STANTON (Philia and Xenia in Euripides Alkestis)

8/9/2019 STANTON (Philia and Xenia in Euripides Alkestis)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stanton-philia-and-xenia-in-euripides-alkestis 1/14

ΦΙΛÍΑ and ΞΕΝÍΑ in Euripides' 'Alkestis'

Author(s): G. R. StantonSource: Hermes, Vol. 118, No. 1 (1990), pp. 42-54Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4476734 .

Accessed: 31/03/2011 19:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hermes.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4476734?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4476734?origin=JSTOR-pdf




42

G.

R. STANTON:I)XLCa

nd

tevwa

n

Euripides'

Alkestis'

exposition of the

topics that

someone

would need to consider in

investigating a

metaphysical problem and an illustrationof how to perform the investigation.

Later

dialogues like the

'Sophist' actually

use the

mechanism to treat substantial

problems.

These

remarkson the

overall aim of the

dialogue belong to the realm of

specu-

lation, as all such

analyses are

likely to do. I can

plead that

my remarks

fare

no

worse than

other

interpretations,

and indeed a

good deal better if

my

topical

analysis is

correct. One

reason that the

'Parmenides'continues to fascinate scho-

lars is that

the

dialogue says too

little to determine

what its

aimreally is. But

even

this

reticence tends to

supportmy

contention that

the second part s

intended to be

an exposition of metaphysicaltopics in a way that avoidsmakingthe assumptions

implicit in Socrates'

account of

forms, and an

exposition that

showsthe dire

conse-

quences of

denying the

forms

entirely. Since I am

unable to argue

this interpreta-

tion,

I

contentmyself with

concludingthat,

whateverwe are

to make

of the overall

aim

of the dialogue,

the second part

expoundsmore fully

the topics

employed in

the

first part

and the

two parts thus

form a unity.

Athens, Georgia

EDWARD

HALPER

41IAiA

AND EENA IN EURIPIDES' 'ALKESTIS'

I

I begin with a textual problemin the opening speech

in the

play. Apollon says,

in part, of Admetos (15-18):

JTCV'Ta

6'

tEWy'Lag

aiL

6LEktdffOV

PRkOV;,

[;taTEQa

yEQacLav

&'TI

Oqp'

TLXTE

TlTQac,]

o?X

ikCE

TX1V

ylv

aLXog

6crTrL

fiftEXEV

ftavdOv Qo

xEvov

tiXET'

aooCQaV

doag.

So DIGGLE'Secent text1.This is not the firsttime that verse 16 has been suspected,

as

MURRAY duly noted in the edition which DIGGLE'Sreplaces2. Some scholars

1

Euripidis

fabulae,

edidit J. DIGGLE, torn.

I (Oxford 1984) 37. J. C. KAMERBEEK, n a

review

discussion f DIGGLE'Sdition

(Mnemosyne n. s. 39 [1986] 92-101) objected that

DIGGLE

is

too

prone to assume interpolation<< nd

referred specifically to his

athetesis of 'Medea' 1056-1080, a

passage which I have

discussed in Rh.M. 130 (1987) 97-106.

2

Edidit G. MURRAY Oxford 1902).

MURRAYn his translation of the play

(London 1915)

omitted specific

reference to Admetos' father and mother, but

expanded

nr&vTag

cpLRov; ith

an



DLXL'and

tevia in Euripides'

Alkestis'

43

have been worried about the unusualpattern of co-ordination for Greek

- A,

B

andC3. Hence

MONK'S

entative emendation

naeLeQa

me)yQaVav

W'

nd

NAUCK'S

refinement

(xaL)

naTe'a

yaidav

&'

recorded in

DIGGLE's

apparatus4.

However, as

DALE

pointed out

in her defence of verses 16-17, the

cpRkoL

f

verse 15 must include Admetos' father and mother5.That, indeed, can be

estab-

lished by the usage of the play. Admetos

tells Alkestis that his mother and father

were

WpkoL

n word, not deed (338-339).

Admetos goads his father by stating that

he

personally s dead as far as Pheres

is concerned: >If by finding another saviour I

look on the light, I call myself the son of that person and the

cpLkog

ho tends

him in

old age<< 666-668). Part of Pheres'

rejoinder is to suggest that Admetos has

devised an ingenious scheme for putting off death indefinitely

-

persuading

wife

after wife to die in his place. >>Do ou then upbraidyourcp'LOowho

are not

willing

to

do this, when you yourself are

a coward?<<701-702). Pheres clearly includes

himself among the

qp(LOL

of Admetos.

Not that Admetos now includes among

his

pLXkOL

is parents, who have (in his view) let him down in this

crisis.

