Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T18:26:49.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Meaning of Euripides' Orestes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

H. G. Mullens
H. G. Mullens
Affiliation:
King William's College, Isle of Man.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Orestes, like Hercules Furens, deals with madness and crime; but, whereas in the latter Euripides treats his subject with Aeschylean mysticism, in this play he attempts a pathological study of criminality. For subtlety of psychological insight this play is comparable to Hamlet, but it is far more dramatic than Shakespeare's play. In fact, the first impression made upon the reader is that it is ‘good stage’, an opinion shared by the actors of the fourth century. Yet it has not infrequently been condemned by modern critics; and some, instead of understanding it, have written almost as though it had no point at all. The main difficulty is the contradictory statements made about Orestes' guilt. In one place Orestes will openly blame Apollo (e.g. 11. 28–31 or 11. 591–6); in another he admits to being tortured by a guilty conscience (11.395–6). This is a division in Orestes' mind, which is the victim of more than one contradiction; it is not inconsistency on the author's part. Further, Euripides is describing a process of demoralization, not a state; and therefore what is true of the characters in one part of the play is not necessarily true at another. As the play is dynamic, interpretation too must be progressive and take the form of a running commentary.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 34 , Issue 3-4 , October 1940 , pp. 153 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1940

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 This is a second point of difference from Hamlet. Shakespeare is mainly concerned with the prince's state of mind after his interview with the ghost. It is true that on his return from England Hamlet is changed; but we are shown little of the process of change, and it may be that in the last part of the play his character has been influenced by the practical necessity of bringing the play to an end.

2 Paraphrase of 11. I, 3 by Paley, (Euripides with an English Commentary, vol. iii, p. 231, London, 1860).Google Scholar

1 With the use of this idea in Orestes compare Macbeth and see Mullens, , ‘Oedipus and the Tragic Spirit’, Greece and Rome, vii. 21 (05 1938), pp. 154–5.Google Scholar

1 See Euripides: The Orestes, edited by Wedd, N. (Cambridge, 1907), pp. xxx, xxxi.Google Scholar The whole introduction repays study.

1 ProfMurray, Gilbert(Euripides and his Age, Home Univ. Lib., p. 159)Google Scholar says: ‘There is a brief wild attempt at bargaining; then hate in Menelaus overcomes fear. He rejects all terms. Orestes' party sets fire to the palace; and Menelaus at the head of his soldiers beats blindly at the barred gate.’ This seems to make it necessary to suppose that something has dropped out after ἔχεις με such as Hermann suggested, ἀλλ' οὐχὶ φεύξει σύ τε κασιγνήτη τε σή (see Paley, , Euripides with an English Commentary, vol. iii, p. 324, London, 1860).Google Scholar But Menelaus does not call for help until his surrender has failed to stop the madman; and to my mind such behaviour of Orestes is the natural, and even necessary, climax of the play.

2 Murray, , Euripides and his Age, p. 160.Google Scholar