1. To many critics the unity of the Herakles is the major interest, and much contemporary criticism is devoted to disproving the failures earlier commentators saw in the play; see Chalk, H. H. O., ‘Αρεń and Bía in Euripides’ Herakles', JHS 82 (1962), 7–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Kamerbeek, J. C., ‘Unity and Meaning of Euripides’ Heracles', Mnemosyne 19 (1966), 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Shelton, Jo Ann, ‘Structural Unity and Euripides’ Herakles', Eranos 77 (1979), 101–10Google Scholar. Since the unity of the play is not my concern here I will not review the issues, pro and con; I do, however, think the play has a unity of theme presented in three distinct ‘acts’.

2. Among the many changes Euripides has made in the myth is the reason Herakles undertook the athloi in the first place. Amphitryon tells us directly (13–21) that H. set out to restore him to his homeland and, mastered either by Hera or necessity (21), he agreed to civilize the world.

3. I do not agree with those who think Herakles' success was somehow a threat to the gods and hence the reason for his punishment, e.g. Grube, G. M. A., The Drama of Euripides (London, 1941), p. 255Google Scholar and Burnett, A. P., Catastrophe Survived: Euripides' Plays of Mixed Reversal (Oxford, 1971), pp. 177–9Google Scholar [hence Catastrophe] among others; for an innocent Herakles, see Conacher, D. J., Euripidean Drama (Toronto, 1967), pp. 84–6Google Scholar, Arrowsmith, Wm., introduction to translation Heracles (Chicago, 1956), pp. 267, 271Google Scholar, and Bond, G., Euripides: Heracles (Oxford, 1981), p. xxvGoogle Scholar: ‘One must not expect Hera to forgive’. On the other hand, Bond argues that Hera is consistent, not capricious ‘she was professionally concerned with adultery’ (n. 30).

4. Herakles tells Megara at 626: σύλλoYo ΨUxñ λaβέ; it is an act he will have to do later.

5. Burnett, , Catastrophe, pp. 161–3, 166–8Google Scholar, makes much of this; see also Shelton, , Eranos 77 (1979), 109Google Scholar. Herakles himself, however, does not seem to take that view of his own achievements or consider himself as a god in this play. Sophocles portrays a much more egocentric H. in the Trachiniae; see Ehrenberg, V., ‘Tragic Herakles’, in Aspects of the Ancient World (New York: Sallock, 1946), pp. 144–66Google Scholar, and Arrowsmith, introduction, p. 271.

6. ‘Suppliant Drama’, Burnett, , Catastrophe, pp. 158ff.Google Scholar; ‘Melodrama’: Arrowsmith, introduction, p. 268; Chalk, , JHS 82 (1962), 16–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Galinsky, G. Karl, The Herakles Theme (Totowa, N.J., 1972), pp. 58–61Google Scholar.

7. Herakles' dual parentage is the major focus of Gregory's, Justina fine study, ‘Euripides’ Heracles', YCS 25 (1977), 259Google Scholar–75. No one, of course, discusses the play without discussing the significance philia; thus I give the issue less emphasis here. Other themes introduced are the nature of H.'s deeds, the strength of persuasion, hope vs. resignation, and, naturally, the nature of the divinities.

8. Herakles is also cautious and willing to take advice. Observant of a bird sign he had entered secretly (596–8), and at once agrees with Amphitryon that he should clear up his palace problems first (604–9). Euripides goes to some length to show us this Herakles is not merely a monster-killer; cf. Gregory, , YCS 25 (1977), 265Google Scholar, ‘No shadow is cast either on Herakles' character or his accomplishments.’ Burnett's condemnation (Catastrophe, pp. 165–7) seems gratuitous; not only does .he not, at this point, kill all offending citizens, but even if he did, his actions would be no different from Odysseus' upon his return home. For traditional ρεń, of harming enemies, permits this type of deed; see Adkins, A. W. H., ‘Basic Values in Euripides’ Hecuba and Hercules Furens', CQ n.s.16 (1966), 203Google Scholar.

