" It is
doubtful
whether one can
call it a tragedy at all.
call it a tragedy at all.
Euripides - Alcestis
p
THE ALCESTIS
OF
EURIPIDES
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH RHYMING VERSE
WITH EXPLANATORY NOTES BY
GILBERT MURRAY, LL D, D LITT, FBA
REGIUS PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
1915
INTRODUCTION
The _Alcestis_ would hardly confirm its author's right to be
acclaimed "the most tragic of the poets. " It is doubtful whether one can
call it a tragedy at all. Yet it remains one of the most characteristic
and delightful of Euripidean dramas, as well as, by modern standards, the
most easily actable. And I notice that many judges who display nothing but
a fierce satisfaction in sending other plays of that author to the block
or the treadmill, show a certain human weakness in sentencing the gentle
daughter of Pelias.
The play has been interpreted in many different ways. There is the old
unsophisticated view, well set forth in Paley's preface of 1872. He
regards the _Alcestis_ simply as a triumph of pathos, especially of
"that peculiar sort of pathos which comes most home to us, with our views
and partialities for domestic life. . . . As for the characters, that of
Alcestis must be acknowledged to be pre-eminently beautiful. One could
almost imagine that Euripides had not yet conceived that bad opinion of
the sex which so many of the subsequent dramas exhibit. . . . But the rest
are hardly well-drawn, or, at least, pleasingly portrayed. " "The poet
might perhaps, had he pleased, have exhibited Admetus in a more amiable
point of view. "
This criticism is not very trenchant, but its weakness is due, I think,
more to timidity of statement than to lack of perception. Paley does see
that a character may be "well-drawn" without necessarily being "pleasing";
and even that he may be eminently pleasing as a part of the play while
very displeasing in himself. He sees that Euripides may have had his own
reasons for not making Admetus an ideal husband. It seems odd that such
points should need mentioning; but Greek drama has always suffered from a
school of critics who approach a play with a greater equipment of
aesthetic theory than of dramatic perception. This is the characteristic
defect of classicism. One mark of the school is to demand from dramatists
heroes and heroines which shall satisfy its own ideals; and, though there
was in the New Comedy a mask known to Pollux as "The Entirely-good Young
Man" ([Greek: panchraestos neaniskos]), such a character is fortunately
unknown to classical Greek drama.
The influence of this "classicist" tradition has led to a timid and
unsatisfying treatment of the _Alcestis_, in which many of the most
striking and unconventional features of the whole composition were either
ignored or smoothed away. As a natural result, various lively-minded
readers proceeded to overemphasize these particular features, and were
carried into eccentricity or paradox. Alfred Schone, for instance, fixing
his attention on just those points which the conventional critic passed
over, decides simply that the _Alcestis_ is a parody, and finds it
very funny. (_Die Alkestis von Euripides_, Kiel, 1895. )
I will not dwell on other criticisms of this type. There are those who
have taken the play for a criticism of contemporary politics or the
current law of inheritance. Above all there is the late Dr. Verrall's
famous essay in _Euripides the Rationalist_, explaining it as a
psychological criticism of a supposed Delphic miracle, and arguing that
Alcestis in the play does not rise from the dead at all. She had never
really died; she only had a sort of nervous catalepsy induced by all the
"suggestion" of death by which she was surrounded. Now Dr. Verrall's work,
as always, stands apart. Even if wrong, it has its own excellence, its
special insight and its extraordinary awakening power. But in general the
effect of reading many criticisms on the _Alcestis_ is to make a
scholar realize that, for all the seeming simplicity of the play,
competent Grecians have been strangely bewildered by it, and that after
all there is no great reason to suppose that he himself is more sensible
than his neighbours.
This is depressing. None the less I cannot really believe that, if we make
patient use of our available knowledge, the _Alcestis_ presents any
startling enigma. In the first place, it has long been known from the
remnants of the ancient Didascalia, or official notice of production, that
the _Alcestis_ was produced as the fourth play of a series; that is,
it took the place of a Satyr-play. It is what we may call Pro-satyric.
(See the present writer's introduction to the _Rhesus_. ) And we
should note for what it is worth the observation in the ancient Greek
argument: "The play is somewhat satyr-like ([Greek: saturiphkoteron]). It
ends in rejoicing and gladness against the tragic convention. "
Now we are of late years beginning to understand much better what a
Satyr-play was. Satyrs have, of course, nothing to do with satire, either
etymologically or otherwise. Satyrs are the attendant daemons who form the
Komos, or revel rout, of Dionysus. They are represented in divers
fantastic forms, the human or divine being mixed with that of some animal,
especially the horse or wild goat. Like Dionysus himself, they are
connected in ancient religion with the Renewal of the Earth in spring and
the resurrection of the dead, a point which students of the
_Alcestis_ may well remember. But in general they represent mere
joyous creatures of nature, unthwarted by law and unchecked by
self-control. Two notes are especially struck by them: the passions and
the absurdity of half-drunken revellers, and the joy and mystery of the
wild things in the forest.
The rule was that after three tragedies proper there came a play, still in
tragic diction, with a traditional saga plot and heroic characters, in
which the Chorus was formed by these Satyrs. There was a deliberate clash,
an effect of burlesque; but of course the clash must not be too brutal.
Certain characters of the heroic saga are, so to speak, at home with
Satyrs and others are not. To take our extant specimens of Satyr-plays,
for instance: in the _Cyclops_ we have Odysseus, the heroic
trickster; in the fragmentary _Ichneutae_ of Sophocles we have the
Nymph Cyllene, hiding the baby Hermes from the chorus by the most
barefaced and pleasant lying; later no doubt there was an entrance of the
infant thief himself. Autolycus, Sisyphus, Thersites are all Satyr-play
heroes and congenial to the Satyr atmosphere; but the most congenial of
all, the one hero who existed always in an atmosphere of Satyrs and the
Komos until Euripides made him the central figure of a tragedy, was
Heracles.
[Footnote: The character of Heracles in connexion with the Komos, already
indicated by Wilamowitz and Dieterich (_Herakles_, pp. 98, ff. ;
_Pulcinella_, pp. 63, ff. ), has been illuminatingly developed in an
unpublished monograph by Mr. J. A. K. Thomson, of Aberdeen. ]
The complete Satyr-play had a hero of this type and a Chorus of Satyrs.
But the complete type was refined away during the fifth century; and one
stage in the process produced a play with a normal chorus but with one
figure of the Satyric or "revelling" type. One might almost say the
"comic" type if, for the moment, we may remember that that word is
directly derived from 'Komos. '
The _Alcestis_ is a very clear instance of this Pro-satyric class of
play. It has the regular tragic diction, marked here and there (393,
756, 780, etc. ) by slight extravagances and forms of words which are
sometimes epic and sometimes over-colloquial; it has a regular saga plot,
which had already been treated by the old poet Phrynichus in his
_Alcestis_, a play which is now lost but seems to have been Satyric;
and it has one character straight from the Satyr world, the heroic
reveller, Heracles. It is all in keeping that he should arrive tired,
should feast and drink and sing; should be suddenly sobered and should go
forth to battle with Death. It is also in keeping that the contest should
have a half-grotesque and half-ghastly touch, the grapple amid the graves
and the cracking ribs.
* * * * *
So much for the traditional form. As for the subject, Euripides received
it from Phrynichus, and doubtless from other sources. We cannot be sure of
the exact form of the story in Phrynichus. But apparently it told how
Admetus, King of Pherae in Thessaly, received from Apollo a special
privilege which the God had obtained, in true Satyric style, by making the
Three Fates drunk and cajoling them. This was that, when his appointed
time for death came, he might escape if he could find some volunteer to
die for him. His father and mother, from whom the service might have been
expected, refused to perform it. His wife, Alcestis, though no blood
relation, handsomely undertook it and died. But it so happened that
Admetus had entertained in his house the demi-god, Heracles; and when
Heracles heard what had happened, he went out and wrestled with Death,
conquered him, and brought Alcestis home.
Given this form and this story, the next question is: What did Euripides
make of them? The general answer is clear: he has applied his usual
method. He accepts the story as given in the tradition, and then
represents it in his own way. When the tradition in question is really
heroic, we know what his way is. He preserves, and even emphasizes, the
stateliness and formality of the Attic stage conventions; but, in the
meantime, he has subjected the story and its characters to a keener study
and a more sensitive psychological judgment than the simple things were
originally meant to bear. So that many characters which passed as heroic,
or at least presentable, in the kindly remoteness of legend, reveal some
strange weakness when brought suddenly into the light. When the tradition
is Satyric, as here, the same process produces almost an opposite effect.
