| Title | : | Iphigénie |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 2038714061 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9782038714067 |
| Language | : | French |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 231 |
| Publication | : | First published January 1, 1674 |
Iphigénie Reviews
-
IFIGENIA de Jean Racine.
"Es poco ser extranjera, desconocida y cautiva:
este destructor fatal de los tristes habitantes de Lesbos,
este Aquiles, el autor de tus males y los míos,
cuya mano ensangrentada me llevó prisionera,
quien me arrebató de inmediato mi nacimiento y tu padre,
de quien por el nombre de todo debe serme odioso,
es de todos los mortales el más querido a mis ojos."
Esta tragedia de Racine me gustó aunque el desarrollo y el final fueron bastante tenues para mi gusto. La historia en realidad es una réplica de "Ifigenia en Áulide" de Eurípides, por un momento pensé que era sobre "Ifigenia entre los Tauros". Es decir trata del conocido sacrificio de Ifigenia, hija de Agamenón, determinado por Calcas para que los dioses puedan dejar a los griegos partir de la isla e ir a la caza de la ciudad de Troya. Sin embargo, como siempre jajaja, hay un triángulo amoroso nuevo. En este caso Erífila, princesa de Lesbos, que viene cautiva con Alquiles luego de una incursión resulta que está enamorada de Aquiles y teme que se concrete la boda prometida por Agamenón de él con su hija Ifigenia. Desde luego es interesante ver los sentimientos de todos los protagonistas retratados aunque en general como obra no me pareció muy bien ensamblada. El final también suave aunque según Racine (como suele explicar antes de sus tragedias) tiene alguna base mitológica. -
Mitloška podloga na kojoj Rasin stvara ovu dramu, beskrajno je zanimljiva jer preispituje ustaljenu hijerarhiju vrednosti, dovodi likove u paradoksalne pozicije i primorava ih da biraju između esencijalnih ljudskih vrednosti - ljubavi, dužnosti, časti i odgovornosti. Iako preuzima mitološki obrazac koji govori o Ifigenije, Rasin se u velikoj meri oslanja i na Euripida, poslednjeg od tri velika grčka tragediografa, Rasin neke stihove gotovo doslovno preuzima od svog prethodnika i uzora.
Ifigeniju čitamo kao problem sukoba, u najširem planu između pojedinačnog i opšteg, odnosno između kolektivnog i individualnog, koji nam se predočava kroz lik Agamemnona, slavnog vođe Grčke vojske. Agamemon je prinuđen da žrtvuje kćer kako bi mu bogovi dozvolili da osvoji Troju. Tako postoji uplvi onostranosti u dramsku radnju i taj upliv jeste ustvari glavni pokretač zapleta. Da bogovi nisu postavili ovaj uslov, ne bi bilo drame. Agamemnon je naravno rastrzan između dve krajnosti- ljubavi i slave, dužnosti u krajnjoj liniji , pa zbog nemogućnosti da odluči da li da žrtvuje kćer ili to ne učini, Agamemnon pokušava da promeni volju bogova, i da sam "režira" stvarnost u kojoj se nalazi. To mu naravno ne polazi za rukom i cela situacija izmiče njegovoj kontroli. Zaplet se na kraju rešava tako što Kalhant, posrednik između onostranog i ovostranog, ispravno tumači proročanstvo, budući da ga je prethodno protumačio pogrešno, što je i dovelo do zabune i pomisli da treba žrtvovati Ifigeniju koja je Agamemnonova kći. Pročanstvo otkriva da žrtva treba da bude Erifila, koja je na rođenju dobila ime Ifigenija.
Glavni problem sa ovom dramom jeste upravo rasplet. Dok je zaplet uzbudljiv i intrigantan, kraj drame, predstavlja znatno opadanje u kvalitativnom smislu u odnosu na ostatak teksta. A, ovo je posledica, toga što je jedini tragični lik Erifila, odovojen od sveta u kojem ostali likovi funkcionišu, ona kao da je veštački uvedena u svet drame, što dalje vodi ka tome da je i sam rasplet takav, te da on nije nužna i logična posledica zapleta iz koje proizilazi.
