🎭 Andromache (425 BCE)
📋 Critical methods: formalism.
🧱 Andromache follows the events of Euripides’s Trojan Women (though written 10 or more years before), where we saw Andromache, wife of the dead Hector, becoming the slave of Neoptolemus, Achilles’s son, before the walls of sacked Troy, where she universalised the fate of women bereft by war and pulled away from home in slavery; as were Cassandra (to Agamemnon) and Hecuba, wife of the dead Priam and Cassandra’s mother (to Odysseus). Neoptolemus, absent from the play, but always present in the background, already has a wife, Hermione, daughter of Menelaus and Helen, and the running plot is her jealousy for Andromache, and the machinations of Menelaus and his nephew Orestes, who, it transpires, has murdered Neoptolemus, or caused him to be killed at Delphi, because he was promised the hand of Hermione, Menelaus’s daughter, who instead gave her away to Neoptolemus for his support in the Trojan Wars (ll.964-9).
🎨 Its themes, therefore, are the status of women—‘the unjust position of helpless women in a world organized by men [is] inevitable when men’s lives and thoughts are dominated by war’—and a criticism of war—‘the men who build and dominate it regard warfare and mutual slaughter as their paramount function’—and the theme of revenge—‘it was for revenge that Achilles killed Andromache’s husband, that Menelaus burnt Troy, that Orestes killed Neoptolemus, and that Hermione wanted to have Andromache killed’ (Euripides, Orestes and Other Plays (409 BCE; Penguin Classics, 1972), Vellacott, Philip (trans.), ‘Introduction: Andromache’, pp.26-43, pp.26-7, 41). Andromache has a plot complicated by the motives of Menelaus and Orestes, and further to this, we must decide which meaning to take from several sections where it may be ambiguous. It is useful to turn to the criticism of Vellacott to discover its warp and weft:
All Greek tragedies are unorthodox, and it is possible to say that this one is more unorthodox than most. The total disappearance of Andromache, the want of any tragic hero or heroine in the accepted sense, the apparent break in continuity after the departure of Menelaus [...]—all these things make it difficult to describe a tidy structure for the piece. (Ibid. Vellacott ‘Introduction: Andromache’, p.43).
🎭 Hecabe/Hecuba (424 BCE)
📋 Critical methods: formalism; structuralism; character criticism.
🧱 Hecabe, like Trojan Women (415 BCE), occurs at the end of the Trojan War (1194-84 BCE). It is memorable for the following features:
• prologue—spoken by a ghost;
• characterization—of main figures, strong in its simplicity: Odysseus, consummate politician, shamelessly amoral; Polymestor, ruler of Thrace, the arch-hypocrite;
• villains set in contrast with the innocents slain for base motives: Polydorus, Hecabe’s son, murdered for gold; Polyxena, her daughter, sacrificed to pay ghastly homage to the dead Achilles;
• first half the play culminates in human sacrifice—slaying of the virgin Polyxena to gain favourable winds for the return to Greece—linking the opening and closing of the Trojan War;
• first half—Hecabe is a victim; second half—Hecabe is avenger;
• two scenes of humbling self-supplication—Hecabe to Odysseus and to Agamemnon;
• finale—involves conspiracy and violence—Hecabe and women blind the treacherous Polymestor and murder his young sons.
(Euripides, Electra and Other Plays (415 BCE; London: Penguin Classics, 1998; 2004), Davie, John (trans.), Rutherford, Richard (ed.), ‘Preface to Hecabe, p.45).
The play thus features a series of balances. In the first half of the play Hecabe is pleading with Odysseus for the life of her daughter Polyxema, and fails; in the second half she begs of Agamemnon for Polymestor’s death, and succeeds. It has horrors enough for a Greek tragedy, with virgin sacrifice, murder for monetary gain, and mutilation, the blinded Polymestor, bleeding and humiliated, crawling onto the stage life a wounded beast. ‘In the dark world of Euripidean tragedy, vengeance is more easily obtained than compassion.’ (Ibid. Rutherford, ‘Preface to Hecabe, p.47).
👤 The character of Hecabe (Hecuba) has been debated. Bemoaning her fate and those of her men and children, pleading unsuccessfully with Odysseus to save her daughter’s life, it is unsurprising, therefore, that Hecuba transforms from a wailing victim to an avenging murderer, and while we are shocked by her killing of Polymestor’s young sons, by this time, the woman must have been deranged by grief and abuse.