When Pheres

comes to share in Admetos' sorrow,

Admetos responds with the statement

that

he

does not regard Pheres' presence

as that of a friend (oi5T'V LOkOLGL,30)6. By

contrast he has welcomed the presence of the old men

of Pherai

as

friendly

(ei[wvig,

606; cf. 211).

allusion to the omitted verse in

>>AI

hat

were his, and all that owed him

love<<.

Verse 16

was

deleted also in the editions by R.

PRINZ Leipzig 1879), H.

WEIL

(Paris 1891), M. L.

EARLE

(London 1894), H. W. HAYLEY

(Boston 1898) andE. H.

BLAKENEY

London 1900), byM. IMHOF,

Bemerkungen zu den Prologen der sophokleischen und euripideischen Tragodien

[Diss.

Bern

1953] (Winterthur 1957) 57-58 and

by M. D. REEVE, G.R.B.S. 14 (1973) 145-171 at

146.

3

D. F. W. van

LENNEP,

Euripides:Selected Plays 1 (Leiden 1949) 51, in noting that

most

editors since NAUCKhave taken

verse 16 as in apposition to

xdviva;

(pXoUg,

considered

the

construction grammatically possible,

perhaps colloquial. He cited J. D. DENNISTON, The

Greek

Particles (Oxford 1934) 501: ,Rarely,

me

couples the last two units of an otherwise asyndetic

series<<.Some continue to

understand verse 16 as in apposition to >all his loved ones<<: ee, for

example, the translation by D.

EBENERn Euripides: Tragodien 2 [Schriften und Quellen der alten

Welt,

30.2]

(Berlin 1975) 23.

4

Euripidis Alcestis, ed. J. H.

MoNK (Cambridge 1816)

4.

MoNK

expected

another

copula, as

his

note on verse 16 shows, but he pointed to R.

PORSON's

ote (Cambridge 1801)

on 'Medea' 750

(= 752)

for

the suppression of the middle copula. (For an

additional

example

see 'Bakchai'

694.)

Nauck seems to have abandoned his

conjecture, as H. WEIL noted in his

edition

of 'Alkestis'

(Paris

1891). Certainly

NAUCK

makes no

mention of the conjecture

in

his second

edition

of the

tragedies

(Leipzig 1857), contenting himself with noting (LI): >16 suspectum

merito

habet

Dindorfius.<<

NAUCK'S onjecture was accepted into the editions

by

L.

MERIDIER

(Paris 1925),

who

took

xva

here to mean sand in particular<<56 n.2), and by L.

WEBER

(Leipzig 1930) 55.

5

A. M.

DALE, Euripides: Alcestis (Oxford 1954)

53. So M. D.

REEVE,

G.R.B.S.

14

(1973)

146.

6

M. L.

EARLE,

Euripides'Alcestis (London 1894) 145 took Evcp'XOLGLs neuter. But compare

3V

eV6QtOLV

n 723 and 732, and

kv

iXfL:oiLv

(which EARLE [176] allowed

is

masculine) in 1037.

(DIGGLE

prefers

&v

LOXQOLOLV

ith LPQ in 1037.)



44

G.

R. STANTON

Alkestis too

may be includedamongthe cpLXoLf her husband.This interpreta-

tion does not

rest on

cpLXia

aXokog,

pL'

aXOLTLg

nd similar

phrases,

which

may

mean

simply >loving<or

>dear

wife<7,buton

unambiguous

tatements

in the

play.

Admetos

declares that he (also,

perhaps, the

children)

has

regard

for his

LXL'a

with

her (279); it is

high in his values

and so >>his

ife or death is bound

up with

hers<<8. lkestis

is the

qpRog

whom he

hopes to see in his dreams

(355-356).

After

her

death Admetos

clearly

ncludesAlkestis

among his

cpRoL

n

saying that great is

the grief and

mourning

for friends who

have gone below

(895-896).

The

chorus

confirm this

interpretationwith

their statementthat

Alkestis >>has

ied,

she

has

left

behind her

qplXia

[with Admetos]<<

930). Indeed,

they

imply that husband-wife

relationshipscould

generally be

described in this way

(931-933)9.

But

DALE goes too far

in arguing

that there were in fact

only

three

(pRkoL10

whom

Admetos could

go through

n his search (15)

for another

person who would

be

given in exchange to

the gods below.

Apollon, who

gained this

concession for

Admetos,

cannot of course be the

substitute. But he alludes

to Admetos as a

qp'ko;

avrqQ

hose misfortunes

weigh

him down (42; see

furthersection II).

The

members

of

the

chorus

will bear the

grievous sorrowwith

Admetos

g

cpwkog

pRkq369); for

as

a

group they are a

qpfkog

f old to

Admetos, as

the female

servant recognises

(212).

Admetos twice

(935, 960) addresses

them as

(pkOL.

his small

pool of noble

Pheraians was a likely source for a substitute for Admetos, particularlyas several

characters in the play1"

eel that the

elderly should

volunteer.