Likovi su manje više zanimljivi, svakako da je Ifigenija najzanimljivija zbog svoje velikodušnosti, staloženosti, sposobnosti da razume situaciju u kojoj se nalazi i da svesno preda sebe na žrtvovanje zarad opšteg dobra, koje uzgred i nije dobru u pravom tom smislu, već pre predstavlja konstruktivnu dobrotu naroda. Pored Ifigenije, Ahil je jedan od likova koji poseduje beskonačnu odlučnost, jer se kao i Agamemnon otvoreno suprotstavlja volji bogova i svoje reči izjednačava sa rečima proroka, ali njegova hrabrost (strast) ne dozvoljava mu da razume zbog čega Ifigenija pristaje da bude žrtvovana, pa on spada među likove koji se vode strašću, kao Agamemnon, Klitemnestra, Odisej i Erifila, naspram kojih stoji Ifigenija kao jedino razumno biće koje živi u skladu sa sopstvenim duhom. U jednom trenutku Klitemnestra, Agamemnon i Ahil, svako iz svojih razloga, racionalizacijom svojih osećanja, pokušavaju da ubede Ifigeniju da odustane od pristanka na žrtvovanje, ali ona ostaje nepokolebljiva, vođena idejom o opštem dobru, njena perspektiva se pokazuje kao oslobeđnja od nagona što je upravo suprotno od načina na koji misle njeni otac i majka, kao i njen ljubavnik. Oni su naime, ograničeni onim što osećaju, a osećaju neprijatnost jer će izgubiti osobu za koju su vezani, pa se njihov motiv koliko god plemenit bio, svodi na ličnu potrebu da se namiri sopstveni unutrašnji život, koji je doveden u pitanje događajima iz spoljašnjeg sveta, što je u slučaju Ifigenije nezamislivo, ona može osećati tugu, (susret sa Agmemnonom i Ahilejem) ali nju na delanje ni u jednom trenutku neće navoditi strasti.
Suprotno od Ifigenija koja je prividno tragični lik, stoji Erifila, čija je sudbina suštinski tragična, budući da ona strada ne znajući ništa o svom poreklu i o svojoj sudbini, osim da ima mogućnost da sazna istinu o svom životu. Njen život je hrpa mrka koju su bogovi predodredili za smrt i to za smrt koja će biti uslov da se u ratnom pohodu osvoji grad u kojem je Erifila rođena. Pored toga, ona osim što je instrument sudbine, insturmentalizovana je i kao Ahilov plen, ali i kao žrtva sopstvenih strasti, koje su u njenom slučaju, bar što se mene tiče, sasvim opravdane. Na kraju krajeva, Erifila strada voljom bogova, ali ju je Rasin predstavio kao drugost u odnosu na svet iz kojeg dolaze ostali likovi, ona se samo naizgled uklapa u stvarnost kojom je okružena, ali suštinski Eirifila živi pored tog sveta ne u njemu! Ovo je verovatno motivisano Rasinovim janesenističkim pogledima na svet gde se uspostavljaju grranice između svetovnog i duhovnog, što je uostalom vidljivo i u liku Ifigenije i u njenom odnosu prema svetu -
Rationalising the Greek legends
7 August 2015
Anybody who is familiar with the Ancient Greek plays will know that this is a modern retelling of the story of
Euripides
Iphigeneia at Aulis. However it is told from a more rationalistic, secularist point of view rather than a direct translation from the original. For those who do not know, the story is set just prior to the Trojan War when Agamemnon is preparing to set sailed with a Greek armada to 'rescue' Helen from Paris, who had kidnapped her (or did she go willingly because Paris was a much more romantic person than Menelaus) and taken her to Troy. However the winds were not blowing favourably so Agamemnon asks the gods what the problem is and they tell him that unless he offers up his daughter as a sacrifice the winds will not change. This play is about the personal and social struggles that Agamemnon faces between his wife (Clytemnestra), who does not want to see her daughter sacrificed, and the Greek kings, who want to sail off to Troy and are looking for any sign of weakness in Agamemnon so they they may depose him.
