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 is a retelling of an ancient Greek story about a king who loved gold so much that when a god gave him a wish he made the wish that everything he touched turned to gold, which as we all know ended up having tragic consequences. In the original myth (and the original myth doesn't actually have him turning his daughter into gold, that actually came much later, around the 19th century) Midas found one of Dionysius' followers in a drunken stupor so he brought him into his palace, fed and clothed him, and then returned him to Dionysius, who as a reward gave him the golden touch (which is what Midas had asked for).

Anyway, the story ends in one of two ways. In both versions Midas discovered that his golden touch meant that he could not eat or drink, and in one of the versions he ends up dying of starvation. In another version, he prays to Dionysius who reverses the curse, but to do so Midas must wash in one of the rivers, which he does, and as a result of the power flowing into the water, many of the stones in the river bed turned into gold, which as it turns out is the case with this particular river, so it is believed that the story came about as a myth explaining why this particular river was rich in gold.

This particular book has quite a happy ending, but it does not mention Dionysius, instead having a fairy appear to grant Midas his wish. When I compare this particular story with the original I must admit that it is quite deficient (yes, I know, it is a children's book, but just because it is a children's book, does not mean that the author has to do away with a reasonable plot). My main gripe is that there is no reason that the fairy should approach Midas and offer him a wish. At least in the original version it was a reward for looking after one of Dionysius' servants.

The story has another interesting aspect to it in that our greatest dreams and our greatest wishes may not, in the end, be all that great. In this story (this particular book, not the myth in general) we have Midas who is incredibly wealthy, but he is not satisfied with the wealth that he currently has and he wants more, however in his desire to obtain more wealth he ends ups destroying himself and those around him. It is unclear in the original story whether he already had great wealth, but since he was a king, this probably goes without saying.

Therefore, the two concurrent themes in this story would be that the desire for more wealth can be a very destructive desire, but it also shows how even if we have much, that much is never enough and we end up always wanting more. It is the idea that we believe that wealth will secure us on this Earth, and as long as we have much wealth then we will not need to worry. However, there is always that fear that what we have may not actually be enough, so we will always go out to get some more, and in doing so we end up pushing other things aside. A person who, through their desire for wealth, neglects family, friends, and even their own health, so that even if they have the wealth, and their future is (so they believe) secure, in the end that future, even though it is secure, is not necessarily happy.