And the leading

citizens

of Pherai seem

to be in Herakles'

mind

when he asks

Admetos in frustra-

7

wRLko;

ccurs

n this

playonly

n the

phrase ptkXLag

Xo,ou

473, 876,917);

L(kog

ccurswith

aXOLTLg

201),

koXoog

599;

165-166refer to a

wife

for

Alkestis'

son), yv'Sj

230-231,

351-352,

460),

IjQ (406-407),

VExQO;

432)

and

X4tQ376). Although

his

excerpting

f 'Elektra'

82-83

(cf.

n.25 below)

omittedTEand thus

implied

hat

q(Xov

qualifies EVov

rather han

oc,

D.

KON-

STAN

(Philologus129

[19851

76-185)

pointedout that

(pko;

has the

strength

f

>>ally>,suppor-

ter<<s well as simplymeaning>>dear<<lsewhere n thatplay.

8

A.

M.

DALE, p.

cit. (n.5) 74. At

1095Herakles

ommends

Admetosas

a

faithful

p(PXo;

o

his

wife, but

1094-1095are

also deleted by

DIGGLEnd

hence I do

not employ them

here

in

combating he deletion

of 16.

I

note,

however,

hat Admetos'

statement n

1096 hat

to

remarry

would

be

to abandon

Alkestis,

even though

she is dead,

followswellon

nLox6g

n

1095.

9

See alsoP.

T. STEVENS,

uripides:

Andromache

Oxford1971)

169and,

for ZeusPhilios,

C.

DIANo,

Rivistadi

cultura lassica

medioevale

17 (1975)35. J.

M.BELL,

Emerita48

(1980)43-75

discussed

pita betweenAdmetosand

Alkestis 61, 63)

andbetween

Admetos

andthe

members

of

the

chorus 50).

10

A.

M.

DALE, p. cit.

(n.5) 53, accepted

by L.TORRACA,

ote

critico-esegetiche

ll'Alcesti

di

Euripide Napoli

1963)41.

For restriction f

(pLkoL

o

membersof the

familyof

Admetos see

also

A. W.

VERRALL,

uripides he

Rationalist:A

Study n the Historyof Art and Religion

(Cambridge

1895) 27-28 and

R. HAMILTON

n his

edition with M.

W. HASLAM

BrynMawr

1980)2.

11

Alkestis

(290-292), the

chorus

466-470)and

Admetos

(634-647,958-959). G.

PADUANO

in

his

commentary

Firenze

1969) perceived

n the

phraseology f verse 16

an

indication hat

Apollon

shares his

view, becauseof his

cpLtia

with

Admetos.





46

G.R.STANTON

between Pheres and Admetos requires just

such preparationas this. In a

modem

drama the actor might indicate the crucial examples of Admetos' father and

mother19by the sweep

of an arm, and some

such gesture would no doubt have

assisted the delivery of

the verses in antiquity. There is a break in

the sentence

which can be represented in writing by dashes

(as used, for example, by modern

editors at 'Bakchai'

1316-1319). But it is the

gesture in oral deliveryof 'Alkestis'

15-18 which would

convey the sense of 'including' his father and

mother: >>He

made requests to all his friends n turn

-

(including)his aged father

and the mother

who bore him

-

and did

not find anyone except his wife who was

willing to die in his

stead

and no longer look on the light of day.<

Such an interpretation avoids the

absurdityof saying

?all

his friends?and thenimplying hat theynumberonly two; it

also removes the

difficulty in co-ordination

some have felt. Verse 16 should be

retained.

II

The

relationship of

Evfa,

guest-friendship,

merges

into

that

of

qpXL(a20

nd

Herakles

is

portrayed

n

the play

as

in

the

process

of

upgrading

his

relationship

of

evWawith Admetos to

one of

pLkXa.

his

is not to

deny

that

words related

to

vog, such as

t-a

tVLa,

eyvCovEg

nd

tEVL_LV21,

referto provisionof hospitality n

a

general way. Indeed,

Evog

itself in the

vocative is used mildly

for

?O

guest,

.

.<<

(821)

or

?friends, .

.

.?v 476). Once in the play

tEvog

simply

means

>stranger<<484,

referring to Diomedes).

Hospitality, rather

than ties of evta, may perhaps

be

uppermost

in

Herakles' parting injunction to

Admetos

to

>>continue

n

being just

...

and respect the

conventions about

Frvot

<

1147-1148). It is the generouslevel

19

Hence G. HERMANNwason theright rack,

n his criticism

f

bothMONK'S

conjecture

and

MONK's efence of the manuscripts, n interpreting he passage as

embracing

all friends and

relativesunder he name

y0OL

andthen adducing wo conspicuous xamples:

.

