Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T17:53:09.072Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

AMHXANIA IN EURIPIDES᾽ HERACLIDAE*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2015

Jaroslav Daneš
Jaroslav Daneš*
Affiliation:
University of Hradec Kralove
*
jaroslav.danes@uhk.cz
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There has been much controversy over the completeness and unity of Euripides᾽ Heraclidae in the last two centuries. Hermann᾽s characterization of the play as a heavily mutilated piece, which was adopted by Kirchhoff, Wilamowitz, Nauck and Murray, prevailed for a long time. Wilamowitz's thesis that the Heraclidae was revised by the ancient director found its adherents. It was Günther Zuntz who led the general offensive against this widely accepted opinion and whose critical scrutiny reversed the view of the play. According to Zuntz, the play has come down to us substantially as it was written. The alleged mutilation, as well as the specific dramatic technique, shortness and swiftness of the Heraclidae, also influenced the general evaluation of the play as a minor or odd piece. It was Günter Zuntz again and also Franz Stoessl who reconstituted the reputation of the Heraclidae. Today Euripides᾽ Heraclidae is studied and recognized as a classical Hikesiedrama, a play deeply rooted in Athenian ideology and in the social and religious context of fifth-century Athens, and representing various aspects of communal life. Since the play has been interpreted and scrutinized from a very wide range of perspectives, I do not aim at a radically new general interpretation of the Heraclidae, but I would like to make a short remark on an aspect of it which has, as far as I know, been neglected or only briefly referred to: the term ἀμηχανία in crucial passages of the play, which signifies, or rather describes, a situation which is desperate, hopeless, and with no way out. I would like to show that for the characters in the Heraclidae who follow the ideal of justice (τὸ δίκαιον), in contrast to those who prefer profit (κέρδος), no situation is hopeless, even as it was not for Heracles, who managed to do things which could be evaluated as impossible (defeating the Hydra of Lerna and the Nemean lion, gaining the apples of the Hesperides, etc.). On the other hand, those who opt for the Heraclean ideal have to prepare to face the ultimate challenges.

Information

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 65 , Issue 1 , May 2015 , pp. 366 - 371
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2015 

There has been much controversy over the completeness and unity of Euripides᾽ Heraclidae in the last two centuries. Hermann᾽s characterization of the play as a heavily mutilated piece, which was adopted by Kirchhoff, Wilamowitz, Nauck and Murray, prevailed for a long time.Footnote 1 Wilamowitz's thesis that the Heraclidae was revised by the ancient director found its adherents.Footnote 2 It was Günther Zuntz who led the general offensive against this widely accepted opinion and whose critical scrutiny reversed the view of the play. According to Zuntz, the play has come down to us substantially as it was written.Footnote 3 The alleged mutilation, as well as the specific dramatic technique, shortness and swiftness of the Heraclidae, also influenced the general evaluation of the play as a minor or odd piece.Footnote 4 It was Günter Zuntz again and also Franz Stoessl who reconstituted the reputation of the Heraclidae.Footnote 5 Today Euripides᾽ Heraclidae is studied and recognized as a classical Hikesiedrama, a play deeply rooted in Athenian ideology and in the social and religious context of fifth-century Athens, and representing various aspects of communal life.Footnote 6 Since the play has been interpreted and scrutinized from a very wide range of perspectives, I do not aim at a radically new general interpretation of the Heraclidae, but I would like to make a short remark on an aspect of it which has, as far as I know, been neglected or only briefly referred to: the term ἀμηχανίαFootnote 7 in crucial passages of the play, which signifies, or rather describes, a situation which is desperate, hopeless, and with no way out. I would like to show that for the characters in the Heraclidae who follow the ideal of justice (τὸ δίκαιον), in contrast to those who prefer profit (κέρδος), no situation is hopeless, even as it was not for Heracles, who managed to do things which could be evaluated as impossible (defeating the Hydra of Lerna and the Nemean lion, gaining the apples of the Hesperides, etc.). On the other hand, those who opt for the Heraclean ideal have to prepare to face the ultimate challenges.

