspired project.

The specific production spread its wings beyond the Greek horizons in September of 2008 with a 40-day tour in America, in 18 states of the USA, under the auspices of the

World Council of Hellenes Abroad, SAE USA Region and the Organization under the name "PEDIA" (meaning EDUCATION in the English Language), and we hope that its journey will be as far and long, from the time point of view, as possible. Our tour in

America had an extremely warm reception from the audience and the press, winning many distinctions by local entities, with the awarding of prizes by the Municipality of

New York and the American Congress being the high spot.

Our following destination is Europe, with already scheduled performances in

Germany (Stuttgart 23/01/09), London (London Theatre of Art 20&21/03/09), Cyprus

(Lemesos, 27&28/02/09) and Paris for January and February 2009, while we are already preparing our new theatrical production "Troades" of Euripides, which will start its tour in Greece and abroad from August of 2009.

104

“Bacchae” (Vakhes) tour in USA 2008

The Leonidas and Eftychia Loizides’ Theater Company presented Euripides’

“Bacchae” at the Portland High School John Ford Auditorium on September 24 within the framework of a world tour. The performance was in the Greek language with English surtitles. Portland Mayor Ed Suslovic honored director Loizides for his contribution to the spread of the messages of the Greek culture through an innovative and creative approach of the ancient Greek classical masterpiece.

The next stop was the University of New Hampshire on September 25, where

Pan-Macedonian Association-USA President Nina Gatzoulis presented Loizides with an honorary plaque and congratulated him for an excellent performance.

The theater company’s tour was launched in New York on September 16 and will be completed on October 25 with performances in 18 states.

105

The production, organized by Paideia Hellenic Society, is under the auspices of the Greek ministries of foreign affairs, tourist development, transport and communications, the culture ministry Organization for the Projection of Greek Culture, the Cypriot ministries of education and culture, the City of Athens Cultural Organization,

UNESCO and SAE.

Director’s Note

My dream to stage “Bacchae” of Euripides since 1995 in a theatre performance is at last realized after 13 years.

The ancient Greek tragedies, beyond sensational art works, are also the starting points of the western civilization, that is the beginning of our civilization-and for this reason they should concern us more than any genre of theatre. The objective of my direction for the said performance is not to present a super show, but to try to understand and interpret the genius of Euripides: his mind and thinking, the poetry and the manner in which he treats speech. The set I selected to use is utterly austere and this because, in my opinion, the work of Euripides is a super show by itself: the Dorian order of its speech and the hymn to the female gender, which was my motive power to innovate, staging

“Bacchae,” exclusively with actresses.

My choice to work mainly with new debutante-but talented-actresses- that belong to the same generation, “regardless of how much famous or not they are” is my need to work with people that are able to offer me and share with me their energy, their passion for the theatre and their ambition to prove to themselves and the rest of the people that they deserve to be on the stage. I wish to cooperate with people who dream, hope, risk,

106

and mainly with people that they do not consider that they know everything….

It is the second time that I direct an ancient drama and a work of Euripides and the first time I tour abroad with my Theatre Scheme, hosted by culture entities of more than 10 countries, while my performance has the honor to be held under the auspices of the Greek Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Tourism, Transport and Media, the Organization of Greek Culture Promotion of the Ministry of Culture, as well as of the Ministry of

Education and Culture of the Cypriot Republic, being aware of the responsibility to represent with my theatre production, Greek culture and the quality Greek theatre abroad.

I don't really know how every spectator will embrace and recognize this inspiration, but I' m foremost satisfied I' m going to present a creation of fine art which is going to completely reflect my personal view and interpretation of this exceptional tragedy by

Euripides. Nevertheless, I believe that the perfect spectator for our performance would be the one who shares the same way of thinking as the ancient Greek spectator: to be aware of the myth itself and to come to the theatre prepared in order to watch its specific artistic treatment.

Leonidas Loizides

107

Troades of Euripedes Performed at Western Connecticut State University

108

TROADES BY EURIPIDES

Leonidas Loizides is proud to announce the production of another Greek tragedy written by Euripides: Troades. The performance is scheduled to tour in USA from

20/9/2009 till 30/10/2009. The warm response that Vakhes met from every American state they were presented during 2008 induces the theatrical scheme with the moral obligation to stay loyal to the initial task, which is the continuous, intercultural contact of the audience around the world with the Greek heritage, through the poetry of Euripides.

