Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T05:52:11.504Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Plot of the Alcestis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Extract

The immediate occasion of these notes on the Alcestis of Euripides was a recent performance of the play at the Little Theatre in London. In this performance, though the programme professed that the interpretation which had been adopted was essentially that proposed by Dr. Verrall in 1895, an innovation seemed to be contemplated which even at first sight, and still more when one went behind the English version to the original, appeared to stray beyond reasonable conjecture, and indeed ran counter in some points to the express indications of Euripides. In particular, the genuine reluctance of Admetus to give the assurance which Alcestis asks, that he will not marry again, was so greatly emphasized, and so markedly enhanced by his behaviour in the last scene, till the identity of the veiled woman was disclosed, as to lead up to a catastrophe which was tragical in every sense, and ‘satyric’ in none; while the behaviour of the restored Alcestis showed only too clearly that in her interval for cool reflection at the tomb she had taken the measure of Admetus; that it was only with reluctance that she had returned to this life at all; and that it was the crowning point of her misery to find that the reason why she was restored was that she might resume her place as his wife. This, at all events, was the manner of her retreat into the palace, and the convulsive writhings of Admetus both before and after it hardly admitted any other interpretation. The one cheerful spot in the gloom was the hilarity of Herakles, who, tactless as ever, bade them fare well and ‘live happy ever afterwards.’

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1917

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.)

References

1 In lines 954–961:—

ἐρεῖ δέ μ᾿, δ῾´στις ἐχθρὸς ρὸς ὤν κυρεῖ, τάδε ἰδοῦ τὸν αἰσχρῶς ζῶνθ᾿, ὄς οὐκ ἔτλη θανεῖν ἀλλ᾿ ἠν ἔγημεν ἀντιδοὐς ἀψυχίᾳ ἀλλ᾿ ἠν ἔγημεν ἀντιδοὐς ἀψυχίᾳ πέφευγεν ´´Αδην. κᾆτ᾿ ἀνὴρ εἶναι δοκεῖ στυγεῖ δὲ τοὺς τεκὁντας, αὐτὸς οὐ θέλων θανεῖν. τοιάνδε πρὸς κακοῖσι κληδόνα ἔξω. τί μοὶ ζῆν δῆτα κύδιον, φίλοι κακῶς κλύοντι καὶ κακῶς πεπραγὁτι

2 A similar hint concludes the Maid's Narrative (in 209 ff.):

ἀλλ᾿ εῖμι καὶ σὴν ἀγγελῶ παρουσίαν οὐ γάρ τι πάντες ἐ῀ φρονοῦσι κοιράνοις ὤστ᾿ ἐν κακοῖσιν εὐμενεῖς παρεστάναι

With these facts of the prologue in mind, it is difficult to understand the opprobrium into which Admetus has fallen among commentators. The nearest approach to a justification of it is in line 15, where he is described as

πάντας ἐλέγξας λαὶ διεξελθὼν φίλους

but this cannot fairly be taken as indicating more than conformity with the command of the Moirae to ascertain whether anyone was willing to die in his place.

3 Or, as a modern Greek would put it, φορᾶσε καῦμένη δ῾ μαλὐ σοῖ

4 Though this is commonly assumed by commentators, probably because the Maid's Narrative, if true, is fatal to their theories of Euripides' meaning.

5 We are reminded once again of his final boast in the Frogs:

τοιαῦτα μέντοὐγὼ φρονεῖν τοὑτοισιν εἰσηγησάμην λογισμίν ίνθεὶς τῇ τέχνῃ καὶ σκέψιν, ὤστ᾿ ἤδη νοεῖν ἄπαντα καὶ διειδέναι τά τ᾿ ἄλλα καὶ τὰς οἰκὶας οἰκεῖν ἄμεινον ἤ πρὸ τοῦ κἀνασκοπεῖν, τῶς τοῦτ᾿ ἔχει

Frogs, 971.