The problem with this play is that there is a happy ending, which no doubt would have impressed the original audience (who were probably not that familiar with the story, in the same way most of us moderns are not familiar either). Unfortunately it does not work because the whole reason that Agamemnon was murdered by his wife when he returned from Troy was because he had sacrificed his daughter at Aulis. One could also argue that this was simply an excuse to get rid of a troublesome husband and for Clytemnestra's lover to take over the mantle of kingship. There are also further problems with Euripides' version where Iphigeneia was replaced by a cow and then spirited off to Tauris by Artemis, but this is probably not the forum for it to be discussed (though I don't actually discuss it in
my treatment on
Iphigenia in Tauris).
The other thing I should note with this play is the political undertones that are evident. The issue is raised as to Agamemnon's real reason for going to Troy: to extend his empire across the Aegean to Asia. However, it should be remembered that his hold on the Greek alliance is tenuous at this point in time, though as it turns out it is only Agamemnon and Menelaus who have a problem with the Trojans (though no doubt this is an aspect of Greek nationalism in that while they may not have been united under one king, the fact that a foreigner – a barbarian – kidnapped a Greek princess, would have set the hackles of all the Greeks on edge). There is only one other Greek king that plays a major role in the play: Achilles. Achilles is also torn because he has been betrothed to Iphigeneia, but he also wants the glory of going to war against the Trojans. He forms the catalyst of the whole mission, and is also the key to Agamemnon's power: he is the king that can pretty much decide whether Agamemnon remains overlord.
The other interesting thing is that the whole nature of this event reminds me of another story; one of the foundational stories of Christianity: Abraham and Isaac. In this story Abraham, after waiting a very long time and growing to an age that nobody could consider him to be fit to have a child, gives birth (or his wife does) to a son. God then tells him to take his son up onto Mount Moriah and to offer him up as a sacrifice, something that Abraham dutifully does. However, at the last moment God intervenes and sends a lamb. I wonder whether, in producing this play, Racine is causing his audience to remember this Bible event (which no doubt the audience would be much more familiar). It is difficult to tell, though I suspect that since we are in an age of rationalism at the time of the writing of this particular play, Racine is probably questioning, and using the fickle Greek gods as a platform, the nature of the Christian god. -
This classical Greek play, originally by Euripides who based in on Homer's Odyssey, is a classic story involving the deepest of human passions. Agamemnon in torn between his thirst for glory and immortality on the one hand, and the survival of his beloved daughter on the other. Much like Solomon, he appears forced to make a choice. This choice, however, is more Greek because it involves vanity and not the pure love of God that Solomon was exhorted to show.
Here Agamemnon has everything lined up; he has been chosen, out of many competing kings, to lead the military expedition against Troy that will restore honor to Greece after the way Paris and Helen shamefully skipped town together. The army is assembled, Achilles is there to marry Agamemnon’s daughter Iphigenia before leaving, but the wind won’t blow. the boats are stuck, weeks go by and not a breath of wind. People’s primitive nature increases in direct proportion to their desperation and that comes out here. Appeals are made to the gods. The gods have an Oracle (a spokesman for God somewhat self appointed not unlike the many we have now) and he declares that Iphigenia must be sacrificed on the altar to please the gods who will then make the wind blow.
Beautiful scenes ensue in which Racine gets to the heart of human desires including: the urge to protect a loved one even at the cost of one’s own life, duty to a cause greater than oneself, filial piety, the urge to appease God with a sacrifice, the fungible nature of divine proclamations made by a human interpreter. Robert Boswell provides a beautiful English translation of Racine’s tender, insightful and in many ways modern rendering of this ancient story. Racine is modern in that he brings out the emotions of the individual. Greek literary characters is already show greater individuality than most other contemporary literature in which people are often portrayed as cogs in a wheel, but Racine adds to this with his deft portrayal of characters, Iphigenia in particular, who change their mind more than once during the play and express their reasons with heartfelt eloquence.