It is somewhat as though the main plot of a gross and jolly farce were
pondered over and made more true to human character till it emerged as a
refined and rather pathetic comedy. The making drunk of the Three Grey
Sisters disappears; one can only just see the trace of its having once
been present. The revelling of Heracles is touched in with the lightest of
hands; it is little more than symbolic. And all the figures in the story,
instead of being left broadly comic or having their psychology neglected,
are treated delicately, sympathetically, with just that faint touch of
satire, or at least of amusement, which is almost inseparable from a close
interest in character.
What was Admetus really like, this gallant prince who had won the
affection of such great guests as Apollo and Heracles, and yet went round
asking other people to die for him; who, in particular, accepted his
wife's monstrous sacrifice with satisfaction and gratitude? The play
portrays him well. Generous, innocent, artistic, affectionate, eloquent,
impulsive, a good deal spoilt, unconsciously insincere, and no doubt
fundamentally selfish, he hates the thought of dying and he hates losing
his wife almost as much. Why need she die? Why could it not have been some
one less important to him? He feels with emotion what a beautiful act it
would have been for his old father. "My boy, you have a long and happy
life before you, and for me the sands are well-nigh run out. Do not seek
to dissuade me. I will die for you. " Admetus could compose the speech for
him. A touching scene, a noble farewell, and all the dreadful trouble
solved--so conveniently solved! And the miserable self-blinded old man
could not see it!
Euripides seems to have taken positive pleasure in Admetus, much as
Meredith did in his famous Egoist; but Euripides all through is kinder to
his victim than Meredith is. True, Admetus is put to obvious shame,
publicly and helplessly. The Chorus make discreet comments upon him.
The Handmaid is outspoken about him. One feels that Alcestis herself, for
all her tender kindness, has seen through him. Finally, to make things
quite clear, his old father fights him openly, tells him home-truth upon
home-truth, tears away all his protective screens, and leaves him with his
self-respect in tatters. It is a fearful ordeal for Admetus, and, after
his first fury, he takes it well. He comes back from his wife's burial a
changed man. He says not much, but enough. "I have done wrong. I have only
now learnt my lesson. I imagined I could save my happy life by forfeiting
my honour; and the result is that I have lost both. " I think that a
careful reading of the play will show an almost continuous process of
self-discovery and self-judgment in the mind of Admetus. He was a man who
blinded himself with words and beautiful sentiments; but he was not
thick-skinned or thick-witted. He was not a brute or a cynic. And I think
he did learn his lesson . . . not completely and for ever, but as well as
most of us learn such lessons.
The beauty of Alcestis is quite untouched by the dramatist's keener
analysis. The strong light only increases its effect. Yet she is not by
any means a mere blameless ideal heroine; and the character which
Euripides gives her makes an admirable foil to that of Admetus. Where he
is passionate and romantic, she is simple and homely. While he is still
refusing to admit the facts and beseeching her not to "desert" him, she in
a gentle but businesslike way makes him promise to take care of the
children and, above all things, not to marry again. She could not possibly
trust Admetus's choice. She is sure that the step-mother would be unkind
to the children. She might be a horror and beat them (l. 307). And when
Admetus has made a thrilling answer about eternal sorrow, and the
silencing of lyre and lute, and the statue who shall be his only bride,
Alcestis earnestly calls the attention of witnesses to the fact that he
has sworn not to marry again. She is not an artist like Admetus. There is
poetry in her, because poetry comes unconsciously out of deep feeling, but
there is no artistic eloquence. Her love, too, is quite different from
his. To him, his love for his wife and children is a beautiful thing, a
subject to speak and sing about as well as an emotion to feel. But her
love is hardly conscious. She does not talk about it at all. She is merely
wrapped up in the welfare of certain people, first her husband and then he
children. To a modern romantic reader her insistence that her husband
shall not marry again seems hardly delicate. But she does not think about
romance or delicacy. To her any neglect to ensure due protection for the
children would be as unnatural as to refuse to die for her husband.
Indeed, Professor J. L. Myres has suggested that care for the children's
future is the guiding motive of her whole conduct. There was first the
danger of their being left fatherless, a dire calamity in the heroic age.
She could meet that danger by dying herself. Then followed the danger of a
stepmother. She meets that by making Admetus swear never to marry. In the
long run, I fancy, the effect of gracious loveliness which Alcestis
certainly makes is not so much due to any words of her own as to what the
Handmaid and the Serving Man say about her. In the final scene she is
silent; necessarily and rightly silent, for all tradition knows that those
new-risen from the dead must not speak. It will need a long _rite de
passage_ before she can freely commune with this world again. It is a
strange and daring scene between the three of them; the humbled and
broken-hearted husband; the triumphant Heracles, kindly and wise, yet
still touched by the mocking and blustrous atmosphere from which he
sprang; and the silent woman who has seen the other side of the grave.
It was always her way to know things but not to speak of them.
The other characters fall easily into their niches. We have only to
remember the old Satyric tradition and to look at them in the light of
their historical development. Heracles indeed, half-way on his road from
the roaring reveller of the Satyr-play to the suffering and erring
deliverer of tragedy, is a little foreign to our notions, but quite
intelligible and strangely attractive. The same historical method seems to
me to solve most of the difficulties which have been felt about Admetus's
hospitality. Heracles arrives at the castle just at the moment when
Alcestis is lying dead in her room; Admetus conceals the death from him
and insists on his coming in and enjoying himself. What are we to think of
this behaviour? Is it magnificent hospitality, or is it gross want of
tact? The answer, I think, is indicated above.
In the uncritical and boisterous atmosphere of the Satyr-play it was
natural hospitality, not especially laudable or surprising. From the
analogy of similar stories I suspect that Admetus originally did not know
his guest, and received not so much the reward of exceptional virtue as
the blessing naturally due to those who entertain angels unawares. If we
insist on asking whether Euripides himself, in real life or in a play of
his own free invention, would have considered Admetus's conduct to
Heracles entirely praiseworthy, the answer will certainly be No, but it
will have little bearing on the play. In the _Alcestis_, as it stands, the
famous act of hospitality is a datum of the story. Its claims are admitted
on the strength of the tradition. It was the act for which Admetus was
specially and marvellously rewarded; therefore, obviously, it was an act
of exceptional merit and piety. Yet the admission is made with a smile,
and more than one suggestion is allowed to float across the scene that in
real life such conduct would be hardly wise.
Heracles, who rose to tragic rank from a very homely cycle of myth, was
apt to bring other homely characters with him. He was a great killer not
only of malefactors but of "keres" or bogeys, such as "Old Age" and "Ague"
and the sort of "Death" that we find in this play. Thanatos is not a god,
not at all a King of Terrors. One may compare him with the dancing
skeleton who is called Death in mediaeval writings. When such a figure
appears on the tragic stage one asks at once what relation he bears to
Hades, the great Olympian king of the unseen. The answer is obvious.
Thanatos is the servant of Hades, a "priest" or sacrificer, who is sent to
fetch the appointed victims.
The other characters speak for themselves. Certainly Pheres can be trusted
to do so, though we must remember that we see him at an unfortunate
moment. The aged monarch is not at his best, except perhaps in mere
fighting power. I doubt if he was really as cynical as he here professes
to be.
* * * * *
In the above criticisms I feel that I may have done what critics are so
apt to do. I have dwelt on questions of intellectual interest and perhaps
thereby diverted attention from that quality in the play which is the most
important as well as by far the hardest to convey; I mean the sheer beauty
and delightfulness of the writing. It is the earliest dated play of
Euripides which has come down to us. True, he was over forty when he
produced it, but it is noticeably different from the works of his old age.
The numbers are smoother, the thought less deeply scarred, the language
more charming and less passionate. If it be true that poetry is bred out
of joy and sorrow, one feels as if more enjoyment and less suffering had
gone to the making of the _Alcestis_ than to that of the later plays.
ALCESTIS
CHARACTERS OF THE PLAY
ADMETUS, _King of Pherae in Thessaly_.
ALCESTIS, _daughter of Pelias, his wife_.
PHERES, _his father, formerly King but now in retirement_.
TWO CHILDREN, _his son and daughter_.
A MANSERVANT _in his house_.
A HANDMAID.
The Hero HERACLES.
The God APOLLO.
THANATOS _or_ DEATH.
CHORUS, _consisting of Elders of Pherae_.