The play presents us with two discourses and rationalisms – political idealism and the discourse of expediency and might, or political realism or cynicism if we want.Footnote 8 Both attitudes and their implications are evaluated in the prologue by the true comrade of Heracles, the old Iolaus, who takes care of and defends the fleeing children of Heracles, who are pursued by the Argive king Eurystheus. His opening words sketch the core of the Heraclidae:Footnote 9

I have long ago come to this conclusion. One man is by nature just (ὁ μὲν δίκαιος πέφυκ᾽ ἀνήρ) to his neighbours, while the man whose heart runs unbridled toward gain (ἐς τὸ κέρδος) is of no use to his city (ἄχρηστος) and hard to deal with, being good only to himself. This wisdom I know not at second hand but by experience. For out of a sense of honor (αἰδοῖ) and because I respected my kinship with him (συγγενὲς σέβων), I, more than any other, shared with Heracles in his many labors (πόνων πλείστων μετέσχον) while he was in our midst, though I could have lived at peace (ἡσύχως) in Argos. And now, since he has gone to dwell in heaven, I protect these children of his beneath my wing, though I myself need someone to rescue me.Footnote 10 (1–11)

Iolaus had always lived up to the former ideal and never preferred gain (κέρδος) to justice (τὸ δίκαιον). He used to share Heracles᾽ labours with him and now protects Heracles᾽ children without any hope of gain but out of shame. The conditions he and his protégés labour under can be described as hopeless and desperate because they are successively expelled by all the Greek states, which are afraid of the Argive king (17–25, 31, 50–1). Athens is their last chance. Indeed, the Argive herald who answers (134–78) the question of the Athenian king Demophon (130–3) confidently and cynically evaluates the flight of the refugees and their arrival in Athens as desperation and their possible protection as folly.Footnote 11 Why is it so? The Argive power is immense and nobody dares to resist it (25, 145–6). The protection of the refugees brings nothing but problems and war (160–1). On the contrary, the betrayal and handing over of the refugees earns the favour of the mightiest king, Eurystheus (156–7), averts the threat of war, and saves the lives of the citizens (160–5). According to the logic of the world of gain and political realism (τί κερδανεῖς, 154), it seems to be an easy choice, which is documented by the decision of all the Greek states except for Athens.Footnote 12 The agon between Iolaus and the Argive herald (134–231) about the repatriation of the Heraclidae, which is modelled according to the Athenian forensic pattern, brings a decision which is motivated not by gain but by different qualities: kinship, the return of a favour, piety, honour and freedom (Demophon: 236–52).Footnote 13 Demophon opted for the refugees and committed an act of ‘folly’ and impossibility; in other words, he reversed the hopeless situation and all the maxims of political realism. Demophon thus fulfils the initial dictum of Iolaus and undertakes – something which also involves his city – the task of heroic labour. He and his fellow citizens will have to face the ultimate challenge: war against the mightiest king.

The second situation which seems to be hopeless and impossible to solve comes at the beginning of the second epeisodeion, shortly after the angry departure of the Argive herald and despite the optimistic tone of the chorus in connection with the upcoming war (353–80). Demophon re-enters the stage and presents a dilemma which calls the whole action of the play into question. During the preparations for war Demophon consulted seers who interpreted the oracle in various ways, but they agreed that a young and noble maiden had to be sacrificed to Kore in order to secure victory. Naturally, Demophon is not willing to sacrifice either his own daughter or the daughter of any of his fellow citizens (411–13). In the latter case he justifiedly fears civil war (συστάσεις, 415; οἰκεῖος πόλεμος, 419). Demophon can do nothing (ἔγωγ᾽ ἀμήχανος, 472) but send the suppliants away. Iolaus offers to die for all the children of HeraclesFootnote 14 and confirms by this what he said in the prologue, but Demophon evaluates his suggestion as no way out, despite being noble (γενναῖα ἀλλ᾽ ἀμήχανα, 464). In this hopeless situation Euripides brings Heracles᾽ daughter MacariaFootnote 15 onstage; she breaks with custom and comes into the public arena severely disturbed by Iolaus᾽ lamentation. Iolaus picks up Demophon᾽s vocabulary when he describes to Macaria what happened and says: ῾We are at a loss᾽ (ταῦτ᾽ οὖν ἀμηχανοῦμεν, 492). He further states that they must find some way out of their hopeless situation (ἐξαμηχανήσομεν, 495). Macaria finds it immediately when she suggests that she will sacrifice herself for her family and the city.Footnote 16 Voluntary self-sacrifice is something which is truly contrary to the world of individual gain and power and which is worthy of Heracles᾽ heroism, name and memory, and this is appreciatively commented on by the chorus and Iolaus.Footnote 17 Macaria᾽s behaviour is noble in the proper sense of the word (γενναίους, 535; εὐγενέστερος, 553). On the contrary, the discourse of power and gain bears no noble marks. Voluntary self-sacrifice is another ultimate challenge which shows what price must be paid in order to defeat the world of power and gain and promote justice and fairness.