The whole 'virginity is honor' thing is worth remarking on because look at the trouble it causes. Is it time to get over this? Yes, and yet we are not over it. The fact that western countries were so heavily into this, royal officials inspecting marital bedsheets and so on until very recent times is reflected in this play. Racine reveals that honor as measured by a woman’s virginity is a mania of its own that can easily lead to hubris in the individual and violence on a small as well as large scale. The intrusive relegating of half the population to the status of an object that can be wrecked is dangerous, cruel and wrong. It is easy to look at the middle east and places where they are not subtle about it but his idea continues to pervade and infect our culture. Racine here is like Mark twain on slavery, showing us a horrible incongruity in the hopes that we will not see it the same way again.
Racine is promoting at least two important ideas: to come to our own moral conclusions without perceived divine intervention, and to cut out this nonsense about honor being measured by virginity.
This is a play well worth reading, I wish I could read it in French! -
free me from these frenchmen college PLEASE i've had enough #FreeMaja2021
-
Le plus compliqué drâme de Racine que j'ai lu; où les autres ai eu trois ou quatre personnages majeures, là ce sont CINQ: Agammemnon et Clytemnestre, Iphigénie, Achille et Eriphile. Toutes sont dans conflict avec les autres, ou dans alliances improbables. Le finale prévu, où Agammemnon sacrifie sa fille (qui est tragiquement mais vertuesement dans accord) et vexe tragiquement sa femme et Achille, c'est avorté -- Racine introduit le caractere d'Eriphile, une captive ingrat qui fait intrigue contre Iphigenie. Ça semble que sa revanche consiste dans un trahision de Clytemnestra (qui tente fuire dans secrète), une vengeance tres petite et méchant , mais l'impieux courage d'Achille fait causer qu'Eriphile est sacrifiée dans un ritual eschatologique et tres païan. Cette fin, presque comme d'Andromaque, c'est sinistre et menaçant, un symbol Girardien, tres affectante aprés un drâme assez convolu. Ils y ont, aussi, plusieurs examples du langage et rhetorique magnifique Racinien. C'est, il est vrai, un gros spectacle mais, plus que le comparable Andromaque, Racine employe son célèbre verse pour l'élever dans un grand poesie ... il a fait un drâme magnifique !
-
Racine alone would be a worthy reason to learn French. Achilles is sexy af. Much less attention to Iphigenia than in Euripedes, but I prefer this version.
-
Un mec comme Achille ou rien
-
Jean Racine’s Iphigenia (1674) is a re-imagining of Euripides’ Iphigenia at Aulis. The core of the story is the same: the goddess Artemis/Diana demands that Agamemnon sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia before the goddess will release the winds to carry the Greek fleet to Troy. Racine elaborates on the story with additional characters and a sub-plot. In Euripides’ telling, Achilles is vain and shallow and Agamemnon ultimately agrees to sacrifice his daughter. In Racine’s telling, Achilles is loving, loyal, and brave, and Agamemnon after much agonizing does what is not expected. Racine honors, but changes, the myth and tragedy such that the denouement is conceived anew. Reading Iphigenia at Aulis before reading Racine's play enriches the experience of both.
Racine expands upon the psychological element in Euripides. His characters reveal their thought in long-ish speeches heard and amplified by servants and others, who stand in for the Chorus. In particular, Racine explores even more than Euripides the emotional anguish of the parents Agamemnon and Clytemestra, and foreshadows the tragedies of The Oresteia.
Racine’s Iphigenia follows the rules of “Aristotelian Drama” derived by French classicists from Aristotle's Poetics, namely a single action represented as occurring in a single place and within the course of a day.
It is nigh impossible to write a better play than Euripides, and Racine must bow to the master. Even so, his “new” version of the play is well worth reading. -
Elle était quand même un peu cinglée cette Iphigénie, et sous ses airs de noble victime elle a bien foutu la merde.
Achilles, mec, trouves toi une nana plus équilibrée. -
Sublime tragédie dont l'histoire revient à la mythologie grecque. C'est l'histoire d'un roi qui doit sacrificier sa fille par un ordre divin. C'est la reaction aussi de sa femme et l'amant d'Iphigénie en apprenant ce mauvais sort.
