Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:42:45.099Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Euripides' Alcestis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2009

Michael Lloyd
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Alcestis not only contains an unusual mixture of serious and comic elements, but the plot itself seems to be pulling in two quite different directions. There is a happy ending in that Alcestis is restored to Admetus, and Admetus contributes to this by his hospitality to Heracles. But much of the play seems to deal with failure: Alcestis is shown to have more to lose by her death than other characters in Euripides who sacrifice themselves, and her sacrifice does not even seem to succeed, in that the life which it gains for Admetus comes to seem worse than death to him. Admetus himself has been criticized for having accepted the sacrifice in the first place, for being concerned with his own suffering rather than feeling genuine grief for Alcestis, and for offering inappropriate hospitality to Heracles.

Type
Research Article
Information
Greece & Rome , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , October 1985 , pp. 119 - 131
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1985

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

NOTES

1. Thus. e.g. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von, Griechische Tragödien, Vol. 3 (Berlin, 1906), pp. 65–97Google Scholar; Grube, G. M. A., The Drama of Euripides (London, 1941), pp. 129–46Google Scholar; Jones, D. M., ‘Euripides' Alcestis’, CR 62 (1948), 50–55Google Scholar. Robert Browning's Balaustion's Adventure is a version of the play incorporating comment and interpretation from a similar point of view to that of the scholars mentioned above.

2. Verrall, A. W., Euripides the Rationalist (Cambridge, 1895), p. 30Google Scholar.

3. Fritz, K. von, ‘Euripides’ Alkestis und ihre moderne Nachahmer und Kritiker', A und A 5 (1956), 27—60Google Scholar = Antike und moderne Tragodie (Berlin, 1962), pp. 256–321Google Scholar. A somewhat similar view is taken by Smith, W. D., ‘The Ironic Structure in Alcestis’, Phoenix 14 (1960), 127–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. E.g. Lesky, A., ‘Der angeklagte Admet’, Maske und Kothurn 10 (1964), 203–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar = Gesammelte Schriften (Berne, 1966), pp. 281–94Google Scholar, partly retracting the interpretation of the play offered in his fundamental study Alkestis, der Mythus und das Drama (Leipzig, 1925)Google Scholar; Rohdich, H., Die euripideische Tragödie (Heidelberg, 1968)Google Scholar; Kullmann, W., ‘Zum Sinngehalt der euripideischen Alkestis’, A und A 13 (1967), 127–49Google Scholar; Gregory, J., ‘Euripides' Alcestis’, Hermes 107 (1979), 259–70Google Scholar.

5. Burnett, A. P., Catastrophe Survived (Oxford, 1971), ch. 2Google Scholar.

6. Cf. Dale, A. M., Euripides Alcestis (Oxford, 1954), p. xviGoogle Scholar.

7. Thus Wilamowitz, , op. cit., p. 87Google Scholar; Fritz, von, op. cit., p. 302Google Scholar; Kullmann, , op. cit., 139Google Scholar, Such views are criticized by Dale, , op. cit., pp. xvi–xviiGoogle Scholar.

8. Reinhardt, K., Sophocles (tr. , Harvey & , Harvey, Oxford, 1979), p. 246Google Scholar writes, ‘it would be impossible to put this moving farewell to her bed and an equally moving farewell to her husband side by side in the same passage’. Dale, A. M., Collected Papers (Cambridge, 1969) pp. 146fGoogle Scholar. argues that Alcestis' feelings for her husband are implicit in the story, and do not need to be stated directly. A different view is taken by Schwinge, E.-R., Die Stellung der Trachinierinnen im Werk des Sophokles (Göttingen, 1962), pp. 42–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. Barlow, S. A., The Imagery of Euripides (London, 1971), pp. 56fGoogle Scholar. writes that Admetus is ‘wrapped up in his own platitudes and concern for his own grief’.

10. Thus e.g. Fritz, von, op. cit., p. 304Google Scholar, Schwinge, , op. cit., p. 48Google Scholar, Schmitt, J., Freiwillige Opfertod bei Euripides (Giessen, 1921), p. 74Google Scholar.

