Journal Phasis - Greek and Roman Studies

Decreus, Freddy

English

The Democratic Ideal and the Oresteia between “Back to Basics” and Cultural Studies, between Old and New Historicism

Kharanauli, Anna

Die Geschichte der Übersetzung der georgischen Bibel

Dolidze, Tina

Der Begriff des Freien Willens als Gegenstand der origeneischen Hermeneutik

Bezarashvili, Ketevan

The Reception of Aristotle\u27s "Rhetoric" in the Rhetorical Theories of the Middle Ages (Basilius Minimus, Ephrem Mtsire)

Nadareishvili, Ketevan

Phasis 7, 2004 
 
Ketevan Nadareishvili (Tbilisi) 
EURIPIDES’ ALCESTIS – THE NORM OR THE IDEAL? 
Among the tragedies of Euripides the Alcestis is admitted to be one of the 
most complex plays. There is no agreement among critics which genre the 
play pertains to.
1
 Moreover, there are controversial ideas concerning the main 
issue of the play. Critics do not have unanimous opinion who the central cha-
racter of the play is – Alcestis or Admetus.
2
 From 1970s on, interpreters also 
focus on the gender problems of the tragedy.
3
 To our belief, in this respect the 
following question is to be thoroughly considered: What links can be traced 
between the leading literary fiction of the play – Alcestis‟ sacrifice and the 
author‟s contemporary social norms? I.e. the problem is in the following: 
whether Alcestis‟ action was regarded as a stereotype, as wife‟s normal beha-
viour and therefore sacrificing herself to her husband was Alcestis‟ duty as of 
a wife; or whether it was considered ideal in the society and correspondingly 
was committed on rare occasions.
4
  
                                                 
1
  B. Seidensticker enumerates the genres which the Alcestis is believed to pertain to. Seidenstic-
ker B., Palintonos Harmonia: Studien zu Komischen Elementen in der griechischen Tragödie, 
Hypomnemata 72, Göttingen, 1982. See also von Fritz Kurt, "Euripides‟ Alkestis und ihre 
moderen Nachahmer und Kritiker", Antiker und Moderne Tragödie, Berlin, 1962, 256-321.  
2
  The following works are particularly relevant with respect to the main idea of the play: Lusch-
nig C. A., The Gorgon’s Severed Head, Studies of Alcestis, Electra and Phoenissae, Mnemo-
syne, Licden, New-York, Köln, 1995. 
Gregori J., "Euripides’ Alcestis", Hermes 107, 1979, 259-270; Segal Ch., "Euripides‟ Alcestis: 
Female Death and Male Tears", CA 11, 1992, 142-158, esp. 152-157. 
3
  Vellacot P., Ironic Drama, A Study in Euripides’ Method and Meaning, Cambridge, 1975; des 
Bouvrie, Synnove, Women in Greek Tragedy: An Anthropological Approach, Symbolae Os-
loenses, supp. 27, 1990. 
4
  While considering the reference of Alcestis‟ behaviour to the dominating social norms, we, 
naturally, do not attempt to trace similar cases in the context of Athenian lifestyle. Alcestis‟ be-
haviour is one of the expressions, although remarkably radical, of a wider phenomenon – of 
wife‟s extreme devotion to husband, woman‟s being at man‟s disposal, at his service. 
 Ketevan Nadareishvili  
 
70 
The question is related to another problem as well – how Admetus‟ accep-
tance of Alcestis‟ proposal was acknowledged and what it was regarded to be. 
Was it husband‟s normal behaviour i.e. did Admetus behave in accordance 
with the existing stereotypes? The right answer is not easy to find. The play 
offers no obvious tips to qualify Admetus‟ and Alcestis‟ behaviours. 
Clarification of the problems requires thorough consideration of the text. 
The paper presents the main points of the detailed analysis we have underta-
ken. Along with other issues, particular attention is paid to the appreciation of 
Alcestis‟ and Admetus‟ behaviours – Alcestis‟ and Admetus‟ perception of 
their own deeds as well as other people‟s ideas on what they had committed. 
The paper also points to what determines other characters‟ different interests 
towards them and whether their attitudes to the protagonists change in the 
course of the play; likewise, what conclusions come forth after considering 
the dynamic development of the appreciations. 
The play starts with Apollo‟s prologue, which presents the disaster the 
leading characters have to endure – in particular, on that very day, Thanatus is 
to take away Admetus‟ wife Alcestis in accordance with the promise. After 
Admetus‟ parents and close friends refused to die instead of Admetus, his 
wife Alcestis appeared to be the only person who agreed to accept death in-
stead of the king. Apollo intends to make Thanatus change his decision to 
take Alcestis‟ life away, however he is primarily concerned with Admetus‟ lot 
who is about to lose his wife. It seems Apollo does not pay much attention to 
Alcestis – he does not attempt to appreciate her devotion and mentions the 
queen‟s name only in line 52.
5
 
