Defining Heroes: The Use of Heracles to Question Societal Conventions of Heroism

A Paper by M. Rinn

http://www.shoelesswander.net

Please do not redistribute without permission

Stories are common to all of humanity and help to provide insights into how to live, question societal norms and ask the reader or listener to think about their world at large. This is particularly true in ancient drama, where society’s standards and expectations were frequently questioned on stage during festivals. These societal commentaries would often reflect current history or values that either the author or society was beginning to question. No playwright did this more than Euripides. In his works Alcestis and Heracles, Euripides explores the common Greek concept of a ‘hero’ as defined by Heracles and proceeds to question its validity and relevancy, suggesting that it is more than simple brawn and bravery that makes a hero a hero.

Ancient Greece attached a specific set of values to heroes of legend, such as Heracles. One or more divine parents were typical, usually with Zeus being the father. The hero would also be impossibly brave, strong, and skilled, often verging on the superhuman. In addition, their surrounding mythologies would pit the hero against impossible odds for any mortal. However, these heroes would overcome the challenge before them with brute strength or cleverness. The mythology of Heracles paints him as a son of Zeus with godly strength and ironclad will, who is forced to go through twelve arduous labours after killing his wife and children in a fit of madness sent upon him by Hera. He completes all of them and then proceeds to live a good life. These stories were well known throughout Greece, and playwrights would take them and make them their own. Some authors would only use a story once to make a point, but in some cases, such as that of Euripides, the repetition and rearranging of these myths could be used to make multiple points and question multiple aspects of what defines a hero.

In Alcestis, Heracles is portrayed as a typical hero in regards to his actions and his general attitude. He is shown to be a proud, boisterous man who is stopping by to visit his friend Admetus while he is in the process of completing his labours, currently on his way to Thrace in order to face the infamous horses. When the servants tell him that it is an impossible task, he replies that it is “[his] kind of life and the work that [he] do[es]” (Alcestis, 26, 499). This conversation demonstrates how brave and fearless the figure of Heracles is – he is not afraid any means of death by fearsome creatures and faces them with an element of excitement rather than fear.

However, as fearless as a figure as Heracles is shown to be, Euripides does question some of his personality traits. In particular, Heracles is shown to be a little slow on the uptake, crystallized in the scene when he asks Admetus why he is dressed in mourning clothes. Heracles asks a series of questions, concluding with “Surely you have not lost your wife, Alcestis” (Alcestis, 27, 518). The response is “yes and no” and Admetus purposely leads his friend astray in thought in an attempt to cover up his wife’s death as not to turn away his friend. The concept of hospitality to friends and travellers was a key aspect of Greek culture and to refuse a friend shelter on their travels or to be discourteous to a guest was profane. Admetus demonstrates the desire not to break this tradition, even in mourning and purposely misleads his friend. The fact that Heracles actually accepts the explanation of the death as someone who died in the Admetus’ household who meant much to the entire home and was not blood related was someone other than Alcestis also demonstrates a critique of traditional heroic values. Euripides seems to imply that while these heroes are good for brute strength, perhaps their relevancy should be questioned because of their apparent stupidity.

But intelligence aside, there is very little questioning of the value of traditional heroes and what they stand for in Alcestis. The play on a whole reaffirms most of the values and beliefs, especially when it comes to heroic acts. At the end of the play, Heracles learns that it is Alcestis who has died and goes to wrestle with death itself in order to return her to her husband and to the land of the living. He declares “I must save this woman who has died | so lately” (Alcestis, 40, 840-41), declaring his heroic might and valour as he goes to fulfil the major heroic archetype of saving the damsel in distress. His description of what he will do to death in lines 843 to 857 demonstrates his view of himself that he can over power death, if only to prove what an excellent friend he is to Admetus. This is a selfless act and by doing so Heracles adds to his heroic renown and as well as aides his friend in time of need. The fight between Heracles is death is never shown on stage, and instead it happens as Admetus is shown weeping openly over his wife’s death and the chorus responding and advising him on what to do. When Heracles returns with Alcestis, he does not initially reveal that he has saved his friend’s wife from the clutches of death. Instead, the two have a discussion about why Admetus lied to Heracles about Alcestis’ death. It is then revealed that he has rescued Alcestis, fighting death “beside [Alcestis’] tomb” (Alcestis, 52, 14203). The play ends with Heracles departing from Admetus’ hearth in order to continue on with his many labours. All of these actions drive home the point that during this time period, Euripides saw the example of Heracles as a positive figure and a good way of defining what a hero was -emphasizing good deeds, bravery in the face of death, and the ability to overcome seemingly impossible odds either for the sake of redemption or for the sake of gaining glory for oneself. It was acceptable, of course, to poke some fun at these figures as well, such as making Heracles a bit dumb and easily mislead, because doing so created a comedic effect that broke the tension. This light hearted critique would not last.