Acknowledging the excellence and dedication of his colleagues and their contribution into shaping a production that was awarded by the American Congress and the New York

State. The play will be presented in the Greek and/or English language with English hyper-titles. The music of the performance is by itself an element that makes this production appealing, since Mikis Theodorakis, the world famous composer, a Greek symbol of culture, honors Leonidas Loizides by enriching the play with the music he has written for the film Troades in 1965 (directed by Michalis Kakogiannis). This musical composition will be used on a theatre scene for the first time thus forming a bridge between the arts of cinema and theatre.

Troades is a tragedy pointing out that in the war there are neither winners nor losers. However, even through the darkest night and despair, there is a sign of hope and catharsis. What more suitable and up to date meaning would there be, with the crisis the world faces nowadays? Leonidas Loizides walks on the lines of innovation and minimalism. You should expect his personal touch to be shown in this performance too, across the lines of using a Greek and a French woman on scene each one talking in her own language in "Les Troyennes aujourd' hui" or the exclusively female cast used in

109

"Vakhes." You should also expect a simple, but not simplistic approach in the direction of the play that permits the beauty of the poetry to shine and reach the audience as that's the true protagonist.

Eftychia Loizides as Andromache.

110

ORESTEIA BY AESCHYLUS

Oresteia by Aeschylus in off Broadway theatre of New York “Kirk Theatre” from the Theatre Group of Leonidas & Eftychia Loizides

Oresteia by Aeschylus is performed in off Broadway theatre of New York "Kirk

Theatre," by Leonidas Loizidis. The awarded director and producer, after the successful world tours of the performances "Bakches" and "Trojan Women" two years ago and last year respectively, come this fall with a new dynamic presence in the theatrical proceedings, directing the trilogy of Oresteia by Aeschylus in the center of Manhattan, there where strikes the heart of the theatre in the modern world, and in particular in the

English language. Thus, the Greeks in America, the Americans, but also the tourists from all over the world will crowd the theatres of Broadway, and will have the chance to enjoy ancient tragedy, in the way that was presented by the ancient Greeks. The cast, juvenile and alive, it is certain that will drift in the vibrations of Aeschylus the public, while the music takes off the spectators, making them simultaneously participants of its Hellenism.

But the performance will not stay only in Broadway. Leonidas Loizidis, faithful to his vision of handing over the torch of ancient Greek culture, as he did other years so this year as well he will tour with his theater group in various academic cities of abroad, directing Oresteia in the Greek language this time, with English subtitles.

5 reasons to view Oresteia by Leonidas Loizides

1) "So this is tragedy", said Aristotle. And Leonidas Loizides presents tragedy in the same way that the ancient Greeks did.

2) Respect to the ancient texts and the ancient scenes without alterations and modern

111

presumptions.

3) Only the knowledge of the ancient tragedy may give the baton to the modern theater.

4) The Greek tragedies are full of messages about justice, love, peace, from 2,500 years ago, messages always well-timed.

5) Theater is a study, aesthetics, education of the soul. And these are given clearly by

Leonidas Loizides directing Aeschylus.

Leonidas Loizides

112

IPHIGENIA IN TAURIS BY EURIPIDES

Director’s Note

And the journey continues. This dream began four years ago, when my vision for a world tour that promoted the original Greek culture and heritage took flesh and bones.

First stop was "Vackhes" by Euripides. The success of that performance led to the second stop, the following year, with "Trojan Women" also by Euripides. Third stop was the trilogy of Aeschylus "Oresteia." This time the stakes were even higher as in addition to the tour, the performance became an off-Broadway production. Theatrical success of this ambitious attempt gave me courage for the next stop, deciding to do the work by

Evripidis "Ifigenia in Tauris."

From a directors' point of view, I will remain faithful to the way with which the ancient Greeks presented their tragedies. And this because, even if times change in the interval of two and a half thousand of years, human values remain the same. Moreover, if we want to look into the future, we should first study the past. A past that I want to bring to you, with a performance from the nation that created culture and will not ever cease to create. The bet won gives me a new impulse for the next stop: "Ifigenia in Tauris” by

Euripides aspires to create a scenic success and elevate the fable of Ifigenia through an optimistic aspect of tragic, as Euripides gives through a plot full of agonizing moments.