The chorus of Pheraean old men is concerned with Admetus‟ lot as well. 
Although they admire Alcestis‟ decision, it is the king whom they pity and 
call unlucky (Alc.144) as he is to lose his wife. It is interesting how they treat 
Alcestis – whether they consider her the the best woman – i.e. regard her as 
an ideal, or whether she is one from the company of good people. Remarka-
bly, the passage implies both appreciations – in lines 80-85 they claim Alces-
tis to be the best of wives ever born, but later they consider her as one 
of the good (Alc.109). So far, interestingly, no one mentions the key moment 
of the story – the moment when Admetus accepted his wife‟s proposal. Evi-
dently, Chorus, which expresses the opinion and disposition of the society, 
has not yet considered the point.
6
  
                                                 
5
  Luschnig, 1995, 17-18. 
6
  On the male perspective of Chorus, see Rosenmeyer, Thomas G., The Masks of Tragedy, Aus-
tin, 1963, 219, also Scully S.E., "Some Issues in the Second Episode of Eurepides‟Alcestis" in 
Cropp H., Fantham E., Scully S., Greek Tragedy and Its Legacy: Essays presented to 
D. J. Conacher, Calgary 1986.  
Euripides‟ Alcestis – the Norm or the Ideal? 
 
71 
After Chorus‟ part the woman servant appears, who describes the last mi-
nutes of Alcestis‟ life. Her words are entirely dedicated to Alcestis. She does 
not take interest in Admetus‟ feelings. She mentions him only when Chorus 
asks her about the king. She treats him critically. According to the woman 
servant, Admetus has no idea what awaits him. He has to endure before he 
realizes. King Admetus is going to face an awful sorrow, suffering –  
which he will never forget. So, the characters of the play split into two groups 
when it comes to appreciation of the protagonists‟ behaviours. The woman 
servant represents the female perspective of the play. From this perspective, 
Alcestis is the best (noblest)
7
 of women, is an ideal wife. With regard to the 
interpretation of the ideal, the dialogue of Chorus and the woman servant is 
particularly noteworthy. When Chorus calls Alcestis the best wife, the woman 
servant agrees with their appreciation specifying and explaining the general 
term "best": 
"Noblest? – how not? – what tongue will dare gainsay?  
What must the woman be who passeth her? 
How could a wife give honour to her lord 
More than by yielding her to die for him?" (Alc. 153-...) 
As for Apollo and Chorus, they express the male perspective of the play. 
They perceive tragedy within the scope of Admetus‟ feelings.
8
 In their song 
(stasimon I), Chorus does not respond to the woman servant‟s critical words 
towards Admetus. It imitates Admetus‟ unconscious reluctance to face the 
reality.
9
 
Alcestis, who enters the stage in the company of her household, utters her 
farewell words through which she explains the motive for her behaviour:  
"I, honouring thee, and setting thee in place 
Before mine own soul still to see this light, 
Am dying, unconstrained to die for thee. 
I might have wed what man Thessalian 
I would, have dwelt wealth – crowned in princely halls. 
Yet would not live on, torn away from thee, 
With orphaned children ..." (Alc. 284-288) 
                                                 
7
  The text hasthe English equivalent for which is "the best". However, along with it, we 
also give in the brackets the term "noblest" as the English translation we refer to uses it for the 
Greek word   
8
  They do not give a critical appreciation to Admetus‟ behaviour. Evidently, they believe the 
king‟s action, acceptance of Alcestis‟ proposal, was normal. According to Vellacot, Chorus sees 
nothing blameworthy in Admetus. Vellacot, 1975, 104. 
9
  Luschnig, 1995, 40. 
 Ketevan Nadareishvili  
 
72 
The words imply that Alcestis had an opportunity to make choice and that 
she chose to die for her husband; her action is an extraordinary one and not 
the norm compulsory for a wife – anyway, this is how Alcestis herself appre-
ciates it. Her words make it clear that she behaves in accordance with the 
ideal which she has set to herself.
10
 
Alcestis unambiguously considers herself the "best" of wives, and re-
markably, is determined not to lose the position of the "unique" – she makes 
Admetus promise not to bring a step-mother to their children. Evidently, apart 
from the care for her children, she is driven by a deeper motive as well – she 
is categorically against Admetus‟ sharing their bridal-bed with another wom-
an; she fights for the matrimonial ideal she sacrifices herself to.
11
  
In his farewell speech, Admetus gives Alcestis a promise of faithfulness 
and admits that no woman can replace Alcestis.
12
 Evidently, he has not yet 
acknowledged his deed.
13
  
Meanwhile, appreciations of Admetus‟ and Alcestis‟ deeds change. The 
female perspective starts to prevail. In III stasimon Chorus unambiguously 
regards Alcestis as the best and the unique.
14
 Along with it, Chorus seems to 
question the king‟s dignity. 
Alcestis‟ status of the "unique" and the "best" faces another threat that 
comes from a male character, Pheres, Admetus‟ father. Pheres‟ appreciation 
of Alcestis is somehow general in the beginning, Alcestis is  
(noble)and (virtuous) (Alc. 615). However, when Pheres responds to 
Admetus‟ critical words in the same critical way, he calls Alcestis  
(reckless) as he considers reckless the woman who intends to fulfill one role 
only – that of a wife – and is ready to sacrifice her life to it. The choice is the 
result of her narrow vision, which Pheres criticizes. 
                                                 
