Stanford. Hippolytus of Euripides

7/29/2019 Stanford. Hippolytus of Euripides

1/8

THE "HIPPOLYTUS" OF EURIPIDES

Author(s): W. B. STANFORDReviewed work(s):Source: Hermathena, No. 63 (May, 1944), pp. 11-17Published by: Trinity College DublinStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23037667 .

Accessed: 10/03/2013 19:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.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].

.

Trinity College Dublin is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toHermathena.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:11:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tcdhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/23037667?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/23037667?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tcd


2/8

[ 11 ]

THE HIPPOLYTUS OF EURIPIDES.In his Three Greek Tragedies in Translation (Chicago,1942) Mr. David Grene repeats the views of his articleon the Hippolytus in Classical Philology, Jan. 1939. Thefollowing is a criticism of some of these. Grene's wordsare italicized and cited as given in his original article.This conflict centers around Phaedra, not Hippolytus,and the role of the latter is secondary (p. 45). As asubsidiary proof of this it is implied (p. 50) that Phaedra'spart is lengthier than that of Hippolytus. This is not so.Nor is the implication justified by the arbitrary opinion onp. 53 : After the disappearance of Phaedra, in line 751,(731) the individual part of the play is over. Thereremains the denouement of the plot, which is characterizedby a certain stiff formality. The personal qualities whichpicked out the various shades in Hippolytus in the firstscene are lost, and in the charge and refutation scenesbetween him and Theseus the 'matter and manner aremostly stock sophistic technique. (He then quotes somepassages capable of being paralleled elsewhere inEuripideswhich can equally well be done in the first halfof the play.) There are clearly several objections to this.First: is half of one of Euripides' greater plays merelythe mechanical outcome of the situation and a tissue ofsophistries and moralisations ? If so, Julius Caesar mayas well be thought to end with the death in the CapitolAntony's talk being mere rhetoric, the battle-scene only amessenger's prime, Caesar's ghost a stage device. Theprevailing habit of dismissing large parts of Greek tragedyas only word-play simply because our era is unsympatheticto formal rhetoric is regrettable and deleterious to classical

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


3/8

12 THE HIPPOLYTUS OF EURIPIDES.studies. One might as well dismiss the trial scene in theEumenides as mere legalism, or the agon in the Frogs asmerely literary criticism. The scene between Theseus andHippolytus is (and was, no doubt, for an Athenianaudience) one of the four great passages in the drama andcan no more be dismissed than the similar argumentbetween Phaedra's virtue and the Nurse's laxity in 11. 373524. Furthermore the Theseus-Hippolytus scene doesreveal and explain much of Hippolytus' character both inHippolytus' own pleas and in Theseus' denunciations.Grene shows this by quoting from it several times. Infact the only reason for having no interest in the secondhalf must be a; belief that Phaedra's part carries the wholeplay. But this belief must be established independently.The scene from 1. 600-668 is described as a pathological anti-feminist outburst ... is indicative of ahopelessly neurotic mentality on the part of Hippolytus . . .Hippolytus so far from being a healthy hero* of the dramais someone haunted and tortured by a\n obsession ... Itis the pathetic discontent, restlessness, and supremeunhappiness of an adolescent overintellectimlly developed(p. 52). This is grave exaggeration and concedesProfessor Linforth's view dismissed by Grene earlier(p. 46). Actually in the play Hippolytus is described asa man devoted to hunting, athletics, music, mysticreligionnothing unhealthy or neurotic here for anAthenian audience. His aTr\ay\yov ivrovov (1. 118) isnaturally attributed to youth. His only deviations frommental and moral balance are when he hears the Nurse'sproposal and when his father disbelieves his oath ofinnocence. The first takes the form of a savage outburstagainst women in general. For several reasons this is notto be taken as a certificate of neurosis. Even the Nurseand Chorus had found Phaedra's avowal monstrous. Andantifeminism was (like feminism) probably prevalent in



4/8

THE HIPPOLYTUS OF EURIPIDES. 13Athens at the time. Hippolytus' wish for some way ofpropagation without women is a development of a similarthought by Jason (Medea 573). The strong terms ofHippolytus' speech can be paralleled in writings of earlierwoman-haters. Moreover, his disgust is as much asymptom of his discipline of life as of personal emotion.Nor could one expect level judgment in so abnormal asituation. It demands an emotional climax.

Noteworthy here is an often overlooked element in bothPhaedra's and Hippolytus' past. Both have ancestralreasons for detestation of sexual promiscuity. Hippolytusis a son of one of the Amazons, proverbially haters of menand lovers of hunting and martial exercise. Also he wasregarded as a bastard. This is recalled many times inthe play (11. 309, 351, 581, 962, 1083, 1455). UnlikePhilip in King John he is not proud of it. UnlikeEdmund in King Lear he does not turn to deliberatevillainy. Instead he dedicates himself to religion, chastityand athleticism. Similarly his Cretan stepmother hadancestral reasons to hate and fear illicit love (11. 337, 339,407, 425). She is resolved that her children will notsuffer from a parent's SvokXeia. Both hold strong viewsand use strong words. Hippolytus, naturally after thesudden revelation of sin, speaks with uncontrolled violence.Instead of denoting neurosis, obsession and mentaltorturedo the play's idyllic opening scene and saintlyclosing scene support any such view?Hippolytus'

outburst comes from his candid and uncompromisingcharacter. Otherwise he could easily have been shrewd,diplomatic and conciliatory. This refusal to be silent inthe presence of to aia\pov here, and its complement ofrefusing later to break even a rash oath, are the weaknessesin Hippolytus'