The last scene in which an improbable or impossible situation is overcome follows in the fourth epeisodeion, although in this case it is expressed not only by the term impossibility (τὰ δ᾽ ἀμήχαν᾽, 707) but also by the term ‘miracle’ (θαύματος, 853). Before we turn to the miraculous situation, let us look at the third epeisodeion. The old Iolaus is portrayed in the third epeisodeion as somebody who is very eager to take part in the upcoming battle despite his old age and weakness (676–708). Iolaus lives up to his ideal, expressed in the prologue. He is just, brave, and opts for a task which might easily lead to his death. His whole career contradicts the world of profit and even in his old age he is not prone to having a rest. Iolaus first declares his willingness to take part in the battle to Hyllus᾽ servant, who is hurrying to join the army. The servant is amused by Iolaus᾽ idea and mocks him for his decision (676–701).Footnote 18 But the servant does not confine himself to mockery; he also tries to divert Iolaus from his decision, pointing to Iolaus᾽ unreadiness for battle. Iolaus reacts immediately and orders the arms to be brought from the temple of Zeus.Footnote 19 However, the servant is not the only one who tries to persuade Iolaus. The chorus and Alcmene also aim to ward him off, albeit for different reasons. The chorus reminds Iolaus that it is not possible to become rejuvenated and it is better not to strive for impossible things.Footnote 20 Alcmene, who hears about Iolaus᾽ intention, fiercely responds that he must be out of his senses (σῶν φρενῶν οὐκ ἔνδον ὤν, 709), albeit for different reasons from the servant: she will remain alone with her children without any protection (710). Iolaus rejects all three characters and their arguments and ῾hurries᾽ into the battle.Footnote 21

The battle is reported by the Messenger, with special emphasis upon Iolaus and his miraculous rejuvenation and excellent military achievement (845–65). The old, feeble, ridiculed and hectored man triumphs, contrary to expectations, and keeps to his principles and adds to his glory:

Iolaus, looking toward Eurystheus᾽ chariot, prayed to Hebe and to Zeus that he might be young again for a single day and exact retribution from his enemies. Now you may hear a marvel (θαύματος). A pair of stars stood above the chariot yoke and covered the chariot in dark cloud. Those who are wise say that it was your son Heracles and Hebe: out of this murky darkness he showed forth the youthful form of his young arms. Glorious Iolaus captured the four-horse chariot of Eurystheus near the Skironian cliffs. He bound his hands and returned with the general who once was so fortunate, the glorious first fruits of battle. (850–8)

The scene of Iolaus᾽ triumph contrasts with the scene of the parodos (75–6), when the feeble Iolaus was knocked down by the mighty arms of the Argive herald. Nobody would have placed a bet on a rescue of the children of Heracles and their protector, especially when the protector said that he himself would have to be protected (11). Now the impossible has become reality, the situation completely reversed and the ideal expressed by Iolaus in the prologue has prevailed. However, the end of the play, and the revenge of Alcmene upon Eurystheus, with a little help from the chorus (1020–55), show how easily this ideal is abandoned and how powerfully the value of profit resonates in human souls.

We have sketched three portraits and situations which present how so-called impossibility (ἀμηχανία) – from the point of view of the discourse of profit and also from the point of view of the characters themselves – is overcome and what is involved in surmounting it. First, Demophon, with his willingness to die for piety, kin, honour and freedom, proves false the herald᾽s evaluation of the deeds of the suppliants as an act of folly and desperation (ἐξ ἀμηχάνων, 148). Second, Macaria and her readiness to sacrifice herself for the salvation of her brothers and sisters resolve the situation which both Demophon (ἔγωγ᾽ ἀμήχανος, 472) and Iolaus (ἐς τἀμήχανον, 487; ταῦτ᾽ οὖν ἀμηχανοῦμεν, 492) consider a desperate and helpless state. Third, Iolaus' constant inclination to heroic labour and risking his life in order to promote the world of justice against the world of profit brings him military achievement which the chorus previously described as impossible (τὰ δ᾽ ἀμήχαν᾽, 707) and foolish. All three characters show us that if we follow the noble ideals sketched by Iolaus in the prologue even impossible and insoluble situations can be overcome but we have to be prepared to face the ultimate challenges. At the same time, people who follow Iolaus᾽ noble ideal appear to be fools to those who do not do this.

