Peleus’ marriage to Thetis is marked from the prologue on as something extraordinary, for the goddess while dwelling with her mortal consort avoided the crowd and lived apart from the people of Phthia (17–19). The place where she used to live bears her name and Andromache is supplicating her at her altar. In a partial distortion of the truth that aims at enlisting Peleus’ sympathy, Andromache claims that Menelaus has violently detached her from Thetis’ altar (565–567). This is one of the factors that ensure Peleus’ defense of her. In his utter despair Peleus invokes his former wife (1224–1225), who subsequently appears as the dea ex machina and restores him by renewing their marriage. As in Menelaus’ case, this marriage will be restored after a long period of time. Whereas Neoptolemus’ marriage to Hermione has destroyed him and has separated him permanently from his son, Peleus marriage to Thetis saves him by granting him immortality and reunites him with his dead son Achilles.
Recent treatments of the Andromache have advanced a ‘pious’ reading of the action which is part of a general trend against the excesses of the inherited paradigm that states Euripides was an atheist. Like some other “everyone knows” misconceptions about Euripides ( his alleged misogyny, over-use of sibilance and stichomythia, dressing his characters in shabby costumes, etc.) this can be traced to the poet’s lampooning by Aristophanes. Caricatures of Euripides as hostile to the gods thus have a long history. Like Aristophanes, modern critics generally disregard dramatic context when citing passages that attack the gods or seem to espouse atheism. When characters comment on the gods (regardless of author) we must consider both speaker and context. Their attitudes are elements in a dramatic situation, not factors in a theological diatribe, Tragedy, especially that of Euripides, remains essentially interrogatory, asking questions rather than supplying dramatic answers.
How justified is the critical urge
to extort from the texts “religious beliefs” whether in audience or author? We might state that the gods, without
necessarily being the gods that the audience believes in, are to be taken seriously as agents in the
play, acting with both power and
personality. The relationship between poetic representation and everyday
religious attitudes is complex. Scholars rightly insist that Greek religion was
free of the dogmatism that comes with a holy text or creed, yet there was
clearly a metaphysical world-constructing element to Greek religion, and it is
this background which tragedy explores and challenges.
The gods of myth, shaped by the epic tradition, had a powerful influence
on Greek religious awareness. In epic the gods are portrayed as subject to
rage, spite, and lust. The potential for human suffering in such a context and
the conflict it generates between human and divine conceptions of justice are
central to Euripides exploration of divinity. As in epic, the gods are represented
as acting for reasons which men can both appraise and criticize. The perplexing
and problematic actions of the gods complicates the texture of the tragic world
and illuminate new aspects of human situation and character. By dramatizing a
world of divine reasoning and action which is precarious and dangerous,
Euripides can arouse natural feelings of fear and uncertainty. He can also show
us that the human response to the unpredictable, the uncanny and sometimes
horrendous actions of the gods can possess nobility.
Humans are also free to violate religious customs but must face unforeseen
divine consequences. Menelaus unambiguously violates the rights of the
suppliant, stooping so low as to use her child as bait: either she leaves the
sanctuary of Thetis’ altar or the child dies. When Andromache relents, Menelaus
even reneges on his promise to save the child’s life, passing off responsibility
to his distraught daughter for the child’s fate.
After the reveal of the corpse of ignobly slain Neoptolemus, Peleus and
the chorus engage in collective lament. This is of course the moment of deus ex
machina. The divinity who appears to close the tragedy is always one appropriate
to the action. The choice of Thetis functions
visually and thematically. Her statue,
significantly visible throughout the action,( cf. 115, 246) is now joined by the goddess herself. She is
both goddess and wife of the mortal Peleus. Her altar has been the focus of
Andromache’s supplication, and her personal
involvement underlines the themes of
marriage and continuity of descent ( cf. 20, 1231, 1253). A deus ex machina in Euripides is never
an arbitrary or “official” resolution of the conflicts in the play. The
dramatic technique of having the gods sort things out at the end draws
attention to what they have been up to in the rest of the play!
The Andromache is different in that Thetis’ consolation rewards the sympathetic figures of the drama but does not make it any easier to explain the actions of Apollo in a way that is humanly satisfying. For all the saving power of Thetis’ intervention, the play remains interrogatory: a benign deity set against a malign one does not remove our questions.The polarity of Greek and barbarian is undermined; two deities are provocatively opposed, one destructive and one benign but with less power; we see reason to question revenge as a justifiable motive for action; the roles of women are explored: as wives, mothers, and most incisively as victims of war, be they Greek or Trojan, victorious or defeated. Euripides offered his audience stimulation and interest rather than theories and ultimate views.
No comments:
Post a Comment