"_The play was first performed when Glaukinos was Archon, in the 2nd
year of the 85th Olympiad_ (438 B. C. ). _Sophocles was first,
Euripides second with the Cretan Women, Alcmaeon in Psophis, Telephus and
Alcestis.
" It is doubtful whether one can
call it a tragedy at all. Yet it remains one of the most characteristic
and delightful of Euripidean dramas, as well as, by modern standards, the
most easily actable. And I notice that many judges who display nothing but
a fierce satisfaction in sending other plays of that author to the block
or the treadmill, show a certain human weakness in sentencing the gentle
daughter of Pelias.
The play has been interpreted in many different ways. There is the old
unsophisticated view, well set forth in Paley's preface of 1872. He
regards the _Alcestis_ simply as a triumph of pathos, especially of
"that peculiar sort of pathos which comes most home to us, with our views
and partialities for domestic life. . . . As for the characters, that of
Alcestis must be acknowledged to be pre-eminently beautiful. One could
almost imagine that Euripides had not yet conceived that bad opinion of
the sex which so many of the subsequent dramas exhibit. . . . But the rest
are hardly well-drawn, or, at least, pleasingly portrayed. " "The poet
might perhaps, had he pleased, have exhibited Admetus in a more amiable
point of view. "
This criticism is not very trenchant, but its weakness is due, I think,
more to timidity of statement than to lack of perception. Paley does see
that a character may be "well-drawn" without necessarily being "pleasing";
and even that he may be eminently pleasing as a part of the play while
very displeasing in himself. He sees that Euripides may have had his own
reasons for not making Admetus an ideal husband. It seems odd that such
points should need mentioning; but Greek drama has always suffered from a
school of critics who approach a play with a greater equipment of
aesthetic theory than of dramatic perception. This is the characteristic
defect of classicism. One mark of the school is to demand from dramatists
heroes and heroines which shall satisfy its own ideals; and, though there
was in the New Comedy a mask known to Pollux as "The Entirely-good Young
Man" ([Greek: panchraestos neaniskos]), such a character is fortunately
unknown to classical Greek drama.
The influence of this "classicist" tradition has led to a timid and
unsatisfying treatment of the _Alcestis_, in which many of the most
striking and unconventional features of the whole composition were either
ignored or smoothed away. As a natural result, various lively-minded
readers proceeded to overemphasize these particular features, and were
carried into eccentricity or paradox. Alfred Schone, for instance, fixing
his attention on just those points which the conventional critic passed
over, decides simply that the _Alcestis_ is a parody, and finds it
very funny. (_Die Alkestis von Euripides_, Kiel, 1895. )
I will not dwell on other criticisms of this type. There are those who
have taken the play for a criticism of contemporary politics or the
current law of inheritance. Above all there is the late Dr. Verrall's
famous essay in _Euripides the Rationalist_, explaining it as a
psychological criticism of a supposed Delphic miracle, and arguing that
Alcestis in the play does not rise from the dead at all. She had never
really died; she only had a sort of nervous catalepsy induced by all the
"suggestion" of death by which she was surrounded. Now Dr. Verrall's work,
as always, stands apart. Even if wrong, it has its own excellence, its
special insight and its extraordinary awakening power. But in general the
effect of reading many criticisms on the _Alcestis_ is to make a
scholar realize that, for all the seeming simplicity of the play,
competent Grecians have been strangely bewildered by it, and that after
all there is no great reason to suppose that he himself is more sensible
than his neighbours.
This is depressing. None the less I cannot really believe that, if we make
patient use of our available knowledge, the _Alcestis_ presents any
startling enigma. In the first place, it has long been known from the
remnants of the ancient Didascalia, or official notice of production, that
the _Alcestis_ was produced as the fourth play of a series; that is,
it took the place of a Satyr-play. It is what we may call Pro-satyric.
(See the present writer's introduction to the _Rhesus_. ) And we
should note for what it is worth the observation in the ancient Greek
argument: "The play is somewhat satyr-like ([Greek: saturiphkoteron]). It
ends in rejoicing and gladness against the tragic convention. "
Now we are of late years beginning to understand much better what a
Satyr-play was. Satyrs have, of course, nothing to do with satire, either
etymologically or otherwise. Satyrs are the attendant daemons who form the
Komos, or revel rout, of Dionysus. They are represented in divers
fantastic forms, the human or divine being mixed with that of some animal,
especially the horse or wild goat. Like Dionysus himself, they are
connected in ancient religion with the Renewal of the Earth in spring and
the resurrection of the dead, a point which students of the
_Alcestis_ may well remember. But in general they represent mere
joyous creatures of nature, unthwarted by law and unchecked by
self-control. Two notes are especially struck by them: the passions and
the absurdity of half-drunken revellers, and the joy and mystery of the
wild things in the forest.
The rule was that after three tragedies proper there came a play, still in
tragic diction, with a traditional saga plot and heroic characters, in
which the Chorus was formed by these Satyrs. There was a deliberate clash,
an effect of burlesque; but of course the clash must not be too brutal.
Certain characters of the heroic saga are, so to speak, at home with
Satyrs and others are not. To take our extant specimens of Satyr-plays,
for instance: in the _Cyclops_ we have Odysseus, the heroic
trickster; in the fragmentary _Ichneutae_ of Sophocles we have the
Nymph Cyllene, hiding the baby Hermes from the chorus by the most
barefaced and pleasant lying; later no doubt there was an entrance of the
infant thief himself. Autolycus, Sisyphus, Thersites are all Satyr-play
heroes and congenial to the Satyr atmosphere; but the most congenial of
all, the one hero who existed always in an atmosphere of Satyrs and the
Komos until Euripides made him the central figure of a tragedy, was
Heracles.
[Footnote: The character of Heracles in connexion with the Komos, already
indicated by Wilamowitz and Dieterich (_Herakles_, pp. 98, ff. ;
_Pulcinella_, pp. 63, ff. ), has been illuminatingly developed in an
unpublished monograph by Mr. J. A. K. Thomson, of Aberdeen. ]
The complete Satyr-play had a hero of this type and a Chorus of Satyrs.
But the complete type was refined away during the fifth century; and one
stage in the process produced a play with a normal chorus but with one
figure of the Satyric or "revelling" type. One might almost say the
"comic" type if, for the moment, we may remember that that word is
directly derived from 'Komos. '
The _Alcestis_ is a very clear instance of this Pro-satyric class of
play. It has the regular tragic diction, marked here and there (393,
756, 780, etc. ) by slight extravagances and forms of words which are
sometimes epic and sometimes over-colloquial; it has a regular saga plot,
which had already been treated by the old poet Phrynichus in his
_Alcestis_, a play which is now lost but seems to have been Satyric;
and it has one character straight from the Satyr world, the heroic
reveller, Heracles. It is all in keeping that he should arrive tired,
should feast and drink and sing; should be suddenly sobered and should go
forth to battle with Death. It is also in keeping that the contest should
have a half-grotesque and half-ghastly touch, the grapple amid the graves
and the cracking ribs.
* * * * *
So much for the traditional form. As for the subject, Euripides received
it from Phrynichus, and doubtless from other sources. We cannot be sure of
the exact form of the story in Phrynichus. But apparently it told how
Admetus, King of Pherae in Thessaly, received from Apollo a special
privilege which the God had obtained, in true Satyric style, by making the
Three Fates drunk and cajoling them. This was that, when his appointed
time for death came, he might escape if he could find some volunteer to
die for him. His father and mother, from whom the service might have been
expected, refused to perform it. His wife, Alcestis, though no blood
relation, handsomely undertook it and died. But it so happened that
Admetus had entertained in his house the demi-god, Heracles; and when
Heracles heard what had happened, he went out and wrestled with Death,
conquered him, and brought Alcestis home.
Given this form and this story, the next question is: What did Euripides
make of them? The general answer is clear: he has applied his usual
method. He accepts the story as given in the tradition, and then
represents it in his own way. When the tradition in question is really
heroic, we know what his way is. He preserves, and even emphasizes, the
stateliness and formality of the Attic stage conventions; but, in the
meantime, he has subjected the story and its characters to a keener study
and a more sensitive psychological judgment than the simple things were
originally meant to bear. So that many characters which passed as heroic,
or at least presentable, in the kindly remoteness of legend, reveal some
strange weakness when brought suddenly into the light. When the tradition
is Satyric, as here, the same process produces almost an opposite effect.
