8/4/2019 articulo Dodds hipolito

1/4

The of Phaedra and the Meaning of the Hippolytus

Author(s): E. R. DoddsSource: The Classical Review, Vol. 39, No. 5/6 (Aug. - Sep., 1925), pp. 102-104Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/697983

Accessed: 05/10/2010 09:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/697983?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/697983?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

8/4/2019 articulo Dodds hipolito

2/4

102 THE CLASSICAL REVIEWTHE AIA~l2 OF PHAEDRA AND THE MEANING OF THEHIPPOLYTUS.W5vro7' dXXweVK7AdS

,acp^

Xop6P.r pn' 7Q5p a Wdq5Oaprct Lose.Ka Og otKOiOvloKakLJ'&/lf v6latWlrpdfTFevKdKLOVTTMyC( 76 y' e povEZVP7roXXoZlv XX Trj8' prTio 7-68e,r&flo4T'K00to-da84eTOa Kal yVy&cTKO/tV',OOK&7T0P6L EJ 5', ot OP~bpytce iui"o,ot ' S8o4Pv rpovEres 7i TOO KQc&XOAtXXv'pv'. eiet6' i5tvalZ oXXat iov,CuaKpa7EVaXatKal 0XoX1,TprJ'5J KLK6aTE. s-cc. 5'aa TI3'Lt o6KicLK',? S' &xOOrZ'c. E8' 6 KatpftpVaar ,oK a 651' Ifr f ra67- 'OXTore ypd,/ArCa.(vv. 375-87).

THESE verses from Phaedra's greatspeech to the women have engaged theattention of many editors, but havenever, I venture to think, been fullyunderstood. If I am right, they arecardinalnot only for the psychology ofPhaedra,but for the significanceof theplay as a whole. There arethree pointsof importance: (I) The statement thatthe evil in human life comes not fromintellectual error,but from a failure ofthe will; (2) the very singular list of'pleasures'; (3) the statement aboutthe two kinds of al9. Willems,Mahaffy,Hadley, and others, get rid of(2) and (3) by wholesale excisions andtranspositions. But Plutarch'stext hadthe referenceto a double a1804 (de Virt.Mor. 8), and its genuinenessis stronglyconfirmed by Euripides, Erechtheus,frag. 12 :

ailSov^sUKaG#Tk5vOKpirwTsf& 7rppLKai 867 'yp aaT77, KSAdT ?L KaKb'v La.Othersaccordinglyaccept the two kindsof alUla,but follow Gomperzin alteringv. 383 to-tXXn7vv' 4XXos' etoi 5- .pOopallov.This is not very plausiblepalaeographi-cally, nor does it touch the real diffi-culty. Why should Phaedra in hermood of virtuous repentancedenounce

alt1 at all, whether as a 8ovri oras a 0Oopat/wov ? 'Au contraire, c'estla pudeur qui a dt- sa sauvegarde'(Willems).We must turn for light to the historyof Phaedra'ssoul, alreadyrevealed witha rareprecision of touch in the dialogue

with the nurse,and presently summedupforus by Phaedraherself (vv.391 ff.).Like most victims of psychological con-flict, she began, as she tells us, by at-tempting to repressone of the conflict-ing emotions (vv. 393-4).2 We haveseen the results of this policy in vv.198-238. Euripides did not need aFreud to tell him that the expelled'complex' lives on, vainly seeking insymbolic acts the satisfactiondenied itin literalreality,and sometimesdestroy-ing in the processthe personalitywhichhas expelled it. Phaedra's hidden lovetranslates itself into a succession ofcravings; and it is no accidents thatall these cravings are for scenes inti-matelyassociatedwith Hippolytus-therest in the meadow by the spring (cf.vv. 73 ff.), the forest hunt (cf.vv. 1128-30, etc.), the racecourseand the Enetianhorses (cf.vv. 1131-3). Impossible long-ings for a Greek princess, and a bed-ridden invalid at that! The nurserecognisesthem for what they are-theflight from reality,whose point of de-parture is 'the sweet sin of idleness'(v. 384), and whose goal is insanity.So in the end does Phaedra herself(vv. 239-41). Something in her revoltsagainstthe false,the too easysolution-'r 8 /jaawlYevoV KaKov-and the nameshe gives to that something is alo;3(v. 244). This is the a18O19hich sheaccurately describes in v. 385 as obKaK'": it saves her from the shame ofneurosis,but itsvirtueis only negative-it shows her no way out. The attemptto achieve a truer solution, by recog-nising the disease of her mind and con-queringit in the open (vv. 398-9),provestoo hard for her (v. 247). There remainsonly death (vv. 248 f., 400 ff.).4

