Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T13:58:34.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The end of the Trachiniai and the fate of Herakles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

Philip Holt
Philip Holt
Affiliation:
University of Wyoming Laramie, Wyoming 82071
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At the end of the Trachiniai, the dying Herakles gives orders for his cremation on Mt. Oita and is carried off to his fiery end. One of the thorniest critical questions about the play is what we, the audience, are to make of this. Did Sophokles intend the audience to remember Herakles' apotheosis from the pyre and complete the story in their own minds? Or did he omit it in order to deny it, the better to deepen the play's supposed general pessimism or censure of Herakles? The case for assuming Herakles' exaltation suffers from two major weaknesses. Its champions do little to answer the arguments of their opponents, which are often forceful and take into account things in the play which the devout would rather ignore, and they do surprisingly little to explain how their position on the question affects the interpretation of the play. Nevertheless, their case is a strong one and deserves better support than it usually receives. This study will present it in some detail, addressing the objections and in the process offering an interpretation.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 109 , November 1989 , pp. 69 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1989

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 Space does not permit a full bibliography of the question. Important discussions in favor of assuming some form of exaltation include Bowra, C. M., Sophoclean tragedy (Oxford 1944) 159–60;Google ScholarFuqua, C., Traditio xxxvi (1980) 1–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 59 n. 155; Knox, B. M. W., review of Ronnet (see below), AJP xcii (1971) 692–701Google Scholar at 694–5; Letters, F. J. H., The life and work of Sophocles (London 1953) 192–8;Google ScholarLloyd-Jones, H., The justice of Zeus 2 (Berkeley/Los Angeles 1983) 127–8;Google ScholarMéautis, G., Sophocle: essai sur le héros tragique (Paris 1957) 289–91;Google Scholar and Segal, C., YCS xxv (1977) 99–158Google Scholar at 138–41 and Tragedy and civilization: an interpretation of Sophocles (Cambridge, Mass. 1981) 99–101Google Scholar. Those opposed to assuming the exaltation (or at least to assigning it any significance) include Ehrenberg, V., in Aspects of the ancient world (New York 1946) 144–66Google Scholar at 156–7; Galinsky, G. K., The Herakles theme (Totowa, N.J. 1972) 51–2;Google Scholar the commentaries of R. C. Jebb (Cambridge 1892) xxxi, xxxv and J. C. Kamerbeek (Leiden 1959) 26; Linforth, I. M., U. Cal. Publ. in Class. Philol. xiv (1952) 255–67Google Scholar at 265–6; Perrotta, G., Sofocle (Milan 1935) 485–6;Google ScholarRonnet, G., Sophocle, poète tragique (Paris 1969) 48, 97–8;Google ScholarSilk, M. S., G&R xxxii (1985) 1–22Google Scholar at 3, 11–12; Stinton, T. C. W., in Cropp, M., Fantham, E., and Scully, S. E. (edd.), Greek tragedy and its legacy: essays presented to D.J. Conacher (Calgary 1986) 67–102Google Scholar at 84–91; and Whitman, C. H., Sophocles: a study of heroic humanism (Cambridge, Mass. 1951) 119–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For intermediate positions regarding the end as ambiguous, see Dickerson, G. W., ‘The structure and interpretation of Sophocles' Trachiniae’ (diss. Princeton 1972) 467–70Google Scholar (close to the antiapotheosis position); Easterling, P. E., ICS vi. 1 (1981) 56–74Google Scholar and Sophocles, Trachiniae (Cambridge 1982) 911;Google ScholarHoey, T. F., Arethusa x (1977) 269–94;Google Scholar and Kirkwood, G. M., A study of Sophoclean drama (Ithaca, N.Y. 1958) 67–8Google Scholar. All these works will be cited hereafter by author's name (and short title if necessary).