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to Jakub Cechvala, Helena Kurzova and the reviewers and editors of the Classical Quarterly for many valuable suggestions.

References

1 Hermann, G., in Euripidis Tragoediae, vol. 8, rec. Matthiae, A. (Leipzig, 1824)Google Scholar, 257; Kirchhoff, A., Euripidis Tragoediae (Berlin, 1855)Google Scholar, 496; von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., ‘Exkurse zu Euripides Herakliden’, Hermes 17 (1882), 337–64Google Scholar; Nauck, A., Euripidis Opera (Leipzig, 1909)Google Scholar. Murray, G., Euripidis Fabulae, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1902).Google Scholar

2 von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., Der Glaube der Hellenen, vol. 1 (Berlin, 1931)Google Scholar, 299; Lesky, A., Die griechische Tragödie (Stuttgart, 1984)Google Scholar, 190. Cf. McLean, J.H., ‘The Heraclidae of Euripides’, AJPh 55 (1934), 197–224Google Scholar. However, it must be admitted that there were also dissenters, e.g. Méridier, L., Euripides, vol. 1 (Paris, 1925)Google Scholar, 186; Pohlenz, M., Die griechische Tragoedie, 2 vols. (Leipzig and Berlin, 1930)Google Scholar, 1.375, 2.104.

3 Zuntz, G., ‘Is the Heraclidae mutilated?’, CQ 41 (1947), 46–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Hartung, J.A., Euripides restitutus (Hamburg, 1844)Google Scholar; L. Méridier (n. 2).

4 Norwood, G., Greek Tragedy (London, 1920)Google Scholar, 204; Grube, G.M.A., The Drama of Euripides (London, 1941)Google Scholar, 166. Cf. Conacher, D.J., Euripidean Drama: Myth, Theme, and Structure (Toronto, 1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 109.

5 Zuntz, G., The Political Plays of Euripides (Manchester, 1955)Google Scholar; Stoessl, F., ‘Die Herakliden des Euripides’, Philologus 100 (1956), 207–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Gödde, S., Das Drama der Hikesie (Münster, 2000), 131–42Google Scholar; Grethlein, J., Asyl und Athen (Stuttgart, 2003), 381–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bernek, R., Dramaturgie und Ideologie (München und Leipzig, 2004), 221–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; D.L. Berti, ‘Kleinai Athenai: the portrayal of Athens in Euripides’ Suppliants, Heraclidae, Ion, and Erechtheus’ (Diss., University of Virginia, 1996), 64–105; Wilkins, J., ‘The young of Athens: religion and society in Herakleidai of Euripides’, CQ 40 (1990), 329–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Burnett, A.P., ‘Tribe and city, custom and decree in Children of Heracles’, CPh 71 (1976), 4–26.Google Scholar

7 The following authors briefly refer to the term ἀμηχανία: Avery, H.C., ‘Euripides' Heracleidai’, AJPh 92 (1971), 539–65Google Scholar, at 541 n. 5; Burian, P., ‘Euripides' Heraclidae: an Interpretation’, CPh 72 (1977), 1–21Google Scholar, at 8 n. 17; Burnett (n. 6), 15; Allan, W., Euripides: The Children of Heracles (Warminster, 2001), 171–2.Google Scholar

8 The clash of these discourses was also prominent in the famous Melian dialogue (Thuc. 5.86–9) and in the philosophical writings: Anonymus Iamblichi 6 (DK 89), Pl. Grg. 483a–484c and Rep. 338c–341c, among many others. Cf. Balot, R., Greed and Injustice in Classical Athens (Princeton, 2001), 136–72Google Scholar and especially Crane, G., Thucydides and the Ancient Simplicity: The Limits of Political Realism (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1998).Google Scholar