11. On the relation between song and speech in such tragic episodes see Dale, on Alc. 280ff.Google Scholar, Schadewaldt, W., Monolog und Selbstgespräch (Berlin, 1926), p. 143Google Scholar, Greenwood, L. H. G., Aspects of Euripidean Tragedy (Cambridge, 1953), pp. 131–9Google Scholar, Gould, J., PCPS n.s. 24 (1978), 51Google Scholar.

12. Alcestis adapts a common theme: other heroines lament that they will never marry while Alcestis, already married, speaks of the delights of a second marriage.

13. Alcestis' оҝ ήθέλησα ζν άποσπασϑείσά σον (287) means ‘I decided not to live…’, not ‘I could not bear to live…’: what she says here is a reason why Admetus should be grateful (she continues οδ έφειοάμην ήβης 288f). Cf. Dale on 284–9, and LSJ s.v. έθέλω for the difference between έθέλω and βολομαι. Schwinge, , Glotta 48 (1970), 36–9Google Scholar argues that because Alcestis uses the aorist ήθέλησα her attitude has now changed. He is rightly criticized by Rivier, A., MH 29 (1972), 135fGoogle Scholar.

14. Burnett, , op. cit., p. 26Google Scholar.

15. Burnett, , op. cit., p. 34Google Scholar.

16. Grube, , op. cit., pp. 129fGoogle Scholar.

17. Trenkner, S., The Greek Novella in the Classical Period (Cambridge, 1958), pp. 69fGoogle Scholar. points out that in stories of this kind it is only when there are no children to continue the ϒένοϚ that it is essential that the wife should die: by showing that Admetus has already had children Euripides emphasizes that it is for him personally that Alcestis dies.

18. E.g. Fritz, von, op. cit., pp. 264f.Google Scholar, Lesky, , op. cit., p. 282Google Scholar.

19. Cf. Lattimore, R., Themes in Greek and Roman Epitaphs (Urbana, 1942), p. 46Google Scholar.

20. Asclepius was actually punished for bringing people back from the dead, but no mention is made of this either here or at 3f. when Apollo refers to his death.

21. In early versions of the story Orpheus was successful in bringing back Eurydice cf. Bowra, C. M., ‘Orpheus and Eurydice’, CQ n.s. 2 (1952), 113–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar = On Greek Margins (Oxford, 1970), pp. 213–32Google Scholar.

22. For this consolatory motif see Menander Rhetor 3.413–14.

23. A distinction between Thanatos and Hades is implied at 871, but this distinction is not consistently maintained. Heracles is prepared to rescue Alcestis from the Underworld itself if he fails to defeat Thanatos at the tomb (850–54). See Dale on 24–6, 871.

24. Hamilton, R., AJP 99 (1978), 293–301Google Scholar argues that we are not encouraged to expect that Alcestis will be reached at all: equal emphasis is put on Apollo and Thanatos in the prologue, and Thanatos does not believe Apollo's prediction that Alcestis will be rescued.

25. Gregory, , op. cit., 261Google Scholar.

26. In line 144 the chorus comments on what Admetus has lost, and the maidservant replies ονπω τό οimage;image;ε image;εσπόϒηϚ, πρίν image;ν πάθη. Dale observes, ‘the servant's allegiance is less divided’, but it was a commonplace of Greek thought that one cannot fully understand suffering without actually experiencing it: cf. Alc. 1078, H.F. 1249; Soph., , Trach. 142f., 446f.Google Scholar, O.C. 562–8. The maidservant does not mean that Admetus’ understanding of his loss is less than it ought to be but that, inevitably, he will only know what he has lost when Alcestis has actually died. She later (201–3) describes his sorrow without criticism.