1 The position of al'8o, at the end of thesentence and beginning of the line, is that ofmaximumemphasis.

2 How far repression has gone is skilfullyindicated by the difficulty which she finds inuttering Hippolytus' name (v. 351).3 It is not suggested that Euripides antici-pated the modern psychological theory (whichwas not his business as an artist), but only thathe observed,and utilised for dramaticpurposes,some of the facts of behaviour which the theoryendeavours to explain.? The symbolic value for both Phaedra andthe nurse of the covering of the queen'shead in

8/4/2019 articulo Dodds hipolito

3/4

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 103At v. 244 al&s! saves Phaedra; atv. 335 it destroys her.' Except for herinvoluntary cry at v. 310o, which thenurse misunderstands,she has success-fully resisted the old woman's impor-tunity until confronted(v.325 onwards)with the moral compulsion of Itc~reTa.She appeals in vain for release fromthat compulsion, and then her resolu-tion breaks:

owr O-apas yalp XeLPbs aisoact 7bb ao6v.From that moment her delicately sen-sitive grip upon her destiny relaxes,until in the clash of two wills, bothstronger than her own--the peasantwoman's and the ascetic boy's-herwhole moral being suffers shipwreck.Small wonder if in her succeedingagony of remorse and fear she recog-nises that ael&scan be an 80XOo2wMv.When she adds that, 'were but theright occasionclear, there would not befor two things one self-sameterm' (vv.386-7), she means, I think, that thea &8c of v. 335 was a~catpo4: he hassacrificed to the conventional claim ofthe suppliant the deeper claim of herown spiritual integrity.Does the tragedy, then, hinge on theconflict between an inwardand an out-ward morality, Phaedra's instinct andT vo/tuo61/eva, the true aliac; and thefalse? Such a theme might be ex-pected to attract Euripides; and itmight bearguedplausiblyenoughthat itreappears n the second half of the play,when Hippolytus denies another pieceof traditional morality-the validity inany and every circumstance of an oathonce given-and in the end dies with-out carrying his denial into practice.Had Phaedra, in this view, been en-lightened enough to spurn the untimelysuppliant, all would have been well;hadHippolytusbeenenlightenedenoughto break his untimely oath, he wouldhave been saved. The whole trouble,after all, was due to the ,E1ijOeta,theold-fashionedsimplicity, of both parties.

But through the mouths of all thechief characters of this play its authoremphaticallydenies that enlightenmentcan make men good. Phaedra's senti-ment (vv. 377 ff.) repeats in a negativeform Hippolytus' definitionof the goodman:gaomsocaKbcLtv6, XX' Pv tQ 6oTbowoPpovdCvtlXcv is 7rdyveO''AS.(vv. 79-80o.)

And Theseus later (vv. 916-20) puts thesame thing in yet anotherway. Thiscan scarcely be accidental. I believethat it was part of Euripides' purposeto suggest, in oppositionto the Socraticintellectualism,that whilea false ethicaltheory may provide a convenient maskfor a dangerous mpulse,the truespringsof conduct lie deeper.To Phaedra the conventional ao*/aof the suppliantfurnishesthe necessaryexcuse forsatisfyingthe thwarteddesireof confession, and so taking the firststep towards that abyss which a partof her nature craves (vv. 503-5). Onlyon this supposition,it seems to me, canwe explain her speaking of a864 as adangerous ovt, as a temptation,ikelong gossiping and idleness. So withHippolytus: his ruin is at bottom due,not to a mistaken punctiliousness-hetells us himself that evenif he brokehisoath it would not help him (v. 1062)-but to the indirect gratification of arepressed impulse under the guise ofvirtue. To those readers who see inthe Hippolytusan idealisation of sexualpurity,the pitiless brutalityof the hero'stirade to the nurse comes with a rudeshock; but Euripides is never contentto show us half a soul, and the un-measured hatred felt by the asceticagainst the manifestation in others ofthat passionwhich lives suppressed inhimself is in every age a familiarspec-tacle. The last link in the chain ofdisaster is not Hippolytus' self-control,but his lack of it. wofpovev paOtr=Oer?at,cries Phaedra (v. 731); and vv. 1034-5(which should not be tampered with)show that the predictionis fulfilled.As Phaedra does violence to alcd6 inthe name of ai&8s, so does Hippolytusto uapoovn in the name of eoc po-onvy : each is the victim of his own andthe other's submerged desires masquer-

the crisis of choice (v. 243) is a faultless piece ofobservation.1 These are the only two occasions, apartfrom the speech to the women, when she usesthe words atisr, aleorOat.