It is somewhat as though the main plot of a gross and jolly farce were
pondered over and made more true to human character till it emerged as a
refined and rather pathetic comedy. The making drunk of the Three Grey
Sisters disappears; one can only just see the trace of its having once
been present. The revelling of Heracles is touched in with the lightest of
hands; it is little more than symbolic. And all the figures in the story,
instead of being left broadly comic or having their psychology neglected,
are treated delicately, sympathetically, with just that faint touch of
satire, or at least of amusement, which is almost inseparable from a close
interest in character.
What was Admetus really like, this gallant prince who had won the
affection of such great guests as Apollo and Heracles, and yet went round
asking other people to die for him; who, in particular, accepted his
wife's monstrous sacrifice with satisfaction and gratitude? The play
portrays him well. Generous, innocent, artistic, affectionate, eloquent,
impulsive, a good deal spoilt, unconsciously insincere, and no doubt
fundamentally selfish, he hates the thought of dying and he hates losing
his wife almost as much. Why need she die? Why could it not have been some
one less important to him? He feels with emotion what a beautiful act it
would have been for his old father. "My boy, you have a long and happy
life before you, and for me the sands are well-nigh run out. Do not seek
to dissuade me. I will die for you. " Admetus could compose the speech for
him. A touching scene, a noble farewell, and all the dreadful trouble
solved--so conveniently solved! And the miserable self-blinded old man
could not see it!
Euripides seems to have taken positive pleasure in Admetus, much as
Meredith did in his famous Egoist; but Euripides all through is kinder to
his victim than Meredith is. True, Admetus is put to obvious shame,
publicly and helplessly. The Chorus make discreet comments upon him.
The Handmaid is outspoken about him. One feels that Alcestis herself, for
all her tender kindness, has seen through him. Finally, to make things
quite clear, his old father fights him openly, tells him home-truth upon
home-truth, tears away all his protective screens, and leaves him with his
self-respect in tatters. It is a fearful ordeal for Admetus, and, after
his first fury, he takes it well. He comes back from his wife's burial a
changed man. He says not much, but enough. "I have done wrong. I have only
now learnt my lesson. I imagined I could save my happy life by forfeiting
my honour; and the result is that I have lost both. " I think that a
careful reading of the play will show an almost continuous process of
self-discovery and self-judgment in the mind of Admetus. He was a man who
blinded himself with words and beautiful sentiments; but he was not
thick-skinned or thick-witted. He was not a brute or a cynic. And I think
he did learn his lesson . . . not completely and for ever, but as well as
most of us learn such lessons.
The beauty of Alcestis is quite untouched by the dramatist's keener
analysis. The strong light only increases its effect. Yet she is not by
any means a mere blameless ideal heroine; and the character which
Euripides gives her makes an admirable foil to that of Admetus. Where he
is passionate and romantic, she is simple and homely. While he is still
refusing to admit the facts and beseeching her not to "desert" him, she in
a gentle but businesslike way makes him promise to take care of the
children and, above all things, not to marry again. She could not possibly
trust Admetus's choice. She is sure that the step-mother would be unkind
to the children. She might be a horror and beat them (l. 307). And when
Admetus has made a thrilling answer about eternal sorrow, and the
silencing of lyre and lute, and the statue who shall be his only bride,
Alcestis earnestly calls the attention of witnesses to the fact that he
has sworn not to marry again. She is not an artist like Admetus. There is
poetry in her, because poetry comes unconsciously out of deep feeling, but
there is no artistic eloquence. Her love, too, is quite different from
his. To him, his love for his wife and children is a beautiful thing, a
subject to speak and sing about as well as an emotion to feel. But her
love is hardly conscious. She does not talk about it at all. She is merely
wrapped up in the welfare of certain people, first her husband and then he
children. To a modern romantic reader her insistence that her husband
shall not marry again seems hardly delicate. But she does not think about
romance or delicacy. To her any neglect to ensure due protection for the
children would be as unnatural as to refuse to die for her husband.
Indeed, Professor J. L. Myres has suggested that care for the children's
future is the guiding motive of her whole conduct. There was first the
danger of their being left fatherless, a dire calamity in the heroic age.
She could meet that danger by dying herself. Then followed the danger of a
stepmother. She meets that by making Admetus swear never to marry. In the
long run, I fancy, the effect of gracious loveliness which Alcestis
certainly makes is not so much due to any words of her own as to what the
Handmaid and the Serving Man say about her. In the final scene she is
silent; necessarily and rightly silent, for all tradition knows that those
new-risen from the dead must not speak. It will need a long _rite de
passage_ before she can freely commune with this world again. It is a
strange and daring scene between the three of them; the humbled and
broken-hearted husband; the triumphant Heracles, kindly and wise, yet
still touched by the mocking and blustrous atmosphere from which he
sprang; and the silent woman who has seen the other side of the grave.
It was always her way to know things but not to speak of them.
The other characters fall easily into their niches. We have only to
remember the old Satyric tradition and to look at them in the light of
their historical development. Heracles indeed, half-way on his road from
the roaring reveller of the Satyr-play to the suffering and erring
deliverer of tragedy, is a little foreign to our notions, but quite
intelligible and strangely attractive. The same historical method seems to
me to solve most of the difficulties which have been felt about Admetus's
hospitality. Heracles arrives at the castle just at the moment when
Alcestis is lying dead in her room; Admetus conceals the death from him
and insists on his coming in and enjoying himself. What are we to think of
this behaviour? Is it magnificent hospitality, or is it gross want of
tact? The answer, I think, is indicated above.
In the uncritical and boisterous atmosphere of the Satyr-play it was
natural hospitality, not especially laudable or surprising. From the
analogy of similar stories I suspect that Admetus originally did not know
his guest, and received not so much the reward of exceptional virtue as
the blessing naturally due to those who entertain angels unawares. If we
insist on asking whether Euripides himself, in real life or in a play of
his own free invention, would have considered Admetus's conduct to
Heracles entirely praiseworthy, the answer will certainly be No, but it
will have little bearing on the play. In the _Alcestis_, as it stands, the
famous act of hospitality is a datum of the story. Its claims are admitted
on the strength of the tradition. It was the act for which Admetus was
specially and marvellously rewarded; therefore, obviously, it was an act
of exceptional merit and piety. Yet the admission is made with a smile,
and more than one suggestion is allowed to float across the scene that in
real life such conduct would be hardly wise.
Heracles, who rose to tragic rank from a very homely cycle of myth, was
apt to bring other homely characters with him. He was a great killer not
only of malefactors but of "keres" or bogeys, such as "Old Age" and "Ague"
and the sort of "Death" that we find in this play. Thanatos is not a god,
not at all a King of Terrors. One may compare him with the dancing
skeleton who is called Death in mediaeval writings. When such a figure
appears on the tragic stage one asks at once what relation he bears to
Hades, the great Olympian king of the unseen. The answer is obvious.
Thanatos is the servant of Hades, a "priest" or sacrificer, who is sent to
fetch the appointed victims.
The other characters speak for themselves. Certainly Pheres can be trusted
to do so, though we must remember that we see him at an unfortunate
moment. The aged monarch is not at his best, except perhaps in mere
fighting power. I doubt if he was really as cynical as he here professes
to be.
* * * * *
In the above criticisms I feel that I may have done what critics are so
apt to do. I have dwelt on questions of intellectual interest and perhaps
thereby diverted attention from that quality in the play which is the most
important as well as by far the hardest to convey; I mean the sheer beauty
and delightfulness of the writing. It is the earliest dated play of
Euripides which has come down to us. True, he was over forty when he
produced it, but it is noticeably different from the works of his old age.
The numbers are smoother, the thought less deeply scarred, the language
more charming and less passionate. If it be true that poetry is bred out
of joy and sorrow, one feels as if more enjoyment and less suffering had
gone to the making of the _Alcestis_ than to that of the later plays.
ALCESTIS
CHARACTERS OF THE PLAY
ADMETUS, _King of Pherae in Thessaly_.
ALCESTIS, _daughter of Pelias, his wife_.
PHERES, _his father, formerly King but now in retirement_.
TWO CHILDREN, _his son and daughter_.
A MANSERVANT _in his house_.
A HANDMAID.
The Hero HERACLES.
The God APOLLO.
THANATOS _or_ DEATH.
CHORUS, _consisting of Elders of Pherae_.
"_The play was first performed when Glaukinos was Archon, in the 2nd
year of the 85th Olympiad_ (438 B. C. ). _Sophocles was first,
Euripides second with the Cretan Women, Alcmaeon in Psophis, Telephus and
Alcestis. . .