Euripides places the human facing the tragic destiny, intermingled with himself and self- colliding with his own passions.

The heroes in "Ifigenia in Tauris" paint the quintessence of being that disputes the gods incriminating their decisions and their devastating entanglement in the relations of humans and in the configuration of their tragic destiny.

113

I will present "Ifigenia in Tauris" by Euripides in the footprints of the primeval forms, in their figurativeness. With respect to the ancient text and the ancient being without falsifications and modern over-shootings, I aspire to a result that will elevate the thoughts and sentimental richness of Euripidian poetry.

We must not forget that theatre is precipitation, aesthetic and education of the soul.

114

ΠΑΝΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΙΑ

1. Archdiocesan Hellenic Cultural Center Astoria, NY

2. Western Connecticut State University, Danbury, CT

3. University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI

4. University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT

5. Hyannis High School, Hyannis, MA

6. Portland Museum of Fine Arts, Portland, ME

7. University of New Hampshire, N.H.

8. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL

9. University of North Carolina, Charlotte, NC

10. University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL

11. Hellenic Cultural Center, Houston, TX

115

Theater Reviews

Euripides’ “Bacchae” in Detroit, Michigan

On Saturday, October 25, 2008, the people of the Detroit Metropolitan Area had the pleasure of enjoying a great theatrical performance of the Bacchae, sponsored by a variety of Greek and Cypriot Government agencies, and locally, by the American

Hellenic Congress and a number of private sponsors.

The Bacchae is one of Euripides’ most profound plays, one of the most powerful plays ever written, and it was presented for the first time in ancient Athens shortly after the poet’s death in 406 B.C. However, its meaning and ideas remain most relevant today, particularly in front of the troublesome issues that challenge our humanity in the present, both personally and collectively.

The god Dionysus, the most ambiguous and mysterious Greek god, is the main character of this play; and through the way the human characters interact with him,

Euripides explores and illuminates many eternal themes of our humanity like race, gender, power, intelligence, military superiority, religion, cultural understanding, ignorance, and above all the meaning of wisdom in the face of all these.

The play’s production was excellent, under the masterful guidance of the brilliant director and producer Leonidas Loizides. It was presented in both Greek and English, and the audience was assisted in understanding both languages by up‐titles projected by light over the stage.

Mr. Loizides, who is a prolific Greek Cypriot director, studied in the Tisch School and the Drama School of Sonia Moore in New York, and has directed and produced a variety of cinematic and stage performances in co‐operation and with the support of the

116

best names in the fields of Film and Theater. His work has been presented with great success in more than ten countries, including Greece, Cyprus, England, France, and the

United States of America.

In staging Euripides’ Bacchae, Mr. Loizides saw his dream of ten years realized, and he gave his audience the opportunity to tune in to the didactic purposes of the

Ancient Greek Theater, and at the same time, the opportunity to connect with the genius, innovative mythmaking of Euripides. Mr. Loizides’ production was equally inventive in spite of its simplicity. Inspired by the powerful choral odes of the Bacchae, the enthusiastic female devotees of the god Dionysus, he chose to produce the play with a cast consisting exclusively by women. In so doing, he completely reversed the practice of the ancient Greek Drama, in which only men performed even in the female roles; but he did so without diminishing in the least the powerful experience of the Euripidean poetic brilliance.

The creative choreography, the simplicity of the stage presentation, the talent of the women in the cast, the oriental tones of the music, the religious anachronisms which so powerfully conveyed the holiness and mystery of the Dionysiac ritual, everything, contributed in making Mr. Loizides’ staging of the Bacchae an unforgettable experience for his audience, and for this we are all to his dept.

He expressed his desire, in the near future, to return to us with another production of Greek Drama, this time Euripides’ Trojan Women. Based on what we witnessed in his presentation of the Bacchae we could all concur in saying that no date set would be too soon for that. So we are all awaiting his next production with great anticipation!

Dr. Lena Hatzichronoglou, Professor of Classics and Humanities www.hellenicvisions.com

117

“Bacchae” (Vakhes) tour in USA 2008

ASTONISHING "BACCHAE" PRESENTED BY LOIZIDES IN A DC THEATRE OF CAMBRIDGE

I am always reluctant when classic Greek drama is presented to a closed theatre.