8/4/2019 articulo Dodds hipolito

4/4

104 THE CLASSICAL REVIEWading as morality. Complementary andinterdependent, these are the two deter-mining moments on which all the restof the action hangs: here, to my mind,lies the unity, structural and intellec-tual, of the Hippolytus. In the formalaspect, it is a representation of theinterplay of two personalities, both ofthem 'nobler than we, but marred bysome ciaparta '; in conception, it is a

study of the effects of conflict andrepression in the sphere of sex."E. R. DODDS.1 I purposelyleave out of account the mytho-logical framework of the play. The artist haswisely made this frameworkdetachable, so thatwe may, if we please, study his human dramain isolation from its traditionalsetting. SinceVerrall, many of us have been inclined toadmire the frame almost to the exclusion of thepicture.THE ARCADIAN LEAGUE AND ARISTODEMOS.

PAUSANIAS (8, 36, 5), speaking of Aris-todemos' tomb-doubtless he saw theepitaph-says 8v obv& vpavvoira cabfe-Xop-ro an e'rovolao-at Xpaov, 'evenduring his tyranny they did not deprivehim of the name Good' (repeated 8, 27,II). Aristodemos then, beforehe becametyrant of Megalopolis, had done some-thing which Megalopolis never forgot;and this can only have been his defeatof Acrotatos of Sparta (Plut. Agis 3).It has always been a mystery howMegalopolis could possibly have de-feated Sparta single-handed; the his-tory of the Arcadian League may pro-vide the explanation.The old belief in a restored ArcadianLeague in the third century vanishedwith the attribution of the Phylarchosinscription (Syll.3 183) to 362/I; andSwoboda in his Staatsaltertiimer (1913)merely says that that League was dis-solved by Alexander and never revived.Yet there are many references to a laterLeague ; for the ethnic 'Apcdas, r 'Apicadof such a city (showing that city was inthe League), is common, especially inthe Delphic inscriptions.1 I have pre-viously pointed out (J.H.S. 1922, 205)that the usual statement that Alexanderdissolved the Arcadian League in 324has no basis either in tradition orprobability. In the Lamian war Ar-cadia acts as a unit; and the Leaguewas in existence from 320/9 to 304/3,2even if Cassander sometimes deprived

it of a city. It must have enteredDemetrios' Panhellenic League of 303as a unit, and would be one of the M'Ov,referred to in that League's constitu-tion.3 Other references to the ArcadianLeague shortly before or about 300 areI.G. II. 964; Supp. Ep. Gr. I, 360;possibly Arvanitopoullos, eo--aXLucaMvy7luesa176; and B.C.H. 1899, 519,No. 5, and apparently Delphi inv. 2382(in I.G. V. ii. p. 69), both of which showOrchomenos was a member. Between300 and the Chremonidean war thereferences are: I.G. II. 1293 (271/o forcertain), and I1295=Sy11.3 o90 (between290 and 270); Fouilles de Delphes III.46, and G.D.I. 2787=Fouilles III. 36,both somewhere between 287/6 and theChremonidean war and both showingMegalopolis was a member; G.D.I.2669=Fouilles III. 14 (probably 271),which shows Stymphalos was a mem-ber; and three decrees of Dexippos'year at Delphi, early third century,4G.D.I. 2794, 2795, 2796=Fouilles III.43, 44, 45, which show that Megalopolisand Mantinea were both members. Asthen during this period Orchomenosand Mantinea are known members, thepresumption is that Eastern Arcadiawas not yet acting independently, andthat the League, as was certainly thecase in 320/19, still embraced the wholecountry.With the Chremonidean war theposition changes; Syll.3 434 shows thatby 266 the four eastern cities, Tegea,Mantinea, Orchomenos, and Caphyai,had broken away from the League and

I The cases then known are given in Hillervon Gaertringen's Testimonia to I.G. V. ii.(1913), unfortunately with Pomtow's now obso-lete dating; but apparently he did not drawthe obvious deduction.2 I.G. V. ii. 549, 550=Syll.3 314, where seeHiller's notes.

3 Supp. Ef1. Gr. I, 75, 1.23 ; see Cary, Class.Quart. 1922,p. 142.4 See Bourguet on Fouilles III. 43.