2 In addition to certain works cited above (n. 1), the most important studies and collections of material on which I have drawn, cited hereafter by author's name (and short title if necessary), are Beazley, J. D., Etruscan vase-painting (Oxford 1947)Google Scholar (hereafter EVP) and Attic red-figure vase-painters 2 (Oxford 1963)Google Scholar (hereafter ARV 2); Boardman, J., in Böhr, E. and Martini, W. (edd.), Studien zur Mythologie und Vasenmalerei (Mainz 1986) 127–32;Google ScholarBrelich, A., Gli eroi greci (Rome 1958);Google ScholarBrommer, F., Denkmälerlisten zur griechischen Heldensage i Herakles (Marburg 1971)Google Scholar and Vasenlisten zur griechischen Heldensage 3 (Marburg 1973);Google ScholarMetzger, H., Les représentations dans la céramique attique du IVe siècle (Paris 1951);Google ScholarMingazzini, P., Atti della Reale Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Memorie della classe di scienze morali, storiche, e filologiche ser. 6 vol. i (1925) 413–90;Google ScholarNilsson, M. P., The Mycenaean origin of Greek mythology (Berkeley/Los Angeles 1932)Google Scholar; Robert, C., Die griechische Heldensage ii 2 (Berlin 1921)Google Scholar; Shapiro, H. A., CW lxxvii (1983) 7–18;Google ScholarStinton, T. C. W., in Rodley, L. (ed.), Papers given at a colloquium on Greek drama in honour of R. P. Winnington-Ingram, Soc. Prom. Hell. St. Suppl. Paper xv (London 1987) 1–16;Google ScholarStoessl, F., Der Tod des Herakles (Zürich 1945)Google Scholar; von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., Euripides Herakles 2 ii (Berlin 1895)Google Scholar; Woodford, S., ‘Exemplum virtutis: a study of Heracles in Athens in the second half of the fifth century B.C.’ (diss. Columbia 1966)Google Scholar (hereafter Woodford) and ‘Cults of Heracles in Attica’, in Mitten, D. G., Pedley, J. G., and Scott, J. A. (edd.), Studies presented to George M. A. Hanfmann (Mainz 1971) 211–25Google Scholar (hereafter Woodford, ‘Cults’).

3 Hom. Od. xi 601–4; Hom. Hymn 15 (Allen); Hes. Th. 950–5, fr. 25.26–33, fr. 229 (Merkelbach-West); Pi. N. 1.69–72, N. 10.17–18, I. 4.61–6. In the Odyssey passage and Hes. fr. 25, mention of the apotheosis is awkward and possibly interpolated, but no matter. The interpolation probably came well before Sophokles' time, and the awkwardness only shows that the story was established well enough to force its way into places where it appears ill at home.

4 Eur. Held. 910–18, Soph. Phil. 727–9.

5 Reconstructions vary, but the subject is clear. Bibliography in Brommer, Denkmälerlisten 125 and Lapalus, E., Le fronton sculpté en Grèce (Paris 1947) 432–3;Google Scholar add Beyer, I., AA lxxxix (1974) 639–51Google Scholar.

6 Stoa Poikile, Paus. i 15.3; Parthenon, , Harrison, E. B., AJA lxxi (1967) 27–58Google Scholar at 43–5; Altar of the Twelve Gods (after the Trachiniai), Woodford 248–60, with bibliography; votive reliefs, Woodford 197–210.

7 Woodford, ‘Cults’ and Woodford 11–12.

8 Diod. Sic. iv 39.1; Paus. i 15.3, 32.4; Ael. Arist. i 35, 50–2, 360 and xl 11 ( = xiii 105, 109, 188 and v 33); Isoc. v 33.

9 Eur. H.F. 1328–33, Plut. Thes. 35.2 (citing Philochoros), Ael. Arist. xl 11 (= v 33); discussion in Galinsky 40–1 and Woodford, ‘Cults’ 211–12.

10 Burkert, W., Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche (Stuttgart 1977) 319–20;Google ScholarFarnell, L. R., Greek hero cults and ideas of immortality (Oxford 1921) 96–7;Google Scholar Nilsson (n. 2) 204–5. The distinction between god and hero could be blurred for lesser figures too: see Brelich 193 and (on ritual matters) Nock, A. D., HTR xxxvii (1944) 141–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Hdt. ii 44.5—of doubtful relevance to our question since Herodotos' divine Herakles is a born Olympian, not the deified son of Alkmene (Hdt. ii 43–4). In regarding the διξὰ Ἡράκλεια as twofold festivals, not double shrines, I follow Bergquist, B., Herakles on Thasos (Uppsala 1973) 28Google Scholar n. 45, 38–9.

12 Twofold festivals are attested at Sikyon (Paus. ii 10.1) and Kos (Nilsson, M. P., Griechische Feste von religiöser Bedeutung [Leipzig 1906] 452–3Google Scholar and Farnell [n. 10] 122) and perhaps at Thebes (Robert 633). A double cult is commonly claimed for Thasos, but Bergquist (n. 11) 19–39 raises some forceful objections. Shapiro 14–15 considers double cults exceptional.

13 Hom. Od. xi 601–4, Hes. fr. 25.25–7 (Merkelbach-West), Eur. H.F. 1331–3, Pi. N. 3.22.

14 Alternative version: Jebb xxxv, Perrotta 485–6, Ronnet 48 n. 2, Stinton (n. 1) 74, 91. Epigraph: Easterling, Trachiniae 7.