Clytemnestre est mon personnage favori pour la simple raison qu'elle symbolise l'opposition à la culture, à la religion, au peuple qui tous veut effectuer ce sacrifice ,y compris le père Agamemmon.
A lire -
Quiconque connaît les tragédies de la Grèce antique sait qu'il s'agit d'un récit moderne de l'histoire d'Iphigénie à Aulis d'Euripide, cependant cette version est racontée d'un point de vue plus rationaliste, assez plutôt séculariste, plus que d'une simplement traduction directe de l'original. Je mentirais si je disais que je préfère cette version, malgré tout j'apprécie et admire en réalité cette version du spectacle.
-
Amé, amé, amé, amé! Me encantó!
Releerlo hizo que me gustara incluso más. -
I always believed that tragedies should have a cathartic end. Unfortunately, this one didn't hit the spot for me. I feel like we forgot Iphigenia to focus on her dear ones's dilemma and suffering (especially Agamemnon and Achilles...) And while i get how it is important, no Agamemnon you don't have the right to say that you'll suffer more than your DAUGHTER that's going to DIE for your Glory you shithead
-
"Hélas ! je me consume en impuissants efforts.
Et rentre au trouble affreux dont à peine je sors.
Mourrai-je tant de fois sans sortir de la vie?" -
3,75
-
not that bad actually
-
There is something remarkable about Greek legends. It would be too much to say that a dramatist cannot go wrong with adapting them for stage, and some dramatists have. Nonetheless the dramatist who does not attempt to modernise the dialogue and ideas (which ironically are the surest way to date them) and tells the story in a straightforward manner can often make them into powerful works, even on paper.
The story of Iphigenia is so terrible and sad that even some of the most pessimistic of dramatists cannot help trying to change the story into something more hopeful. Euripides rescued Iphigenia from the flames of sacrifice (in Iphigenia in Tauris) and assigned her an unpleasant fate where she played a part in sacrificing strangers to the island, but the play ends happily with her escape.
Then there is Racine’s play. This too assigns a more hopeful fate for the unhappy princess, but if you are worried about spoilers, now is the time to stop reading.
The story is set just before the beginning of the Trojan War. Helen of Troy has eloped with Paris, the Trojan prince, leaving her husband Menelaus behind. Now Agamemnon, brother of Menelaus, has assembled the Greek army ready to travel to Troy and bring Helen back.
However the gods have a nasty plan in mind. A storm is preventing the Greek ships from leaving, and the only solution is that Agamemnon must sacrifice the life of his daughter Iphigenia to appease them.
Racine would later find religion again, but here the play seems to express his pessimism about the actions of the gods that demand such random cruelty. Lest we forget, similar sacrifices are demanded in the Bible from Abraham and Jephthah. Abraham is given mercy, but Jephthah is not. In this play, the solution will fall in the middle.
Agamemnon’s hand will constantly be forced by the high priest Calchas, who is insistent that the sacrifice of Iphigenia is needed, and must be carried out. Curiously the representative of religious dogmatism never appears in the play.
Agamemnon however vacillates, constantly changing his mind between agreeing to the sacrifice and refusing to carry it out. This is often seen as weakness on Agamemnon’s part by critics.
Perhaps, but given the magnitude of Agamemnon’s dilemma, we might show him a little more sympathy here. If he refuses to carry out the sacrifice, he will alienate his allies and make his own position precarious. He will also antagonise the gods.
However if Agamemnon agrees to sacrifice his daughter, he will face the wrath of his wife, Clytemnestra. In the traditional version of the story, Agamemnon’s sacrifice of Iphigenia will eventually lead to his murder by Clytemnestra.
Such a sacrifice will put Agamemnon at risk from Achilles, Iphigenia’s intended bridegroom, and the greatest warrior in the Greek army. Achilles is a powerful friend and a dangerous enemy, and he is expecting the marriage to take place. When he finds that it is not, he responds with force in a bid to prevent the sacrifice.
Finally there is the father’s feelings for his daughter. What man would ever want to murder his beloved daughter? What war would merit it, and what god would ask for such a cruel deed?
