Truth and Reality in Euripides' Ion

Abstract

Criticism of theIonhas been more successful in defining the play's problems than in arriving at any sort of consensus about its interpretation. Indeed, modern critical response has run the gamut from Verrall's view that Euripides was fashioning a pointed attack on Apollo to Kitto's insistence that he was above all concerned to present a piece of lighthearted entertainment. Despite this wide range of opinion, however, discussions have tended to delineate several issues which seem central to the play, and so have endured as subjects for critical examination. One of these is the network of irony which is so prominent a feature of theIon's structure. It is abundantly clear that dramatic irony is important to theIon, and that Euripides was deeply involved with the tension between appearance and reality; however, despite its obvious position in the play, this aspect of theIoncontinues to present an interpretive problem.In this study I want to concentrate on three areas that are of special significance in the development of the general theme of appearance and reality into a coherent intellectual position within theIon, for it was an idea on which Euripides often touched in plays written in this period. First, there is the concept of identity which is of great importance for Ion and to a lesser extent for Creusa and Xuthus. Next, I will discuss the complexity of relationships between Ion, Creusa, and Xuthus. These change dramatically as the play develops, and the characters react to their perceptions of the truth regarding their relationships with alarming irregularity. Finally, I will look at the problem of understanding Euripides' presentation of Apollo's oracle from the point of view of these other complications caused by the interplay of truth and reality. When we have analyzed theIonalong these lines it will be possible to make some general observations about the approach to reality which Euripides has presented in his play, for these elements suggest that he is making a more formal epistemological statement than is generally realized.