Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:19:14.782Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Formal Beauty of the Hercvles Fvrens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. T. Sheppard
Affiliation:
King's College, Cambridge

Extract

Many critics have condemned, some have defended, Euripides for composing a play ‘altogether wanting in the satisfaction which nothing but a unity of ideas could produce.’ It helps us little to marvel, with Paley, at the ‘obtuseness of critics who forsooth prefer “unity of ideas” to profoundly moving incidents, etc.,’ though it may be admitted that Paley has detected part of the truth when he calls attention to the importance of the fact that Athens is, throughout the play, the only possible asylum for the hero. Verrall's analysis has the merit that it attempts to account for the play as a whole, but it is hard to believe that the Athenian audience was composed of subtle critics, endowed with Verrall's ingenuity and acumen. Still, though it is easy to disagree with Verrall, it is less easy to give the reasons for one's disagreement. In detail one can say: ‘The straightforward and obvious sense of the words is adequate; the subtle suggestion is not likely to have occurred to an audience which had never heard of Schlegel or of Swinburne.’ That leaves us with the fact that the impression made on most of us by the whole work is not one of formal perfection. To most readers there seem to be three episodes, each excellent, but not intimately connected with the other two: in the first we are concerned for the fate of the tyrant Lycus, and rejoice at his just destruction; in the second we are moved by the sudden reversal in the fortunes of the beneficent Heracles; and in the third we are impressed by the magnanimity, and, perhaps, delighted with the Athenian connections, of the excellent Theseus. There is a good deal of talk which we ascribe to the tendency of Euripides to make his characters the mouthpieces for current debate. There are choral odes which we think charming, but, on the whole and as a rule, slightly irrelevant to the main ‘incidents.’ My purpose in this paper is to suggest, first, that the audience was occupied with certain quite familiar ideas upon which Euripides has built his play, and was, therefore, not at leisure to catch at subtleties of detail, suggestions, ambiguities, ironies, points of logic and of lack of logic, such as Verrall emphasizes; and, secondly, that if we also remember these ideas, we shall find both unity in the construction and relevance in the choral odes.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1916

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

Page 73 note 1 1234ούδ;Εìς αλάσΤωΡ Τοîς Φλοζ έκ Τŵγ Φλωγ

Page 76 note 1 SeeHeadlam, , in J.Ph. XXX., p. 297Google Scholar sq., p. 68 sq. and my note in Class. Rev. XXIX., May, 1915,

Page 78 note 1 Here is one good example:—Pindar, Isthmians III. 1: εi Τις άνδρών εύΤυχήσαις η σύν εύδόξοις αεθλοις η σθέγει πλούΤου καΤέχει Φρασίγ αιαγη όρογ…. Here you have the athlete's strength and glory, the rich man's power and wealth combined: and the moral is, of course. Sophrosyne: ζώι δέ μάσσωγ όλβος όπιζομέγωγ πλαγίας δέ Φρέγεσσιγ ούχ όμώς πάγΤα χρόγογ θάλλωγ όμιλεî. Nor can I refrain from quoting the familiar lines in which Theocritus has given so characteristic a reading of Saphrosyne: μή μοι γâν ΙΙέλοπος, μή μοι Κροίσεια ΤάλαΤα είη έχειγ, μηδέ πρόοθε θέειγ άγέμωγ άλλ' ύπο Τą πέΤρą Τąσ' ąσομαι, αγκàς έχωγ Τυ…