Euripides Alcestis

Argumento de Dicearco de Alceste:

Apolo solicitou às Partes que Admeto, quando fosse morrer, oferecesse quem se dispusesse de bom grado a morrer por ele para viver depois por igual tempo. Assim se entregou Alceste, a mulher de Admeto, porque nenhum dos pais anuiu em morrer por seu filho. Não muito depois desse infortúnio, Héracles chegou e soube de um servo a respeito de Alceste, foi ao túmulo, fez Morte se afastar e cobre a mulher com vestes e reclamava a Admeto que a recebesse e guardasse, pois dizia tê-la recebido por prêmio de luta. Como ele não quisesse aceitar, descobriu e mostrou a que ele pranteava.


Argumento do gramático Aristófanes de Alceste:

Alceste, filha de Pélias, tendo consentido em morrer por seu próprio marido, foi salva por Héracles em visita à Tessália, quando coagiu os Deuses subterrâneos e arrebatou-lhes a mulher. O tratamento do mito não consta em nenhum outro. O drama foi o décimo sétimo. Representou-se no arcontado de Glaucino, no segundo ano da octogésima quinta Olimpíada.
Sófocles foi o primeiro e Eurípides o segundo com As Cretenses, Alcméon em Psófida, Têlefo e Alceste. O drama tem reviravolta cômica. A cena do drama situa-se em Feras, uma cidade da Tessália. O coro se compõe de anciãos nativos, que se apresentam compassivos com o infortúnio de Alceste. Apolo diz o prólogo.
O drama é satírico, porque se volta para a alegria e prazer, à margem do trágico. Repelem-se como inadequados à poesia trágica os dramas Orestes e Alceste porque começam por infortúnio e terminam com felicidade e alegria, o que é mais assunto da comédia.

Drama representado em 438 a. C.

As personagens do drama:

Apolo
Morte
Coro
Serva
Alceste
Admeto
Eumelo
Héracles
Feres
Servo

The present work has a main aim to study the choral songs and the spectacle from three plays of Euripides, having as surmise the studies in the semiology of the theatrical performances as well the studies in classical philology. The three studied plays are: Alcestis, performed for the first time in 438 b.C.; Hippolytus, performed in 428 b.C; and Iphigeneia in Aulis, performed about 406 or 405 b.C., after the author’s death. In Chapter I, we examinated the theoretical surmises about the semiology of the theatrical performances, and the legacy of the Classical Studies about the performance in the Greek antiquity. We detached the performing nature of all poetical tradition on which is included the dramatic poetry and which was Euripides’ contribution to the dramatic gender. In Chapters II, III, and IV, we studied the supra cited texts, remarking the elements of its performance, from the established by Aristotle division in the Poetics: prologos, parodos, epeisodion, stasima, kommoí, songs of actor, and exodos, examinating the suggested spectacle in each play and its meaning. In the conclusion, we present the theatrical latency of the studied texts, which from the reading reveal their potentiality of scenic realization, that is to say, their potentiality of performance.

As regards the methodological matters pertaining to the stage of the Theatre of Dionysus in the age of Euripides, it is argued that dramatic texts should be studied on the basis of a synchronic approach, in conjunction with the whole dramatic production and the visual arts of that era. There follows a detailed survey of the evidence coming from the eighteen surviving Euripidean plays. The interpretation of the extant corpus suggests that the stage building in the last quarter of the fifth century seems to have a tripartite structure with paraskenia at each of the two sides and may be reminiscentof the Propylaea at the Acropolis. It probably had three doors (including two side doors at the paraskenia), a f lat roof and windows at the paraskenia, and involved the use of stage machinery (mechane, ekkyklema). The existence of a slightly raised stage, a crepidoma and a portico is highly likely. What remains unclear so far is the exact form of the central door (did it comprise a permanent porch?), the question of the overall height of the skene building, as well as the form of the levels on which stage action evolved in each case.

This paper traces the presence of Euripides’ Alcestis as subtext in four Greek novels: Chariton, Xenophon of Ephesus, Achilles Tatius and Heliodorus. I attempt to show how influential Euripides’ tragedy has been for the expression of important novelistic ideals, such as the absolute value of love, higher than life, and the happy ending that crowns the lovers’ adventures, a reward for their reciprocal and true love, stronger than life. Within this large canvass, specific features and lexical correspondences can be retraced in each novelist’s treatment of the subtext. Some attention is also paid to iconographical evidence of the Roman period, closer to the novel than Euripides’ play, and such also close to them in their exploitations of the myth of Alcestis: the ideal wife of Roman sarcophagi finds correspondences in the novelistic Alcestis.