9 Cf. Zuntz (n. 5), 27; Avery (n. 7), 540; Berti (n. 6), 69–70.

10 Tran. Kovacs, D., Euripides, vol. 2: Children of Heracles (Cambridge, MA and London, 2005)Google Scholar. All the following citations from the Children of Heracles are borrowed from Kovacs’ translation. The prologue contains many key terms of Greek political and moral terminology. The stress upon and preference for heroic labour (πόνος) at the end of the quotation which connects idealism to activism was the cornerstone of Athenian ideology. For a detailed analysis of the ideological framework of the terms πολυπραγμοσύνη and ἡσυχία, see Ehrenberg, V., ‘Polypragmosyne: a study in Greek politics’, JHS 67 (1947), 46–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Adkins, A.W.H., ‘Polypragmosyne and minding one's own business’, CPh 71 (1976), 301–27Google Scholar; Carter, L.B., The Quiet Athenian (Oxford, 1986)Google Scholar. Cf. Demont, P., La cité grecque archaïque et classique et l'idéal de tranquillité (Paris, 1990)Google Scholar; Michelini, A.N., ‘Political themes in Euripides' Suppliants’, AJPh 115 (1994), 226–32.Google Scholar

11 147–9: ἀλλ’ ἤ τιν’ ἐν σοὶ μωρίαν ἐσκεμμένοι δεῦρο ἦλθον ἢ κίνδυνον ἐξ ἀμηχάνων ῥίπτοντες. The herald’s rationality of political realism views the other values as something irrational; pity in particular is connected to folly by the herald but the chorus of the men of Marathon appeals to it twice (ἐκβαλεῖν οἴκτῳ δάκρυ, 129; ᾤκτιρ’ ἀκούσας τούσδε, 232). However, pity was a cornerstone of Athenian ideology. There was an altar of Pity in Athens (Paus. 1.17.1). According to Pliny (HN 35.69), the painter Parrhasius portrayed pity as a positive emotion in the picture of the Athenian demos. Pity was a matter of controversy in the second Mytilenean debate, where it was criticized by Cleon (Thuc. 3.37.2). Cleon criticized his fellow citizens for applying the same democratic measures to the exercise of imperial power. According to Cleon, that was the reason why Athens was in danger. The issue of pity is further developed by him (3.40.3.) and he comes to the conclusion that pity is possible if and only if the two agents are equal and they are ready to repay it. (Cf. Dem. 24.171.) On this issue, see Stevens, E.B., ‘Some Attic commonplaces of pity’, AJPh 65 (1944), 1–25Google Scholar; Macleod, C., Collected Essays (Oxford, 1983)Google Scholar, 74; Morwood, J., Euripides: Suppliant Women (Oxford, 2007), 2–3Google Scholar. Cf. Konstan, D., Pity Transformed (Bristol, 2011), 49–104.Google Scholar

12 I use ‘Athens’ throughout the article, despite the fact that Iolaus and his company came to Marathon and found refuge in the temple of Zeus Agoraios in Marathon, which is really not without significance. Cf. Wilkins (n. 6). But during the play Euripides makes Marathon synonymous with Athens (Zuntz [n. 5], 97–104; Berti [n. 6], 69).

13 Iolaus reminded Demophon of the family tree and the kinship between Heracles’ and Theseus’ families (205–15) and further mentioned Heracles’ rescue of Theseus (216–19), and twice appealed to Demophon's sense of honour (200, 223). We should also mention that he argued that freedom resists the determination implied by the herald’s rationality (198). The last two points are echoed by Demophon later in the first epeisodeion (284–7).

14 There are several old characters in Euripides’ plays who unsuccessfully volunteer to die instead of their children: Hecuba (Hec. 386–8), Andromache (Andr. 404–12) and Creon (Phoen. 968–9). On the contrary, there is Pheres in Alcestis, who refuses to die for his son Admetus.

15 The character is anonymous in the play. The name Macaria was derived from ‘an Euripidean collection composed in the first or second century a.d. but ascribed in order to acquire respectability to Aristotle’s fourth-century pupil Dicaearchus’ (W. Allan [n. 7], 131). On the ‘Tales from Euripides’, as well as the transition of tragic hypothesis, see Zuntz (n. 5), 129–52.