Tragedy characteristically presents extreme situations in which the rights and wrongs are not easily discerned; and in Euripides acts of revenge, as in Medea, Electra, Orestes and elsewhere, are deliberately placed in a complex and many-shadowed light. (Ibid. Rutherford, ‘Preface to Hecabe, p.47).
🎶 The Chorus of Trojan Women is the same as for that eponymous play, prisoners-of-war. They act as the reinforcement of the laments of the women who have lost their men, their children, their freedom, and their dignity—and, in Hecuba’s case, their reason. In characteristic Euripidean fashion, they are symbols of a thematic moral: anti-slavery, anti-war, anti-misogyny. But the Trojan women kill Polymestor’s children; they transform from the sympathetic commentators to ministers of bloody self-administered justice.
🪜 Hecuba’s long lament at the imminent loss of her daughter (ll.253-94) is matched by Polyxena’s agon about slavery (331-78), a perpetual theme throughout Euripides—and another of the series of balances in the play. The cases are argued with assuredness, while, on the one hand, Hecuba wishes to convince Odysseus, knowing her grief will be radically augmented in losing another child, while Polyxena is resigned to rather die than live as a slave, wishing to avoid further grief.
Euripides uses the familiar device of stichomythia (line by line exchange) to accentuate conflict in the series of questions and answers where Hecuba questions Polymestor about her son (988-1117). It is used to reveal Polymestor’s hypocrisy, as he pretends Polydorus is safe, and his gold too. Polymestor takes Hecuba’s compliments at face value—but in the audience’s mind is the bobbing body of Polydorus on the shore as the prologue by his ghost has described, evoked by the to and fro of the stichomythic exchanges.
🎭 The Suppliants (Suppliant Women, 423 BCE)
📋 Critical methods: formalism; structuralism; character criticism.
The Suppliants raises complex issues about the subject of war, and is a difficult play to interpret.
🧱 The Suppliants follows the events of Aeschylus’s Seven Against Thebes (467), with its central concern over the lack of burial rites given to the seven Argive allied champions against each gate of Thebes, the subject of Sophocles’ Antigone (441 BCE), who defied Creon to give her brother Polynices due burial rites, which he had forbidden, on penalty of death. Adrastus, king of Argos, who led the allied attack, has come with seven suppliant women and seven sons of the dead, the two Choruses, to the temple of Demeter to solicit help from Aethra, mother of Theseus, king of Athens, for help in bringing home the bodies of the seven champions. ‘Its style is formal, its drama symbolic or schematic; its use of plot so abstract [...] as to suggest the structure of a ballet.’ (Ibid. Vellacott, ‘Introduction: The Suppliant Women’, p.44).
The play's theme is the constant anti-war message against the background of Athens in the Peloponnesian War, posited by a series of contrasts:
The message [...] is conveyed partly with a subtle irony, partly with a pathetic directness; and this contrast is accompanied by a series of other contrasts, which are static rather than dramatic: democracy, ideal and practical; war, moral and immoral; the communal and private aspects of folly and suffering; the logical revolt of maturity against war, and the subservience of the young to primitive emotion. (Ibid. Vellacott, ‘Introduction: The Suppliant Women’, p.44).
🪜 Much of this is expounded by Theseus in a series of interchanges with Adrastus, Aethra, and the Theban Herald, deployed first in a series of stichomythic (line for line) exchanges, then as theses, as in the agon.
👤 At times contradictory, Theseus, a young ruler, first denigrates the rashness of youth, who ‘multiply wars unscrupulously’ (l.231), and then ‘values its young men as the city’s greatest resource’ (443). He defines the ideal democracy (431-454), while representing the practical one: this moment the people are being moved by a suppliant plea, which could well mean war, even while the ideal response would be not to go to war for the sake of foreigners’ misfortunes. But a general principle applies: the Hellene traditional law of appropriate burial rites. Creon, who stands for an absolute monarch, refuses to obey this law, and Theseus, who stands for the elected democratic leader, a constitutional monarch, though still a king, stands for upholding these rites. The arguments are finely balanced. But the Theban Herald states the main message, even while offering war as rebuttal.
🎨 The question of what is a just war is prevalent, if varyingly answered. The play appeared in the tenth year of the Peloponnesian War (431-404), and in 425, six years into a war which lasted 27 years, and led to the utter defeat of Athens, the Spartans had offered peace. (Ibid. Vellacott, ‘Introduction: The Suppliant Women’, p.46).
