Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T11:29:23.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alcestis: A Paradox in Dying

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Rosemary M. Nielsen
Rosemary M. Nielsen*
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Get access

Extract

Euripides' Alcestis presents its audience with a curious problem. Why is a blatant coward rewarded? The answer has usually been discovered in Admetus' scrupulous observance of the law of hospitality (10), that is, in a personal trait. The significance of this solution is important because the ostensible morality of the play, one characterized by its peculiar blend of fairy-tale and harsh reality, is now dependent upon the single redeeming quality of one individual. Conversely, the less attractive features of Admetus, and they exist in varying degrees of unpleasantness, become defensible solely as progressive steps in the testing of his mettle. Impropriety, therefore, functions as the necessary adjunct of anagnorisis and reparation. By contrast, the sacrifice of Alcestis assumes an even more notable proportion; her rescue from the dead appears more an absolute act of justice than a miracle. Nonetheless, by the end of the play doubt still persists concerning the extent to which Admetus has revised his perception of right and wrong, his virtue notwithstanding.

Verrall, at the turn of the century, protested vigorously against just such a pragmatic acceptance of Admetus' philoxenia as a facile explanation. Ironically enough, he inadvertently predicted a trend which was not only to grow, but to become more entrenched. Admetus' saving grace has indeed carried the day. A husband's untoward submission to a wife's substitution; a son's disgraceful argument with his father before the rites of interment; a host's inner crisis as he juggles the respective merits of hospitality versus bereavement; a man's shallow repentance for living at another's expense — in short, each vital turning point in Admetus' private dilemma has received thorough and shrewd analysis, but always through the special refraction of the host motif.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ramus , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , 1976 , pp. 92 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © Aureal Publications 1976

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 . The fact that Alcestis is prosatyric has not deterred even those critics most firmly committed to the play’s ‘happy’ ending from treating it with seriousness; this is intrinsic in their effort to find a valid aesthetic principle with which to justify Admetus’ good fortune. In her discussion of prosatyric drama Dale, A. M., Euripides’ Alcestis (Oxford, 1954) xviii–xxiiGoogle Scholar, remarks that until the final scene there is ‘as deep an earnestness as if there were to be no dispersal of the shadows’ (p. xxi). Beye, C. R., Alcestis by Euripides (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1974Google Scholar), believes that although ‘the play is essentially light in tone … (it) is a dark comedy of manners which moves curiously … rousing our emotions ambiguously, leaving us never sure of what we feel’ (p. 10). The text throughout is Murray’s, G., Euripides, Fabulae, I (Oxford, 1902Google Scholar).

2 . For a well-organized survey of this theme, see Twentieth Century Interpretations of Euripides’ ‘Alcestis’, ed. Wilson, J. R. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1968Google Scholar).

3 . The basic study remains Lesky’s, A. ‘Alkestis, der Mythus und das Drama’, S.B.Akad.Wein (Phil-hist.Klasse), Bd. 203, Abh. 2 (1925), 1–86Google Scholar. For interesting modifications, see the reviews of Ebeling, H. L., AJP 48 (1927) 89–92Google Scholar, and Drexler, H., Gnomon 3 (1927) 441–455Google Scholar.

4 . Burnett, A. P., ‘The Virtues of Admetus’, CP 60 (1965), 240–255Google Scholar. Her subsequent essay on Alcestis as a ‘sacrifice tragedy’, Catastrophe Survived: Euripides’ Plays of Mixed Reversal (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1971) 22–46Google Scholar, has not been as well received. See Knox, B. M. W.CP 67 (1972) 270–279Google Scholar.

5 . Verrall, A. W., Euripides the Rationalist (Cambridge, 1895Google Scholar), a work largely underrated owing, perhaps, to its polemical style and to confusion in distinguishing criticism of the play from that of Browning’s Balustion’s Adventures. Drew, D. L., ‘Euripides’ Alcestis’, AJP 52 (1931) 295–319Google Scholar, carries Verrall’s arguments to their logical conclusion.

6 . Ibid., 45 ff, Verrall cannot reconcile Alcestis’ precipitous burial with Admetus’ reputation for punctiliousness.

7 . E.g., Meautis, G., ‘L’Alceste d’Euripide’, AM (1945) 389–402Google Scholar; Sicking, C. M. J., ‘Alceste: tragédie d’amour ou tragedie du devoir’, Dioniso 41 (1967) 155–165Google Scholar.

8 . Linforth, I. M., ‘The husband of Alcestis’, Queen’s Quarterly 53 (1946) 147–159Google Scholar.

9 . Ibid. 148–149.

10 . van Lennep, D. F. W., Euripides, Selected Plays, Pt. I, The Alcestis (Leiden, 1949Google Scholar). In his introductory essay, Alcestis’ complex personality and motives for dying are carefully examined. Curiously, none of this analysis is supported by the commentary except her penchant for self-praise; see 9–17, 79–80.

11 . E.g., Dale’s, A. M. review in JHS, 70 (1950), 86–87Google Scholar; Lucas, D. W, CR, 65 (1951), 113–114Google Scholar. In defense, see Murphy, C. T., CJ, 46 (1950–1951), 144–145Google Scholar.

12 . Dale xxii–xxix. Though avoiding the Scylla of over-psychologizing, her approach can lead to the Charybdis of completely ignoring the dramatic context as mere rhetorical convention.

13 . Poetics 1460 b 33.