H.

MONK

and

G.

HERMANN

(edd.). EuripidisAlcestis (Leipzig1824)5.

20

'DLX'a is discussed, houghwith ittlereference o 'Alkestis',byL.DUGAS,L'amitie ntique2

(Paris 1914) and F.

DIRLMEIER,

Philologus90 (1935) 57-77 and 176-193, especially67-77 and

176-177

=

AusgewahlteSchriften u Dichtungund Philosophieder Griechen Heidelberg1970)

85-109, especially91-98.

_evia

is discussed,withreference o Homeric ociety,by

M. I.

FINLEY,

The

World

of Odysseus2London1977)99-103andS.

TAKABATAKE,

Journ.Class.Stud.

(Kyoto)

32 (1984) 16-27withEnglish ummary t 154-155.Forthe connection etween

qpJX6Tlqg

nd

XaQLg

in the

Homericpoemssee J. LATACZ, ZumWortfeld Freude' n der SpracheHomers

Bibliothek

der klassischenAltertumswissenschaften,.F.

2.171

Heidelberg1966)88-89, 99, 112-116.

21

Ta ?via: 754;

M?vCovEg:

43, 547;

tEv(e4Lv:

22, 1013.D. F.

SurrON,

Riv. Stud. Class. 21

[19721 84-391), n trying o identify atyric lements n 'Alkestis', uggested he abuseofervfaas

one such feature.But although he referred 385, 390) to the drunkenness f Herakles,her own

accountof

tevWa

n the play(387-388) hows he seriousnesswithwhich t is observed contrast he

abuse

of

yevLa

n Sophokles' Inakhos',as reconstructed y

SUrrON:

os 62 [1974]

213-226,

especially214-216).



LDk'a nd tev(a

in

Euripides'

Alkestis'

47

of hospitalitywhich Admetos

has in mindwhen he declares that he finds

Herakles

an

aQLcog

t&vog

>whenever I go to the

thirsty land of Argos<<

559-560).

The

conventions

of

yev(a

obliged A to entertain

B, B to

entertain C, and so on; but

there were strong and continuing

relationshipsbetween

two aristocrats

which were

also designated

as

tLvctL.

The Herakles-Admetos

relationship is clearly

a

reci-

procal one in which Herakles

provides

hospitalityfor Admetos in the

Argolid and

Admetos for Herakles in

Thessaly

-

even

though Herakles has many

other

t&VOt,

not just in Thessaly but in

Pherai itself (1044-1045; cf.

538).

The two

usages of

tivog

can occur close

together. In 1117the

eviV

is

the

woman

who is a guest,

since Admetos does not yet

know her identity.But three

verses later

Herakles, again the speaker, assertsthatAdmetos willcome to declarehim a noble

tEvog

(see below). Herakles

conceives of his relationship

with Admetos as one in

which

XaQLg

s involved. The re-establishment

of Alkestis to the house

of

Admetos

will be a wayof rendering

hanksor providing

a boon (842

'Ab6Tq)f

'

1novQyTaaL

XaQLv)

o Admetos.

Although

the

phrase

bnoueQy1aL

XaQLv

ccurs in

'Prom-

etheus Bound'

(635)22, he thought of

Herakles is consonantwith the

ideology

of

tevta relationships in which

the partners render each

other mutual

service. In

837-860 Herakles formulates

the plan

of bringing Alkestis back

from

Death's

clutches and

restoring her to the palace

as a way of providing

a

XkQLg

o Admetos

and continuingthe relationship. Herakles realises that it was out of respect for

himself that Admetos concealed

the misfortune

which had

struck

him and

received

Herakles

into the house (855-857).

>>Who

n

Thessaly

is more committed

to

yvica

(cpLX6Aevog)23

han this

man? Who that lives in Greece?<<

858-859).

In

response

Herakles says that he will

lead Alkestis

up from

the nether

regions

and

place

her

in

the

hands

of his

tCvog

(854). Admetos

has the noble

virtues

(yevvaiog,

857, 860)

-

indeed Herakles

himself seeks a declaration

that he

is a

yevvaiog

?vog

(1120)

-

and

Admetos will not say

that he

bestowed

the

favoursof

?ev(ca

Fi'Q^yETioaL)

on

a

worthless man (859-860). Later

Herakles protests

his zeal

(neQoOvtRa,

107)

for

the eyvia relationship.Not only does he wish(pol5XErnat, 075)to providea

XaQLg

for

Admetos,

he

actually

expresses

to

the

latter

what

that

XdQL;

s: >>Wouldhat

I

were

strong enough to

bring your

wife

back to

the

light

from

the

nether

regions <

(1072-1074).

Later again,

while

Admetos

is

still

ignorant

of

the

woman's

identity,

Herakles

hintsat the

xaQLg

1101).