10
  Vellacot gives a different motivation to Alcestis‟ behaviour. He believes, Alcestis took the 
decision for the sake of her children and placed their happiness higher than her own. According 
to Vellacot‟s interpretation of the text (Alc. 284-288), the idea becomes clear from Alcestis‟ 
words, Vellacot, 1975, 102. 
11
  Luschnig, 1995, 44. 
12
  Admetus not only promises Alcestis to be faithful to her, but also vows, he will not be happy 
any more. According to Luschnig, it is Admetus‟ attempt to pay her back, to die to pleasure as 
she died to the light. Luschnig, 1997, 48, Cf. Scully, 1986, 142. 
13
  Vellacot regards the issue in a different way. According to him, Admetus‟ words: "The Sun sees 
what we both suffer, and can witness that we have done the gods no wrong to deserve your 
death" (Alc. 247) indicates that Admetus realizes his guilt. It is "the first stirring of guilt below 
the surface". Vellacot, 1975, 104. 
14
  “Farewell, you are the best, but there, in Hades", sings the chorus (Alc. 436). Poets will praise 
her in Sparta and Athens at Festivals. According to Luschnig‟s interesting remark, Alcestis‟ 
fame will spread beyond her hearth to two polis with opposite ways of seeing and treating 
women: if her heroism is masculine in an attic setting, perhaps we are invited to view it in a La-
conian one; Luschnig, 1995, 55. 
Euripides‟ Alcestis – the Norm or the Ideal? 
 
73 
On the other hand, according to Pheres, the reckless deed of the reckless 
wife is quite favourable to her husband‟s position. Naturally, men would only 
benefit if Alcestis‟ behaviour became a norm and other wives as well took 
after her.  
"Cunning device hast thou deviced to die 
Never, cajoling still wife after wife 
To die for thee" (Alc. 699-700)  
"...Thus to wed, I say, 
Profiteth men – or nothing – worth is marriage" (Alc. 627-628) 
To our belief, Pheres‟ idea on generalizing Alcestis‟ deed insults her even 
more than his calling her "reckless", because Alcestis cherishes her unique-
ness more than anything else. 
Besides, the scene marks the beginning of Admetus‟ self-acknowled-
gement.
15
 Pheres openly blames Admetus. He shamefully avoided death and 
is today alive only because he let his wife die. Pheres qualifies him as coward. 
But the most shameful thing is that he, a man, appeared weaker than a young 
woman (Alc. 694-695). Admetus severely criticizes Pheres‟ words, but later it 
becomes clear that they reached the target.  
Admetus, back at home after burring his wife, starts to perceive the les-
son, " he says. In our opinion, Admetus endures emotionally 
and acknowledges rationally that it was improper, moreover, wrong of him 
(Alc. 961) to accept Alcestis‟ proposal. But most important is the fact that he, 
Admetus, only now starts to understand the essence of life bought at such a 
price, and to appreciate what he himself is after all. He realizes that hence-
forth he will be called a coward, and the most tragic point is that the qualifica-
tion is going to be true. Through her behaviour, the woman achieved honour 
and glory, while accepting Alcestis‟ proposal, he received unendurable life. 
Henceforth, he will constantly suffer from guilt. "This is a play about a good 
husband and an admirable marriage which, confronted with a crisis of Neces-
sity, suddenly faces not merely the loss and sorrow, which are the common 
lot, but disgrace and guilt arising from the rare performance of what everyone 
recognizes as a wife‟s duty to her husband".
16
 
In IV stasimon Chorus sings about Alcestis. The female perspective 
reaches its peak. Alcestis is unambiguously recognized as the ideal, she sur-
passes the limits of human dimension and becomes the "blessed daimon" 
(Alc. 1001-1003). 
                                                 
15
  Vellacot, 1975, 105. 
16
  Vellacot, 1975, 105. 
 Ketevan Nadareishvili  
 
74 
Consideration of the dynamic development of the characters‟ apprecia-
tions brings up the following conclusion: The entire emotional chaos entailed 
by Alcestis‟ death, and especially, Admetus‟ ultimate tragic realization com-
pels to think that Alcestis‟ deed is regarded as altogether extraordinary. Cor-
respondingly, the generalized understanding of the behaviour – the extreme 
devotion and self-sacrifice of a wife to her husband should not be regarded as 
a norm in matrimonial relations. It was a cultural ideal. Unlike the society, 
Euripides had critical attitude towards the ideal. His position becomes clear 
when he presents a picture of Admetus‟ lot – acceptance of the ideal brought 
him only humiliation and tormenting sense of guilt. Beside the partner, who 
himself acknowledges the wrong and improper nature of his own choice and 
calls himself a coward, Alcestis is more distinguished as the woman of su-
preme dignity and the person who accomplished the highly noble deed. 


Euripides’ "Alcestis" – the Norm or the Ideal?