9. Bond, , Heracles, pp. xxviii–xxx, collects all the evidence for placing the murders after the labours (as well as the other variations Euripides has introduced into the story)Google Scholar.

10. Conacher, , Euripidean Drama, pp. 84–5, n. 9Google Scholar, points out, accurately I think, that the play does not totally fail on Aristotelian grounds, as so many claim. I add that to inspire pity and fear few plays can equal this one.

11. In an effort to see a continuity in what seemed to be a discontinuous play, Wilamowitz (Herakles [Berlin, 1857])Google Scholar suggested that a megalomaniac tendency was visible in Herakles' first appearance; his theory influenced earlier scholars but no one more recent than Grube, , Drama, pp. 252–3Google Scholar, finds it true today.

12. Cf. Gregory, , YCS 25 (1977), 258Google Scholar, ‘It is almost a definition of divinity that its will must be done’, and Luschnig, C. A. E., ‘Men and Gods in Euripides’ Hippolytus', Ramus 9 (1980), 99–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. We cannot say, as Burnett does (Catastrophe, pp. 160,166, 181), that Herakles' actions are punishment earned by his family's misdeeds. Megara and Amphitryon may not have viewed their situation in the same way, but the whole first scene is so constructed to promote a feeling of goodness and the significance of familial love. See also contra Burnett, , Knox, B. M. W., ‘New Directions in Euripidean Criticism’, CP 67 (1972), 277Google Scholar.

14. Surely this is the reason for all the bow-controversy in Part I (109–64, 188–203). Herakles' bow has a life of its own in mythology. By thus emphasizing it in Part I, our attention is directed toward it; Sophocles will use this technique in the Philoctetes.

15. Herakles killed Megara inadvertently: a single arrow pierced both Megara and his third son (1000). Megara is one of the innocents who is destroyed within acts of divine vengeance; she is far less deserving than Phaedra, also sacrificed in an Olympian quarrel. Pallas stops Herakles from killing Amphitryon, Pallas, ‘appearing like her statue’ (cf. Bond ad loc); the rock she hurled was seen by Pausanias (IX. 11.2.). Herakles is thus prevented from patricide.

16. Kamerbeek, , Mnemosyne 19 (1966), 14–15Google Scholar, interprets Herakles' madness as resulting from repressed grudges against Eurystheus; he seems to see H. as an overworked executive: his madness ‘is the violent reaction to the overstrain of a burdensome life’ (14). Burnett sees it as a continuation of the ‘high good humour’ with which he killed Lykos; he does not realize what he is doing because he is dazzled, the deeds are attractive to him (Catastrophe, p. 170). Ehrenberg, , Aspects, p. 160Google Scholar, and Galinsky, , Herakles, p. 58, see the event as I do hereGoogle Scholar.

17. While I do not deny that Euripidean characters are to be seen against the background of their past actions (they are, after all, very ‘real’ figures) a point Kamerbeek makes (Mnemosyne 19 (1966), 12)Google Scholar, I think the actions done with Herakles' characteristic use of violence show the continuity with his past; cf. Barlow, S. A., ‘Sophocles' Ajax and Euripides’ Heracles', Ramus 10 (1981), 118Google Scholar: ‘This [deed], unlike the others, touches him personally. Accomplished like them [the labours] by effortless physical force, it was remote from his intent – a violence done to him by an overmastering outside power which forced him to acknowledge his own fallibility’. Herakles' virtue, his strength, is turned against him in Hera's attack. It is possible of course, that Euripides is questioning the use of violence as a way of doing things in the old heroic code of behaviour: a man's power can be a two-edged sword; see Barlow, , Ramus 10 (1981), 122CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18. This is vengeance and irony: Herakles has been hailed as a saviour, prayed to as if he were soter; he seems to save but then destroys. I don't think, however, that because H. is viewed thus by family and friends the gods bring about his ruin. While it is tempting to suggest that when H. is like god he acts as the other divinities do, the suggestion fails here because H. does not know what he does.

19. See Bond , p. xxx; Chalk, , JHS 82 (1962), 18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kamerbeek, , Mnemosyne 19 (1966)Google Scholar, and Conacher, , Euripidean Drama, pp. 86–7Google Scholar, discuss the necessity of including Theseus in the plot.