Much of

the

play turns

on the high value

which Admetos places

on his

reputa-

tion

as

a

t?Vog

(555-558,

566-567, etc.). It is not just that

the house of Admetos is

always

full of guests

(noku'?iLvog

oLxog, 569), as the chorus

sing.

Admetos

22

As M. L.

EARLEsee n. 6

above)

pointed

out in his note on

v. 842. For the primacy

f the

desire

by

Herakles

o demonstrate

ratitude

orthe hospitable

eceptionby

Admetos rather han

a sense

of shame),

see L. BERGSON,

ranos83 (1985)7-22

at

13.

23

For the Greekpropensity

or

qpLXo-

ompounds,n

contrastwithLatin

whichhas

no

amico-

compounds,

ee

L. J. D. RICHARDSON,

reece and Rome

12 (1943)4-5.



48

G. R. STANTON

oopened his house wide and welcomed the

M?Vo;

Herakleswith tearfuleyes, even

while he lamented the

corpse, just dead,

of his

dear wife

in

the

house<<

597-600).

The chorus

recognise that this is

understandably

based

on aristocratic

motivation

(o

FUyEvFg,

600).

But the servant

deprived

of

the

opportunity

to

say

farewell to

Alkestis regards his

master as

excessively

committed

to

ivfaL.

The

epithet 'pLXO-

M?vog

s used three times,

always of Admetos

(809, 830, 858),

in the

play. Thus

Herakles

says at the second occurrence

that

he drank

in the

house

of

a

man

to

whom ties of

yvia

were

dear.

Admetos

himself

says

that

to his

present grief would

have been

added another

if Herakles had set

off to the house

of another

?VoS

(1040), the

sort of person who might

look after the woman Herakles

says

he

has

won at an

athletic contest

(1042-1044). If

Admetos

had driven

Herakles

away

he

would have been less

respectfulof

?yvia

relationships

a'EvdrreQo;, 56).

The

evil

would

have been for

Admetos' house to be called

unfriendly

o

?E'VOL

?XEQO6Evog,

558)24.There

is, moreover, a

consciousness

of

rules which should

apply

in

??vta

relationships. Herakles

says that )>it

s base for

?VOI

to

feast in the house

of men

who

are

weeping<<542), while

Admetos declares that it is not

proper

for

guests

who

are feasting to hear

lamentations

and to be grieved

(549-550).

And

Herakles

refers to the appropriate

behaviour

of servantsin the

presence of their master's

yVOI(774).

OLXLa

designates an even stronger bond

than

t?via.

This is indicated

by

two

scenes in whichother

characterswant to rebuke

Admetos for hiding his

grief from

Herakles.

In

the first the chorus

call Herakles

not the

t?Vog

but the

cp0og

of

Admetos.

Although heclause

wg

ivT'Og

XF,yEL

(562)suggests n actual

quotation,

in

fact the

chorus refer back to

Admetos'

ocps

..

.EVov

[okTvta

(553-554) and

aQ6aTov

tEvou

(559) with the

genitive absolute

qXou

oXok6vTog

'v6p6q

(562).

They are, of course,

seeking to strengthenthe

description

of Heraklesin order to

emphasise the

unreasonableness of

Admetos in hiding his

present

fate when a

?VoS has come. This is in

line with their previous

outburst:>>Do ou

steel yourself

to

entertain

tyvoM

(u?vo6ox?iv) when such a

misfortune has been

inflicted upon

you?<<

551-552). In the

second scene Herakles

opens his reproachful

remarkswith

an

emphatic

p(Xov

nQO6

avbQa

XQTi

?yLV

FX?iEQpog

(1008) andproceeds o

express his

hurt that he

was not considered

worthy to

prove himself a

qptXog

o

Admetos

by

standingby inhis woes

(1010-1011). Herakles

both portraysAdmetos

as

his

qpXkog

nd says that he is

worthy to be the

cpRkog

f Admetos.

Ties

of

qpLkia

an

develop from those of

tevfa25.Indeed, both kinds

of relation-

ship

are

in

danger of

damage from one

partner's dishonouring of

the other.

24

DALEcalled this epithet 'probably an Aeschylean

coinage' (op. cit. [n.

5]

98).

25

As R.

SCODEL

ointed out (Harv.

Stud. Class.

Phil.

83 [1979]

58

n.10), PLiL'a

nd

t?vWa

re

closely linked in Orestes' first words in 'Elektra' (82-83):

he regards Pylades as surpassing

all

men

in loyalty and cpLXLand as

tfvoq

to him. She made the point

that Herakles is both

~tvog

and

CtXos

of Admetos.



dIha

and

tEvCa

n

Euripides'

Alkestis'

49

Admetos

declares

that

his house

does not know

how to drive

away or dishonour

(LuAtlF&lv)

t?VOL

(566-567)26.

