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
8/9/2019 STANTON (Philia and Xenia in Euripides Alkestis)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stanton-philia-and-xenia-in-euripides-alkestis 2/14
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
8/9/2019 STANTON (Philia and Xenia in Euripides Alkestis)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stanton-philia-and-xenia-in-euripides-alkestis 3/14
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.)
8/9/2019 STANTON (Philia and Xenia in Euripides Alkestis)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stanton-philia-and-xenia-in-euripides-alkestis 4/14
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.
8/9/2019 STANTON (Philia and Xenia in Euripides Alkestis)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stanton-philia-and-xenia-in-euripides-alkestis 5/14
8/9/2019 STANTON (Philia and Xenia in Euripides Alkestis)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stanton-philia-and-xenia-in-euripides-alkestis 6/14
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).
8/9/2019 STANTON (Philia and Xenia in Euripides Alkestis)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stanton-philia-and-xenia-in-euripides-alkestis 7/14
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.
8/9/2019 STANTON (Philia and Xenia in Euripides Alkestis)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stanton-philia-and-xenia-in-euripides-alkestis 8/14
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.
8/9/2019 STANTON (Philia and Xenia in Euripides Alkestis)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stanton-philia-and-xenia-in-euripides-alkestis 9/14
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.
8/9/2019 STANTON (Philia and Xenia in Euripides Alkestis)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stanton-philia-and-xenia-in-euripides-alkestis 10/14
8/9/2019 STANTON (Philia and Xenia in Euripides Alkestis)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stanton-philia-and-xenia-in-euripides-alkestis 11/14
(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).
8/9/2019 STANTON (Philia and Xenia in Euripides Alkestis)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stanton-philia-and-xenia-in-euripides-alkestis 12/14
8/9/2019 STANTON (Philia and Xenia in Euripides Alkestis)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stanton-philia-and-xenia-in-euripides-alkestis 13/14
(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.
8/9/2019 STANTON (Philia and Xenia in Euripides Alkestis)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stanton-philia-and-xenia-in-euripides-alkestis 14/14
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).