Since the component of the original scenery is absent, the bet of success is a really tough one by default. Many touring productions of this genre are poor, with one person handling all the tasks. It was to my great satisfaction that "Bacchae" of Euripides directed by Mr. Leonidas Loizides presented on Wednesday 19 of March in ADC Theatre of

Cambridge, was an exception to the rule.

I decided to watch the show after seeing a flyer in Cambridge promoting the event.

After searching more information on Mr. Loizides' website I found out that the

118

performance has had toured in 17 states in the USA, as well as in Cyprus and Stuttgart and that Loizides had been awarded by American Congress and the State of New York.

The expectations were high about the production and the artistic result of what I was about to attend.

"BACCHAE" CAMBRIDGE, 2009

119

Touring Group Explores Greek Tragedy ‘Iphigenia’ October 31, 2011

Aristotle once claimed the best tragedy “should be complex rather than simple” and “evoke fear and pity.” A Greek touring group is hoping to do just that with a performance of “Iphigenia in Tauris” this Friday at UT Arlington.

The Leonidas Loizides Theatre Group will present the classic Greek tragedy at 7 p.m. Nov. 4 in the Rosebud Theatre at the E.H. Hereford University Center. The play, also known as “Iphigenia in Tauris” or “Iphigenia among the Taurians,” was written by

Euripides between 414-412 B.C. and tells the story of Iphigenia, her long lost brother,

Orestes, and their escape from the local custom of ritual sacrifice.

The event is sponsored by the Festival of Ideas Global Research Institute, the

Honors College, the Department of Theatre Arts, the Hellenic Student Association of UT

Arlington and the College of Liberal Arts.

Dr. Charles Chiasson, Associate Professor of Philosophy, will introduce the performance. He said the Loizides group would present the tragedy in the same way the

120

ancient Greeks have done — by respecting the ancient texts and performing scenes without alterations and modern presumptions.

“Only the knowledge of the ancient tragedy may give the baton to the modern theater,” said Loizides. The Greek tragedies he produces and directs are full of messages about justice, love and peace, and to Loizides, “theater is a study, aesthetics, and education of the soul.”

For Loizides, his target audience is not only the Greek communities around

Arlington but also for those wanting to have a true Greek experience. The underlining theme, Chiasson said, is to bring a piece of the homeland to those who are Greek decedents or even those who have adopted the Greek culture.

Chiasson also hopes students who go to the performance will get the experience of how an actual Greek tragedy is suppose to be performed, to break away from the written text and be engaged into the tragedy performed by professionals.

For more information on Loizides’s Greek theatre group, visit www.loizidis.com.

[Written by Karla Cano, College of Liberal Arts].

Saturday, August 10, 2013

Mesmerizing, a spiritual experience...

I'm still reeling from this performance. So many thoughts...

I have seen Electra performed many times over the decades whether here in NY or Greece, etc. in English, modern Greek, ancient Greek, mixed, etc but this performance will be remembered first and foremost.

121

First, the intimate minimalism of the theater and the simplicity of the production allowed the theater-goers to focus on the acting and not much room for other distractions.

But the play entered into another plane with the appearance of Eftychia Loizides, who played Electra. I was entranced from the minute she appeared and recited the opening in flawless ancient Greek. I was a little concerned, as a Greek speaker myself, that she would have difficulty transitioning to English but was surprised when she completed the rest of the performance in perfect English, transmuting the raw and sacred pulse of the original language that is not easy to pull-off in English. For the full passion of the ancient Greek dramas is not easily translated to other languages; the nuances and complexity of the language itself give the work a dimension that is hard to understand except for those who speak the Greek language. Yet, Eftychia pulled it off with an ease that shocked me. This was no mere performance by an actress of some troupe but more a spiritual experience. Eftychia seemed to be channeling Electra in a way that I have rarely seen before. One could not help but feel as if one was sitting in the courtyard of the house of Atreus many millennia ago and witnessing firsthand the inconsolable despair of the palace princess Electra. There is a rare category for this type of acting that one rarely encounters anymore and once you see it live and close it is hard to remove from your memory. I hope this young lady continues to grace American audiences with her god- given talent for many years to come.