15 The Iliad, unlike other early epics, has no translations to the Islands of the Blessed, gifts of immortality, and the like: see Griffin, J., JHS xcvii (1977) 39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 42–3. It would naturally have to kill Herakles off. The Iliad's treatment of Herakles on this point resembles its treatment of the Dioskouroi, who lie dead and buried at Il. iii 243–4 but who enjoy a kind of immortality from an early date: Od. xi 298–304, the Kypria (Allen, T. W. [ed.], Homeri opera v [Oxford 1912] 103, 120)Google Scholar, Pi. N. 10.55–90, and (on black-figure vases) Hermary, A., BCH cii (1978) 51–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Achilles' rhetorical purpose is discussed by Nilsson (n. 2) 200–1; also, note that Homeric characters often bend their mythological exempla to fit the situation: see Willcock, M. M., CQ xiv (1964) 141–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 The vases are: (1) Villa Giulia 11688, a fragmentary krater published by Clairmont, C., AJA lvii (1953) 85–94;CrossRefGoogle Scholar (2) a fragmentary krater in Leningrad, not published as far as I know; and (3) a privately owned psykter published by Guy, J. R. in Lissarrague, F. and Thelamon, F. (edd.), Image et céramique grecque (Rouen 1983) 151–2Google Scholar. For discussion, see Beazley, EVP 103–4 and Boardman 128. Clairmont and Guy see no reason to take their respective vases as denials of the apotheosis, and Boardman considers the two-tier compositions showing pyre and apotheosis together, found in vase-paintings a few decades later (below, n. 19), ‘impossible’ at this period.

17 Excavations are reported by Pappadakis, N. G., AD v (1919)Google ScholarΠαράρτημα 25–33, with short notices in BCH xliv (1920)Google Scholar through xlvii (1923) and JHS xli (1921) 272;Google Scholar see also Béquignon, Y., La vallée du Spercheios des origines au IVe siècle (Paris 1937) 204–30Google Scholar. The cult is discussed by Nilsson, M. P., Archiv für Religionswissenschaft xxi (1922) 310–16Google Scholar and xxii (1923–4) 200 and JHS xliii (1923) 144–8;Google ScholarCroon, J. H., Mnemosyne ser. 4 vol. ix (1956) 193–220;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBurkert, W., GRBS vii (1966) 87–121Google Scholar at 117; and Boardman. Nilsson's explanation of the myth of Herakles' cremation as an aition for the cult is widely accepted, although Shapiro 15–17 and Stinton (n. 2) 2–6 disagree. For this study, the original meaning of the cremation story is less important than the connection of the pyre with the apotheosis in classical times.

18 Diod. Sic. iv 38–9, [Luc.] Amores 54, both admittedly late. Closer to home, a brief allusion at Hdt. vii 198.2 assumes that the historian's audience knew about the pyre, although it does not mention the cult.

19 See Beazley, EVP 103–4; Boardman 128; and Brommer, Vasenlisten 187–8. The vases are: (1) Munich 2360 (Jahn 384) (ARV 2 1186.30, Metzger 210.25 and pl. 28.1, Mingazzini no. 108); (2) S. Agata de' Goti, Mustilli collection (ARV 2 1420.5, Metzger 211.26 and pl. 22.1, Mingazzini no. 106); (3) New York 52.11.18 (M.J. Milne, AJA lxvi [1962] 305–6). The earliest of these, Munich 2360, shows satyrs stealing Herakles' weapons from the pyre—a humorous variation implying that the theme was already known.

20 For the identification of the women as spring-nymphs, see Beazley, EVP 104–5 (but cf. Boardman 130); on the river Dyras, see Hdt. vii 198.2, Strabo ix 4.14.

21 With pyre: the S. Agata krater noted above (n. 19). Without pyre: London F 64 (ARV 2 1419.1, Metzger 211.28, Mingazzini no. 97 and pl. 3.1); Cabinet de Médailles 430 (ARV 2 1420.3, Metzger 211.27 and pl. 28.2); Ruvo.Jatta 422 (ARV 2 1420.4, Metzger 211.29, Mingazzini no. 98). Fragmentary: Oxford 1954.263 (ARV 2 1420.2, Metzger 211.30). Mingazzini 441 considers his type V (soaring chariot with pyre) to be a slight variant of type VI (soaring chariot only); see also Beazley, EVP 105 and Boardman 128.