Lortkipanidze, Ekaterine

Phasis 8, 2005 
 
Ekaterine Lortkipanidze (Tbilisi) 
THE STRUCTURE OF CONFLICT IN THE SHORT STORY 
“WHO WAS MY BROTHER’S KILLER?” BY GEORGIOS M. 
VIZYENOS 
In the second half of the 20th century the method of structural analysis has 
been widely applied in a number of humanity fields including literary studies. 
It is difficult to argue whether every investigation of a structural nature has its 
effect on philological studies or not; however, it is not inappropriate to note 
that some of the analyses really show new ways and directions as regards the 
unbiased and thorough study of the literary processes of various epochs.  
Depending on the subject of interest, structure and its constituent elements 
may be considered in various ways. Each researcher in a particular case may 
identify the elements of structure necessary to carry out a particular analysis. 
However, at the same time, the structure of every single piece of fiction in-
cludes a set of universal elements, the ratio of which follows the same regular 
pattern in the micro-system (i.e. in separate parts), as well as the macro-system 
(i.e. the whole structure of the work). One may speak of a certain universal 
model of art and literature that marks all epochs and the whole artistic produc-
tion of a particular age may be regarded as one of its versions. Such model per-
manently alters – even if an artist is unaware of the process – and every single 
sphere of artistic activity reflects the changes to a surprising extent. 
The paper offers the analysis of a short story "Who Was My Brother’s 
Killer?" which belongs to G. Vizyenos, one of the most interesting Greek 
authors of the XIX century. The principal focus of the analysis is the structure 
of the conflict that underlies the story.  
The plot starts with the dialogue between Despinio and her two sons at 
one of the hotel rooms in Constantinople. Mother tells her sons about the 
death of their brother. Despinio’s son, Hristakis, was killed in ambiguous 
circumstances after he had started as a postman and replaced perfidious and 
Ekaterine Lortkipanidze 
 
66 
sly Haralambis from his village, whom he closely resembled by appearance. 
The victim’s parent is determined to revenge. 
Search for the murderer lead Despinio to Constantinople. At this moment, 
a Turk youngster, Kiamil, whom she has saved in past, and his mother enter 
the hotel room. Mikhailos tells his brother how he first met Kiamil. It was 
Despinio who long time ago, in a foreign country helped a wounded Turk left 
to the mercy of fate by taking him to her home and nursing him like her own 
son. When Hristakis learned that her mother was taking care of a wounded 
Turk, he did not wish to return home and lived with his uncle throughout that 
period. 
After Despinio arrives in Constantinople to find her son’s murderer, the 
Turk’s family helps her a lot. However, the truth is revealed only after Kiamil 
tells the following story: He eye-witnessed the murder of his blood brother as 
they were riding to Constantinople. Kiamil himself had a narrow escape. The 
father of the murdered appealed him to revenge. Wounded Kiamil, abandoned 
in the foreign land, was sheltered by Despinio, who nursed him like her own 
son. After Kiamil recovered, he found out who his blood brother’s murderer 
was and ambushed him at the very place of the murder. The sly postman no-
ticed a suspicious person and escaped. Then he managed to have Hristakis 
replace him as a postman so that he could avoid death. Fifteen days later, 
when Haralambis was to take the same path, Kiamil ambushed him and 
achieved his aim. However, he was fated to kill his stepmother’s son instead 
of his blood brother’s murderer. Kiamil has been absolutely certain that he 
took revenge for his blood brother’s murder. It is only at the end of the story 
that he discovers the murderer of his stepmother’s son he has been looking for 
so eagerly is he himself. He becomes responsible before the law for the crime 
committed; however, Despinio is absolutely unaware of the true course of 
events. After three years, the released prisoner, whose hearing and speaking 
faculties are sharply impaired, leaves his homeland and becomes his step-
mother’s servant. 
The structure of conflict is clearly formed in the story and it is character-
ized by strictly defined static character of opposite arguments. 
As a rule, the conflict based on the principle of binary opposition consists 
of the following items: an argument A (represented by a single individual, a 
group of people, a country, etc.) with a negative function (it is violent, unfair, 
cruel, etc.), which is opposed by argument B with a positive function (with 
the aim to neutralize A). Based on this structure, a conflict may develop in 
various ways: B may neutralize A, bringing the conflict to an end; or acquire 
a negative function after the neutralization and be opposed by A or those de-
The Structure of Conflict in the Short Story "Who Was My Brother’s Killer?"... 
 
