BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS Misery and Forgiveness in Euripides: Meaning and Structure in the HIPPOLYTUS. By Boris Nikolsky. Translated by Mikhail Nikolsky. Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales. 2015. Pp. xv, 215. In this study Nikolsky argues that Euripides’ Hippolytus is best understood in all its particular motifs and imagery by the following theme: in their ethical behaviour, humans are largely fallible and are the victims of metaphysical forces (the gods), and as a result our highest expression of virtue is forgiveness, as dramatized between Theseus and Hippolytus at the end of the play. The author contrasts his interpretation with those that have emphasized rather the ethical shortcomings of the characters (e.g., Hippolytus as excessively devoted to chastity/Artemis) or the general theme of the power of eros as a destructive psychological force. The strengths of this engaging study include Nikolsky’s careful and subtle examination of the source material, the methodical and rigorous manner of his defence of his position, and a convincing emphasis on the importance of the theme of forgiveness to the play as a whole. While there are other shortcomings that can be noted (the bibliography is a bit short; it would be helpful to have a proper conclusion), my principal concern with the study is that it overstates its case and consequently tends to view the ethical content of the play in an overly black and white manner. In the introduction Nikolsky claims that he will explicate the singular correct interpretation of the play, citing authorial intention and Russian structuralism as guiding principles (xi–xiii). Thus the Hippolytus is “a harmonious, logical, and carefully thoughtout system of meanings subordinated to a single conception and aimed at expressing the main theme of the play” (xiii). For Nikolsky this main theme, naturally, is the role of forgiveness, the full importance of which he claims previous scholars have not recognized . Many will find this type of methodology limited and reductive as a theory of interpretation in and of itself, and perhaps not much in keeping in particular with the complexity often found in the works of Euripides. In the first chapter, Nikolsky argues that the play makes use of the idea of involuntary errors (as used in other areas of Athenian life such as the law courts) to produce “the final exculpation of all its human characters” (2). Nikolsky demonstrates a persistent pattern of accusation, recognition of mitigating circumstances, and finally the resulting obligation for the characters to show forgiveness. Thus in the play there is “a transfer of responsibility for all the misfortunes to Aphrodite” (18), who is said to be the only character to act with ill-will. Yet this takes the argument too far. In just one counterexample , when Phaedra says that by her death she will become a kak—n (Hipp. 729) to Hippolytus, this indicates, among other things, a simple desire to strike back and harm him. Given her difficult circumstances and the hateful words of Hippolytus ringing in the audience’s ears, we might well forgive her action, but this does not mean that she bears no responsibility at all. Indeed, forgiving those who are completely powerless is not exceptional or surprising; rather, the need for forgiveness is felt most forcefully when we recognize the combination of agency and powerlessness, responsibility and blamelessness, involved in human action. PHOENIX, VOL. 70 (2016) 1–2. 190 BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 191 In the third chapter Nikolsky examines the role of word and vision, discussing how both language and appearances can be deceptive, and thus destructive, in the play. Here Nikolsky makes some good points of connection with Gorgias’ Encomium of Helen, showing how the view of language and images as being capable of coercive force was a topical one, precisely as a method to exculpate someone. The fourth chapter on adQw is the strongest of the book. As his starting point Nikolsky takes on the difficult issue of Phaedra’s reference to two forms of shame, examining with care the text and previous interpretations of it (Hipp. 375–390). Rejecting previous accounts, Nikolsky argues that the two forms are defined simply by the circumstances in which one acts. Showing adQw to...
Read full abstract
Jun 5, 2024
Marjolein Oele 
Open Access