THE ALCESTIS
OF
EURIPIDES
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH RHYMING VERSE
WITH EXPLANATORY NOTES BY
GILBERT MURRAY, LL D, D LITT, FBA
REGIUS PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
1915
INTRODUCTION
The _Alcestis_ would hardly confirm its author's right to be
acclaimed "the most tragic of the poets. " It is doubtful whether one can
call it a tragedy at all. Yet it remains one of the most characteristic
and delightful of Euripidean dramas, as well as, by modern standards, the
most easily actable. And I notice that many judges who display nothing but
a fierce satisfaction in sending other plays of that author to the block
or the treadmill, show a certain human weakness in sentencing the gentle
daughter of Pelias.
The play has been interpreted in many different ways. There is the old
unsophisticated view, well set forth in Paley's preface of 1872. He
regards the _Alcestis_ simply as a triumph of pathos, especially of
"that peculiar sort of pathos which comes most home to us, with our views
and partialities for domestic life. . . . As for the characters, that of
Alcestis must be acknowledged to be pre-eminently beautiful. One could
almost imagine that Euripides had not yet conceived that bad opinion of
the sex which so many of the subsequent dramas exhibit. . . . But the rest
are hardly well-drawn, or, at least, pleasingly portrayed. " "The poet
might perhaps, had he pleased, have exhibited Admetus in a more amiable
point of view. "
This criticism is not very trenchant, but its weakness is due, I think,
more to timidity of statement than to lack of perception. Paley does see
that a character may be "well-drawn" without necessarily being "pleasing";
and even that he may be eminently pleasing as a part of the play while
very displeasing in himself. He sees that Euripides may have had his own
reasons for not making Admetus an ideal husband. It seems odd that such
points should need mentioning; but Greek drama has always suffered from a
school of critics who approach a play with a greater equipment of
aesthetic theory than of dramatic perception. This is the characteristic
defect of classicism. One mark of the school is to demand from dramatists
heroes and heroines which shall satisfy its own ideals; and, though there
was in the New Comedy a mask known to Pollux as "The Entirely-good Young
Man" ([Greek: panchraestos neaniskos]), such a character is fortunately
unknown to classical Greek drama.
The influence of this "classicist" tradition has led to a timid and
unsatisfying treatment of the _Alcestis_, in which many of the most
striking and unconventional features of the whole composition were either
ignored or smoothed away. As a natural result, various lively-minded
readers proceeded to overemphasize these particular features, and were
carried into eccentricity or paradox. Alfred Schone, for instance, fixing
his attention on just those points which the conventional critic passed
over, decides simply that the _Alcestis_ is a parody, and finds it
very funny. (_Die Alkestis von Euripides_, Kiel, 1895. )
I will not dwell on other criticisms of this type. There are those who
have taken the play for a criticism of contemporary politics or the
current law of inheritance. Above all there is the late Dr. Verrall's
famous essay in _Euripides the Rationalist_, explaining it as a
psychological criticism of a supposed Delphic miracle, and arguing that
Alcestis in the play does not rise from the dead at all. She had never
really died; she only had a sort of nervous catalepsy induced by all the
"suggestion" of death by which she was surrounded. Now Dr. Verrall's work,
as always, stands apart. Even if wrong, it has its own excellence, its
special insight and its extraordinary awakening power. But in general the
effect of reading many criticisms on the _Alcestis_ is to make a
scholar realize that, for all the seeming simplicity of the play,
competent Grecians have been strangely bewildered by it, and that after
all there is no great reason to suppose that he himself is more sensible
than his neighbours.
This is depressing. None the less I cannot really believe that, if we make
patient use of our available knowledge, the _Alcestis_ presents any
startling enigma. In the first place, it has long been known from the
remnants of the ancient Didascalia, or official notice of production, that
the _Alcestis_ was produced as the fourth play of a series; that is,
it took the place of a Satyr-play. It is what we may call Pro-satyric.
(See the present writer's introduction to the _Rhesus_. ) And we
should note for what it is worth the observation in the ancient Greek
argument: "The play is somewhat satyr-like ([Greek: saturiphkoteron]). It
ends in rejoicing and gladness against the tragic convention. "
Now we are of late years beginning to understand much better what a
Satyr-play was. Satyrs have, of course, nothing to do with satire, either
etymologically or otherwise. Satyrs are the attendant daemons who form the
Komos, or revel rout, of Dionysus. They are represented in divers
fantastic forms, the human or divine being mixed with that of some animal,
especially the horse or wild goat. Like Dionysus himself, they are
connected in ancient religion with the Renewal of the Earth in spring and
the resurrection of the dead, a point which students of the
_Alcestis_ may well remember. But in general they represent mere
joyous creatures of nature, unthwarted by law and unchecked by
self-control. Two notes are especially struck by them: the passions and
the absurdity of half-drunken revellers, and the joy and mystery of the
wild things in the forest.
The rule was that after three tragedies proper there came a play, still in
tragic diction, with a traditional saga plot and heroic characters, in
which the Chorus was formed by these Satyrs. There was a deliberate clash,
an effect of burlesque; but of course the clash must not be too brutal.
Certain characters of the heroic saga are, so to speak, at home with
Satyrs and others are not. To take our extant specimens of Satyr-plays,
for instance: in the _Cyclops_ we have Odysseus, the heroic
trickster; in the fragmentary _Ichneutae_ of Sophocles we have the
Nymph Cyllene, hiding the baby Hermes from the chorus by the most
barefaced and pleasant lying; later no doubt there was an entrance of the
infant thief himself. Autolycus, Sisyphus, Thersites are all Satyr-play
heroes and congenial to the Satyr atmosphere; but the most congenial of
all, the one hero who existed always in an atmosphere of Satyrs and the
Komos until Euripides made him the central figure of a tragedy, was
Heracles.
[Footnote: The character of Heracles in connexion with the Komos, already
indicated by Wilamowitz and Dieterich (_Herakles_, pp. 98, ff. ;
_Pulcinella_, pp. 63, ff. ), has been illuminatingly developed in an
unpublished monograph by Mr. J. A. K. Thomson, of Aberdeen. ]
The complete Satyr-play had a hero of this type and a Chorus of Satyrs.
But the complete type was refined away during the fifth century; and one
stage in the process produced a play with a normal chorus but with one
figure of the Satyric or "revelling" type. One might almost say the
"comic" type if, for the moment, we may remember that that word is
directly derived from 'Komos. '
The _Alcestis_ is a very clear instance of this Pro-satyric class of
play. It has the regular tragic diction, marked here and there (393,
756, 780, etc. ) by slight extravagances and forms of words which are
sometimes epic and sometimes over-colloquial; it has a regular saga plot,
which had already been treated by the old poet Phrynichus in his
_Alcestis_, a play which is now lost but seems to have been Satyric;
and it has one character straight from the Satyr world, the heroic
reveller, Heracles. It is all in keeping that he should arrive tired,
should feast and drink and sing; should be suddenly sobered and should go
forth to battle with Death. It is also in keeping that the contest should
have a half-grotesque and half-ghastly touch, the grapple amid the graves
and the cracking ribs.
* * * * *
So much for the traditional form. As for the subject, Euripides received
it from Phrynichus, and doubtless from other sources. We cannot be sure of
the exact form of the story in Phrynichus. But apparently it told how
Admetus, King of Pherae in Thessaly, received from Apollo a special
privilege which the God had obtained, in true Satyric style, by making the
Three Fates drunk and cajoling them. This was that, when his appointed
time for death came, he might escape if he could find some volunteer to
die for him. His father and mother, from whom the service might have been
expected, refused to perform it. His wife, Alcestis, though no blood
relation, handsomely undertook it and died. But it so happened that
Admetus had entertained in his house the demi-god, Heracles; and when
Heracles heard what had happened, he went out and wrestled with Death,
conquered him, and brought Alcestis home.
Given this form and this story, the next question is: What did Euripides
make of them? The general answer is clear: he has applied his usual
method. He accepts the story as given in the tradition, and then
represents it in his own way. When the tradition in question is really
heroic, we know what his way is. He preserves, and even emphasizes, the
stateliness and formality of the Attic stage conventions; but, in the
meantime, he has subjected the story and its characters to a keener study
and a more sensitive psychological judgment than the simple things were
originally meant to bear. So that many characters which passed as heroic,
or at least presentable, in the kindly remoteness of legend, reveal some
strange weakness when brought suddenly into the light. When the tradition
is Satyric, as here, the same process produces almost an opposite effect.
