This new edition of the Heracles continues Aris & Philips’ series of the plays of Euripides in its accustomed format: General Introduction, followed by an introduction to the particular play, with text, translation, commentary, and extensive bibliography. The General Introduction, which is also by B., is notable, I think, for the economy with which it introduces both the formal aspects of tragic poetry (monody, stichomythia, rhesis, etc.) and its more general themes. The explanation of technical terms and devices enables B. to use such terminology in her commentary without further ado, though I suspect that students would be grateful in addition for the reinforcement and ease of reference that a brief glossary would provide. This is particularly desirable since the Index to the volume does not refer to the General Introduction, in which many of these technical terms are defined (so, for instance, on p. 139, the meters of the first stasimon, a reference to p. xvii is sorely needed); moreover, in the Commentary B. uses some specialized terms (e.g., lacuna, hapax legomenon, haplography) which she apparently does not define. In discussing the thematic preoccupations of tragedy, B. stresses the tension between the heroic and the civic focusses of the drama. Though she oversimplifies on the three tragedians’ religious approaches (xvi) and becomes oversentimental—to my taste—in describing Euripides as having ‘a deep care for the world and a wish to protest at its wrongs’ (p. xxv, cf. p. xxiii on Euripides’ expression of human experience), this is on the whole a good presentation for undergraduates of complex and current aspects of dramatic criticism. B. rightly emphasizes that critical tastes have differed, and that the things we now see in tragedy may not be what other generations have seen or will see: important to bear in mind as the series progresses and this General Introduction, already ten years old, becomes increasingly dated.
In her Introduction to Heracles itself B. minimizes earlier dismissals of the play (though why then do they feature on the back cover of this edition?), instead presenting the play as a coherent, albeit disturbing (and disturbed), whole. She addresses such areas as the relevance of Theseus (p. 3: a reference to Zeitlin’s discussion of Thebes and non-tragic Athens would be helpful here), and the nature of the first 500 lines, countering the claim that this opening section is ‘static and uninteresting’ by showing how it contributes to the portrait of Heracles and to the dramatic structure. B. describes this as tetradic, an arrangement she usefully charts on page 17 and follows in her divisions of the commentary; while I would agree that it certainly is there, I also think that the play’s triadic design deserves a mention (most obsessively elaborated by David Porter, whose Only connect is not used by B., but also argued by B. herself in her 1982 G&R piece). On Heracles’ once-controversial dismissal of the ‘miserable tales of poets’ B. emphasizes the gap between the gods H. would like to have and the gods he is stuck with (pp. 8-9): the gap cannot be avoided, and underscores all the action of the play, just as the relationship between his heroic labors and his kin murders is one of both continuity and difference (rightly stressed by B. on lines 575 and 922-1015). I cannot follow B. all the way into Devereux territory in her discussion of Euripides’ portrayals of madness (pp. 11-13, 15-16); and I am puzzled as to why she does not adduce as a parallel the messenger’s description of Orestes’ madness from the IT. It has several elements in common with the Heracles, not least the imaginary opponent(s) and the spectators, and is to my mind closer to this mad scene than either the Orestes or the Bacchae.
Compared with William Arrowsmith’s translation (in the Grene & Lattimore edition) B.’s is more literal—she is not aiming, as he was, for poetic cadences in English. But its literalness does not make it less readable, and in the translations of the elaborate odes, in particular, I found her rendering of epithets and metaphor, and often her word order, more effective than Arrowsmith’s. Some queries: line 100 ‘as you beguile them with stories, pitifully misleading though they may be’ loses both the etymological figure and the metaphor of
The Commentary is relatively sophisticated; more advanced students will want to take advantage of the other commentaries to which B. makes frequent reference, especially Fraenkel, Barrett, and Bond. She is particularly good (as one might expect) on imagery, and provides a rich supply of illustrative parallels; these are usually integrated and explained, though one does find the occasional ‘this is also found at’ or ‘this is a striking image’ with no further guidance (e.g., 662, 780, and 1298, where Ixion’s history but not his relevance are explained). A pervasive difficulty, for me, was the incomplete internal cross-referencing: in a play as dense as the Heracles, as many internal echoes as possible should be noted. So, for instance, the Cyclopean walls of 15 recur significantly at 998; the two motivations for Heracles’ actions, fate and Hera, at 20-1 and 1393, which itself pulls together 1253 and 1357; the chorus’ substantive use of
This edition will not replace Bond’s, but it presents a coherent and intensely felt interpretation of this important play, from which students will profit.