67 
fending A’s interests.1 In the story "Who Was My Brother’s Killer?" one may 
perceive a picture somewhat similar to this, though still slightly different. The 
conflict is based on two central figures: 1) postman Haralambis, who killed 
Kiamil’s blood brother; he represents argument A and has an altogether nega-
tive function, and 2) Turk Kiamil, who represents argument B with a positive 
function. The opposition between argument B and argument A (Haralambis) 
with a negative function should have resulted in the neutralization of the 
postman; however a tragic mistake was made and instead of Haralambis, Ki-
amil killed Hristakis, his stepmother’s son, whose appearance closely resem-
bled that of the murderer. If the story had followed the traditional pattern 
from this very moment, argument B (Kiamil), which initially had the positive 
function, should have acquired the negative one and should have been op-
posed by a new argument A+1 with the positive function represented by the 
defenders of murdered Hristakis’ interests (family members of the victim and 
the offender). However, the plot develops in a different way and is character-
ized with as static functions and arguments. Kiamil served positive functions 
from the very start and became Hristakis’s murderer only owing to a tragic 
mistake, which may be attributed to fate. 
With regard to the above-mentioned, the structure of conflict may be dia-
grammed as follows: 
   
The Positive Argument (Kiamil) 
     B  
  
  
 
  
        A        A+1 
The Negative Argument (Haralambis)  The Defenders of Hristakis’ Interests 
The central figure of G. Vizyenos’ works is a human being in general. 
The writer shows great interest in his fate and carefully creates his psycholog-
ical portrait. G. Vizyenos presents a human tragedy and the fate as its driving 
force. Especially important is the interference of the destiny in the acts of 
heroes, which causes confrontation between the characters and prepares the 
foundations for the conflict – the model of the plot organization. The impact 
of fate on Vizyenos’ characters is clearly shown throughout the plot of the 
story which develops through the characters’ memories. In this case, too, the 
writer resorts to retrospection. One fatal event is the result of another and 
                                               
1  Gordeziani R., Greek Literature, I, Logos, Tbilisi 2002, 18-19. 
Ekaterine Lortkipanidze 
 
68 
leads to the tragic outcome through the chain reaction. The first fatal event in 
the story "Who Was My Brother’s Killer?" is the sly postman’s (an argument 
with the definitely negative function) attempt to have somebody else looking 
like him occupy his position as soon as he realizes that he is in danger of be-
ing murdered. This person turns out to be Hristakis, the writer’s brother and 
the son of the central character of the story. The mention of the resemblance2 
is the first occasion that highlights the impact of destiny on the characters’ 
fate. Resemblance in the appearances of Hristakis and Haralambis – two he-
roes with opposite character traits – lays the foundation for the forthcoming 
conflict. The second fatal event is the fact that during the whole time Despin-
io took care of the wounded Turk, Hristakis never appeared at home and 
stayed in his uncle’s house for seven months. Thus, Hristakis and Kiamil nev-
er met. This fact became one of the reasons for the forthcoming tragedy. If 
Kiamil had known Hristakis, he would not have killed him. 
The principal conflict of the story is between the postman and Kiamil to-
gether with all other characters as victims of the conflict. Owing to the tragic 
mistake, the Turk kills his stepmother’s son. It is interesting how the "hero of 
the tragedy" will act in the gravest situation from the moral perspective after 
he realizes his mistake. Kiamil is unable to endure the moral blow and looses 
common sense, though he does not think about the suicide as of the way-out. 
He is a victim of the blind and treacherous fate. Despinio, known by her vir-
tue, requires revenge for her son’s murder, and thus there are all the precondi-
tions for the defenders of Hristakis’ interests to shift the conflict into a new 
phase, but here we see the static character of functions and arguments. Kiamil 
is arrested by the police and put into prison for three years. After serving his 
sentence, Kiamil works as a Despinio’s servant. It is worth mentioning that 
the narrator does not reveal the truth to his mother, thus turning the infinite 
character of the conflict into the finite one. 
As a conclusion, it should be said that the story "Who Was My Brother’s 
Killer?" occupies a significant place not only among G. Vizyenos’ works, but 
also in Modern Greek literature in general. Its chief merit lies with the finite 
structure of the principal conflict of the story. At the dramatic level of the 
story, the author adds appropriate dynamics and integrity to the conflict de-
velopment. At the so-called ideological level of the plot organization, he ap-
plies another model, according to which the static character of functions and 
arguments gives the finite character to the plot that tends to shift the conflict 
into a new phase. 
                                               
2
 Βιαηνός Γ.Μ., Νεολληνικά διηγήματα ετίμ. Παν. Μουλλάς, Εκδοκτικός Οίκος Ερμής, Αθήνα, 
1996, 63. 


The Structure of Conflict in the Short Story "Who Was My Brother\u27s Killer?" by Georgios M. Vizyenos

Dianosashvili, Nino

Phasis 8, 2005 
 
Nino Dianosashvili (Tbilisi) 
 
FOR THE CONCEPTUAL FUNCTION OF THE GODDESS OF 
MADNESS IN HERACLES BY EURIPIDES  
The goddess of madness is the least known character of the Greek mythology. 
She is Lyssa, daughter of Nyx and Uranus, (), who used to assault a 
human and capture him/ her completely. The obsessed could not account for 
his/ her actions. 
Madness is a polysemantic concept. That is why it can be understood in 
many different ways; however, all of its instances can be qualified as a state 
when a person is unable to act rationally and adequately – when there is no 
cognitive link between his ideas, actions and the reality. 
This phenomenon has attracted attention in every epoch. Although human 
reasoning has failed to find its logical explanation, it has been described and 
examined with the intention to find its source and remedy. In ancient times, 
Greeks showed special interest in studying the instances of madness. Particu-
larly remarkable is the 5
th
 century B.C. when medicine and philosophy started 
to examine the cases of human spiritual disorder and when myths and litera-
ture presented the phenomenon from various angles. This is the very period 
when the image of madness was incarnated in tragedians‟ works and was 
shaped as a personified goddess. 
The word has a double meaning in Ancient Greek – it denotes fe-
rocity and rabies.
1
 In the Homeric epics, and in particular, and in the Iliad, 
 means "fierceness", "fury". It is connected with fight and refers to 
"furious fight".
2
 In Plato‟s Leges,  is the determinant of 3In 
                                                 