It is somewhat as though the main plot of a gross and jolly farce were
pondered over and made more true to human character till it emerged as a
refined and rather pathetic comedy. The making drunk of the Three Grey
Sisters disappears; one can only just see the trace of its having once
been present. The revelling of Heracles is touched in with the lightest of
hands; it is little more than symbolic. And all the figures in the story,
instead of being left broadly comic or having their psychology neglected,
are treated delicately, sympathetically, with just that faint touch of
satire, or at least of amusement, which is almost inseparable from a close
interest in character.
What was Admetus really like, this gallant prince who had won the
affection of such great guests as Apollo and Heracles, and yet went round
asking other people to die for him; who, in particular, accepted his
wife's monstrous sacrifice with satisfaction and gratitude? The play
portrays him well. Generous, innocent, artistic, affectionate, eloquent,
impulsive, a good deal spoilt, unconsciously insincere, and no doubt
fundamentally selfish, he hates the thought of dying and he hates losing
his wife almost as much. Why need she die? Why could it not have been some
one less important to him? He feels with emotion what a beautiful act it
would have been for his old father. "My boy, you have a long and happy
life before you, and for me the sands are well-nigh run out. Do not seek
to dissuade me. I will die for you. " Admetus could compose the speech for
him. A touching scene, a noble farewell, and all the dreadful trouble
solved--so conveniently solved! And the miserable self-blinded old man
could not see it!
Euripides seems to have taken positive pleasure in Admetus, much as
Meredith did in his famous Egoist; but Euripides all through is kinder to
his victim than Meredith is. True, Admetus is put to obvious shame,
publicly and helplessly. The Chorus make discreet comments upon him.
The Handmaid is outspoken about him. One feels that Alcestis herself, for
all her tender kindness, has seen through him. Finally, to make things
quite clear, his old father fights him openly, tells him home-truth upon
home-truth, tears away all his protective screens, and leaves him with his
self-respect in tatters. It is a fearful ordeal for Admetus, and, after
his first fury, he takes it well. He comes back from his wife's burial a
changed man. He says not much, but enough. "I have done wrong. I have only
now learnt my lesson. I imagined I could save my happy life by forfeiting
my honour; and the result is that I have lost both. " I think that a
careful reading of the play will show an almost continuous process of
self-discovery and self-judgment in the mind of Admetus. He was a man who
blinded himself with words and beautiful sentiments; but he was not
thick-skinned or thick-witted. He was not a brute or a cynic. And I think
he did learn his lesson . . . not completely and for ever, but as well as
most of us learn such lessons.
The beauty of Alcestis is quite untouched by the dramatist's keener
analysis. The strong light only increases its effect. Yet she is not by
any means a mere blameless ideal heroine; and the character which
Euripides gives her makes an admirable foil to that of Admetus. Where he
is passionate and romantic, she is simple and homely. While he is still
refusing to admit the facts and beseeching her not to "desert" him, she in
a gentle but businesslike way makes him promise to take care of the
children and, above all things, not to marry again. She could not possibly
trust Admetus's choice. She is sure that the step-mother would be unkind
to the children. She might be a horror and beat them (l. 307). And when
Admetus has made a thrilling answer about eternal sorrow, and the
silencing of lyre and lute, and the statue who shall be his only bride,
Alcestis earnestly calls the attention of witnesses to the fact that he
has sworn not to marry again. She is not an artist like Admetus. There is
poetry in her, because poetry comes unconsciously out of deep feeling, but
there is no artistic eloquence. Her love, too, is quite different from
his. To him, his love for his wife and children is a beautiful thing, a
subject to speak and sing about as well as an emotion to feel. But her
love is hardly conscious. She does not talk about it at all. She is merely
wrapped up in the welfare of certain people, first her husband and then he
children. To a modern romantic reader her insistence that her husband
shall not marry again seems hardly delicate. But she does not think about
romance or delicacy. To her any neglect to ensure due protection for the
children would be as unnatural as to refuse to die for her husband.
Indeed, Professor J. L. Myres has suggested that care for the children's
future is the guiding motive of her whole conduct. There was first the
danger of their being left fatherless, a dire calamity in the heroic age.
She could meet that danger by dying herself. Then followed the danger of a
stepmother. She meets that by making Admetus swear never to marry. In the
long run, I fancy, the effect of gracious loveliness which Alcestis
certainly makes is not so much due to any words of her own as to what the
Handmaid and the Serving Man say about her. In the final scene she is
silent; necessarily and rightly silent, for all tradition knows that those
new-risen from the dead must not speak. It will need a long _rite de
passage_ before she can freely commune with this world again. It is a
strange and daring scene between the three of them; the humbled and
broken-hearted husband; the triumphant Heracles, kindly and wise, yet
still touched by the mocking and blustrous atmosphere from which he
sprang; and the silent woman who has seen the other side of the grave.
It was always her way to know things but not to speak of them.
The other characters fall easily into their niches. We have only to
remember the old Satyric tradition and to look at them in the light of
their historical development. Heracles indeed, half-way on his road from
the roaring reveller of the Satyr-play to the suffering and erring
deliverer of tragedy, is a little foreign to our notions, but quite
intelligible and strangely attractive. The same historical method seems to
me to solve most of the difficulties which have been felt about Admetus's
hospitality. Heracles arrives at the castle just at the moment when
Alcestis is lying dead in her room; Admetus conceals the death from him
and insists on his coming in and enjoying himself. What are we to think of
this behaviour? Is it magnificent hospitality, or is it gross want of
tact? The answer, I think, is indicated above.
In the uncritical and boisterous atmosphere of the Satyr-play it was
natural hospitality, not especially laudable or surprising. From the
analogy of similar stories I suspect that Admetus originally did not know
his guest, and received not so much the reward of exceptional virtue as
the blessing naturally due to those who entertain angels unawares. If we
insist on asking whether Euripides himself, in real life or in a play of
his own free invention, would have considered Admetus's conduct to
Heracles entirely praiseworthy, the answer will certainly be No, but it
will have little bearing on the play. In the _Alcestis_, as it stands, the
famous act of hospitality is a datum of the story. Its claims are admitted
on the strength of the tradition. It was the act for which Admetus was
specially and marvellously rewarded; therefore, obviously, it was an act
of exceptional merit and piety. Yet the admission is made with a smile,
and more than one suggestion is allowed to float across the scene that in
real life such conduct would be hardly wise.
Heracles, who rose to tragic rank from a very homely cycle of myth, was
apt to bring other homely characters with him. He was a great killer not
only of malefactors but of "keres" or bogeys, such as "Old Age" and "Ague"
and the sort of "Death" that we find in this play. Thanatos is not a god,
not at all a King of Terrors. One may compare him with the dancing
skeleton who is called Death in mediaeval writings. When such a figure
appears on the tragic stage one asks at once what relation he bears to
Hades, the great Olympian king of the unseen. The answer is obvious.
Thanatos is the servant of Hades, a "priest" or sacrificer, who is sent to
fetch the appointed victims.
The other characters speak for themselves. Certainly Pheres can be trusted
to do so, though we must remember that we see him at an unfortunate
moment. The aged monarch is not at his best, except perhaps in mere
fighting power. I doubt if he was really as cynical as he here professes
to be.
* * * * *
In the above criticisms I feel that I may have done what critics are so
apt to do. I have dwelt on questions of intellectual interest and perhaps
thereby diverted attention from that quality in the play which is the most
important as well as by far the hardest to convey; I mean the sheer beauty
and delightfulness of the writing. It is the earliest dated play of
Euripides which has come down to us. True, he was over forty when he
produced it, but it is noticeably different from the works of his old age.
The numbers are smoother, the thought less deeply scarred, the language
more charming and less passionate. If it be true that poetry is bred out
of joy and sorrow, one feels as if more enjoyment and less suffering had
gone to the making of the _Alcestis_ than to that of the later plays.
ALCESTIS
CHARACTERS OF THE PLAY
ADMETUS, _King of Pherae in Thessaly_.
ALCESTIS, _daughter of Pelias, his wife_.
PHERES, _his father, formerly King but now in retirement_.
TWO CHILDREN, _his son and daughter_.
A MANSERVANT _in his house_.
A HANDMAID.
The Hero HERACLES.
The God APOLLO.
THANATOS _or_ DEATH.
CHORUS, _consisting of Elders of Pherae_.