20. ομοι πρɛρλα μν τ ἔστ' μѽν κακѽν

λω σ τοσ οτɛ' μ θμισ

στρλɛιν νομíζω, σɛσμᾳ τ' ζτɛιν χμιν

ogr;τ' ῂτ' ῂζíωσα πὠποτ' οὕτɛ πɛíσομαι

οὐσ ἃλλον σɛπóτην πɛφνκναι

σɛíται λρ ó θɛóσ ɛἴπɛρ ἓστ' ρθς θ θɛóς

οὐδɛνóσ. οιδν οíδɛ δςτηνοι λóλοι. (1340–6).

Herakles' words have naturally aroused much critical discussion. Arrowsmith (intro., p. 276) writes, ‘… The story of Hera's action as dramatized is true enough, but the Hera who afflicts Herakles as she does thereby renounces any claim to be the kind of divinity which Herakles asserts.’ Gregory, , YCS 25 (1977), 274Google Scholar, thinks the lines should be taken within the context of the play: he is addressing Theseus' comments of 1316–7; he condemns false stories while maintaining his belief in the gods. Gregory suggests further that H.'s choice of Amphitryon is what Hera had wanted all along. Shelton, , Eranos 77 (1979), 109Google Scholar, writes of these lines, that gods who act like men are poets' tales: ‘Herakles has finally realized that, although man may explain the gods' actions in human terms, the gods are, in fact, far different from men.’ Conacher (Euripidean Drama, pp. 89–90), on the other hand, says that Euripides is using the incredible myth to show its absurdity: the nature of the gods cannot be as it appears in myth and this play; Euripides has let his hero for a brief dramatic moment doubt the theme upon which the play is built.

21 For the idea of actively demonstrated philia, see Chalk's article. While I do not think his article in any way deserves the harsh criticism of Adkins (CQn.s. 16 (1966))Google Scholar, Adkins adds valuable comments to the study of philia in Herakles.

22. The corruption of philia in the Orestesis discussed by most recent critics of the play; see Parry, H., ‘Euripides' Orestes: The Quest for Salvation’, TAPA 100 (1969), 340,Google ScholarGreenberg, N. A., ‘Euripides' Orestes: An Interpretation’, HSCP 66 (1962), esp. 178–84Google Scholar, and Rawson, E., ‘Aspects of Euripides’ Orestes', Arethusa 5 (1972), 157–62Google Scholar.

23. See especially Smith, Wesley, ‘Disease in Euripides Orestes', Hermes 95 (1967), 291–307Google Scholar, and Erbse, H., ‘Zum Orestes des Euripides’, Hermes 103 (1975), 434–8Google Scholar. Erbse especially compares the madness portrayed here with that told of in the Iphigeneia at Tauris.

24. Both Smith (Hermes 95), 298 and Erbse (Hermes 103), 437 point out that the name of Helen sets off Orestes' madness. Smith also points out the clinical description of O.'s attack.

25. It is interesting that Orestes prays both to his mother (255) and to Apollo (260) to protect him. Both must be equally sources for his madness. Also interesting is his identification of Elektra as one of his Furies (264–5), an insight more lucid than he knows. Eugene O'Neill picked up this reference and expanded it in Part III of his trilogy, Mourning Becomes Electra.

26. Since the action is on stage, we must decide whether the bow is real or part of Orestes' delusion. The Scholiast comments that a real bow was once used but later was abandoned in favour of pantomime. Greenberg, (HSCP 66, 1962), 164–5Google Scholar, summarizes the possibilities and concludes the bow is real. Burnett, (Catastrophe, pp. 202–3)Google Scholar strongly emphasizes the reality of bow as a stage property. Erbse, (Hermes 103, 1975), 438Google Scholar, thinks the bow exists only in Orestes' imagination. Zeitlin, F., ‘The Closet of Masks: Role-Playing and Myth-Making in the Orestes of Euripides’, Ramus 9 (1980), 54CrossRefGoogle Scholar, thinks the bow is real and makes the best case for it: ‘… Apollo's bow can and does do double duty. As an echo of Stesichorus, it signals the more primitive Apollo who predates Delphic Apollo and emphasizes the ironic inadequacy of the god's device in a world that has already experienced the Oresteiaat a double anachronistic remove from the new atmosphere of this play. The incongruity is even more marked between the archaic remedy of a concrete material object and the new internalized and hallucinated Erinyes.’

