Euripides, "Ion"

Edition and Commentary

Gunther Martin

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9783110522556
• eBook ISBN: 9783110523416
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Literature
• Subtopic: Ancient History
• Index: Literature

Euripides' Ion is a highly complex and elusive play and thus poses considerable difficulties to any interpreter. On the basis of a new recension of the text, this commentary offers explanations of the language, literary technique, and realia of the play and discusses the main issues of interpretation. In this way the reader is provided with the material required for an appreciation of this entertaining as well as provocative dramatic composition.

Commentary

1–183 Prologue

1–81 Hermes’ Prologue Speech

Hermes’ speech has a lucid structure:

1–7	Introduction
	1–4	The speaker
	5–7	The location
8–75	Exposition, pre-history
	8–27	Shared history of Creusa and Ion: Ion’s conception, birth and exposure (21–6 Digression)
	28–56	Ion’s rescue and upbringing
	57–67a	Creusa’s marriage and childlessness
	67b–[75]	Apollo’s role 67b–68 Past 69–[75] Future
76–81	Hermes’ present role
	76–80a	Observing events
	80b–81	Naming Ion

The expository narrative is enclosed in a frame that focuses on Hermes himself. The separation of the fates of the two main characters necessitates a bipartite account, and Hermes splits the narrative between the exposure and Creusa’s arrival in Delphi. Within each part, events are described in chronological order (except 59–61, which do not deal with Creusa).

Hermes’ account of the pre-history of the play sets the tone for the mostly light-hearted first part (82–675) by suggesting a trouble-free course of events with a happy ending. He announces a recognition play: Apollo reunites the Athenian queen Creusa with their common son, whom she had exposed. The dominant motif in the speech is Apollo’s care (cf. Erbse (1984) 74), evident even before the birth of the son, when he sees to it that Creusa’s pregnancy remains unnoticed (14). He then orders Hermes to bring the boy to Delphi, where he can protect him (28–35, 47–9); he sets in motion the meeting between mother and son (67–8); and finally he has a plan to establish the boy in Creusa’s house and as successor on the Athenian throne by means of his oracle (69–73).

The lightness of the speech is also a consequence of Hermes’ persona and the benevolent ironic distance with which he narrates events. Firstly, his denoting himself as ‘servant’ of the gods (4 λάτρις) characterises him as a menial figure among them, closer to the mortals (cf. Wolff (1965) 170, Novo Taragna (1995) 924; see also 1–4n, 14n). The self-deprecation contrasts with the gravity of other (especially divine) prologue speeches and lends a particular colour to some of his further remarks: he follows Apollo’s request to bring the boy to Delphi (28–35) but enjoys outwitting his brother by his knowledge of the affair Apollo is trying to hide (68n); he thereby ironically subverts the hierarchy between ‘master’ and ‘servant’. He seems similarly pleased when he anticipates the act of naming Ion by mentioning his name before anyone else does (80–1).

Secondly, Hermes seems detached in comparison with other prologue speakers. He alone of the προλογίζοντες will be only marginally involved in the events of the play: that he had brought the boy to Delphi does not explain his presence at the scene at the start of the play. His appearance is motivated rather by his curiosity about the boy’s fate (a servant of Apollo like himself): he wishes to watch in secret what will transpire (77) – a unique dramaturgical contrivance and a pretext much less compelling than the motives stated by other prologue gods (cf. Schadewaldt (1926) 8–9 n.4, Knox (1971) 78 = (1979) 259). In this way he introduces an additional layer between the spectators and the play, as he – a theatrical character – becomes a spectator himself.

The style is described by Seidensticker (1982) 216 and Grégoire 173 (a bit exaggeratedly) as casual or loquacious, and makes for a contrast with Apollo’s more assertive tone in 29–36a. Of Hermes’ own words only the introduction (1–9), with Hermes’ genealogy, the exposition of the setting, and the emphasis on Athens’ importance, is in a consistently upper register. Where the tone is raised, it is undermined by irony: the pompousness of the genealogy contrasts with his servant status (1–4, similarly when Hermes talks about Ion as another servant: 54–6) and the heavy periphrasis ‘hidden product of labour-pang’ (45) with the miserable circumstances of the boy’s birth. Hermes’ diction displays calculated simplicity otherwise: while mostly succinct, it is not plain; parentheses, characteristic especially of the lower iambic register (Bühler (1964) 245), add vividness (14, 46–7, 68; also 30, 35). Some seemingly redundant asides and digressions (14, 21–7, 63–4) introduce leitmotifs (cf. Mastronarde (1975) 165–6 = (2003) 298–9) and will turn out to be essential for the interpretation of the entire play.