16 Voluntary self-sacrifice was something which vigorously attracted Euripides' attention. He explored this issue and incorporated it into six extant plays (Alcestis, Heraclidae, Hecuba, Suppliant Women, Phoenician Women and Iphigenia at Aulis). Moreover, we have some references that suggest that three of his lost tragedies also contained this motif (Protesilaus, Erechtheus and Phrixus). For detailed analysis of the motif of self-sacrifice in Euripides, see Schmitt, J., Freiwilliger Opfertod bei Euripides (Giessen, 1921)Google Scholar and Wilkins, J., ‘The state and the individual: Euripides' plays of voluntary self-sacrifice’, in Powell, A. (ed.), Euripides, Women and Sexuality (London, 1990), 177–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

To be precise, Macaria’s decision is by no means impulsive or without deliberation. Macaria presents her thoughts and possible choices and their results: (a) If Athens falls I will be tortured and die anyway; (b) I will go on living the life of a refugee. Perhaps I will save my life, but my brothers will not survive. Then there will be no happiness in the world at all; (c) I will die honourably and my brothers will have a good chance of being saved.

17 Chorus (535–8): ‘What shall I say in response to the brave words of this maiden, who is willing to die for her brothers? What mortal will ever speak or carry out nobler sentiments than these?’

Iolaus (539–41): ‘My child, your spirit was born of none else than that hero: you are the seed of that divine spirit of Heracles.’ Cf. 563–4. Avery (n. 7), 540 remarks that Macaria ‘of all the characters in the play most closely approaches the ideal established by Heracles’.

18 The servant is really impolite and cheeky to the old, honourable and famous hero. He considers his words foolish (ἥκιστα πρὸς σοῦ μῶρον ἦν εἰπεῖν ἔπος, 683) because Iolaus is weak and has almost no power (οὐκ ἔστιν, ὦ τᾶν, ἥ ποτ’ ἦν ῥώμη σέθεν, 688). The servant reaches the peak of his mockery when he says that Iolaus might strike an enemy but more probably he will fall first (θένοις ἄν, ἀλλὰ πρόσθεν αὐτὸς ἂν πέσοις, 686). The order of the lines follows the edition of Diggle, J., Euripides: Fabulae, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1984).Google Scholar

19 Wilkins, J. (Euripides: Heraclidae [Oxford, 1993], 140, on lines 695–7)Google Scholar aptly remarks that Iolaus ‘reverses the common practice of dedicating personal weapons by a veteran’. His action is not without significance, as Allan ([n. 7], 187) has pointed out: ‘Firstly, Iolaus borrows the weapons from Zeus to fight against an enemy who has violated the god’s sacred enclosure (65ff.), and secondly, he is decisively supported in battle by Zeus and other gods (cf. 766–9, 851–8).’

20 706–8: χρῆν γνωσιμαχεῖν σὴν ἡλικίαν, τὰ δ’ ἀμήχαν’ ἐᾶν· οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπως ἥβην κτήσῃ πάλιν αὖθις.

21 Iolaus’ departure to the battle and his dispute with the servant about delays (720–39) are considered to be an example of comic elements in Euripidean tragedy, which Bernard Knox scrutinized in other Euripidean plays: Electra, Ion, Iphigenia at Tauris and Helen. (See Knox, B., ‘Euripidean Comedy’, in Cheuse, A. and Koffler, R. (edd.), The Rarer Action: Essays in Honor of Francis Fergusson [New Brunswick, 1970], 68–96Google Scholar, repr. in Knox, B., Word and Action: Essays on the Ancient Theater [Baltimore and London, 1979], 250–74.)Google Scholar We cannot deny the amusing effect of the scene, which contrasts sharply with the preceding action of the play (especially the self-sacrifice of Macaria), and we may justifiably ask why Euripides abruptly pulls the audience out of its sober mood. I do not go along with the ironic or satirical interpretation of the play (see Burnett, A.P., Revenge in Attic and Later Tragedy [Berkeley, 1998], 156–7Google Scholar; cf. Seidensticker, B., Palintonos Harmonia: Studien zu komischen Elementen in der griechischen Tragödie [Göttingen, 1982], 92–100)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, as is obvious from the hypothesis of my article. I offer a dramatic explanation of this scene, which has, in my opinion, two aspects. First, I think that it was desirable to lighten the sober mood for a moment. Who would endure and enjoy any play without any touch of humour? Second, as Allan ([n. 7], 185) has pointed out, Euripides prepared the audience ‘for the climactic triumph of Iolaus and the Heraclidae, which in turn increases the dissonant force of Alcmene’s savage and illegal revenge at the end of the play’.