– John Sarantakis, New Jersey

122

Electra with Tutor, Row Theatre 2013

Stephanie Stylianou, Hellenic Student Association president, hopes to transport Greeks and non-Greeks back to ancient Greece if just for a moment with the production of the Greek tragedy Iphigenia in Tauris Friday.

For the second year in a row, the award-winning Leonidas Loizides Theatrical

Group is performing a Greek tragedy to spread knowledge about Greek culture through theater. The group will perform Euripides’ Iphigenia in Tauris, Friday in the Rosebud

Theatre.

123

Iphigenia in Tauris is the story of the priestess Iphigenia, whose job is to ceremonially cleanse Greek men before they are executed. As the tragedy unfolds, two

Greek prisoners are brought to Iphigenia so she can prepare them for their execution. It’s then she discovers one of the Greek men is her brother, Orestes, which leads her to plan an escape back to Greece with him.

Robson Square, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Producer/Director Loizides Bows Off-Broadway With ‘Iphigenia’

By Bob Nicolaides,

It has been said-and repeated time and again by many of his fans that he has brought Hellenic Tragedy to the neighborhoods of the world. He is director Leonidas

124

Loizides, a native of Cyprus, whom I positively expect that he follows in the footsteps of another Greek Cypriot, Mike Cacoyiannis, and who undoubtedly, has spread this element of Greek culture to stages no other director has brought before!

I have followed his performances in Philadelphia and other nearby cities, and now in New York City, and I’ve just become privy of information that in a month or so, through the award-winning producer/director, tragedian Euripides’ masterpiece,

Iphigenia in Tauris, will be on Broadway itself!

If some of you got the impression from the above that Leonidas’ work is concentrated around metropolitan areas such as New York, please forgive me for conveying the wrong message to you. Because, works the likes of Trojan Women and

Oresteia having been presented by him across the United States, have also been offered in

Paris, Toulon and Cannes, among other cities around the world. For sure, Iphigenia has also been shown not long ago in Portland, in the northwestern state of Oregon. As one can assume, these are far from the only locations where Leonidas has chosen to project and promote the culture, which is the world’s heritage.

For the uninitiated, tragedies written 25 millennia ago were performed in semi- circular open-air theaters, where the circular stage completed the roundness of the structure, to use the word loosely, for some of them were actually craved out of the rock of a hill.

This performance, produced and directed by Loizidis is an adaptation to the

English by Louis Markos, Ph.D., an authority on ancient Greece who teaches British

Romantic and Victorian Poetry & Prose, Classics and Film at Houston Baptist University.

This and the pledge in the program by the award-winning producer/director in a program

125

preface is enough to convince the audience of the quality they are to expect from the show.

“I will present Iphigenia en Tavris by Evripidis,” he writes in the playbill as if he were saying in his native tongue, Greek, in the footprints of the primeval forms. I aspire a result that will elevate the thoughts and sentimental richness of Euripidian poetry.”

Loizides does keep his promise. Iphigenia, (If-e-ghen-ea) as the cast call her, adhering to the true pronunciation of her Hellenic name, portrayed by Eftychia Papadopoulou, is indignant and deeply hurt as she feels betrayed that he opted to sacrifice her just for favorable wind so the Greeks set sail for Troy.

Subsequently, she’s crushed on the news of his death. She’s torn between her thirsting for Greek blood spilled one moment, while the next she longs for her homeland she’s missed so much. Never though does she lose sense of her stature through it all. Ms.

Papadopoulou’s portrayal of Iphigenia’s circumstances is flawless, even considering that she, the wife of the director is with child, in fact at the progressed stage of the second trimester.

On the other hand, with the gods seemingly having abandoned him, Iphigenia’s brother Orestes feels dejected and reacts violently, all the time quivering from what appears to be paralytic trembling, not to overlook what I perceived as the blank stare of a blind man.

Then again, Orestes is demonized by his past, having killed his mother in revenge for her killing his father, Agamemnon. In contrast, his royal buddy Pilades (Daniel

Rodas,) is more sedate, but not for long, for he too feels the need to explode as guards of the local King are trying to subdue him. Some say that the twosome knows no restraint,

126

but my observation is that it is the nature of the tragedy.