1
  Liddell, H.G. Scott, R.,Jones, H.S.Mc Kenzie, A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968. RE, 
Bd. XIV1, 69 ff.. DELY, III, 651 ff. 
2
  II.IX,239; IX, 305; XXI,542 
3
  Plat. Leg. 839a. 
For the Conceptual Function of the Goddess of Madness in Heracles by Euripides 
 
23 
Theocritus‟ Idylls,  indicates the strength of love experience, and is 
translated as a "rage love";
4
 in Xenophon‟s Anabasis
5
 and Aristotele‟s Histo-
ria Animalium, we come across  in the meaning of "rabies".6 Evidently, 
 ("ferocity") in different contexts acquired different senses but every-
where referred to an unbalanced, immoderate state. It seems the word was 
seeking for its real meaning and found it in tragedy. That is why  was 
chiefly used figuratively. It denoted the "loss of reason" or clinical "madness" 
only in tragedy. 
 as a character of a play first appears in Aeschylus‟ drama Bassa-
rides. Regrettably, only several of its fragments survived, which are of no real 
help for those who attempt to study the phenomenon of madness. Lyssa as a 
goddess of madness is mentioned in Euripides‟ Bacchae – however, not as an 
acting character. The only surviving play where she acts is Heracles by Euri-
pides. She is sent by Hera to punish Heracles, to make him lose his mind and 
kill his own children. It is believed this amazing scene of madness (which is 
the object of my research) is one of the reasons that accounts for the survival 
of the play. I am particularly interested in the following: 
What are the properties of the goddess? 
What kind is the madness she afflicts? 
Why did Euripides choose Heracles as a victim for the goddess and not 
somebody else? 
To identify Lyssa‟s features, I have singled out several lexical units that 
characterize Lyssa herself and the madness of Heracles, and help to specify 
chief properties of the goddess. These lexical units are    
       
       . Each of 
them will be discussed below. 
Lyssa considers herself more fearful than sea waves, an earthquake and a 
thunder-storm. Heracles, too, compares his madness to sea-waves and to a 
storm. Amphitryon calls Heracles  (E. HF. 
1189)
7
. It is interesting that  denotes "attack" and "blow" but it also 
means the "rhythmic splash of oars", and "fall of drops". Thus, in this case, 
the madness is partially connected with the water. 8 (E. 
HF.1087) is the metaphor of Heracles‟ fate. 
                                                 
4
  Theoc. III, 47 
5
  Xen. Anab. 5.6.7.26 
6
  Arist. Ist. Animal 604 a5 
7
  "This frenzy seized him sprinkled with the venom", Euripides, Hercules Distracted, transl. by 
Woodhull, in: The Plays of Euripides in English, Vol. II, London, Toronto, 1934. 
8
  "'Sea of troubles" (E. HF. 1087). 
Nino Dianosashvili 
 
24 
Heracles himself is identified with a vessel (E. HF.631). When the hero 
recovers reason, he calls himself the "vessel tied" to the shores (E.HF.1094). 
When he realizes how his wife and children were killed, he returns to life 
with the help of Theseus and becomes metaphorically similar to "a burdened 
boat" (E. HF.1424)
9
.    
Apperently, the sea, as the blustering element, is regarded as madness in 
this tragedy, while Heracles is considered as the vessel which found itself in 
the blustering water element. Connecting water with the madness is not acci-
dental. Ancient Greeks used to think that one of the main reasons that could 
drive one mad was the sight of the water nymph. According to the tradition, 
the nymph came out of water only by noon. So, it was not advisable to walk 
near water in the daytime. It is also a widely-known fact that a rabid animal 
will not touch water even if it is unbearably thirsty.  
Water could do both – drive a man mad or clear his agitated mind (it was 
believed so in old times). The water is the destroyer of the existing; it demo-
lishes all kinds of forms and leaves nothing from the past. At the same time, it 
lays the foundation for a new life. Destruction of the old gives it the ability to 
purify, renew and revive. And that is why washing with water was believed to 
liberate from guilt and folly as it purified from sins
10
 and revived the disor-
dered psychic processes.
11
 
Water with its two main functions (to destroy and revive) is connected 
with Dionysus. The Sea is one of Dionysian elements. According to Plutarch, 
Greeks considered Dionysus not only the lord of wine, but of all liquids.
12
 
The cult of Dionysus spread on the island linked the god to the sea element. A 
magnetic coin proves Dionysus‟ relation to the sea (one side of the coin has 
the image of young Dionysus, and the other side – that of a bunch of grapes 
together with a crater and a dolphin)
13
. Dionysus‟ name is also related to an 
earthquake.
14
  