27. Hence the Areopagus met in open air to try homicide cases; cf. Antiphon 5, 11; Aristotle, , Ath. Pol. 51.4Google Scholar; Parker, R., Miasma (Oxford, 1983) ch. 5Google Scholar.

28. Parry, (TAPA 100), 242–3Google Scholar, discusses the ‘new microscopic society’ the three friends create to pursue their ‘antisocial activity’.

29. In addition to the major emphasis on the salvation via philia in the Herakles, we think of the final scene of the Hippolytos and the true friendship displayed in the Iphigeneia at Tauris; Rawson, , Arethusa 5 (1972), 157Google Scholar, writes, ‘For from this philia spring the most violent and atrocious actions of the play’.

30. Cf. Parry, , TAPA 100 (1969), 340Google Scholar: ‘Friendship, which elsewhere in Euripides emerges as perhaps the one redeeming grace to which men can cling in almost utter despair, is so divorced here from reason and wider humanistic considerations that it, too, loses its intrinsic value and redeeming power. … [It, too] lashes out violently in times of crisis.’

31. Cf. Greenberg, , HSCP 66 (1962), 162, 184–7Google Scholar, and Burnett, , Catastrophe, esp. pp. 215–7Google Scholar and Ch. IX passim for points in agreement.

32. Cf. Burnett, , Catastrophe, pp. 220–2Google Scholar, Parry, , TAPA 100 (1969), 343–6Google Scholar, and Schein, S., ‘Mythical Illusion and Historical Reality in Euripides’ Orestes', WS n.s. 9 (1975), 54ffGoogle Scholar. I have seldom been more surprised in the classroom than in the winter of 1978, when 95% of the students in the Greek Tragedy class said Elektra, Orestes, and Pylades were acting ‘normally’ and ‘as people would,’ and worse yet, ‘as people should act’ in times of crisis when others are against them.

33. Thus Euripides opens the Andromache, Elektra, Helen, and Iphigeneia in Tauris. For a perceptive analysis of the generational conflicts/similarities in this play, see Falkner, T., ‘The Conflict of Generations in Euripides’ Orestes', in From Pen to Performance, University of Florida Comparative Drama Papers Vol. Ill (1983), pp. 13–22Google Scholar.

34. Note line 1686: in describing Helen's new astral position, Apollo places her οὐδɛνóσ. οιδ At last Euripides has dared to place Hera and Herakles in the same line. While I no longer agree with all of Arrowsmith's interpretation of the final scene (Wm. Arrowsmith, , Introduction to translation of Euripides' Orestes, Complete Greek Tragedies [Chicago, 1958] Vol. IV, pp. 189–91)Google Scholar, he states well that this elevating of Helen is ‘most incredible of all’. Greenberg, , HSCP 66 (1962), 157–92Google Scholar, presents an argument for the final scene as an integral part; I think it is, but only partly for the reasons he gives. Again, Falkner's article, Comp. Drama Papers III (1983), pp. 13–22Google Scholar, shows the strongest view of the total unity of the play.

35. Greenberg, , HSCP 66 (1962), 160–3Google Scholar.

36. Cf. Schein, , WS n.s. 9 (1975), 49–66Google Scholar, and Falkner, , Comp. Drama Papers III (1983), pp. 20–21Google Scholar, among others.

37. Bond, , Herakles pp. xxxGoogle Scholar–i, discusses date possibilities. While I agree that Wilamowitz' reasons are highly ‘speculative’, I think the Herakles was produced before 416. Euripides does begin to write different kinds of plays after that date. I would prefer to place it c. 420, but my justification for so doing is, I admit, also speculative: this play ‘undoes’ the bleak answers of the Hekabe, c. 424.