🎶 But perhaps the ultimate irony lies in its epilogue. As the climax, or catastasis, an elegy for the fallen seven sons by their mothers and their sons in poetic laments, brings an oath from the sons that they will one day avenge their fallen fathers, the Chorus objects: ‘This wrong sleeps not yet. / Why must we always weep?’ (ll.1147-8). Finally Athena appears and demands an oath from Adrastus that Argos will never march on Athens, in return for this honour done for them—a reasonable injunction. But the second oath she demands is that one day the sons of the fallen will march on Thebes and lay it to waste.
Euripides has shown us in this play how destructive war is, and the goddess’s words cannot completely calm these gloomy reflections. The play seems, then, to contrast the foolish and disastrous war of the Seven against Thebes [...] with the just war fought reluctantly and for a sacred purpose by the virtuous Athenian Theseus. (Ibid. Rutherford, ‘Preface to Suppliant Women, p.89).
❓ But interpretation of the play is difficult because it offers so much conflict of opinion. There is conflict between:
• absolute monarchy (Creon, Thebes) against democracy represented by constitutional monarchy (Theseus, Athens);
• diplomacy (Theseus, Aeschylus) versus war (Theseus, Euripides);
• Herald’s philosophical admonition against war versus Theseus’ thesis on ideal democracy invoking war;
• ideal democracy (Theseus, agon) verses practical democracy (suppliants, sacred rites, war);
• Theseus’ view of youth, as warmongers, or their greatest resource;
• youthful avengers versus the distressed exclamations of their mothers who feel that there has been enough suffering;
• the general anti-war message, and the prediction by Athena that there will be further conflict instigated by the sons of the seven dead champions.
Euripides’ play raises many complex issues and the Athenian audience surely must have left the play puzzling them.
🎭 Electra (420 BCE)
📋 Critical methods: historicism; formalism; structuralism; character criticism.
📜 🎭—🎭 Both Sophocles (420-414 BCE) and Euripides (420) chose to write plays about Electra, following her involvement in the Oresteia by Aeschylus (458), in which she is met by the returning Orestes while she is paying libations to her father’s grave in The Libation Bearers (Choephoroe), and with whom he colludes to kill their mother Clytemnestra and her paramour Aegisthus. Sophocles’s play presents her unending sorrow, sympathised with by the Chorus of women of Mycenae, emphasizing her enmity with her mother. Euripides, by contrast, focusses on the deaths of Clytemnestra, particularly, and Aegisthus. In Aeschylus’s Libation Bearers, Electra disappears from the play when Orestes returns to fulfill the edict of Apollo; in Sophocles, she is an external agitator while he is inside committing the foul deed of vengeance; in Euripides, she participates in her mother’s murder. This is in line with Euripides characteristically favouring female principals (Alcestis, Medea, Andromache, Iphigenia, Helen).
🧱 Euripides also alters aspects of scene and dramatis personae. He transfers some of the action to a rustic hut in order to introduced Electra’s husband, an impoverished farmer, apparently once of the nobility (ll.6-7), who gives the background in his prologue. He is an apparent invention: Electra in Aeschylus and Sophocles remains unmarried, as her name (a + lektron) meaning ‘no marriage bed’ implies (Ibid. Rutherford, ‘Notes to Electra, N.1, p.235).
The pace of the first half of the play is leisurely and very different in tone to the second half.
The country setting, the placid dignity of Electra’s rustic husband, her own bitterness at her degraded life-style, make for unusual variety of tone, even some near-comedy (71ff, 184ff, 404ff). [...] Humour is also close to the surface in the remarkable passage in which the old servant brings Electra ‘proofs’ that Orestes has returned [...]. Here, Euripides is perhaps gently mocking the archaic manner of the great Aeschylus [but] this is not simply parody. (Ibid. Rutherford, ‘Preface to Electra, pp.132-3).
👤 Not only is Electra filled with almost psychotic hatred, but Aegisthus is killed in a shocking, even sacrilegious manner; moreover, Clytemnestra arrives at the cottage because of a false tale that Electra has given birth, and she speaks mildly and reasonably to her ferociously resentful daughter. The Aeschylean characterization is turned upside-down. (Ibid. Rutherford, ‘Preface to Electra, p.133).