Lors des Grandes Dionysies de 438, Euripide choisit de faire jouer une tragédie, l'Alceste, comme quatrième pièce de sa tétralogie, en lieu et place d'un drame satyrique. Cependant, dans l’expérimentation qu’Euripide mène ici, la tragédie ne parvient pas à évincer complètement le drame satyrique ; la pièce semble en effet constituée d’une trame dans laquelle le fil tragique qui déroule le thème de la mort s’entremêle avec un fil plus tenu, déroulé par le héros satyrique par excellence, Héraclès, et qui effleure périodiquement à la surface de la pièce pour réaffirmer la place de la vie face à la mort. L'article explore cette trame, faite d’un fil tragique et d’un fil satyrique, et la négociation entre la mort et la vie qui se joue dans l’entremêlement de ces deux fils.

A história de Alceste inspirou Eurípides a compor um drama de controversa classificação (tragédia ou drama satírico?). A peça tem como protagonista uma rainha de uma dedicação tal ao marido que renuncia à vida, substituindo-o no castigo imposto pelas Moiras. De facto, estas deusas haviam exigido a morte de Admeto, rei da Tessália, por este se ter esquecido de sacrificar a Ártemis no dia do seu casamento. Neste capítulo de livro quisemos analisar o tratamento da figura de Alceste, na ópera, em três libretos: Alceste (ou le trionphe d’Alcide, 1674) de Quinault; Alceste (1767, rev. 1776) de Calzabigi e de Lebland du Rollet. Estes libretos reflectem momentos chave da estética musical operística, tendo o primeiro música composta por Jean-Baptiste Lully e o segundo música de  Christoph Willibald Ritter von Gluck.
Lully, de acordo com cânones barrocos, mantém-se na linha do amor galante, fazendo de Alceste uma prometida de Admeto que Héracles resgata. Um século depois, Gluck usa o tema na sua segunda ópera reformista, em que bane as coloraturas, os recitativos e as improvisações virtuosísticas. Gluck, sob inspiração do teatro ático, preconiza a concepção musical que coloca o drama acima da música, dando início a uma estética que será continuada por Berlioz, Wagner e Richard Strauss.

The possibility of hospitality is based on an unequal relationship between the host and the guest. The former is the master of a house, either of his or her own house or of what s/he considers to be “his/her own country,” while the latter arrives in this house simply as a visitor. Hence, there is a danger lurking behind every act of hospitality, namely the danger of being limited or perverted by the power of the host. This essay focuses on two pieces of ancient Greek drama, Sophocles’ “Oedipus at Colonus” and Euripides’ “Alcestis,” to illustrate those instances where the provision of hospitality tends to subvert the hierarchical binary opposition between host and guest.

В статье предлагается интерпретация трех пассажей из пролога «Алкесты» Еврипида,
связанных с двумя центральными темами трагедии – антитезой возмездия и милости и
контрастом между убеждением и физической силой. В первой заметке обосновывается
интерпретация τέκτων в выражении τέκτονας Δίου πυρὸς о киклопах в стк. 5 как «плот-
ника» в узком смысле, а не вообще «мастера». Такая трактовка позволяет связать пред-
ставление киклопов плотниками с образом изготавливаемых ими молний как копий. С
другой стороны, выбор слова τέκτων продиктован также его фонетической переклич-
кой с повторяющимся в этом пассаже глаголом κτείνω, что позволяет поместить работу
киклопов в череду описываемых убийств, выражающую идею неизбежного возмездия.
Во второй заметке разобрано значение эпитета ὅσιος, примененного в стк. 10 сразу и к
Аполлону, и к Адмету. Этот эпитет описывает взаимные услуги, оказанные Аполлоном и
Адметом друг другу; таким образом, ὅσιος описывает обмен услугами, противопоставлен-
ный возмездию. В третьей заметке рассмотрено значение δίκη в словах Аполлона, обра-
щенных к Танату, и показано, что δίκη употреблено здесь в значении позиции участни-
ка судебного разбирательства: Аполлон ограничивается словесной аргументацией своей
позиции. Δίκη Аполлона противопоставлена поведению Геракла, действующего силой и
благодаря силе добивающегося, в отличие от Аполлона, победы над смертью.