22 A suggestion by L. M. Burn noted in Easterling, ICS 74 n. 30.

23 Neglect of this distinction leads Easterling to say, ‘We simply do not know whether the story of the pyre was necessarily associated with the widespread and popular story of Heracles' apotheosis at the time when the play was written’ (ICS 65; so also Easterling, Trachiniae 10, 17–18 and Stinton [n. 1] 85–6). This is correct if we look at the association from one end, from the apotheosis. If we look at it from the other end, from the pyre (which is, after all, what the Trachiniai gives us), the association appears considerably stronger. The only relevant counter–examples are the brief allusion to the pyre at Hdt. vii 198.2 and the three vase-paintings showing the pyre without the apotheosis (above, n. 16), which cannot possibly be expected to tell the whole story, and Eur. Held. 912–14, discussed above.

24 Hes. fr. 25 and (almost certainly) fr. 229; Bakkhyl. 5 and quite likely 16.

25 Ehrenberg 145, Jebb xxiii–xxiv, Linforth 261–2, Nilsson (n. 2) 205, Robert 568–9 and 597–8, Wilamowitz 78–81.

26 Paus. iv 2.2–3; Strabo viii 3.6, 3.25, 4.5, ix 5.17, x 1.10; in addition, Argos claimed Deianeira's grave (Paus. ii 23.5).

27 Lloyd-Jones 128.

28 I do not count as hints a supposed reference to Hera at Trach. 1105 (Bollack, J., RPh xliv [1970] 37–47Google Scholar at 46–7); mention of healing at 1206–10 (Kirkwood 67 n. 32 and Segal, Tragedy and civilization 100—the bitter paradox of death as healing dampens any sense of Herakles' glorification here); references to Herakles' kinship with Zeus (Segal, loc. cit); or the title, with its reference to the site of Herakles' pyre (Dickerson 103–8).

29 Dickerson 467–70, 497–500 argues that the hints of the coming apotheosis are meant to raise hopes that are deliberately left unfulfilled, and Stinton (n. 2) 13 n. 49 suggests something similar. This is a provocative twist to the argument from silence but still not convincing. Given the strength of the tradition, Sophokles' build-up to Herakles' glorification demands a bigger let-down.

30 So Linforth, who rightly saw that the pyre scene was abrupt but wrongly counted its abruptness as a fault. Rebuttals include Hoey 292 n. 11 and Segal, YCS 140. A further objection is that Linforth considered Sophokles somehow bound by tradition to include the pyre but free to omit the better-known story of Herakles' exaltation. If tradition demanded the former, then a fortiori it demanded the latter.

31 Some of what follows is noted by Dickerson 450–2; Easterling, Trachiniae 9–10; and Segal, Tragedy and civilization 100–1.

32 In later accounts he left no remains to dispose of (Diod. Sic. iv 38.5, Apollod. ii 7.7). I will not argue that Sophokles implies Herakles' disappearance, but he makes room for it, much as he makes room for having Philoktetes light the pyre.

33 For the most forceful presentation of the moral argument, see Murray, G., in Greek studies(Oxford 1946) 106–26;Google Scholar also Galinsky 46–52; Kitto, H. D. F., Poiesis (Berkeley/Los Angeles 1966) 157–78;Google Scholar Ronnet 94–8; and Whitman 119–20. For objections more extensive than mine, see Waldock, A.J. A., Sophocles the dramatist (Cambridge 1951) 84–90Google Scholar.

34 Lines 1112–13 are sometimes taken as sarcastic, but see Waldock (n. 33) 85–6. On pity for Herakles from Hyllos and the Chorus, see McCall, M., AJP xciii (1972) 142–63Google Scholar at 156–7. Perrotta 482–3 acutely notes that the bystanders at Kenaion grieve for the suffering Herakles as well as for his victim Lichas (Trach. 783–4).

35 Knox, B. M. W., The heroic temper: studies in Sophoclean tragedy (Berkeley/Los Angeles 1966)Google Scholar. Knox recognizes some heroic traits in Herakles but does not count him as a true specimen of the type (172 n. 48).

36 Easterling, ICS 60–1; Fuqua 67–71, 77–9; McCall (n. 34) 161; Perrotta 480–5; Segal, YCS 130–41; Silk 5–12. Brelich 225–83 finds similar ambiguities and ‘monstrous’ qualities in a large number of Greek heroes.

37 His nearest relations seem to be Oidipous at Kolonos, also bound for exaltation (Segal, YCS 133 and Waldock [n. 33] 88), and Ajax (Knox, review of Ronnet 696).

38 Knox, B. M. W., Oedipus at Thebes (New Haven 1957) 185–96Google Scholar.

39 Metzger 191–230, mainly with reference to the fourth century; Woodford 131–96.

40 My thanks to Prof. Frank Romer and the library staff of Johns Hopkins University for access to valuable research materials in the early stages of work on this paper, to Prof. Diskin Clay for reading and commenting on an early draft, and to the editor and the anonymous referees of JHS for their helpful comments. My special thanks go to Toni Raubitschek for much encouragement.