Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:21:58.738Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

AMHXANIA IN EURIPIDES᾽ HERACLIDAE*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2015

Jaroslav Daneš
Jaroslav Daneš*
Affiliation:
University of Hradec Kralove
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There has been much controversy over the completeness and unity of Euripides᾽ Heraclidae in the last two centuries. Hermann᾽s characterization of the play as a heavily mutilated piece, which was adopted by Kirchhoff, Wilamowitz, Nauck and Murray, prevailed for a long time. Wilamowitz's thesis that the Heraclidae was revised by the ancient director found its adherents. It was Günther Zuntz who led the general offensive against this widely accepted opinion and whose critical scrutiny reversed the view of the play. According to Zuntz, the play has come down to us substantially as it was written. The alleged mutilation, as well as the specific dramatic technique, shortness and swiftness of the Heraclidae, also influenced the general evaluation of the play as a minor or odd piece. It was Günter Zuntz again and also Franz Stoessl who reconstituted the reputation of the Heraclidae. Today Euripides᾽ Heraclidae is studied and recognized as a classical Hikesiedrama, a play deeply rooted in Athenian ideology and in the social and religious context of fifth-century Athens, and representing various aspects of communal life. Since the play has been interpreted and scrutinized from a very wide range of perspectives, I do not aim at a radically new general interpretation of the Heraclidae, but I would like to make a short remark on an aspect of it which has, as far as I know, been neglected or only briefly referred to: the term ἀμηχανία in crucial passages of the play, which signifies, or rather describes, a situation which is desperate, hopeless, and with no way out. I would like to show that for the characters in the Heraclidae who follow the ideal of justice (τὸ δίκαιον), in contrast to those who prefer profit (κέρδος), no situation is hopeless, even as it was not for Heracles, who managed to do things which could be evaluated as impossible (defeating the Hydra of Lerna and the Nemean lion, gaining the apples of the Hesperides, etc.). On the other hand, those who opt for the Heraclean ideal have to prepare to face the ultimate challenges.

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 65 , Issue 1 , May 2015 , pp. 366 - 371
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to Jakub Cechvala, Helena Kurzova and the reviewers and editors of the Classical Quarterly for many valuable suggestions.

References

1 Hermann, G., in Euripidis Tragoediae, vol. 8, rec. Matthiae, A. (Leipzig, 1824)Google Scholar, 257; Kirchhoff, A., Euripidis Tragoediae (Berlin, 1855)Google Scholar, 496; von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., ‘Exkurse zu Euripides Herakliden’, Hermes 17 (1882), 337–64Google Scholar; Nauck, A., Euripidis Opera (Leipzig, 1909)Google Scholar. Murray, G., Euripidis Fabulae, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1902).Google Scholar

2 von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., Der Glaube der Hellenen, vol. 1 (Berlin, 1931)Google Scholar, 299; Lesky, A., Die griechische Tragödie (Stuttgart, 1984)Google Scholar, 190. Cf. McLean, J.H., ‘The Heraclidae of Euripides’, AJPh 55 (1934), 197–224Google Scholar. However, it must be admitted that there were also dissenters, e.g. Méridier, L., Euripides, vol. 1 (Paris, 1925)Google Scholar, 186; Pohlenz, M., Die griechische Tragoedie, 2 vols. (Leipzig and Berlin, 1930)Google Scholar, 1.375, 2.104.

3 Zuntz, G., ‘Is the Heraclidae mutilated?’, CQ 41 (1947), 46–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Hartung, J.A., Euripides restitutus (Hamburg, 1844)Google Scholar; L. Méridier (n. 2).

4 Norwood, G., Greek Tragedy (London, 1920)Google Scholar, 204; Grube, G.M.A., The Drama of Euripides (London, 1941)Google Scholar, 166. Cf. Conacher, D.J., Euripidean Drama: Myth, Theme, and Structure (Toronto, 1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 109.

5 Zuntz, G., The Political Plays of Euripides (Manchester, 1955)Google Scholar; Stoessl, F., ‘Die Herakliden des Euripides’, Philologus 100 (1956), 207–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Gödde, S., Das Drama der Hikesie (Münster, 2000), 131–42Google Scholar; Grethlein, J., Asyl und Athen (Stuttgart, 2003), 381–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bernek, R., Dramaturgie und Ideologie (München und Leipzig, 2004), 221–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; D.L. Berti, ‘Kleinai Athenai: the portrayal of Athens in Euripides’ Suppliants, Heraclidae, Ion, and Erechtheus’ (Diss., University of Virginia, 1996), 64–105; Wilkins, J., ‘The young of Athens: religion and society in Herakleidai of Euripides’, CQ 40 (1990), 329–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Burnett, A.P., ‘Tribe and city, custom and decree in Children of Heracles’, CPh 71 (1976), 4–26.Google Scholar