14 . Arrowsmith, W. A. argues soundly for a re-evaluation of Greek theatre as the machinery for constructive and imaginative questioning about man’s world, Ideas in the Drama, ed. Gassner, J. (Columbia University Press, 1964) 1–41Google Scholar.

15 . Most notably Linforth, p. 159, whose skepticism about the final moral insight achieved by the characters includes that of the audience as well.

16 . But see Smith, W. D., ‘The Ironic Structure in Alcestis’, Phoenix 14 (1960) 127–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Although Admetus fails the test of his oath, and Heracles does not perceive what he has won, the ending is happy in that death is defeated, p. 145.

17 . So Lattimore, R. in his preface to Euripides I, ed. Grene and Lattimore (University of Chicago Press, 1955) 3Google Scholar. On Alcestis’ aloof and rational behavior towards Admetus, see Festugiere, A. J., ‘Vraisemblance Psychologique et Forme Litteraire chez Les Anciens’, Philologus 102 (1958) 21–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schadewaldt, W., Monolog und Selbstgesprdch (Berlin, 1926) 141–147Google Scholar.

18 . For a study of the ‘rhetoric’ of death, see Rosenmeyer, T. G., The Masks of Tragedy (University of Texas Press, |) 201–248Google Scholar.

19 . See Grube, G. M. A. on this subject, The Drama of Euripides (London, 1941) 63–79Google Scholar.

20 . From the moment Alcestis dies, this becomes a major feature of the action.

21 . Surprisingly, Apollo uses the term hosios (10) — ‘holy’, ‘pious’, ‘sacred’ — both of himself and of Admetus; this may suggest that he thoroughly rejects the implications of Zeus’ punishment. See Hadley’s, W. S. remarks on the adjective, The Alcestis of Euripides (Cambridge, 1896) 46–47Google Scholar.

22 . Although Pheres bitterly jokes of such, 699–701.

23 . Apollo behaves arrogantly, secure in his victory. Surely van Lennep is incorrect in viewing this allusion as merely an example of Euripides’ ‘fondness for the frivolous side of mythology’, p. 51, n. 12. Rosenmeyer 213 ff. interprets the agon in a somewhat more humorous light.

24 . Cf. Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound 248 ff., where blindness to death is one of the god’s greatest gifts to man and the basis on which civilization is founded.

25 . Conventional terminology appears at times somewhat judgmental: kakon (‘evil’) 135, 196, 213, 221, 420, 539, 557, 739, 772; nosos (‘sickness’) 203, 236, 1047; algos (‘pain’) 198, 890, 928, 937, 1039, etc.

26 . Ironically, the Chorus speculate that a man could hang himself for less, 228 ff.

27 . Admetus alludes to a time lapse in 420 ff. Wilamowitz’s much debated theory that Alcestis pledged herself on their wedding day is at least in keeping with the intense personal pressures in the play, Griechische Tragödien, III (Berlin, 1906) 78Google Scholar ff.

28 . Gennaion: ‘nobility of spirit’ as well as ‘nobility of race’, so Earle, M. L., Euripides’ Alcestis (London, 1902) 98Google Scholar. See Smith’s discussion, 135 ff., on the persistent aristocratic terminology: aristos, kalos, eleutheros, etc.

29 . See Linforth 155, who is rightly disturbed by behavior unsuited to a martyr.

30 . Interestingly, Alcestis is indifferent to everything save his oath not to remarry, 371–373.

31 . The Chorus proves all too soon how truly ordinary an event her death has become; it is but representative of an obligation faced by all men (416–419). The bitter irony of this conventional solace appears lost upon all. See Heracles’ parallel sentiment in 781–802.

32 . But see Dale 48, who excuses trickery as a plot requirement.

33 . For a discussion of verbs of daring, see J. R. Wilson, Twentieth Century, 3 ff., and his related study, ‘Tolma and the Meaning of talas’, AJP 92 (1971) 292–300Google Scholar. The Second Stasimon (569–605) has struck some critics as capitulation to Admetus’ liberality (e.g., Dale 99), while others believe the Chorus touchingly reluctant to pass judgement on their king’s superior knowledge (e.g., van Lennep 105). Actually, their confidence is founded solely upon precedence. The unusual is common in Pherae: witness the idyllic landscape and life style provided by Apollo’s past presence; there is some reason to hope Admetus’ luck will continue despite the strain of a guest in a house of mourning.

34 . The punctuation and interpretation of van Lennep on 636 ff. are more suited to the dramatics of Admetus’ righteous, if misdirected, anger (pp. 109–110). Dale 103–104 supports Murray in a reading which inappropriately burlesques Admetus’ passion. Jones, D. M., ‘Euripides’ Alcestis’, CR 62 (1948) 50–55Google Scholar, examines verbal reminiscenses of Alcestis in Admetus’ condemnation of his parents.

35 . C. R. Beye argues correctly that too much has been made of Admetus’ anagnorisis, ‘Alcestis and Her Critics’, GRBS 2 (1959) 111–127.

36 . Kudion, ‘nobler’ (codd. 960) should be retained. Pugold’s emendation, kerdion, (‘more profitable’) is attractive, but it does not support the prominent imagery of birthright.

37 . See Dale 123–124 on memphomai. In opposition, Beye 116, n. 12.

38 . Dramatically, her silence underscores Admetus’ shocking imperviousness to the fact that irrationality has conquered. On the ritual implications, see Betts, G. G., ‘The Silence of Alcestis’, Mnemosyne 18 (1965) 181–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar.