CLAS3790 Greek Tragedy—3: Heracles (i)

1. Heracles: the mythological background

In tragedy see Euripides Heracles; Sophocles Women of Trachis, Philoctetes.

Major aspects:

·   Labours: ‘twelve’ labours not fixed (influence of twelve sculptures on the temple of Zeus at Olympia?), and selection varies (e.g. only eight of the twelve listed in Her. 348-435 agree with the twelve at Olympia).

·   Significance of the labours: (i) Heracles tames and civilised world: cf. cult-title alexikakos (‘averter of evil’); and (ii) he always wins: cf. cult-title kallinikos (‘glorious victor’—especially associated with the Olympic games (for Heracles as founder of Olympics see Pindar Olympian 10; note the Heracles/athlete parallel).

·   Suffering: the story of Heracles’ birth implies rivalry with his half-brother (Iphicles); his cousin Eurystheus imposed the labours, with the connivance of Hera, Zeus’s resentful wife (who was hostile to Heracles from infancy: she sent snakes to attack him in his cradle, cf. Her. 1266-7).

·   Variants (n.b. Greek myth was not fixed body of stories): the madness appeared in archaic sources (early epic Cypria), connected with his killing his children (Pausanias 9.11.2, citing the lyric poet Stesichorus); but the labours come after Heracles kills children when mad, as an expiation (Apollodorus 2.4.12—a later source, but using early sources). So this version probably predates Euripides.

·   Heracles as benefactor of the gods: especially, he assists in the battle against the giants (cf. Her. 177ff., 853, 1194).

·   Heracles as a god: uniquely, Heracles receives hero-cult and worship as an Olympian god. For his death on a pyre on Mt Oeta (to end the agony of poison administered by wife Deianeira) see Soph. Women of Trachis. The pyre was lit by Philoctetes—hence Heracles, now a god, assists him at end of Soph. Philoctetes.  Soph. Women of Trachis has no overt reference to the apotheosis: is that suppressed, or left for audience to supply? Also in Her.: is audience to be influenced by knowledge of apotheosis, or to ignore it?

More detail on Heracles mythology: T. Gantz Early Greek Myth (Baltimore 1993) 374-466; K. Galinsky The Herakles Theme (Oxford 1972).

2. Innovation and surprise

Prologue, spoken by Amphitryon (human with limited knowledge) does not indicate the direction of the plot: contrast explicit (though incomplete) forecasts in Hec. (by a ghost, with privileged information) or (e.g.) Hippolytus (by a goddess, likewise privileged). Audience might predict what is to come from:

·   knowledge of the myth: but myths were not fixed. Heracles will return—but wil he be in time? N.b. the madness is not predictable (original title is Heracles, not The Madness of Heracles): in other versions the madness and killing of children came before labours. Lycus is also invented. Heracles’ children: their death traditionally precedes labours; the persecution of (other) children comes after his death (cf. Eur. Children of Heracles on their rescue by Athens).

·   knowledge of typical plots: for suppliant-rescue plots, as well as Children of Heracles compare e.g. Eur. Suppliants (Athenian intervention secures burial of the Seven against Thebes, as in Aeschylus’ lost Eleusinians: note that Sophocles chooses to ignore this element in Antigone) and Andromache. But what if Euripides broke with the convention? In fact, he does follow the convention—and then produces the surprise: this cannot be predicted.

3. Opening scene (1-106)

Amphitryon’s speech explains situation and introduces important themes:

·   Heracles’ dual paternity (1, 7). (For Zeus’ fatherhood cf. J.D. Mikalson ‘Zeus the father and Heracles the son in tragedy’ Transactions of the American Philological Association 116 (1986) 89-98)

·   sympathetic portrayal of Heracles: labours, ‘cleansing the earth of brutal violence’ (20), undertaken to help father (17-21).

·   Hera’s enmity: mentioned in passing (20-21)—taken for granted, but not emphasised. N.b. Iliad 18.119 (fate and Hera) echoed non-comittally (‘Hera’s jealousy or fate’s decree... who can say?’).

·   Role of Zeus: suppliants (at altar of Zeus the Saviour) are dependents of Zeus’ own son, innocent victims of injustice, suppliants at his altar (built by Heracles: 48-50); so they have a claim on Zeus for protection.

CLAS3790 Greek Tragedy—4: Heracles (ii)

1. Opening scene (1-106), cont.

Further important themes:

·   Extreme plight of suppliants: this explains their surrender (contrast the view of A.P. Burnett, Catastrophe Survived (Oxford 1971), 157-82: surrender is impious).

·   Friendship (philia): cf. 55-9, on desertion by friends.

·   Transience of human fortune: Amphitryon’s past greatness contrasted with the ‘old feeble shadow of a man’ now (41-2); cf. chorus (107ff.)—those friends who are loyal are ‘powerless’ (56).

Megara takes up the transience theme (60-70). Favourite theme of tragedy: cf. (e.g.) Odysseus in Ajax 122-6. In 349-57 Hecabe Polyxena sees this as a reason to welcome death; Hecabe (282-4) as a warning to the Greeks. At Her. 88ff. after ‘Haste without care is little use’ add ‘let us delay, since we are weak’ (line 87, transposed); Megara replies ‘... do you still love life so much?’—implying cowardice. But Amphitryon sees transience as double-edged (cf. Hecabe), so courage demands hanging on to hope (105f.).

In Megara’s speech note also:

·   incomprehensibility of the gods: ‘how dark and devious are the ways of gods to men’ (62): cf. Hecabe 488ff. (Talthybius), 958ff. (Polymestor);

·   the description of the children continues the sympathetic domesticisation of Heracles (71-9).

2. Chorus’ entry song (107-137)

Emphasis on old age: theme of transience continued. Brief, simple song: Euriides wants events to develop at a rapid pace.

3. First Act: confrontation with Lycus (138-347)

Lycus systematically throws doubt on grounds for hope (143 ‘how long do you hope... to lengthen out your life?’ ~ 87 ‘let us delay...’).

In Amphitryon’s reply note 15 lines rebutting criticism of Heracles’ use of bow. Heracles and bow: cf. 1377-88, Soph. Philoctetes. Bow as coward’s weapon: e.g. Iliad 11.385 (Paris); Soph. Ajax 1120; this view reflects ideological prejudice in favour of hoplites (heavy infantry, recruited from a higher social class than light-armed skirmishers); so it is a paradox that the greatest hero is associated with a despised weapon. For paradoxical reinterpretation of myth cf. Aristophanes Clouds 1045-54 (Heracles’ association with hot springs becomes a ‘decadent’ taste for luxurious hot baths). Lycus’ arguments against Heracles also tale a new and paradoxical perspective on a traditional story: stimulating but provocative?

But Amphitryon’s warning to Lycus (215f.: ‘shed no blood lest yours be shed, when the wind turns in God’s good time’, cf. 103) does not help in the present situation: hence Megara’s recognition of hopelessness becomes compelling—even Amphitryon does not advocate holding on to hope where there is none (316-8). So the Megara/Amphitryon debate is not abstract (what is real courage?) but concrete (what does present situation actually demand?).

Amphitryon's confidence in Zeus’ care of son (170-1) recedes (212: ‘had Zeus dealt justly with the nobler side’) and is reversed at the end of the scene (339-47: for ‘you proved less powerful than you seemed’ read  ‘you proved less of a friend (philos)...’; for ‘those bound to you by every tie you cannot save’ read ‘... you do not know how to save’—i.e. Zeus either does not know, or does not care, about obligations to philoi). Note how pride in Zeus sleeping with wife (1) gives way to outrage (344f.) as situation (and Amphitryon’s mood) changes.

4. Act-dividing song (348-450)

This song is unusually long, and has a complex structure (= lament for ‘dead’ Heracles, with catalogue of twelve labours). This puts the action on hold...

5. Second Act: (i) action on hold (451-512)

... as does the dialogue between Megara (46 lines) and Amphitryon (17 lines). The movement of the plot is slowed down before new development.

Is whole first part of the play static and lacking in interest? If so, would this enhance the impact of later swings of fortune, or alienate the audience? There is, at any rate, a slow-down immediately before first reversal (but do not assume that this was lacking in interest: the music and choreography may have been entertaining.)

6. Second Act: (ii) Heracles returns (513-636)

‘Farewell... this is the last time you will see me here’ (512f.) = low-point, cue for Heracles’ arrival.

Is Heracles’ violence towards Lycus and Thebans (565-73) excessive (perhaps foreshadowing madness)? But note  that Lycus is unjust, impious; he deserves punishment, and has made  himself Heracles’ enemy—as have the Thebans by their failure in reciprocity. Help friends/harm enemies: compare Amphitryon in 585f. (urging tactical caution but not objecting to Heracles’ aims; see also the chorus at 583f.).

Sympathetic characterisation of Heracles: note the concern he shows for his family (574-82); the children hang on to their father (622-36); Heracles makes a joke (‘I’ll not take wing...’), holds their hands (n.b. ‘I’ll take these little ships in tow’, 630), and stresses his love of children.

7. Act-dividing song (637-700)

Zeus is now vindicated: the chorus’ denial that the gods have ‘wisdom and understanding as men conceive it’ (655f.) responds to the human condition in general, not a specific injustice; it does not impair the celebration (673-700). Is it prompted by Heracles’ return from ‘dead’ (cf. 657-62, ‘a second youth should be awarded to those whose lives were virtuous. Such men after one death would rise again into the sun’s beams’)? [On this song see also H. Parry, ‘The second stasimon of Heracles’, American Journal of Philology 86 (1965), 363-74.]

8. Death of Lycus (701-763)

Deception of Lycus: cf. deception of Polymestor in Hecabe; or e.g. deception of Aegisthus in Aeschylus Libation Bearers.

Harm Enemies: ‘what joy, when an enemy pays with his blood...’ (732f.).

9. Act-dividing song (764-814)

Chorus celebrate justice of the gods: 739, 757-9, 772-80, 813-4. Note also on Heracles’ divine sonship (798-808): the sense of outrage (Amphitryon, 344f.) has disappeared again.

789 ‘glorious victory’ (kallinikos: see previous lecture, §1): cf. 49 (‘proud war-trophy’), 180 (‘victory-song’), 570 (‘veteran of many victories’), 582 (‘Conquering Heracles’); also 961 (‘victor’), 1046 (‘many victories’)

What will the audience now expect (the play is not more than two-thirds complete)?

CLAS3790 Greek Tragedy—5: Heracles (iii)

1. Hera’s intervention

Appearance of Iris and Madness (Lyssa): ‘horrible figures standing over the palace’ (816f.)—on roof of scene-building? or using the crane (mêkhanê)? Note Madness ‘mounting her chariot’ (880): is this metaphorical? But then how are the exits (Madness into the house, Iris up to Olympus) differentiated? For flying chariot compare the end of Eur. Medea. Madness is costumed as a demon (compare Aeschylus’ Furies).

Iris makes a reassuring start, but reaches a horrifying conclusion: she is bloodthirsty (833-9), and shares Hera’s hatred (840-1). Madness is saner than Iris! (N.b. 857: ‘the Queen of Heaven didn’t send you here to think [sôphronein, lit. ‘be of sound mind’]’). Spoken dialogue switches to recitative (from ‘This plan is Hera’s wish and mine’ = 855ff.).

Chorus renews the mutability theme (885), and question about Zeus (‘Zeus, do you hear?’ 887-8). [Most editors give some lines in this song to Amphitryon, off-stage: the chorus react to his exclamations.]

2. Role of gods

(a) Hera: Madness stresses Heracles’ innocence (849-53: cf. chorus, ‘the gods still favour a just cause’ 811-14); but Hera sees Heracles as a threat (841-2):

- Anger (840): Heracles is her husband’s bastard (and Hera is goddess of marriage—so doubly offended);

- Hitherto unable to harm him (827-9): n.b. on this account labours are not result of Hera’s anger (cf. 17-20 for substitute explanation; 20f. non-committal on Hera’s role).

- Hence Hera appears impotent: and this is a threat to her honour.

Hera is implacable: cf. Zeus in Iliad 4.34-6—but note that Zeus assumes he will want to destroy cities as well (4.39-42), and Hera concedes (4.51-4). So Hera is not unique. Cf. e.g. Aphrodite (Eur. Hippolytus), Dionysus (Eur. Bacchae), Athene (Soph. Ajax).

(b) Zeus: protected Heracles before (827-9), not now. Cf. Iliad 4: Zeus and Hera allow destruction of own cities ‘to avoid a quarrel’; Eur. Hipp. 1327-30: divine non-interference pact (with possibility of retaliation: 1416-22); Odyssey: Athene does not protect Odysseus from Poseidon. Zeus is unable to save Heracles: Iliad 18.117-9.

The characters’ perspective may not be objective or accurate (e.g. 1087: ‘O Zeus, why had you this fierce hatred against your son?’). Moral complaints against gods (e.g. Amphitryon, 339-47) are inevitable since gods interact with mortals in ways that create relationships/obligations by which they are not bound. Compare e.g. Soph. Women of Trachis 1266-9 (on Zeus’ callous treatment of Heracles).

3. Structure

The eccyclêma (a wheeled platform pushed out from the central door of the stage building) is used to reveal the slaughter within (cf. Ajax).

Has the pursuit of surprise produced a ‘broken-backed’ structure? Cf. Aristotle Poetics: events should happen because of (not just after) one another, with necessary or probable connection (see e.g. Poetics ch. 7, ch. 10).

Different ways of responding to this criticism include:

(a) The excitement and dramatic impact of the events compensate for the flawed plot-structure.

(b) Surprise (valued by Aristotle: Poetics ch. 10) is consistent with necessary or probable connection: Hera’s hostility is a well-known fact (cf. Theseus’ inference in 1191), so the reaction to Heracles’ triumph is inevitable though unexpected.

(c) Heracles’ madness follows (without the need of supernatural intervention) from his unstable character (see e.g. S. Barlow, Euripides Heracles (Warminster 1966), 15-16 on manic depression).

CLAS3790 Greek Tragedy—6: Heracles (iv)

1. Heracles’ madness

Compare the violence of 565-73 with the plans against Eurystheus (decapitation 939 ~ 567-8). Killing Eurystheus’ children (969-71, 982-3): cf. Hecabe; Lycus is criticised for attacking Heracles’ children (206-9). But: ‘fFoolish, who kills the father and leaves the sons’ (Cypria fr. 20, quoted by Aristotle Rhetoric 1395a16)—e.g. Aegisthus would have been safer if he had killed Orestes.

Does this show that Heracles’ madness is rooted in an extreme and unstable character? Heracles’ violence is a civilising force; he has a justified enmity with Lycus and Eurystheus; his madness consists more in mistaken perception. Compare divine distortions of perception in Eur. Bacchae (Pentheus, Agave), Soph. Ajax.

This is in line with the familiar idea in Greek religious tradition (e.g. Soph. Antigone 582-625) that gods bring ruin by distorting a person’s thinking so that they commit a crime: cf. Iris (830-42). [For background see H. Lloyd-Jones, The Justice of Zeus (Berkeley 1971), ch. 5 (on Sophocles: also consult index for ‘atê‘ (= ruin, linked to deception, folly, infatuation) and ‘Envy, divine’); R. Dawe, ‘Some reflections on atê and hamartia’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 72 (1968), 89-123.]

2. Role of Theseus

Heracles’ self-concealment: protects Theseus against the risk of association with a wrong-doer (for risk of such association see e.g. Hesiod Works and Days 240: ‘Often a whole community suffers in consequence of a bad man who does wrong and contrives evil’) Contrast Theseus’ willingness to run this risk with the Thebans’ disloyalty.

Theseus’ arrival is unexpected, but prepared (618-21) and explained (1163-71): Euripides takes care over the plot, and note the emphasis on the moral theme of friendship (cf. also 1220-5; compare e.g. 59).

Athenian patriotism: cf. Theseus’ defence of the Seven against Thebes (Eur. Suppliants; also Aesch. Eleusinians) or Oedipus (Soph. Oedipus at Colonus); also Eur. Children of Heracles (Theseus’ son is the protector), Medea. Cf. (e.g.) Aeschines 3.134, on Athens as the ‘common refuge’ of the Greeks. Athenian patriotism in tragedy: summary in M. Heath, Poetics of Greek Tragedy (London 1987), 64-5.

See S. Mills, Theseus, Tragedy and the Athenian Empire (Oxford 1997), 129-59 (Theseus in Heracles), 43-86 (Athenian self-image), 87-128 (Eur. Suppliants), 229-34 (Aesch. Eleusinians). Also J.J. Walker, Theseus and Athens (New York 1995).

Cult background: e.g. the temple of Hephaestus in the Athenian agora shows the deeds of Theseus and of Heracles; Athenian shrines to Heracles, and ‘rite of passage’ for ephebes. Theseus’ promises (1326-33) provide an explanation (‘aetiological myth’): cf. e.g. Iphigeneia in Tauris (origins of cult of Artemis at Halae and Brauron, and of silent drinking at feast of Choes), Hippolytus (temple of Aphrodite, cult of Hippolytus). More common in Eur. than Aesch. or Soph.

3. Dialogue on suicide

Note parallels to the earlier Megara/Amphitryon debate.

Probably some lines are missing between 1241 (‘that is why I am resolved to end my life’) and 1242 (‘you think the gods care for your threats?’).

Heracles (1255-1310): reasons for suicide (1258-62: inherited curse from Amphitryon; 1263: Zeus has caused Hera’s hostility; 1264f.: repudiates Zeus—balanced by denunciation of Hera, 1303-10).

Theseus (1313-39): if even gods go wrong, humans inevitably will. For an immoral use of this argument see the Nurse in Hippolytus 456-61 (urging Phaedra not to worry about sleeping with her stepson Hippolytus); but Theseus is not urging Heracles to do wrong, and the wrong done was misfortune rather than wickedness—so Theseus’ argument is not morally subversive. The offer of refuge responds to Heracles’ forecast of universal dishonour: he will be honoured in Athens.

Heracles (1340-93): ‘what you say of the gods is hardly relevant’: lit. ‘these things...’. This might refer to (i) what Theseus said about the gods; (ii) the offer of refuge (accepted with thanks 1351-2, but perhaps inadequate compensation); (iii) Theseus’ speech as a whole: none of his arguments against suicide succeed—but Heracles has his own reasons (1347-50).

Do his claims about the gods (1341-6) contradict his own story (Zeus and Alcmene, Hera’s jealousy)?

(i) He may be mistaken: but ‘I never did and never will accept these stories’ is not true, and cf. 1393;

(ii) There is no contradiction (and the point is relevant to Theseus’ claims at 1316-19) if denying misdeeds between gods.

But:

(iii) Broader implications are present even if they are not meant by Heracles: cf. Hec. 798-805—but contrast that reduction of gods to convention with the raising of gods above mythological level here: these are not consistent statements of Euripidean belief. What is the dramatic/literary effect of including such allusions to contemporary thought?

Heracles resembles Amphitryon (the principle of tenacious endurance) and Megara (reject the easiest course of action in the name of courage and honour).

4. Conclusion

Heracles never sings in this play (Amphitryon does at 1042-87, 1178-1213): is this a sign of his endurance and self-control? The courage/endurance theme may continue in argument about Heracles’ tears (1410-17): what is heroism?

1424: ‘I... will follow like a helpless wreck [epholkis] in tow’: this echoes ‘I’ll take these little ships [epholkides] in tow’ (630)—emphasising the transformation of Heracles’ fortune.