Late

in the

play Admetos realises the damage he

has done to

a

qpLXia

elationship

and

he reassures

Herakles

that it was not

to

dishonour

(a'twv)

himnor

to place

him in a

positionof

low

esteem that he hid the

death

of Alkestis

from

him (1037-1038).

The

corollary

of

the latter

statement,

confirmed

by Herakles'

opening

words to

Admetos

in this scene

(1008-1011,

above),

is that

Herakles

himself

wishesto be

more

than a

tEVog;

he wants to be

a

qpRko;

f Admetos.

In

the

rebuke of

the servant who has

been supervisingthe

hospitality,

Herakles

describes

himself

by

another strong

term,

ETaLQog:

>You,

seeing

a man who

is an ally

of

your master

present,

receive

him with

hostile

expression and knitted brow, because of your concern over the death of a for-

eigner<<27776-778).

There is

a parallel

to the

Herakles-Admetos

relationship

in

the Apollon-

Admetos one.

Apollon

of course

remains

a god and

thus, for

example,

must

avoid

the imminent

pollution

of death

in the

palace (22-23).

But he came

to the palace

much

as a human

mighthave

and

his

oGLO'ng

an be paired

with that

of

Admetos

(10)28.

The initial

relationship

which

Admetos

had

with him

was that of

a

?Vog

(8)

for whom Apollon

tended

his

herds. Indeed

Apollon

offers

a reason

(yaQ,

10)

for

the reciprocal

exchange

of

favours.

In return

for the

integrity

of

Admetos'

behaviour, Apollon preserved his house intact (9-11), most notably by saving

Admetos from

death

by tricking

the Fates

(11-12).

But

on the day

on

which it

is

fated

that Alkestis

must

die, Apollon

describes

his relationship

with

Admetos

as

cptLXa.

It

is the

misfortunes

of a

cpLkog

viIQ

42) which oppress

Apollon

on the

day

of

the play29.

n

a

similarway,

as the relationship

between

Herakles

and

Admetos

progresses,

it moves

from

tvELa

to

qpLXia.

This flexibility

in

t?via

and

qpLXLa

elationships

does

not

deny

their

strength.

The ties of

pLX(ca

between

Peisistratos

of Athens

and the

Argives,

confirmed by

marriage, produced

1000 soldiers

for

his side

at

the

battle

of Pallene

('Athenaion

Politeia' 17.3-4). Indeed, it was partlythe ptkLa f the PeisistratidaiwithSparta's

rival Argos

which

induced

the

Spartans

o

disregard

heir

particularly

lose ties

of

evia

(Herodotos

5.63.2:

og

xai

Lyivovs

owl

?[vta;

t

o

1XLoa)

with

the

Athenian tyrant

family

and

drive them

from Athens

('Athenaion

Politeia'

19.4).

But there

is not the rigidity

in

pLX(La

elationships

envisaged by

some scholars.

When Peisistratos

nsulted

his earlier

cpkog

Megakles

the Alkmeonid

byensuring

26

On the

terms used in relation to

evWa

ee I.

CHALKIA, EEThess 21 (1983) 55-82 at

77-78.

27

1%QaLog

in

778, 805,

814, 828, 1014 and, in

the servant's mouth, 811;

60vetog

in

532-533,

646 and 810.

28

For

6oatL6n

as a

human rather than a divine

attribute see A. M. DALE,

op.

cit.

(n. 5)

52:

>in

6atog

dv Apollo

must be referring

to his own human manifestation.<

R.

SCODEL,

oc. cit.

(n.

25)

59,

also saw the pattern of

human

cpLXa

in

Apollon's relations

with Admetos.

29

Compare also 23: XeFrw

EX6'v

Twv&

CpLXTaLTqV

6"v.





(DLX('a nd tev(a in

Euripides'

'ALkestis'

51

q(LXLaf husbandand wife,

and of parentsand children),

taLQLx1

in

which

SCHMIDT-BERGER,ut not

Aristotle, included the

qpLX(a

of

M&vot)

nd xoLvwvLxaiL

qpLXLaL

qpLXLa

sdistinct rom

friendship')and uggested

contrastn theplays

of

Euripides etween he questionable

LXW'a

f a blood-relation

(,yye

vg)

and the

true

qLX(ia

of an

?tczlo;

or

tvog33. Dramaturgically he saw a development from

friendshipswith figures who

appear in single episodes

-

Pheres the

ouvyyv'g

and

Aigeus the

?vog

-

in the early plays to double connections

with central figures in

the drama in 'Orestes'M.