presente estudo tem como objetivo
examinar a figura de Alceste na peça homônima de
Eurípides, Alceste, como personagem a partir do que
ela própria expressa em sua breve participação em
cena, ainda com vida. Alceste insere-se no universo
das personagens femininas criadas por Eurípides e
sua particularidade reside no fato de escolher morrer
no lugar do seu marido, Admeto. Alguns estudiosos
tendem a pensar que ela o faz por amor ao marido.
Em nosso estudo queremos destacar que ela toma
a decisão mais preocupada com o futuro dos filhos,
sobretudo, exigindo assim que não seja substituída
por outra, do que por um motivo amoroso. Com
essa personagem, Eurípides faz-nos mergulhar no
imaginário do que seria a morte para os atenienses e
ao mesmo permite-nos investigar as questões legais
relacionadas ao matrimônio e aos litígios resultantes
e, nesse caso específico, à herança dos filhos.

A tragédia Alceste de Eurípides e o mito hesiódico de Prometeu têm dois elementos em comum: a personagem de Héracles e o tema da mortalidade como condição humana. Explorar esses dois elementos e sua relação nesta tragédia pode nos mostrar por que esta personagem de Héracles está presente nesta tragédia, como ela está profundamente integrada ao significado desta tragédia e enfim pode nos mostrar o sentido realmente trágico deste drama.

The tragedy Alcestis by Euripides and the Hesiodic myth of Prometheus have two common issues: Heracles as one of the characters and the theme of mortality as human condition. Exploring these two issues and their relationship in this tragedy can show us why Heracles is present in this tragedy, how his presence coheres deeply to the meaning of this tragedy and eventually exploring them can show us the very tragic meaning of this drama.

Resumen Eurípides se distingue entre los autores de tragedia por la habilidad con que transforma los estereotipos mitológicos en seres con una identidad personal concreta. Son distintas las estrategias a las que recurre con este fin. Una de ellas consiste en presentarlos a través de otros mostrando a la vez su actuación y sus condicionantes psicológicos; otro recurso que utiliza es dejar entrever el ἦθος de los personajes en los discursos que pronuncian, así como sus capacidades retóricas. Una tercera técnica es la de crear enfrentamientos entre dos parejas de personajes de las que uno es un dios y otro un mortal. En todas estas técnicas, que maneja con gran pericia retórica, hay siempre una idea que subyace y que sirve de filtro y de fondo de discusión. En el caso de Alcestis, la piedra de toque del ἦθος es el νόμος, la ley o costumbre y la interpretación que de ella hacen los protagonistas. AbstRAct Euripides distinguishes himself among the authors of tragedy for the ability to transform mythological stereotypes into human beings with a specific personal identity. He uses different strategies for this purpose. One of these strategies is to present the roles as they are seen by the others, in order to show both their acting and their psychological conditions. Another resource he uses is to show the ἦθος of the roles through their speeches and their rhetorical capacities. The third technique is to create discussions between two couples of characters of whose one is a god and another is a mortal. In all these techniques, which he uses with a great rhetorical ability, there is always a fundamental idea as a revealing factor and base of discussion. In the case of Alcestis, the fire mark of ἦθος is νόμοs, the rule or the custom, and the interpretation of which the characters make it.

Στην παρούσα εργασία θα προσεγγιστεί ερμηνευτικά η Ἄλκηστις μέσω ανάλυσης των σχέσεων ξενίας που περιγράφονται σε αυτήν, ειδικότερα εκείνων τις οποίες αναπτύσσει ο Άδμητος τόσο με τον Απόλλωνα, όσο και με τον Ηρακλή, και θα αποδειχθεί η λειτουργία τους ως μοτίβου σύμφωνα με το οποία δομείται το έργο και κινητοποιείται η δράση του. Κεντρική έννοια της ανάλυσής μου είναι εκτός από την ξενίαν και εκείνη της φιλίας, και είναι επομένως ανάγκη να προσεγγιστούν εξ’ αρχής οι σημασίες τους· πρωταρχικά λοιπόν διερευνώνται οι δύο έννοιες, ιδιαίτερα στα πλαίσια των ομηρικών επών, και γίνεται προσπάθεια σύνταξης περιγραφικών ορισμών τους. Παράλληλα επιχειρείται μια αποδελτίωση των χρήσεων των όρων ξενία και φιλία, και των παραγώγων τους, στην ίδια την τραγωδία. Στο τελευταίο τμήμα της εργασίας παρουσιάζεται ο τρόπος με τον οποίο το έργο φαίνεται να δομείται γεωμετρικά ακριβώς πλαισιωμένο από αυτές τις πραγματώσεις σχέσεων ξενίας μεταξύ του Αδμήτου και των φιλοξενούμενών του, και πώς αυτή ακριβώς η γεωμετρική δομή του κινητοποιεί και υποστηρίζει την δράση.