By contrast, the play Heracles questions every aspect of the typical Grecian hero. The play is typically said to be written 424-423 BCE, but Arrowsmith argues that it would be far more logical to place the date of the play’s publishing date somewhere between 421 and 418 BCE. His reason for the dating is because of “the general political tone of the play” (Heracles 57) which would indicate that it was more likely written during a particular episode of the Peloponnesian War where Sparta and Athens made a temporary peace with each other. If this dating is correct, then the immediate reaction is to view Heracles in relation to the greater war and to consider why this might have led Euripides to question the typical values of a hero. During the Peloponnesian War, the government of Athens, where Euripides lived, was under the control of a radical democracy with a charismatic leader that could quickly devolve into rule by a mob of angry citizens at any given moment. Foreign policy at the time was anti-Spartan to an extreme sense, the main enemy of Athens during the war. This fierce anti-Spartan policy eventually lead to Athens’s defeat. It is against this background with a government espousing ideas where a strong military was tantamount to everything else that Euripides took the heroic figure of Hercules, broke the story down to suggest that it was time to define heroes in a new light.

In order to critique and question the hero, Euripides purposely breaks the hero and makes him suffer emotional trauma. The play begins to refine the hero when Heracles returns him from finishing his labours and learns that his wife and children are about to be slaughtered by Lycus. Heracles remarks, “Put your fears away | and stop those tears that well up in your eyes” (Heracles, 83, 624-625) to his wife and children. He is performing the heroic act of killing the man who would kill his family, rather than performing a heroic act for the gain of fame and glory, as is typical of heroes of legend. This emphasis on family and putting them above oneself is one way that Eurpidies questions the modern conception of a hero, implying that one’s family should come before glory. In the context of the Peloponnesian war, this would also suggest that he thought Athens was thinking more about its glory rather than the well being of its citizens.

The most important critique of traditional heroic values occurs later in the play, after Heracles snaps out of the madness sent upon him by Hera. Although initially confused as to what happens, showing some ties to Heracles’ confusion about death in Alcestis, he very quickly begins to bewail what he has done and hangs his head in shame. Heracles’ attitude after the murders demonstrates an attitude that has turned its back on heroic feats and powerful displays. He is a sad and broken man who “hide[s] his head beneath his robes” (Heracles, 106, 1998). Not only that, he states that his “life [is] not worth living now, or ever” (Heracles, 109, 1257) and proceeds to deconstruct his life of heroic deeds and labours, declaring that they were for naught now that his “worst labour has been done” (Heracles, 1279, 109). Theseus chides him for such remarks and tries to console his friend and raise him out of such despair, telling Heracles “have done with tears” (Heracles,113, 1394). This seems to encourage Heracles to rise to the challenge of living with himself after having committed terrible acts. By the end of the play he has come to terms with what he has done and leaves with Theseus to bury his wife and children and continue with his life. These events indicate that for Eurpidies, the typical conception of the hero is not relevant to Athens and its current issues. The city-state is at war with the other city-states of Greece and to think selfishly for one’s own gain is not worthwhile. Rather, the hero of these times is instead a man who accepts what has happened, for good or ill, and moves on with his life afterwards, accepting the consequences of his actions. This suggests that in Euripides’ world view, a hero must be relevant to one’s own time and place rather than a static figure of legend that can very easily become outdated and out of touch with society’s concerns and problems.

Euripides’ use of the figure of Heracles in his plays Alcestis and Heracles help to understand what the Greeks saw wrong with their society. By writing these plays with the intent of performance, the playwright managed to reach a wide audience and made them question whether the traditional definition of a hero was relevant to their society or whether they should consider changing the definition in order to better meet the society’s needs and expectations at the time. This lends credence to how much stories can express people’s thoughts and opinions through the means of drama.