Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T16:57:38.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Men and Gods in Euripides' Hippolytus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

C. A. E. Luschnig
C. A. E. Luschnig*
Affiliation:
University of Idaho
Get access

Extract

The relevancy of the appearances of the two goddesses, Aphrodite and Artemis, to the action, causation and characterization of the Hippolytus has long been debated. The rationalists' view is that they constitute a superficial and largely structural frame for the real, human drama, having little or nothing to do with what happens on the stage between epiphanies. Indeed, it is hard to deny that the human characters have a great deal to do with their own undoing. The divine nature of the catastrophe, on the other hand, prevents our rationalizing the superhuman element as outside the tragedy. If we include Poseidon in our Olympian cast of characters, it may be possible to find a relationship of the gods to the action of the play of another kind than a strictly causal one. It is the purpose of this paper to show that the characters and motivations of the persons of the drama both human and divine are so closely parallel that they form but a single frame of action within a dramatic structure that is so tight that barely an oimoi is superfluous. And surely two (or three) divinities have not been added for their appeal to the audience's love of the spectacular, or from a simple desire for balance.

In a recent article B. D. Frischer has observed that between the human and divine frames, as well as within each frame, the principle of concordia operates. He asserts, however, that the device of reenactment (which ‘harmonizes characters by showing them doing and saying the same things’, 87) functions within but not between frames. My contention is that in action and in character the human actors are like their gods, that their actions parallel those of their gods, that they try to impose on the situation a state of immutability that is not suited to the mortal condition, and that they impose upon themselves and each other an isolation which is very close to the gods' aloofness and anti-social existence. It is through the goddesses' statements and the implications of these statements when transferred to human relationships that we become aware of what is taking place at the human level.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ramus , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , 1980 , pp. 89 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © Aureal Publications 1980

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. It is nearly impossible to discuss the Hippolytus as a whole without touching on this problem. Some of the most interesting recent articles on the subject are: Winnington-Ingram, R. P., ‘ Hippolytus: A Study in Causation’, Fondation Hardt Entretiens VI, Euripide (Geneva, 1958), 171–191 Google Scholar; Fitzgerald, G. J., ‘Misconception, Hypocrisy and the Structure of Euripides’ Hippolytus', Ramus 2 (1973), 20–40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Segal, Charles P., ‘The Tragedy of the Hippolytus: the Waters of Ocean and Untouched Meadow,’ HSCP 70 (1965), 117–169 Google Scholar; and Knox, B. M. W., ‘The Hippolytus of Euripides’, YCS 13 (1952), 3–31 Google Scholar. See also Sale, W., Existentialism and Euripides: Sickness, Tragedy and Divinity in the Medea, the Hippolytus and the Bacchae (Ramus Monographs I: Melbourne, 1977), 35–79 Google Scholar.

2. ‘ In Concordia Discors and Characterization in Euripides’ Hippolytus', GRBS 11 (1970), 85–100 Google Scholar.

3. It is interesting to speculate on the extent of Aphrodite's plan: where it ends is clear (with the destruction of Hippolytus, Artemis' plan takes over); but where does it begin? Phaedra sees Hippolytus at the mysteries and falls in love with him (25-28), erōs'erōt' ekdēmon (‘loving a beloved away from home’, 32). Then Theseus must go on a year's exile ekdēmon (‘away from home’), and thus Phaedra and Hippolytus are brought together. What did Aphrodite have to do with Hippolytus' going to the mysteries? Did she play any part in Theseus' spilling of blood that led to his exile? The verbal repetition (of ekdēmon) seems to indicate that she does take credit for both. Theseus' absence from Troezen, furthermore, is absolutely necessary for Aphrodite's plan to function (cf. 281, 659). Or it may be that she merely takes advantage of the opportunities offered her by the essential natures of these characters: Hippolytus is pious and would be initiated into the mysteries; Phaedra is brooding and somewhat discontented; Theseus is a man of violence and an adventurer.

4. A popular point of critical contenton is, who is the hero of the Hippolytus? On this see Knox. op. cit. (above n.1), 4; Crocker, Lester, ‘On Interpreting Hippolytus ’, Philologus 101 (1957), 238–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Aphrodite's generalizing of individuals, see Barrett's, W. S. superlative commentary (Oxford, 1964), pp. 166–7Google Scholar.

5. I believe that Hippolytus and Phaedra should share the stage for this scene (see also section on ‘isolation’, below), but compelling arguments to the contary have been put forward by Smith, Wesley D. in ‘Staging in the Central Scene of the Hippolytus ’, TAPA 91 (1960), 162–177 Google Scholar; and Østerud, Svein in ‘Who Sings the Monody 669-79 in Euripides’ Hippolytus?', GRBS 11 (1970), 307–320 Google Scholar. David Sider, however, in a recent article, ‘Two Stage Directions for Euripides’, AJP 98 (1977), 16–19 Google Scholar, offers a reasonable argument for Phaedra's presence throughout this scene.

6. What Phaedra means by aidōs is a difficult problem: I follow the ‘common opinion’ here, in believing that she distinguishes (though inadequately) two kinds of aidōs (in lines 385-387), but for another opinion, convincingly argued, see Claus, David, ‘Phaedra and the Socratic Paradox’, YCS 22 (1972), 223–238 Google Scholar.

7. Whatever the Nurse had in mind by her soothing philtres of love (509-10), she does at least bring an end to Phaedra's love for Hippolytus. Phaedra had loved Hippolytus from a distance, at sight only. Now, when he comes into her view once more, but railing at the Nurse, Phaedra must see his utter aloofness. Her love changes: she will teach him how to behave.

8. Or, ‘more tolerant’ as Conacher, D. J. translates sophōterous(Euripidean Drama [Toronto, 1967], 29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

9. Cf. Barrett, op. cit. (above n.5), 154: ‘These are the two powers with whose conflict — or the conflict of the things they symbolize — the play is concerned.’ For an interesting discussion of the significance of Artemis, see Sale, op. cit. (above n.1), 39-44. On isolation as a theme in the Hippolytus, see Stahl, H. P., ‘On “Extra-dramatic” Communication of Characters in Euripides’, YCS 25 (1977), 159–176 Google Scholar.

10. Even the supporting characters encourage this confusion of roles between the human and divine by comparing men's actions to those of the gods: the manservant in trying to impose human morality on a god (120), and the Nurse in trying to impose the supposed amorality of the gods on a human being (451-58, 474-75). To live together in society, men need a moral code, based on understanding of the human modality and a knowledge of mortality (cf. Hathorn, R. Y., ‘Rationalism and Irrationalism in Euripides' Hippolytus ’, CJ 52 [1957], 215 Google Scholar).

11. Barrett op. cit. (above n.4), however, asserts that ‘the notheia [“bastardy”] is wholly irrelevant to the action of the play’.

12. For a discussion of the meaning of semnotēs and sōphrosunē and their cognates in this play, see Sale op. cit. (above n.1) 35-37 and 44f.