7 The following authors briefly refer to the term ἀμηχανία: Avery, H.C., ‘Euripides' Heracleidai’, AJPh 92 (1971), 539–65Google Scholar, at 541 n. 5; Burian, P., ‘Euripides' Heraclidae: an Interpretation’, CPh 72 (1977), 1–21Google Scholar, at 8 n. 17; Burnett (n. 6), 15; Allan, W., Euripides: The Children of Heracles (Warminster, 2001), 171–2.Google Scholar

8 The clash of these discourses was also prominent in the famous Melian dialogue (Thuc. 5.86–9) and in the philosophical writings: Anonymus Iamblichi 6 (DK 89), Pl. Grg. 483a–484c and Rep. 338c–341c, among many others. Cf. Balot, R., Greed and Injustice in Classical Athens (Princeton, 2001), 136–72Google Scholar and especially Crane, G., Thucydides and the Ancient Simplicity: The Limits of Political Realism (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1998).Google Scholar

9 Cf. Zuntz (n. 5), 27; Avery (n. 7), 540; Berti (n. 6), 69–70.

10 Tran. Kovacs, D., Euripides, vol. 2: Children of Heracles (Cambridge, MA and London, 2005)Google Scholar. All the following citations from the Children of Heracles are borrowed from Kovacs’ translation. The prologue contains many key terms of Greek political and moral terminology. The stress upon and preference for heroic labour (πόνος) at the end of the quotation which connects idealism to activism was the cornerstone of Athenian ideology. For a detailed analysis of the ideological framework of the terms πολυπραγμοσύνη and ἡσυχία, see Ehrenberg, V., ‘Polypragmosyne: a study in Greek politics’, JHS 67 (1947), 46–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Adkins, A.W.H., ‘Polypragmosyne and minding one's own business’, CPh 71 (1976), 301–27Google Scholar; Carter, L.B., The Quiet Athenian (Oxford, 1986)Google Scholar. Cf. Demont, P., La cité grecque archaïque et classique et l'idéal de tranquillité (Paris, 1990)Google Scholar; Michelini, A.N., ‘Political themes in Euripides' Suppliants’, AJPh 115 (1994), 226–32.Google Scholar

11 147–9: ἀλλ’ ἤ τιν’ ἐν σοὶ μωρίαν ἐσκεμμένοι δεῦρο ἦλθον ἢ κίνδυνον ἐξ ἀμηχάνων ῥίπτοντες. The herald’s rationality of political realism views the other values as something irrational; pity in particular is connected to folly by the herald but the chorus of the men of Marathon appeals to it twice (ἐκβαλεῖν οἴκτῳ δάκρυ, 129; ᾤκτιρ’ ἀκούσας τούσδε, 232). However, pity was a cornerstone of Athenian ideology. There was an altar of Pity in Athens (Paus. 1.17.1). According to Pliny (HN 35.69), the painter Parrhasius portrayed pity as a positive emotion in the picture of the Athenian demos. Pity was a matter of controversy in the second Mytilenean debate, where it was criticized by Cleon (Thuc. 3.37.2). Cleon criticized his fellow citizens for applying the same democratic measures to the exercise of imperial power. According to Cleon, that was the reason why Athens was in danger. The issue of pity is further developed by him (3.40.3.) and he comes to the conclusion that pity is possible if and only if the two agents are equal and they are ready to repay it. (Cf. Dem. 24.171.) On this issue, see Stevens, E.B., ‘Some Attic commonplaces of pity’, AJPh 65 (1944), 1–25Google Scholar; Macleod, C., Collected Essays (Oxford, 1983)Google Scholar, 74; Morwood, J., Euripides: Suppliant Women (Oxford, 2007), 2–3Google Scholar. Cf. Konstan, D., Pity Transformed (Bristol, 2011), 49–104.Google Scholar

12 I use ‘Athens’ throughout the article, despite the fact that Iolaus and his company came to Marathon and found refuge in the temple of Zeus Agoraios in Marathon, which is really not without significance. Cf. Wilkins (n. 6). But during the play Euripides makes Marathon synonymous with Athens (Zuntz [n. 5], 97–104; Berti [n. 6], 69).

13 Iolaus reminded Demophon of the family tree and the kinship between Heracles’ and Theseus’ families (205–15) and further mentioned Heracles’ rescue of Theseus (216–19), and twice appealed to Demophon's sense of honour (200, 223). We should also mention that he argued that freedom resists the determination implied by the herald’s rationality (198). The last two points are echoed by Demophon later in the first epeisodeion (284–7).

14 There are several old characters in Euripides’ plays who unsuccessfully volunteer to die instead of their children: Hecuba (Hec. 386–8), Andromache (Andr. 404–12) and Creon (Phoen. 968–9). On the contrary, there is Pheres in Alcestis, who refuses to die for his son Admetus.