("a hunting dog", E. HF. 860) accentuates the animal 
nature of madness. Remarkably, Dionysus himself is called a hunting dog in 
the Bacchae.
15
    
 (E. HF. 990) is connected with the characteristics of the above-
mentioned madness by its origin and function. The children of the gods of 
                                                 
9
   
10
  V.Aen. 11, 717-20. 
11
  Vtr. De arch. 8;ib M.Eliade, Aziastic Alchemistry, Moscow., 1998. 
12
  Plut. De Is et Os. 
13
  V.Ivanov, Dionisius and Pradionicity, Sanct-Petersburg, 1994. 
14
  R. Seaford, Euripides, Bacchae, Warminster, 1996. 
15
  E.Bacch. 1189. 
For the Conceptual Function of the Goddess of Madness in Heracles by Euripides 
 
25 
Sea, Phorkids – Ceto and Phorkis, were Gorgons.
16
 Gorgon in herself united 
two ambivalent forces: lethal and renewing
17
. 
 (E. HF. 884 )18 is used to stress the Gorgonian na-
ture of Lyssa. 
Generally, Lyssa‟s action in this tragedy is expressed with the verb 
(E. HF. 899), and the madness through which Lyssa deprives He-
racles of reason is called maniva (E. HF. 835, 878). (E. HF. 899) 
is a specifically Dionysian term that refers to the communion with the god 
and in most cases is translated as participation in divine madness, while the 
word maniva meant Dionysian madness. Maniva, the state ecstasy during the 
divine service, was believed to be afflicted by Dionysus. It was a means to 
join the god
19
. 
Thus, Lyssa‟ principal property is ambivalence by which she is related to 
the most ambivalent god Dionysus. It is natural that Heracles‟ madness is 
ambivalent too – when he had the fit of madness, he acquired all Lyssa‟s 
properties. Similar to the goddess of madness, Heracles is also called a Gor-
gon (E.HF.868,990). If Lyssa is a Bacch woman, Heracles is a Bacchus of 
Hades (E.HF.1119-1120). Lyssa compares herself with  
Heracles is getting ready to hunt children (E.HF.899). Though  in 
this line is translated as "chases", the primary meaning of the word is "hunts". 
It should be noted that ambivalence and resemblance of Lyssa and He-
racles are revealed even through their origin. Heracles‟ mother, Alkmene, is 
an ordinary mortal while his father, Zeus, is the supreme deity, ruler of gods 
and people. Lyssa's mother Nyx is of Chthonic, and father, Uranus, of hea-
venly origin (E.HF.843-44).  
The same can be said about Lyssa‟ and Heracles‟ feelings. From the be-
ginning the goddess is calm (E.HF.843-859) and Heracles mind has not 
dimmed yet (E.HF.922-930). Gradually, Lyssa‟s quietness develops into 
madness. The goddess experiences transformation and turns into Fury 
(E.HF.861-872). Heracles too loses his reason, goes mad and the superman 
gradually acquires the image of a creature lower than a human being 
(E.HF.930-1000). Lyssa and Heracles seem to blend with each other.  
Apparently, the resemblance is so big that it erases the border between the 
divine interference and human impulses; madness is fulfilled in Heracles. 
Thus Euripides transforms Heracles‟ madness, which most likely existed as 
                                                 
16
  Hes. Theog. 270 etc., 333 etc., Apoll. 11, 4,3.; Met. IV 792 – 802, R.Graves, Myths of Ancient 
Greece, M., 1992. 
17
  Apollod. III-10.3; Diod. Sic. V. 74.6, E.I.999 etc. 
18
  "Eyeballs bright (Lyssa)". 
19
  K.Gurchiani, Unpublished thesis:Mysteries of Dionisus and their representation in Euripides 
"Bacchae", Tbilisi,1999. 
Nino Dianosashvili 
 
26 
an independent phenomenon, into the hero‟s inward feeling. At the same 
time, he maintains the traditional pattern of madness according to which some 
external supernatural divine force influences a human.
20
 
Lyssa‟ possession of Heracles caused his complete transformation. He-
racles starts shaking his head, turns violently his blood-spattered eyes, 
breathes hastily and foams at his mouth (E. HF. 867-68; 932-35). It is fol-
lowed by his mad laughter, wild dance (E. HF. 836; 87; 879; 892) and roar 
(E. HF. 870). Lyssa compares Heracles with a bull ready to attack. The hero 
loses his human image. 
A bull was considered as one of the epiphanies of Dionysus. At the same 
time Dionysus in Antique painting was associated with personified laughter, 
while the dance that accompanied frenzy i. e. the state of ecstasy, is the an-
cient ritual action which was a typical feature of the Dionysian cult
21
. 
Heracles‟ madness continues in his imaginary "march". He has a vision 
that he leaves for Mycenae, and on "arriving" there looks for Euristheus. Then 
he imagines that he slaughters the enemy‟s children and destroys the walls 
erected by Cyclops – in fact, he destroys his own palace and kills his own 
wife and children. He intends to kill Amphitryon but at that moment Athena 
appears. She throws a huge stone at Heracles and makes him stop. Heracles 
falls down and asleep. The theme of killing one‟s own children is associated 
again with Dionysus. Disrespect for Dionysus was normally punished with 
madness and killing of one‟s own children in such a state
22
 – Heracles‟ beha-
vior (the slaughter of his wife and children) is the climax of his madness. 
Transition from madness into a normal state is performed through sleeping, 
which ends the scene of Heracles‟ spiritual disorder. 
It is not accidental that Lyssa is connected with Heracles. Even in mytho-
logical tradition there existed the information about Heracles‟ ferocity. Ac-
cording to the tragedy, the reason of Lyssa‟ appearance is Hera‟s anger, 
which, as the analysis reveals, is motivated by Heracles‟ origin (E. HF. 20-21; 
1261-62; 1307-10). 