27. Thus e.g. Rosenmeyer, T. G., The Masks of Tragedy (New York, 1963), p. 219Google Scholar.

28. Burnett, , op. cit., p. 27Google Scholar, cf. Schmitt, , op. cit., pp. 73fGoogle Scholar.

29. Knox, B. M. W., Word and Action (Baltimore, 1979), p. 334Google Scholar.

30. Admetus even begs Alcestis not to betray him (προimage;οimage;ναι) by dying (202, 250, 275), which may seem odd, especially as Alcestis died because she did not want to betray him (180). But this is the standard language of lament, and Theseus, who is responsible for Hippolytus‘ death, begs him not to die in similar terms (Hi. 1456). Cf. Rivier, A., ‘Sur un motif de l'Alceste d'Euripide’, Actas del III Congreso Espanol de Estudios Clasicos (Madrid, 1968), 286–95Google Scholar; Alexiou, M., The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 163f., 176, 182–4Google Scholar, and Index II s.v.‘reproach’.

31. Grube, , op. cit., p. 136Google Scholar.

32. Admetus renounces a νimage;μϕη ΘεσοαλίϚ (331), while Alcestis has given up the chance to marry image;νδρα … Θεσσαλών image;ν image;θελον (285). Cf. Burnett, , op. cit., pp. 35fGoogle Scholar.

33. Admetus’ parents are also criticized by the chorus (466–70) and by Heracles (516). Greek parents normally dreaded that their children should predecease them, an inversion of the natural order (cf. Lattimore, , op. cit., section 49)Google Scholar. Elsewhere in Euripides, Hecuba (Hec. 382–8) and Andromache (An. 408–20) are prepared to die to save their children, while Iolaus is prepared to die to save Heracles' children (Held. 453–5). At H.F. 322–5 Amphitryon asks to be killed before Heracles' children so that he will not have to see them die.

34. This does not show that Admetus is a pervert: cf. Burnett, , op. cit., p. 36Google Scholar, Trenkner, , op. cit., p. 69Google Scholar.

35. Thus Dale, , op. cit., p. xxvGoogle Scholar.

36. The Heracles scenes are carefully interwoven with less happy scenes, giving effective contrasts of mood. The play is roughly symmetrical, with the Pheres scene at the centre, surrounded by two Heracles scenes (476–605, 747–860), which are themselves framed by two scenes of lament for Alcestis (393–475, 861–1005); the play begins and ends with scenes in which Alcestis is alive (1–392, 1006–1163). That the Pheres scene is central structurally does not mean that it is central to the meaning of the play, as Fritz, von, op. cit., p. 307Google Scholar, believes: the Aegeus scene is not the most important in Medea. Other views of the structure of Alcestis are taken by Strohm, H., Euripides (Munich, 1957), pp. 166–8Google Scholar and Castellani, V., AJP 100 (1979), 487–96Google Scholar.

37. Lucas, D. W., The Alcestis of Euripides (London, 1951), p. 6Google Scholar writes of ‘a tasteless and ostentatious act of hospitality’. Cf. Verrall, , op. cit., pp. 30–32Google Scholar, Fritz, von, op. cit., p. 59Google Scholar.

38. Admetus has been criticized for being concerned with his reputation e.g. by Galinsky, G. K., The Heracles Theme (Oxford, 1972), pp. 67–71Google Scholar, but this is to misunderstand that Greek expressions of the form ‘I am afraid of being called X’ often imply ‘I am afraid of deserving to be called X’. Cf. Dover, K. J., Greek Popular Morality (Oxford, 1974), pp. 226–9Google Scholar.

39. Cf. Taplin, O., The Stagecraft of Aeschylus (Oxford, 1977), pp. 205, 309fGoogle Scholar. on the effect of a character having the last word.

40. This ode has always been a stumbling block for those determined to criticize Admetus‘ hospitality: see Verrall, , op. cit., p. 35Google Scholar.

41. This is a version of the common story in which someone gives hospitality to a god or hero and profits as a result: cf. Burnett, A. P., CP 65 (1970), 15ffGoogle Scholar.

42. E.g. Schwinge, E.-R., Die Verwendung der Stichomythie in den Dramen des Euripides (Heidelberg, 1968), p. 109Google Scholar; , von Fritz, op. cit., pp. 262f.Google Scholar; Verrall, , op. cit., p. 69Google Scholar.