Greek drama (Tragedy) -- History and criticism; Mythology, Greek, in literature
All the minor characters are skilfully drawn—Pylades, the warm-hearted
scatter-brained ruffian who conceives the murder of Helen as soon[725] as
he learns that she is in his friend’s house; Tyndareus, the hot-tempered,
affectionate old king; Menelaus, the vulgar and successful, who has no
other ambition than to let bygones be bygones[726] and who has actually
expected to find Orestes and Clytæmnestra sharing the same home, quite
comfortable after the death of Agamemnon;[727] Helen, that faded, facile
creature, who cannot abstain from conversation, even with murderesses
if there is no one else. Hermione, minute as is her part, commands our
affection, not only because of the vile complot which centres round her,
but for the shy graciousness of the little she does say, ἥκω λαβοῦσα
πρευμένειαν[728] and the rest; she seems to have strayed from some sunlit
lost drama by Sophocles.
The religious sanction which for Sophocles had been the background of
Orestes’ story and which for Æschylus provided the most vital part of
the action, has in Euripides’ hands become, as it were, a small, rather
shabby stage-property hung upon the back-scene. Those Avenging Spirits
who hunt the matricide are now called “frenzies”[729] by his sister,
and in the anxiously precise account[730] which Menelaus elicits from
his nephew, it becomes plain that the three “maidens like night” are an
hallucination; any unfettered intercourse between them and ordinary men
is out of the question. Traditional belief itself tells rather against
their divinity than for it.[731] Another stage property is the incidental
miracle. Menelaus at Malea was addressed by the “prophet of Nereus,
Glaucus, truthful god,” who told him of his brother’s death.[732] When
we learn that at Nauplia he heard of Clytæmnestra’s death but from “some
mariner,”[733] we surmise that “Glaucus” too was human.[734] The second
miracle is that related[735] by the Phrygian slave; Helen vanished,
“either by spells or the tricks of wizards or stolen by Heaven”. Helen
has only hidden herself; the Phrygian is crazed by excitement and terror.
But the miracle of Helen is vouched for by a more august witness, Apollo,
who asserts that he has saved her from Orestes’ sword. Thus we arrive
at the final triumph of orthodox religion, the epilogue in which the
Delphian god stays at a word the vengeance of Argos and the quarrel
between Menelaus and Orestes. In the reality of this epilogue we shall
believe according as we find it credible that Euripides could destroy all
the effect of his own play. All the action, all the atmosphere, which the
dramatist has created, are rent by an utter breach. The objection is not
so much that Apollo and his speeches are in themselves absurd, though the
consolation offered to Menelaus, that Helen throughout their married life
has given him endless trouble,[736] is (however true) distasteful. What
jars hopelessly is the monstrous discontinuity of event and emotion. As
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account