5/8

14 THE HIPPOLYTUS OF EURIPIDES.fidelity to it are of purely dramaturgical, not spiritualsignificance. It is a necessary condition of the plot. Tomy mind the two oaths are of vastly different importance.Hippolytus' is a very essential symptom of his alSwc andmystic faith. The second characteristic has beensufficiently argued by Tierney.1 The first deserves briefattention here.

Grene cites 11. 1062-3, where Hippolytus speculates onbreaking his oath, as proof that his ultimate keeping ofit was not a tragic element of nobility in his character.The fuller context shows that this is unjustified. In 11.1060-1 Hippolytus cries out that his gods have forsakenhim. Shall he forsake his oath? He supports hisdisillusioned faith by a practical consideration. Deprivedfor a while of religious motive he still holds to his moralcode. Too late noiw to learn the arts of perjury. Hisnext words express his deep despair"Where shall I turnin my misery?" I read this as a most moving momentin the play, not as a demonstration of the merelymechanical importance of the oath. It is as dramatic aswhen Job in his misery is tempted to curse God and die.Phaedra, we are told, is a normal, rather conventionalwoman metamorphosed into a neurotic siaidist ... a simpleasnd cowardly woman transformed into an incestuousharlot and a murderess. Two of these terms cannot besustained, and of simplicity I can find no evidence. Sheis not a sadist. Sadism implies continual enjoyment

ofinflicting cruelty on others. Until her moment of tragicanger Phaedra always tries to avoid inflicting shame orcruelty on others. She is not a coward. She wasprepared to starve to death rather than commit sin anddisgrace her family. It is not cowardice to shrink fromSvaicAita when it can be avoided. I can find no sign of

1 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, vol. xliv, Section 0,No. 2.



6/8

THE HIPPOLYTUS OF EURIPIDES. 15neurosis in her. Any " metamorphosis " she suffered wasonly during a short period of shame and anger. At theend, as Hippolytus and Artemis admit, her character andactions regarded all in all are those of


7/8

16 THE HIPPOLYTUS OF ETJRIPIBES.The three following lines

Sei S Ikclvov Stj ti tov Trodovfiivovcnjfxeiov, rj \6yov tic' f) irtirXwv clttoXafStiv, (TVi'd^ai r' K Svolv fxiav \piv

were condemned by Kirchoff, Weil, Nauck and Mahaffy,but are retained by Murray. They are equally applicableto a potion or antidote. Nowhere later does Phaedra.suggest that she countenanced the use of a philtre. In11. 596-7 she refers to a promised cure

(ittojA efi ' ii e Trovera av/xtfropas i/xiisKa\cms oi rr/vB1 luifxivt] voaov.

and so the Nurse in 11. 698-9 (though she probablyintended a philtre and not a cure all the time)tyjs votrov Se aroi

^Tjrovaa apfia-} -qvpov o L'Y dSovXofJ.rjl'.Artemis' words in 11. 1304-6 bear the same meaning.

By this interpretation, then, Phaedra was doublydeceived by the Nursefirst by an ambiguity in her words,secondly by her breach of confidence to Hippolytus. (Bya similar misunderstanding she fails to recognise thatHippolytus' oath would save her cvkXho, in 1. 689). Thiserror makes the praise given to Phaedra by Hippolytus(1. 1034) and Artemis (1. 1300) more understandable inthe mouths of such advocates of chastity. It also removesthe last trace of to anfttnig from her character and makesher anger with Hippolytus more justifiable.So much in parenthesis to a consideration of Grene'sreading of the parts of Hippolytus ;a:s a neurotic, immatureprig and Phaedra as a neurotic, sadistic, incestuous harlot.It may not be without significance that in Grene's interpretation so little importance is attached to the secondhalf of the play and to the part of Artemis. It seems



8/8

THE HIPPOLYTUS OF EURIPIDES. 17almost as if he were describing the earlier and unrevisedversion in which Phaedra was considered scandalouslyimmoral, and not the play as we have it. Most likely,too, the words from the Frogs, with which he concludes,also refer to that grosser version.In short I think that Mr. Grene has -begun a seriesof increasing misapprehensions by confusing the moralatmosphere of Euripides with that of Herodas orPetronius.

W. B. STANFORD.

Note: I am grateful to Mr. Alan Ker of BrasenoseCollege, Oxford, for reading the original draft of thisand expressing general agreement with my argument,though with less emphasis on ambiguity in 11. 509-12. Heconsiders that 511-12 are deliberately intended to suggestto Phaedra that the

Stanford. Hippolytus of Euripides

Documents

Transcript of Stanford. Hippolytus of Euripides