RESUMO: O presente estudo tem como objetivo examinar a figura de Alceste na peça homônima de Eurípides, Alceste, como personagem a partir do que ela própria expressa em sua breve participação em cena, ainda com vida. Alceste insere-se no universo das personagens femininas criadas por Eurípides e sua particularidade reside no fato de escolher morrer no lugar do seu marido, Admeto. Alguns estudiosos tendem a pensar que ela o faz por amor ao marido. Em nosso estudo queremos destacar que ela toma a decisão mais preocupada com o futuro dos filhos, sobretudo, exigindo assim que não seja substituída por outra, do que por um motivo amoroso. Com essa personagem, Eurípides faz-nos mergulhar no imaginário do que seria a morte para os atenienses e ao mesmo permite-nos investigar as questões legais relacionadas ao matrimônio e aos litígios resultantes e, nesse caso específico, à herança dos filhos. / ABSTRACT: The present paper aims to examine the figure of Alcestis, in the homonymous play written by Euripides, Alcestis, as a character based on what she expresses in her brief participation on the stage, while still living. Alcestis takes part in the universe of female characters created by Euripides, and her particularity lies in the fact that she chose to die instead of her husband, Admetus. Some scholars tend to think that she acted like that for the love for her husband. In our study, we want to highlight that she made the decision more concerned with the future of her children, especially, thus demanding that would not she be replaced by another woman, rather than for a love reason. With this character, Euripides immerses us in the imaginary of what death was for the Athenians, and at the same time, enables us to investigate the legal issues related to marriage and resulting litigation and, in this specific case, to the inheritance of her children.

C. W. Gluck's decision to add the character Hercules to his French operatic adaption of Euripides' drama Alcestis has often been interpreted as an attempt to return to a more faithful rendering of the Greek original. Numerous scholars and audience members, however, have remained dissatisfied with the result. Published in the Spring 2015 issue of Valley Humanities Review, this paper examines the different characterizations of Euripides' Heracles and Gluck's Hercules, concluding that the speed with which the latter was inserted into his part left his character bereft of the complexity and beautiful mysticism inherent in his ancient Greek inspiration.

2013(December 5-6), University of Exeter, AMPRAW 2013 The aim of this paper is to discuss Efua Sutherland’s Edufa as a postcolonial dramatic adaptation of Euripides’ Alcestis in the first independent and autonomous African nation, Ghana (1957). Sutherland, a female Ghanaian playwright who was the leading figure behind the establishment and function of contemporary professional Ghanaian theatre both as a founder and administrator of the Ghana Drama Studio and as director of the School of Music and Drama at the University of Ghana (Legon) produces Edufa in 1962 concurrently with Brathwaite’s presentation of Odale’s Choice (Ghanaian adaptation of Antigone). In Sutherland’s play, Edufa, a contemporary analogue of Admetus driven by his insatiable longing for social esteem and power seems to undervalue traditional moral African values. On the other hand, Ampoma his wife chooses to die for the husband she loves. Senchi, an African Herculean figure dressed in oversized suit and holding a leather suitcase is proud of his “shabby” identity and hymns the joyful side of life while singing a traveler’s tales. Sutherland uses the ancient myth as kernel to articulate dramatically tensions inherent in the African society of the time when traditional values are contrasted with newly imported and appropriated ethics. Edufa’s behaviour is examined as an instantiation of the neocolonial indigenous powerful and corrupted politics. In addition, the efficacy and validity of African ritualistic practices and Yoruba religious beliefs are being explored in the context of nation in process of the building of its identity. Finally, the definite death of Ampoma in the end of the play constitutes a means for the expression of the victimization of woman in Ghanaian society and inaugurates a tragic finale instead of the optimistic ending of Euripides’ Alcestis which was presented in 438 in the place of a satyr drama.