Iphigenia is saintly, and is willing to accept martyrdom for her father’s sake. Nonetheless there are a number of plots and counter-plots to rescue her or to prevent her from being rescued.
Matters are complicated by the presence of Eriphile, a prisoner of Achilles, who was captured by the leader during his invasion of Lesbos. Despite his role in the death of her father, she has fallen in love with Achilles in a peculiarly masochistic manner. This means that she is jealous of Iphigenia – both her intended sacrifice and her place in the affections of Achilles.
The battle continues between the fanaticism of Calchas, the pragmatism of ministers such as Ulysses who wants the sacrifice, the idealism of Achilles, the nobility of Iphigenia, and the personal loves and loyalties of Clytemnestra and Eriphile
Eriphile’s masochism proves to be helpful in the end. There is salvation of sorts for Iphigenia. An oracle reveals to Calchas another Iphigenia. It is in fact Eriphile, whose birth has been a source of mystery. This means that it is now acceptable for Eriphile to take Iphigenia’s place as the sacrifice, something she is willing to do.
This unexpected happy ending is certainly peculiar, but one that Racine insisted on adding, as he felt that Iphigenia’s nobility in the face of death deserved a better fate. It throws a number of later events in Greek mythology into confusion.
Firstly the ending, though a relief to the audience, is not as happy as it first looks. The sacrifice has still taken place, even if the victim was not as pure as Iphigenia. Despite the union of Iphigenia and Achilles, they will never get to enjoy their marriage, as he will die at Troy. Indeed the freeing of the ships to go to Troy will result in a large number of deaths, some of which Iphigenia herself blandly endorses.
However what happens if Iphigenia lives? Clytemnestra’s murder of her husband seems even less justifiable if she is doing it only because she has a love. Where is Iphigenia when Orestes and Electra seek revenge on their mother after she has murdered Agamemnon?
Still these are interesting wrinkles rather than weaknesses in the play. There is only one serious flaw which prevents the play from achieving greatness, and that is the play’s final scene.
The action whereby Iphigenia is saved is not shown on stage, but is only described by Achilles. As a result we are given no closure. We see the relief of Clytemnestra, and even of Ulysses, who is not a hard man, merely a ruthless pragmatist.
What is missing is the drama of Iphigenia’s rescue, the final despairing sacrifice by Eriphile, and the joy of Agamemnon and Achilles. If this was an ancient Greek drama, such omissions would be acceptable since the limitations of the stage would make it difficult to support more than a few actors delivering speeches. As this is a 17th century play, Racine had more flexibility open to him and chose not to use it.
Nonetheless this is still remarkable drama. Racine captures the many dilemmas of the characters well and uses a number of dramatic shifts to ensure a seesaw between hope and despair as messages miscarry and characters are betrayed. Iphigenia is a fine play. -
La pericolosità della parola
Nell’Iphigenie di Racine il ruolo da protagonista lo ha la parola in quanto tale. Tutti i personaggi principali della tragedia: Achille, Ulisse, Agamennone, Ifigenia, Erifile, Clitemnestra, sono personaggi che sono chiusi nel loro confine verbale.
L’erotico, in Racine, è lasciato agli sguardi, forse per una questione di auto-censura o forse per una questione di bienséance generale. Certo è che però non è possibile per me mettere da parte queste due cose: come se la passione fosse qualcosa che va aldilà dell’inganno, in una sorta di sincerità animale, che parla un’altra lingua e che, dovendosi tradurre a parole, fallisce nella miseria della confusione.
In più parti della tragedia (si vedano le scene 6 e 7 dell’atto II, dove c’è un climax in questo senso) la maggior parte dei personaggi ha una percezione della realtà completamente errata per via delle parole stesse. Ifigenia crede di non essere amata da Achille e che lui ami Erifile, Achille crede di non essere amato (seppur brevemente) da Ifigenia. Lei crede anche che suo padre sia stato freddo con lei per il semplice motivo di non volerla vedere addolorata per la delusione di Achille. Clitemnestera è offesa dalla bugia: Achille è un traditore.