"_The play was first performed when Glaukinos was Archon, in the 2nd
year of the 85th Olympiad_ (438 B. C. ). _Sophocles was first,
Euripides second with the Cretan Women, Alcmaeon in Psophis, Telephus and
Alcestis.
" It is doubtful whether one can
call it a tragedy at all. Yet it remains one of the most characteristic
and delightful of Euripidean dramas, as well as, by modern standards, the
most easily actable. And I notice that many judges who display nothing but
a fierce satisfaction in sending other plays of that author to the block
or the treadmill, show a certain human weakness in sentencing the gentle
daughter of Pelias.
The play has been interpreted in many different ways. There is the old
unsophisticated view, well set forth in Paley's preface of 1872. He
regards the _Alcestis_ simply as a triumph of pathos, especially of
"that peculiar sort of pathos which comes most home to us, with our views
and partialities for domestic life. . . . As for the characters, that of
Alcestis must be acknowledged to be pre-eminently beautiful. One could
almost imagine that Euripides had not yet conceived that bad opinion of
the sex which so many of the subsequent dramas exhibit. . . . But the rest
are hardly well-drawn, or, at least, pleasingly portrayed. " "The poet
might perhaps, had he pleased, have exhibited Admetus in a more amiable
point of view. "
This criticism is not very trenchant, but its weakness is due, I think,
more to timidity of statement than to lack of perception. Paley does see
that a character may be "well-drawn" without necessarily being "pleasing";
and even that he may be eminently pleasing as a part of the play while
very displeasing in himself. He sees that Euripides may have had his own
reasons for not making Admetus an ideal husband. It seems odd that such
points should need mentioning; but Greek drama has always suffered from a
school of critics who approach a play with a greater equipment of
aesthetic theory than of dramatic perception. This is the characteristic
defect of classicism. One mark of the school is to demand from dramatists
heroes and heroines which shall satisfy its own ideals; and, though there
was in the New Comedy a mask known to Pollux as "The Entirely-good Young
Man" ([Greek: panchraestos neaniskos]), such a character is fortunately
unknown to classical Greek drama.
The influence of this "classicist" tradition has led to a timid and
unsatisfying treatment of the _Alcestis_, in which many of the most
striking and unconventional features of the whole composition were either
ignored or smoothed away. As a natural result, various lively-minded
readers proceeded to overemphasize these particular features, and were
carried into eccentricity or paradox. Alfred Schone, for instance, fixing
his attention on just those points which the conventional critic passed
over, decides simply that the _Alcestis_ is a parody, and finds it
very funny. (_Die Alkestis von Euripides_, Kiel, 1895. )
I will not dwell on other criticisms of this type. There are those who
have taken the play for a criticism of contemporary politics or the
current law of inheritance. Above all there is the late Dr. Verrall's
famous essay in _Euripides the Rationalist_, explaining it as a
psychological criticism of a supposed Delphic miracle, and arguing that
Alcestis in the play does not rise from the dead at all. She had never
really died; she only had a sort of nervous catalepsy induced by all the
"suggestion" of death by which she was surrounded. Now Dr. Verrall's work,
as always, stands apart. Even if wrong, it has its own excellence, its
special insight and its extraordinary awakening power. But in general the
effect of reading many criticisms on the _Alcestis_ is to make a
scholar realize that, for all the seeming simplicity of the play,
competent Grecians have been strangely bewildered by it, and that after
all there is no great reason to suppose that he himself is more sensible
than his neighbours.
This is depressing. None the less I cannot really believe that, if we make
patient use of our available knowledge, the _Alcestis_ presents any
startling enigma. In the first place, it has long been known from the
remnants of the ancient Didascalia, or official notice of production, that
the _Alcestis_ was produced as the fourth play of a series; that is,
it took the place of a Satyr-play. It is what we may call Pro-satyric.
(See the present writer's introduction to the _Rhesus_. ) And we
should note for what it is worth the observation in the ancient Greek
argument: "The play is somewhat satyr-like ([Greek: saturiphkoteron]). It
ends in rejoicing and gladness against the tragic convention. "
Now we are of late years beginning to understand much better what a
Satyr-play was. Satyrs have, of course, nothing to do with satire, either
etymologically or otherwise. Satyrs are the attendant daemons who form the
Komos, or revel rout, of Dionysus. They are represented in divers
fantastic forms, the human or divine being mixed with that of some animal,
especially the horse or wild goat. Like Dionysus himself, they are
connected in ancient religion with the Renewal of the Earth in spring and
the resurrection of the dead, a point which students of the
_Alcestis_ may well remember. But in general they represent mere
joyous creatures of nature, unthwarted by law and unchecked by
self-control. Two notes are especially struck by them: the passions and
the absurdity of half-drunken revellers, and the joy and mystery of the
wild things in the forest.
The rule was that after three tragedies proper there came a play, still in
tragic diction, with a traditional saga plot and heroic characters, in
which the Chorus was formed by these Satyrs. There was a deliberate clash,
an effect of burlesque; but of course the clash must not be too brutal.
Certain characters of the heroic saga are, so to speak, at home with
Satyrs and others are not. To take our extant specimens of Satyr-plays,
for instance: in the _Cyclops_ we have Odysseus, the heroic
trickster; in the fragmentary _Ichneutae_ of Sophocles we have the
Nymph Cyllene, hiding the baby Hermes from the chorus by the most
barefaced and pleasant lying; later no doubt there was an entrance of the
infant thief himself. Autolycus, Sisyphus, Thersites are all Satyr-play
heroes and congenial to the Satyr atmosphere; but the most congenial of
all, the one hero who existed always in an atmosphere of Satyrs and the
Komos until Euripides made him the central figure of a tragedy, was
Heracles.
[Footnote: The character of Heracles in connexion with the Komos, already
indicated by Wilamowitz and Dieterich (_Herakles_, pp. 98, ff. ;
_Pulcinella_, pp. 63, ff. ), has been illuminatingly developed in an
unpublished monograph by Mr. J. A. K. Thomson, of Aberdeen. ]
The complete Satyr-play had a hero of this type and a Chorus of Satyrs.
But the complete type was refined away during the fifth century; and one
stage in the process produced a play with a normal chorus but with one
figure of the Satyric or "revelling" type. One might almost say the
"comic" type if, for the moment, we may remember that that word is
directly derived from 'Komos. '
The _Alcestis_ is a very clear instance of this Pro-satyric class of
play. It has the regular tragic diction, marked here and there (393,
756, 780, etc. ) by slight extravagances and forms of words which are
sometimes epic and sometimes over-colloquial; it has a regular saga plot,
which had already been treated by the old poet Phrynichus in his
_Alcestis_, a play which is now lost but seems to have been Satyric;
and it has one character straight from the Satyr world, the heroic
reveller, Heracles. It is all in keeping that he should arrive tired,
should feast and drink and sing; should be suddenly sobered and should go
forth to battle with Death. It is also in keeping that the contest should
have a half-grotesque and half-ghastly touch, the grapple amid the graves
and the cracking ribs.
* * * * *
So much for the traditional form. As for the subject, Euripides received
it from Phrynichus, and doubtless from other sources. We cannot be sure of
the exact form of the story in Phrynichus. But apparently it told how
Admetus, King of Pherae in Thessaly, received from Apollo a special
privilege which the God had obtained, in true Satyric style, by making the
Three Fates drunk and cajoling them. This was that, when his appointed
time for death came, he might escape if he could find some volunteer to
die for him. His father and mother, from whom the service might have been
expected, refused to perform it. His wife, Alcestis, though no blood
relation, handsomely undertook it and died. But it so happened that
Admetus had entertained in his house the demi-god, Heracles; and when
Heracles heard what had happened, he went out and wrestled with Death,
conquered him, and brought Alcestis home.
Given this form and this story, the next question is: What did Euripides
make of them? The general answer is clear: he has applied his usual
method. He accepts the story as given in the tradition, and then
represents it in his own way. When the tradition in question is really
heroic, we know what his way is. He preserves, and even emphasizes, the
stateliness and formality of the Attic stage conventions; but, in the
meantime, he has subjected the story and its characters to a keener study
and a more sensitive psychological judgment than the simple things were
originally meant to bear. So that many characters which passed as heroic,
or at least presentable, in the kindly remoteness of legend, reveal some
strange weakness when brought suddenly into the light. When the tradition
is Satyric, as here, the same process produces almost an opposite effect.