Whether or not the assimilation of

tEVLX' cpLXLa

to

ETaLQtxTj

rose out of sophistic

debate, as SCHMIDT-BERGER

rgued, her recogni-

tion that

tevta

relationshipscan come close to

(pLXLa35

upports

the position taken

in section

II

above. But she

goes too far in requiringa continuous and exclusive

relationship between two

people only for

(pLta&6.

Impressed by W. D. SMITH's

ase for an ironic treatmentco-ordinate

with a

melodramaticplot in 'Alkestis', and in particularSMITH's

iscernmentof a damn-

ing of Admetos throughthe

theme of betrayal37, . E. SCULLYet out to

show

how

Euripides' ironic method

informs much of his elaboration of the themes

of

CPLia

and

XaQLg

nd his portrayal

of Admetos38.On his view

Euripides wants us

to

see

Admetos from

two quite different points

of

view,

as a

noble

king

who deserves

respect and as a cowardly and self-centredperson; >>aood

deal of

the

play's point

lies precisely n the ironic nterplaybetween these two treatments<<,he one melod-

ramatic and the other analytical

and ironic39.One should

note

that

the

view

of

Admetos

as cowardly nd

self-centreds based argely

on the

ayOv

with

Pheres,

33

U. SCHMIDT-BERGER,hilia:

Typologie der Freundschaft und

Verwandtschaft bei

Euripi-

des, Ph. D. dissertation,

Eberhard-Karls-Universitat

Tubingen, 1973,

especially

1-62,

179; for a

schematic representation of her

understanding of Aristotle's views

see 17. She also accepted

the

presentation of true

qLpca

between

relations in Euripidean plays (63-85).

34 Ibid. 179-180.

35

For example, ibid. iv-v, 23, 86-88.

36 Ibid.

90-91.

37

W. D. SmITHPhoenix

14 (1960) 127-145 (reprinted in J.

R.

WILSONed.],

Twentieth

Century Interpretations

of Euripides'

Alcestis [Englewood Cliffs, N. J. 1968] 37-56). SMITH

saw

irony used >to draw a contrast

between the values invoked by Admetus

and his family and the

qualities that

they exhibit< (136).

Further contributions to the debate

as to how

serious the

play is:

H.

MUSURILLO

in

Studi

classici in onore di Quintino

Cataudella (Catania 1972)

1.275-288,

A.

CERVELLI, nnali

Fac. Lett. Napoli n.s. 8 (1977-78)

47-62.

38

S.

E.

SCULLY,

Philia

and

Charis

in

Euripidean Tragedy,

Ph. D.

thesis,

University

of

Toronto, 1973

(available on microfiche from the

National Library

of

Canada,

Ottawa).

For

the

intention, see especially 54.

39

Ibid.

57. SCULLYas

recently restated

his

view in

M.

J.

CROPP

t

al.,

Greek

Tragedy

and

its

Legacy: Essays Presented to D.

J. Conacher (Calgary

1986) 135-148, especially

139-144. For

a

contrasting positive

evaluation

of Admetos,

see

A. P.

BuRNETr,

Cl. Phil. 60

(1965) 240-255

(reprinted without notes in E.

SEGAL ed.]., Euripides:

A Collection

of Critical

Essays [Engle-

wood Cliffs, N. J. 1968] 51-69).





(FLXLaand

~ev'a in Euripides' Alkestis'

53

the word probablymeans

'abandon, forsake'. But in its four earliest occurrences

n

the play it surely refers,

as RIVIERmade clear, to the abandonment felt

by

one

facing in utter desolation the final separationof

an inevitable death46.Euripides is

not underminingAdmetos

by making him appeal

to Alkestis not to abandon him.

In a furtherstudy

CONACHERried to discover the form which the alleged irony

takes by investigating certain >>ambiguities<<n

the play,

including

>>thembiguity

surroundinghospitality

and charis<<. e stressed

that Admetos not only promises

not to remarry,but also

offers an additional avour:

he will not have revels or music

in

his house (343-344)47.

Much of

CONACHER'S

ase turns on this one

gratuitous

addition

-

about >>no

evelling guests<< to

the

XaQ;g

avt

XaQLTOg

actually

requested by Alkestis. But Admetos does

explain his predicament

in verses

(555-558) quoted by

CONACHER:f he refused hospitality

to

Herakles,

his

reputa-

tion would be diminished, on top of the loss of

his wife. Prestige as well as

pLXkta

was important48.

While

not responding

directly to the views of SCULLY

nd

CONACHER, .