The emotional intensity of the ferocious acts subsides to remorse afterwards; they are shattered by what they have done, ‘we who felt hatred for you as well as love’ (1230).
This complex reworking of Aeschylus embraces but goes beyond aesthetic and moral criticism; the target and victim is not so much the dead Aeschylus as the audience themselves, who are meant to look again, aghast, at what the myth really means in terms of the human emotional and psychological cost [...]. (Ibid. Rutherford, ‘Preface to Electra, p.134).
⚖️ As Clytemnestra is seen approaching in the distance, Orestes has severe doubts, Electra none. Their difference in dispositions is enunciated via stichomythia (962-81). She takes on the masculine, he the feminine role. It sets up the final act of Clytemnestra’s fate with the moral issues poised on a knife-edge—knives, cleavers and swords the imagery in the mind.
👤 This is complicated further by the portraiture of Clytemnestra before her death. She justifies her former acts on several grounds—quoting Iphigenia, Cassandra, and Helen—yet her attitude is haughty, her argument full of sophistry. She is nonetheless a victim, since she has been lured to her death by her own daughter—who is unrepentant, and urges her mother into the kill hole. Is her death by the hands of her children justifiable, justice?
🎭 Trojan Women (415 BCE)
📋 Critical methods: historicism; formalism; structuralism.
📜 Trojan Women was one of four plays presented in 415 BCE at the Dionysia for which Euripides won second prize. The others, three tragedies which loosely formed a kind of trilogy centred around the Trojan War, were Alexandros, another name for Paris, dealing with his young life and return to Troy, Palamedes, fragmentary, seeming to focus on the falling out between Palamedes and Odysseus; and the satyr play Sisyphus, possibly about Odysseus’s father (Ibid. Rutherford, ‘Introduction to Trojan Women, pp.177-8).
🎨 Trojan Women is important because it was a pacifist treatise following the iniquitous massacre in 416 BCE by the Athenians of the men of Melos, an independent island kindred to Sparta in blood which wished to remain neutral in the (Second) Peloponnesian War (431-404 BCE). Athens, fighting against a league of Spartan allies, wanted to conscript the Melians against Sparta, and when they refused, slaughtered its men and enslaved its women and children. At the time of the writing of Trojan Women (415) a year after the Melios massacre, Athens was preparing a naval expedition against Syracuse, and the play prophesies that a Greek force about to embark on a long voyage after trampling its victims’ sanctities would meet with disaster—as the Syracusan expedition eventually did. ‘It is an index of Athenian liberalism that such a play could be presented, under state auspices, at such a time.’ (Aeschylus; Sophocles; Euripides; Aristophanes, Greek Drama (500 BCE, Bantam Classic, 2006), Hadas, Moses (ed.): ‘Introduction: Trojan Women, p.286).
🪜 The language of the play is one continual lament; its action a single moment of barbarity: the slaying of Andromache’s infant son, Hecuba’s grandson, Astyanax, from the battlements. This is irony unconcealed. The play deploys the characteristic devices for the lamentations of injustices which dominate it:
• set-speech;
• choral song;
• actor solo lyric;
• lyric exchange;
• agon (debate).
(Ibid. Rutherford, ‘Introduction to Trojan Women, pp.179).
It’s central agon is an argument between Hecuba and Helen about her appropriate punishment for being the cause of the Trojan War (ll.915-1031). Helen speaks as if the fault where everybody else’s except hers; Hecuba’s response is naturally coloured by a deep antagonism and understandable hatred:
The debate between the aged and dishevelled Hecuba and the young, beautiful and gaudily dressed Helen is a Euripidean tour de force. The issue is whether Helen is truly worthy of death as a punishment [...]. Helen’s speech is cool-headed, ingenious but paradoxical [...]. Hecabe’s response is far more effected, being founded on moral outrage and hard evidence [...]. The debate, however, is one in which the force of competing arguments is not the decisive factor: what turns the balance is not logic or evidence, but Helen’s beauty and Menelaus’ renewed desire. [T]he scene dramatises not so much the power of argument as the failure of persuasion and rationality. (Ibid. Rutherford, ‘Introduction to Trojan Women, pp.180-1).
Menelaus, as judge, is the man least likely to arrive at an objective decision. And being the victims of Greek victory, destruction and enslavement, the Trojan Women, represented by Hecuba, are unlikely to win anything but further misery.