The oddity here is that, according to Euripides’ interpretation of the plot as it unfolds, Iphigenia has never been harmed, for Artemis who requested the sacrifice, replaced her on the sacrificial altar with a deer, and dispatched her to Tauris. Orestes advent to Tauris however has different implications, since, still demonized by the guilt of his mother’s murder and with goddess Athena having absolved him, ventures to that strange land with Pilades in search of Artemis’ statue located in her temple, to steal since

Apollo has assured him that by doing that he will eliminate the demons who hound him.

So neither Orestes nor Iphigenia anticipated finding each other in Tauris, but as they do, they provoke the wrath of the King, who decides to execute them. Without the aid of the wooden god savior lowered in the center of the stage by a system of winch and pulleys, the real goddess of wisdom, Athena appears herself and makes it possible for the threesome to outwit the Tauris ruler and set sail for Greece.

Born in Cyprus, the producer/director has been rewarded with a citation from the

US Congress for his directorial skills in the theater and cinematic fields. After completing his studies abroad, he returned to Athens where he tried his luck as an actor. He however opted to pursue a directorial career in both the theater and motion pictures, which he did in Greece with great success in a wide range of projects, from tragedy to comedy, eventually expanding his horizons internationally. But his dream lay in educating, he calls it ‘Engrafting’ the world into the culture associated only with Greece, an aspect of which is to present ancient works through the stage across the world. He appears to have been successful so far.

127

IPHIGENIA IN TAURIS by Euripides on Robson Square, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Iphigenia in Tauris' review: Play's passion is a double-edged sword

By Richard Wattenberg, Special to The Oregonian on September 25, 2011 at 5:00 PM

If you think productions of Greek tragedy all too often put the plays on pedestals turning the dynamic poetry of the likes of Euripides into stolid, stiff, lifeless theater matter, then you will find Classic Greek Theatre of Oregon's presentation of Leonidas

Loizides "Iphigenia in Tauris" a revelation. This production touring North America on its way to an off-Broadway opening abounds in passion, a roaring thundering passion that is both the production's strength and its weakness.

128

"Iphigenia in Tauris" is certainly one of Euripides more intriguing plays. Not really "tragic" in the conventional sense, this play has been called a romantic melodrama.

Even more interesting is that its action almost seems to represent Euripides' effort to undo the triumphant climax of Aeschylus' extraordinary trilogy "The Oresteia" that predates the "Iphigenia in Tauris" by some 40-50 years.

In Aeschylus' trilogy Iphigenia, who had been sacrificed by her father

Agamemnon in an off-stage act that served as the immediate cause for all the horrors that are played out in the first two plays of "The Oresteia," turns out to be alive in the distant land of Taurus, where she is the priestess of Artemis and oversees the ritual sacrifice of all visiting Greeks. According to Euripides' presentation of the myth, her sacrifice, which

Artemis required of Agamemnon before he could lead the Greeks in their assault on Troy, never happened. Instead Artemis had replaced Iphigenia on the sacrificial alter with a deer and swept her off to Tauris.

Meanwhile the festive ending of "The Oresteia," celebrating the founding of

Athens' democracy and justice system, is also called into question. In the "Eumenides," the concluding play of "The Oresteia," you may remember, Orestes who had killed his mother in revenge for her having murdered his father Agamemnon, was exonerated of the crime. The hideous furies that had haunted him in order to avenge his mother were placated by Athena who had overseen Orestes' trial. As it turns out, according to Orestes in "Iphigenia in Tauris," not all the furies had been pacified. Some had continued to pursue him, and on the god Apollo's word Orestes with his buddy Pilades has come to

Tauris to steal the statue of Artemis that is housed in her temple, for if he does so he may finally be freed from the curse of the furies.

129

So Iphigenia and Orestes unbeknownst to each other find themselves in Tauris.

During the play they are reunited and both along with Pilades escape back to Greece at play's end, a seemingly happy ending in which the Greeks outwit the not-so-clever barbarian king of Tauris. But with Euripides one must always be careful. Shortly before the end, it looks like Orestes' and Iphigenia's plot will fail and they will both be executed.