BERGSONointed out

that Admetos' kind acts

of hospitalitytowards Apollon

and

Herakles are in no way

comparable o the

XaQLTP-

of Apollon, Alkestis

and Herak-

les. Since he cannot repay the

XaQLlg

f his wife,

Admetos does all he really

can

in

promisingnever to remarry.His acceptance of

the young woman

into

his house

is

not, however, to be seen as a betrayal. As the text indicates (1071, 1106), he gives

in to a strongerforce. Just as he had to accept the

gift of Apollon to his

own

cost,

so

Admetos cannot refuse

the

XadpL

enderedby Herakles49.

n

BERGSON'S

iew, this

acceptance of the

XapQg

romotes the happy

ending

and shows

that

it, together

with the prologue, belongs in the world of

Marchen. One

should

not, therefore,

expect anythingmore

than light characterisation f the

main

figures:

Admetos can

be the thoroughly admirableking

of

legend,

whose

aQEC?

ests

on

his

oCJ60?15 cf.

10) and manifests itself in the play

of

Euripides

above all

in his

hospitality50.

But

46

There s no basis n the text

forE.-R.

SCHWINGE'S

ontrast Glotta

48 [1970] 6-39) between

>those days<<nd >>now<<n his

translationof

179-181:

'Yet you annihilated

me alone; for

I

hesitated n those daysto betray

you and the husband,

and so I die now.'The presentparticiple

suggestsan actioncontemporaneous

ith he mainverb;

hence, 'though hesitate o abandon

ou

and

my husband,

die.'

47

D.

J.

CONACHER,n D.

E.

GERBER

(ed.),

GreekPoetry

and

Philosophy:

tudies n

Honour

of LeonardWoodbury

Chico, Calif. 1984)73-81.

W. D. SMITHt least

allowed hat neither he

promise olicitedby Alkestisnor

the two additional

romises

egardingmusicandrevelswere

set

in cement (Phoenix

14 [1960]

143).

48

J.

M. BELL

stressed

his point:

Emerita48 (1980)

43-75, especially

57-59.

49

L.

BERGSON,

ranos83 (1985)14-15, 18. See also W.

KULLMANN,

Antike undAbendland

13 (1967) 127-149

at 146 and H. ERBSE, hilologus

116 (1972)47-49.

BERGSON

madethe

further

point that Admetos'

acceptance f Herakles nto his

house,

so

that

Herakles

eels

challengedby

Admetos'

XaQLg

o providea far greater

X&QL;

s dramaturgically

ssential o the

happyending

of

the play (Eranos83 [1985]1-11).

50

Ibid. 17-19 and (on the 6o(L6qT

of

Admetos)

14,

20.



54

G. R. STANTON

BERGSON

nnecessarilyrestrictedhis search for

tragedy

to the section

of the

play

(77-1005)

enclosed by the

Marchen-like

ramework.

For the

XQCLg

f

Apollon,

as

BERGSON

ecognised (citing

Solon, Fragment 13.63-64

WEST),

s

one

of

those

biiQa

of

the immortal gods

which are

aqpvxTa.

t is just such necessities

which

confirm the tragedy

and the

powerlessness of the

human condition

which BERG-

SON

saw in the play.

It was

not Admetos' choice

that he die in his prime. Like most

mortals,

he

was

unable fully to

comprehend (cf. 940)

how

miserable

life would be without

his

partner until

Alkestis died.

Apollon's

XacQpg

ay have been less than

the

boon

it

first sounded51.

When

embroiled in a situation

only in part of his own

making,

Admetos fails to deliver one or two of the beneficiahe had promised;but so did

politicians

in real life. Far from

sending up the

role

of

the gods, Euripides

used the

further dimension

accorded by Apollon,

Ananke

and other divine

figures to

underline

the tragic situation of

Admetos. The

element of

irony is not nearly as

strong

as

it seems to

those who view the

institutions

of

qpLX(a

and

tCvica

as

rigid. In

this play

Herakles is progressing

rom a

relationshipof

evtca

to one of

qpLk(a

ith

Admetos. And, as

suggested in

section I, the play

indicates that

Admetos'

cpLXot

already

included hiswife, his

parents and the elderly

nobles of Pheraiwho

share in

his

loss.

The Universityof

New

England (Australia)

G. R.

STANTON

51

The drawbacks f

Apollon's >gift?<ere emphasised

also by R. M. NIELSEN, Ramus 5

(1976)

92-102, especially 4-96, 100.L. BERGSON,

Eranos83(1985)12-13, 15-16,

20-21 believed

that

Apollon'sgift s criticised s ,inhuman<,

becauseof its barbarous roviso,but

the onlyhint

of

criticism n

the text which

BERGSON

mentioned

s

Herakles' tatement v'

ya'Q

Xo7aUcavtk'a

oruv

6ovq

Xac4kv

qixw

1035-1036).However,asD. F. W.

vAN

LENNEP

(Op.

cit.

[n.

3]

146)saw, this

alludes o

Herakles'

greedinessat the feast

(cavoi3pyov

Xdrna aiL

narfIv

TLva,

766).

Documents

STANTON (Philia and Xenia in Euripides Alkestis)