It is somewhat as though the main plot of a gross and jolly farce were
pondered over and made more true to human character till it emerged as a
refined and rather pathetic comedy. The making drunk of the Three Grey
Sisters disappears; one can only just see the trace of its having once
been present. The revelling of Heracles is touched in with the lightest of
hands; it is little more than symbolic. And all the figures in the story,
instead of being left broadly comic or having their psychology neglected,
are treated delicately, sympathetically, with just that faint touch of
satire, or at least of amusement, which is almost inseparable from a close
interest in character.
What was Admetus really like, this gallant prince who had won the
affection of such great guests as Apollo and Heracles, and yet went round
asking other people to die for him; who, in particular, accepted his
wife's monstrous sacrifice with satisfaction and gratitude? The play
portrays him well. Generous, innocent, artistic, affectionate, eloquent,
impulsive, a good deal spoilt, unconsciously insincere, and no doubt
fundamentally selfish, he hates the thought of dying and he hates losing
his wife almost as much. Why need she die? Why could it not have been some
one less important to him? He feels with emotion what a beautiful act it
would have been for his old father. "My boy, you have a long and happy
life before you, and for me the sands are well-nigh run out. Do not seek
to dissuade me. I will die for you. " Admetus could compose the speech for
him. A touching scene, a noble farewell, and all the dreadful trouble
solved--so conveniently solved! And the miserable self-blinded old man
could not see it!
Euripides seems to have taken positive pleasure in Admetus, much as
Meredith did in his famous Egoist; but Euripides all through is kinder to
his victim than Meredith is. True, Admetus is put to obvious shame,
publicly and helplessly. The Chorus make discreet comments upon him.
The Handmaid is outspoken about him. One feels that Alcestis herself, for
all her tender kindness, has seen through him. Finally, to make things
quite clear, his old father fights him openly, tells him home-truth upon
home-truth, tears away all his protective screens, and leaves him with his
self-respect in tatters. It is a fearful ordeal for Admetus, and, after
his first fury, he takes it well. He comes back from his wife's burial a
changed man. He says not much, but enough. "I have done wrong. I have only
now learnt my lesson. I imagined I could save my happy life by forfeiting
my honour; and the result is that I have lost both. " I think that a
careful reading of the play will show an almost continuous process of
self-discovery and self-judgment in the mind of Admetus. He was a man who
blinded himself with words and beautiful sentiments; but he was not
thick-skinned or thick-witted. He was not a brute or a cynic. And I think
he did learn his lesson . . . not completely and for ever, but as well as
most of us learn such lessons.
The beauty of Alcestis is quite untouched by the dramatist's keener
analysis. The strong light only increases its effect. Yet she is not by
any means a mere blameless ideal heroine; and the character which
Euripides gives her makes an admirable foil to that of Admetus. Where he
is passionate and romantic, she is simple and homely. While he is still
refusing to admit the facts and beseeching her not to "desert" him, she in
a gentle but businesslike way makes him promise to take care of the
children and, above all things, not to marry again. She could not possibly
trust Admetus's choice. She is sure that the step-mother would be unkind
to the children. She might be a horror and beat them (l. 307). And when
Admetus has made a thrilling answer about eternal sorrow, and the
silencing of lyre and lute, and the statue who shall be his only bride,
Alcestis earnestly calls the attention of witnesses to the fact that he
has sworn not to marry again. She is not an artist like Admetus. There is
poetry in her, because poetry comes unconsciously out of deep feeling, but
there is no artistic eloquence. Her love, too, is quite different from
his. To him, his love for his wife and children is a beautiful thing, a
subject to speak and sing about as well as an emotion to feel. But her
love is hardly conscious. She does not talk about it at all. She is merely
wrapped up in the welfare of certain people, first her husband and then he
children. To a modern romantic reader her insistence that her husband
shall not marry again seems hardly delicate. But she does not think about
romance or delicacy. To her any neglect to ensure due protection for the
children would be as unnatural as to refuse to die for her husband.
Indeed, Professor J. L. Myres has suggested that care for the children's
future is the guiding motive of her whole conduct. There was first the
danger of their being left fatherless, a dire calamity in the heroic age.
She could meet that danger by dying herself. Then followed the danger of a
stepmother. She meets that by making Admetus swear never to marry. In the
long run, I fancy, the effect of gracious loveliness which Alcestis
certainly makes is not so much due to any words of her own as to what the
Handmaid and the Serving Man say about her. In the final scene she is
silent; necessarily and rightly silent, for all tradition knows that those
new-risen from the dead must not speak. It will need a long _rite de
passage_ before she can freely commune with this world again. It is a
strange and daring scene between the three of them; the humbled and
broken-hearted husband; the triumphant Heracles, kindly and wise, yet
still touched by the mocking and blustrous atmosphere from which he
sprang; and the silent woman who has seen the other side of the grave.
It was always her way to know things but not to speak of them.
The other characters fall easily into their niches. We have only to
remember the old Satyric tradition and to look at them in the light of
their historical development. Heracles indeed, half-way on his road from
the roaring reveller of the Satyr-play to the suffering and erring
deliverer of tragedy, is a little foreign to our notions, but quite
intelligible and strangely attractive. The same historical method seems to
me to solve most of the difficulties which have been felt about Admetus's
hospitality. Heracles arrives at the castle just at the moment when
Alcestis is lying dead in her room; Admetus conceals the death from him
and insists on his coming in and enjoying himself. What are we to think of
this behaviour? Is it magnificent hospitality, or is it gross want of
tact? The answer, I think, is indicated above.
In the uncritical and boisterous atmosphere of the Satyr-play it was
natural hospitality, not especially laudable or surprising. From the
analogy of similar stories I suspect that Admetus originally did not know
his guest, and received not so much the reward of exceptional virtue as
the blessing naturally due to those who entertain angels unawares. If we
insist on asking whether Euripides himself, in real life or in a play of
his own free invention, would have considered Admetus's conduct to
Heracles entirely praiseworthy, the answer will certainly be No, but it
will have little bearing on the play. In the _Alcestis_, as it stands, the
famous act of hospitality is a datum of the story. Its claims are admitted
on the strength of the tradition. It was the act for which Admetus was
specially and marvellously rewarded; therefore, obviously, it was an act
of exceptional merit and piety. Yet the admission is made with a smile,
and more than one suggestion is allowed to float across the scene that in
real life such conduct would be hardly wise.
Heracles, who rose to tragic rank from a very homely cycle of myth, was
apt to bring other homely characters with him. He was a great killer not
only of malefactors but of "keres" or bogeys, such as "Old Age" and "Ague"
and the sort of "Death" that we find in this play. Thanatos is not a god,
not at all a King of Terrors. One may compare him with the dancing
skeleton who is called Death in mediaeval writings. When such a figure
appears on the tragic stage one asks at once what relation he bears to
Hades, the great Olympian king of the unseen. The answer is obvious.
Thanatos is the servant of Hades, a "priest" or sacrificer, who is sent to
fetch the appointed victims.
The other characters speak for themselves. Certainly Pheres can be trusted
to do so, though we must remember that we see him at an unfortunate
moment. The aged monarch is not at his best, except perhaps in mere
fighting power. I doubt if he was really as cynical as he here professes
to be.
* * * * *
In the above criticisms I feel that I may have done what critics are so
apt to do. I have dwelt on questions of intellectual interest and perhaps
thereby diverted attention from that quality in the play which is the most
important as well as by far the hardest to convey; I mean the sheer beauty
and delightfulness of the writing. It is the earliest dated play of
Euripides which has come down to us. True, he was over forty when he
produced it, but it is noticeably different from the works of his old age.
The numbers are smoother, the thought less deeply scarred, the language
more charming and less passionate. If it be true that poetry is bred out
of joy and sorrow, one feels as if more enjoyment and less suffering had
gone to the making of the _Alcestis_ than to that of the later plays.
ALCESTIS
CHARACTERS OF THE PLAY
ADMETUS, _King of Pherae in Thessaly_.
ALCESTIS, _daughter of Pelias, his wife_.
PHERES, _his father, formerly King but now in retirement_.
TWO CHILDREN, _his son and daughter_.
A MANSERVANT _in his house_.
A HANDMAID.
The Hero HERACLES.
The God APOLLO.
THANATOS _or_ DEATH.
CHORUS, _consisting of Elders of Pherae_.
"_The play was first performed when Glaukinos was Archon, in the 2nd
year of the 85th Olympiad_ (438 B. C. ). _Sophocles was first,
Euripides second with the Cretan Women, Alcmaeon in Psophis, Telephus and
Alcestis. . .
