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 organised 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-centred 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 realised his inability to act in a collective manner. This creature bursts into tragic song, hence the word tragedy (τράγος = male goat + ωδή = song).

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 (se 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."

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.

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.

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, hair pins, dresses, 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.

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!

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.

Why to the Modern Man

by Eftychia Loizides, Director-Actress

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.

Some of the Reasons We Chose This Play by Euripides

by Eftychia Loizides, Director- Actress

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 who 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 prophecy 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"!

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 didi 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, who 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) which 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!

Eftychia Loizides, actress-director.

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 take 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 characterised 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 emphasise 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 Magdalen 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.