15 The character is anonymous in the play. The name Macaria was derived from ‘an Euripidean collection composed in the first or second century a.d. but ascribed in order to acquire respectability to Aristotle’s fourth-century pupil Dicaearchus’ (W. Allan [n. 7], 131). On the ‘Tales from Euripides’, as well as the transition of tragic hypothesis, see Zuntz (n. 5), 129–52.

16 Voluntary self-sacrifice was something which vigorously attracted Euripides' attention. He explored this issue and incorporated it into six extant plays (Alcestis, Heraclidae, Hecuba, Suppliant Women, Phoenician Women and Iphigenia at Aulis). Moreover, we have some references that suggest that three of his lost tragedies also contained this motif (Protesilaus, Erechtheus and Phrixus). For detailed analysis of the motif of self-sacrifice in Euripides, see Schmitt, J., Freiwilliger Opfertod bei Euripides (Giessen, 1921)Google Scholar and Wilkins, J., ‘The state and the individual: Euripides' plays of voluntary self-sacrifice’, in Powell, A. (ed.), Euripides, Women and Sexuality (London, 1990), 177–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

To be precise, Macaria’s decision is by no means impulsive or without deliberation. Macaria presents her thoughts and possible choices and their results: (a) If Athens falls I will be tortured and die anyway; (b) I will go on living the life of a refugee. Perhaps I will save my life, but my brothers will not survive. Then there will be no happiness in the world at all; (c) I will die honourably and my brothers will have a good chance of being saved.

17 Chorus (535–8): ‘What shall I say in response to the brave words of this maiden, who is willing to die for her brothers? What mortal will ever speak or carry out nobler sentiments than these?’

Iolaus (539–41): ‘My child, your spirit was born of none else than that hero: you are the seed of that divine spirit of Heracles.’ Cf. 563–4. Avery (n. 7), 540 remarks that Macaria ‘of all the characters in the play most closely approaches the ideal established by Heracles’.

18 The servant is really impolite and cheeky to the old, honourable and famous hero. He considers his words foolish (ἥκιστα πρὸς σοῦ μῶρον ἦν εἰπεῖν ἔπος, 683) because Iolaus is weak and has almost no power (οὐκ ἔστιν, ὦ τᾶν, ἥ ποτ’ ἦν ῥώμη σέθεν, 688). The servant reaches the peak of his mockery when he says that Iolaus might strike an enemy but more probably he will fall first (θένοις ἄν, ἀλλὰ πρόσθεν αὐτὸς ἂν πέσοις, 686). The order of the lines follows the edition of Diggle, J., Euripides: Fabulae, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1984).Google Scholar

19 Wilkins, J. (Euripides: Heraclidae [Oxford, 1993], 140, on lines 695–7)Google Scholar aptly remarks that Iolaus ‘reverses the common practice of dedicating personal weapons by a veteran’. His action is not without significance, as Allan ([n. 7], 187) has pointed out: ‘Firstly, Iolaus borrows the weapons from Zeus to fight against an enemy who has violated the god’s sacred enclosure (65ff.), and secondly, he is decisively supported in battle by Zeus and other gods (cf. 766–9, 851–8).’

20 706–8: χρῆν γνωσιμαχεῖν σὴν ἡλικίαν, τὰ δ’ ἀμήχαν’ ἐᾶν· οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπως ἥβην κτήσῃ πάλιν αὖθις.

21 Iolaus’ departure to the battle and his dispute with the servant about delays (720–39) are considered to be an example of comic elements in Euripidean tragedy, which Bernard Knox scrutinized in other Euripidean plays: Electra, Ion, Iphigenia at Tauris and Helen. (See Knox, B., ‘Euripidean Comedy’, in Cheuse, A. and Koffler, R. (edd.), The Rarer Action: Essays in Honor of Francis Fergusson [New Brunswick, 1970], 68–96Google Scholar, repr. in Knox, B., Word and Action: Essays on the Ancient Theater [Baltimore and London, 1979], 250–74.)Google Scholar We cannot deny the amusing effect of the scene, which contrasts sharply with the preceding action of the play (especially the self-sacrifice of Macaria), and we may justifiably ask why Euripides abruptly pulls the audience out of its sober mood. I do not go along with the ironic or satirical interpretation of the play (see Burnett, A.P., Revenge in Attic and Later Tragedy [Berkeley, 1998], 156–7Google Scholar; cf. Seidensticker, B., Palintonos Harmonia: Studien zu komischen Elementen in der griechischen Tragödie [Göttingen, 1982], 92–100)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, as is obvious from the hypothesis of my article. I offer a dramatic explanation of this scene, which has, in my opinion, two aspects. First, I think that it was desirable to lighten the sober mood for a moment. Who would endure and enjoy any play without any touch of humour? Second, as Allan ([n. 7], 185) has pointed out, Euripides prepared the audience ‘for the climactic triumph of Iolaus and the Heraclidae, which in turn increases the dissonant force of Alcmene’s savage and illegal revenge at the end of the play’.