At the very last moment, Athena suddenly arrives and works everything out; so all ends well, but the ease with which calamity is averted suggests the arbitrary, absurd (in our contemporary sense of the word) whimsicality of the gods, and as a result perhaps all is not as reassuring as it might appear. Aeschylus' affirmation of Athenian justice, Greek superiority, and the god's beneficence is thus subtly called into question.

The play is complex, but this production is drawn with bold strokes. As Iphigenia,

Eftychia Papadopoulou gives us a deeply felt sense of the pain of betrayal and anger this character feels. One moment she stridently condemns her father for his willingness to sacrifice her, and shortly after she is crushed on hearing of his death. She can shout her desire for Greek blood one moment but tearfully long for her Greek homeland the next.

Through all these vicissitudes, she maintains a sense of dignity, even majesty.

The production's excess of emotion certainly moves in the direction of melodrama, a course firmly supported by the three-woman chorus representing captive Greek women slaves. The movement during the choral odes is certainly very restrained, and while we may have assumed that the chorus was meant to bring a dynamic dimension to Greek theater that counter-balanced the more staid, efforts at rational argument by the characters, the opposite is almost true here.

Still in the spirit of "melodrama" as "music drama"? The chorus provides an

130

ongoing soundtrack of moaning and crooning which underscores the dialogue spoken by the actors.

The production that played this past weekend at the Cerf Amphitheatre at Reed

College will move to Lincoln Performance Hall at Portland State University for a run from Oct. 5 to Oct. 8.

Iphigenia in Tauris, Reed College, Portland, Oregon

The Oresteia September 28, 2010

On Friday, I was in San Jose to see Aeschylus’ Oresteia, performed by the company of Leonidas Loizidis. Having never seen ancient theater performed, I wasn’t entirely sure what to expect—let alone the fact that the play was performed in Greek

(modern), which I don’t know, with English subtitles that weren’t always kept in sync with the actors. That said, I was very surprised by how very much I enjoyed it, and the glimpse, however minor and imprecise, of what ancient theatrical performances must

131

have been like. The acting, of course, was much more romanticized than ancient theater probably would have been, and was done without masks. But I was surprised that

Loizidis worked in elements of singing and dance that were present, at least in some degree, in ancient Athens. Also, although I couldn’t tell if the modernized Greek was in verse, the English was, and I suspect the Greek was at stylized to at least some degree.

(The only modernization that was a little too much was that Orestes kills Clytemnestra on stage—when, of course, in ancient Greek theater, nothing interesting ever happens on stage; you’re just told about it.)

Two things stood out. The first was Eftychia Papadopoulou’s performance, especially as Cassandra, in Agamemnon. After Agamemnon enters the castle, Cassandra remains outside, bewailing her fate and psychically envisioning the murder taking place inside. If this sounds a little boring, well, it reads that way too. But in performance,

Papadopoulou was riveting. Her long, beautiful monologue was performed with such charismatic energy that one could instantly see how serious this performance really was going to be. The tension and terror evoked, even in words I could not comprehend, were so genuine—almost tangible—that I could immediately understand why Aristotle considered tragedy “an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude...through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions,” and why ancient drama had so much in common with music. Papadopoulou’s performance in this scene was particularly operatic in its density and seriousness. She is simply a fantastic actress.

That scene seemed to me the highlight of the evening, but it was by no means the only one; the entire trilogy was performed with an intensity of purpose that made one

132

forget the scenery, the props, and the fact that all the male roles were performed by only two men. (Philip Constantine was outstanding in the three or four roles he played—for each, he developed an entirely different body language and tone of voice appropriate to the character, so that one hardly noticed the limits on the production.) The use of the chorus was not intrusive or awkward, as it is in some performances (rendering unwatchable, for example, the famous Tyrone Guthrie version of Oedipus; same with the

Don Taylor version) but was evocative and powerful—their creepy dance around the blood-spattered Clytemnestra, for instance, winding themselves in the red streamers attached to her robe, or the way they orbited characters like electrons as if symbolizing their threatening emotions. by Timothy Sandefur.

133

Cassandra , bewailing her fate and psychically envisioning the murder taking place inside, Kirk Theatre 2011

Electra with the Chorus, Libation Bearers, Downey Theater, Los Angeles.

134

Electra with her brother Orestes

Bacchae USA

135

From top left : Chorus, Clytemnestra and Tutor. "Electra" 2013.

136

137