                                                 
20
  J.Gregory, Euripides and the Instructions of the Athenians, The Univerrsity of Michihan Press, 
1997. 
21
  V.Ivanov, Hellenistic Religion of Suffering God (Aeschylus, Tragedies, Moscow, 1989). 
22
  Leucipus, together with his sisters, has torn to pieces his own child Hypas, O.Met. IV 1-40; 
390-415; Lycurgos cut with an axe his son Drias. Apolod. (III.S.1; 130-140); R.Graves, 1992; 
about killing of one‟s own children and Dionysus see R.Shlesier, Mixture of Masks, Maenads 
as Tragic Models (ed. Carpenter/Faraone), 1993; M.Detienne, Dionysos mis amort, Paris, 
1977. 
For the Conceptual Function of the Goddess of Madness in Heracles by Euripides 
 
27 
23 (E. HF. 1261-62) – says 
Heracles. 
The disease that destroys his psychics is in his blood. Thus the victim of 
Hera is the hero with whom madness is inherent.
24
  
The climax of Heracles‟ madness (killing of his wife and children) marks 
an end to one particular stage of the hero‟s life. Heracles was newly born – 
this time as Amphitryon‟s son. 

 25 (E. HF. 1264 – 65). 
He transformed into a different kind of man, which is mentioned several 
times in the final part of the tragedy.
26
 
It is interesting that in the mythological tradition, after killing his children, 
Heracles starts a new life – life "without madness". Therefore, Euripides‟ idea 
to picture the madness afflicted by Lyssa through connecting it with that very 
period of Heracles‟ life is particularly successful. 
The analysis of the text revealed that the chief property of the goddess of 
madness is ambivalence, the destroying and renewing force. The state af-
flicted by Lyssa is parallel to Dionysus‟ madness – the elements they have in 
common are actions, metaphors and similes; however, the two states have 
different essence and purpose. 
It should also be mentioned that the picture presented in the tragedy 
strongly resembles the state of madness described by Hippocrates. The trea-
tise De Morbo Sacro considers different cases of epilepsy and madness. He-
racles‟ hallucinations, ferocity, excitement, redness and wild movement of 
eyes, foam at the mouth and loss of reason coincide with the clinical picture 
described by Hippocrates, while the slaughter committed by the hero is the 
behavior of a mad person
27
. 
Traditionally, the epilepsy and madness have been regarded as divine dis-
eases
28
 because during a fit of madness, a man closely resembled the one in 
the state of ecstasy at the divine service; however, the parallel is based only 
on physical likeness while the content, the essence of the divine i.e. ritual 
                                                 
23
  "When thus the basis of a family 
Is laid in guilt, the children must be wretched". 
24
  H.D.F.Kitto, Greek Tragedy, USA, 1954. 
25
  "… Jet, O let not this 
offen thine ear, old man, for thee, not Jove, 
I deem my real sire" (1264-65). 
26
  J.Gregory, 1997. 
27
  Hp. Morb. Sacr. 7,14,15. 
28
  E.R.Dodds, The Greeks and the Irational, Berkeley, 1951 
Nino Dianosashvili 
 
28 
madness is an absolutely different phenomenon.
29
 The necessary condition for 
the latter was a group of people who sought communion with the god through 
the ecstatic state. As concerns individual insanity, it was nearly always re-
garded as pathology and was called a divine disease only because of its outer 
resemblance with the ritual madness, which was believed to be the only re-
medy to cure the psychic disease.
30
 Euripides succeeded to the best to render 
in terms of fiction the nature of madness afflicted by Lyssa. 
                                                 
29
  M. Eliade, Shamanism:Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy, London, 1964. 
30
  Plat. Phaed. 244 E Ecstatic state had a treating function as well. Aim of the treatment was to 
transform the lost-way madness gradually into healthy, "right" madness  jorqw'" manh'nai). 


For the Conceptual Function of the Goddess of Madness in Heracles by Euripides

Garibashvili, Manana

Catullus’ Lesbia as a Poetic Paradigm

Dundua, Tedo

Influx of the Roman Coins in Georgia

Apakidze, Joni

Westliche Kontakte der Kolchis-Kultur im 2. und Anfang des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr.

Not a member yet