In questa generale coltre di inganno due oggetti/soggetti permangono nell’apparente verità: una, Erifile, che è il male, è lo specchio totale di Ifigenia; l’altra è il sacrificio: esso stesso, però, è una bugia, nasconde in sé una bugia. A questo punto della tragedia lo spettatore non lo sa, per cui percepisce sarcasmo oscuro dietro le battute veloci della fine del secondo atto.
C’è una grande e profonda pena per ognuno dei personaggi: potrebbero risolvere i loro problemi ragionando sul parlato, sulle parole degli oracoli, sui rischi delle parole, ma questo non avviene mai. Le parole nascondono bugie, si permeano con le passioni, gli amori, gli odi creando una costante situazione di incomunicabilità. La figura di Calcante, che non appare mai in scena ma è sentita così centrale, ricorda la figura della morte, del non conoscibile: sai che c’è qualcosa che ti punta un coltello al fianco, qualcosa di inesorabile che sta avvenendo proprio nel momento di ogni tuo respiro e non ti è né visibile né evitabile. Lo sai, eppure cerchi di combatterlo, ignorarlo, affrontarlo.
Calcante è anche, in fondo, la verità fallace, la verità che sfrutta la sua forza comunicativa sul popolo per far presa sull’incoscienza generale. E il popolo è la massa informe ed emotiva, irrazionale, religiosa: non appena il popolo sa della necessità del sacrificio, nulla può fermare i tumulti e le proteste.
In fondo Iphigenie è il trionfo della bugia della parola sulla carnalità dell’essere umano. Ifigenia è vittima della volontà di gloria del padre Agamennone (come mai potrà essere glorioso dopo l’ultimo atto? Dopo che Achille, un guerriero a lui minimamente fedele, ha soppresso il suo intero campo, dopo che si è dimostrato così indeciso e indegno? La gloria di Agamennone è un’illusione, una menzogna); dei modi subdoli di Ulisse, che tanto ha spinto il re a sacrificare sua figlia, che sembra essere tra tutti il più capace con le parole, come se da esse potesse svelare la sua egotistica verità, ma che è costretto a scusarsi sul finale con Clitemnestra per il suo errore di valutazione (l’eroe che per eccellenza conosce le parole, sa usarle, sa convincere, in Racine fallisce completamente, risulta un povero mostro vittima del suo stesso inganno); degli dei, che non danno mai spiegazioni, che non chiariscono, che parlano in modo misterioso (la lingua di Dio, la lingua degli dei, è la nostra stessa lingua? Se non possiamo esserne sicuri, non c’è sicurezza di nulla.
Un’altra parola chiave è inesorabile. Perché l’andamento degli eventi, lo scorrere generale, sembra appunto inesorabile agli occhi dello spettatore: inesorabile è che Achille sfrutti tutta la sua potenza (non forza brutale e basta, ma letterale potenza), inesorabile è che Agamennone cerchi di uccidere sua figlia e così via. Non c’è assolutamente nulla che si possa fare – tutti i tentativi di cambiare il destino finiscono e cadono nel nulla.
È la condizione giansenistica dell’essere umano: non è assolutamente mai possibile essere fedeli a se stessi, giusti in qualche modo, salvabili. Ogni personaggio è in effetti criticabile fino all’estremo.
Tutti i personaggi dell’Iphigenie sono vittime delle loro passioni: ma che cosa sono le passioni in Racine? Sono qualcosa a cui non solo il destino non può rispondere, ma nemmeno l’identità stessa.
Sebbene ci troviamo in un’epoca storica a confine con l’illuminismo, che metterà alla guarda dalle emozioni e dai loro rischi, non solo i personaggi raciniani non possono rispondere al destino, né cambiarlo, non possono cambiare l’inesorabilità del sacrificio, del potere, della forza divina; essi sono portati a bruciare in passioni, emozioni, che li guidano, incontrollati, su tutta la scena. La condizione raciniana degli esseri umani è una condizione miserabile, perché questi personaggi lasciano scorrere la loro vita senza controllarla minimamente in nessun momento.
Il finale, con Achille che sorge sull’altare (scena raccontata, non mostrata), con Calcante disperso, con il caos più assoluto, con la morta di Erifile e il plauso generale. Erifile è senz’altro il male personificato, ma sempre una persona sventurata; sventurata in se stessa e fuori. L’impossibilità di potersi emancipare dal proprio sangue, dalla propria ombra, dalle proprie passioni rende Erifile un personaggio dannato agli occhi di spettatori attuali, un qualcosa che fa paura. E se fossimo anche noi incastrati e condannati a vivere nel costante errore?
Questo è il suggerimento di fondo. La tragedia raciniana infonde un dubbio immenso sulla statura dell’essere umano, sulle sue possibilità, sul valore delle sue scelte.
In questo senso oggi è praticamente una tragedia eretica e inaccettabile per noi. Credo sia un capolavoro che non smetterà mai di darci da riflettere. -
Racine sacrifices the vigour or
Euripides's play for character development and often comes across as slightly humorous, which is perhaps unintentional in a tragedy. To be quite fair, couplet rhymes and short verses are more common in simple childish poetry (that might be more of a Romanian thing). I read Racine, but what I hear is...
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall
Jack be nimble, Jack be quick
Jack jump over the candlestick
On the other hand, this is one of Racine's better works, I think. While it lacks the overbearing pathos of Andromaque and the je ne sais quoi of Euripides, it more closely mirrors themes of jealousy, pettiness, impulsiveness, deceit and justifications. Intentional or not, this play strikes me as distinctly inesthetic and human.
And I did DNF it a five-six of times... -
This is a retelling of the tragic destiny of Iphigenia the start of the fall of the House of Atreus in Greek myth. From that one act, sacrifying Iphigenia to the gods so the winds would permit the fleet to travel to Troy, Agammenon pushes on the first domino of a series ending with the end of his dynasty (see Orestes and Electra) in mayhem and blood.
Racine twists the story so that the sacrifice is still offered but the ending is different. Agamemnon is shown as a caring father but weak man, Ulysses is... well... himself, cunning, coy and making sure things get done, Achilles is the noble but dimmed hero that was betrayed by his leader. Iphigenia is the strong, beloved daughter and tragic heroine.
Very popular play at the time of its writing (1600's) but has become old fashioned and is rarely shown now. It was fun to revisit. -
Too bad it starts out really slow and dragged and the language is sometimes hard to "decode", because otherwise it is brilliant. I love the characters. I love how Agamemnon still has this pride issue even after him realizing his pride issue. I like how different the orders of value of each character is, also, without each of them represented as "the right one". Also, Iphigenia's reactions seem really authentic for her approximate age.
My favorite character was Eriphile, btw. Even though she committed a sin, I really felt for her. Her ending was truly beautiful, at least in my opinion. -
I preferred ‘Phèdre’, I also felt like this one was harder to understand, there would sometime be entire scenes where I wouldn’t even understand what happen so...
-
Une pseudo tragédie de Racine avec une Iphigénie digne dont la piété filiale ajoute une nuance intéressante et tragique à l'opposition entre Achille et Agamemnon.
-
i thought the plot was interesting and good but i thought the ending was bad. oh it just so happens this tertiary character was also secretly named iphigenie so we can sacrifice her instead of agamemnon's daughter. lame.
-
As a French and Drama student, I acted out part of this play in high school. It's been a long time since I've been in high school, and I've acted in many plays since this one, so that fact that I remember it tells how enduring the play is and how well it was written.
-
3,5
le début m'a passionnée, puis l'intrigue s'est un peu ralentie... je connaissais déjà la fin parce que mon prof de grec m'avait spoil, du coup je m'y attendais dès l'acte II mais il n'empêche que c'est du génie.
racine <333 -
This is probably my 2nd or 3rd favorite Racine play I've read so far (it's neck and neck with Britannicus). I really liked the character of Achilles in this one. However, Iphigenia was just so unpardonably dumb that it knocked the rating down a star for me.
-
It's way beyond my level and my pace was so slow that when I was reading Act V I already forgot what happens in Act I...the alexandrines are amazing though, and the audiobook I found online helped a lot