Despite its general light-heartedness, the speech is not without undertones intimating the conflicts to come: the description of Apollo’s union with Creusa as aggression allows moral objections against the god’s action (10–11n); Hermes’ speech also raises doubts concerning Apollo’s veracity and control of events (cf. Rosenmeyer (1963) 115, Scodel (1999) 125): it starts with the description of Apollo as the omniscient and truthful god of the oracle (5–7) and, towards the end, shows how he uses his response to Xuthus as a means to direct the events of the play (69–73). Both points are, however, problematic: on the one hand, Hermes’ knowledge of his brother’s secret plans demonstrates the limitations of Apollo’s power, and the course of the play and Athena’s concession at the end (1563–5) confirm that his control slips away somewhat. On the other hand, the veracity of the oracle is undermined when Hermes emphasises that Apollo obfuscates the truth by giving an oracle to Xuthus that is (at the very least) misleading; its aim is to prevent the discovery of Apollo’s union with Creusa (73 with n).

Beyond imparting knowledge about background, the speech has a preparatory function: by speaking about Ion living a distinguished life (54–6) Hermes raises expectations that will be disappointed when Ion appears on stage to sing his monody (82–183n). By establishing a parallel between the two servants of the gods, however, he gives Ion’s λατρεία a positive connotation (which is important for the following monody). Hermes also prepares the audience for the recognition: the basket is given a conspicuous, detailed description and an unusual name to facilitate recognition (19, 37, 39–40), just as the snake necklace is given prominence by the aetiology (21–6). Another recognition token, the swaddling bands, is also mentioned (32). The Pythia is introduced and her role is stated; in the exodos she will have the opportunity to give her version of events (1338–68), and will pick up and modify some of the narrative elements from the prologue (44~1365–7).

The speech forms a frame with the other speech by a god, Athena’s address (1553–1605). Hermes announces Apollo’s plan, and Athena confirms that it has failed. The words by which Athena orders Creusa to take Ion and put him on the Athenian throne recall Apollo’s order to Hermes (1571–3, 31–4). The two deities even refer to each other, with Hermes calling Athens the city of Athena (which she picks up in 1555), and Athena reviewing Hermes’ role in the story (1598–9). The announcement of the naming is repeated by Athena, though this time it is Ion whose name is conferred on others (1588). The gist is the same in both speeches: Apollo has felt concern all along, and we finally hear in the exodos that some actions and events that may have seemed coincidental in the prologue were in fact caused by Apollo (1596, 1600). Both speeches extend the time in the play beyond the limits of the stage action: Hermes gives a detailed account of the pre-history, Athena predicts the future of the house.

The expository speech of a divine πρόσωπον προτατικόν, typical for Euripides, is a convenient device in this play since only an omniscient divine speaker can give the information that guides the particular reception of the play: it enables the audience to perceive the frequent irony that arises out of Ion’s and Creusa’s failure to recognise each other and their ignorance of Apollo’s intentions.

His aforementioned disinterestedness makes Hermes a particularly suitable choice to produce such irony: the absence of a personal agenda for him in the play (cf. Erbse (1984) 74) allows him to deliver the exposition both comprehensively and tongue-in-cheek. Apollo, by contrast, the god most intimately involved in the plot, is absent, which is emphasised in 1557 and thematically important: firstly, because he always works through others (esp. Hermes, the Pythia, the birds, finally Athena); secondly, because it leaves the evaluation of events with the spectators and obviates any unsuitable outburst by a character, a different deity narrating the previous history. Apollo’s appearance would be dramatically inappropriate: a prologue spoken by him could not give a fair impression of Creusa’s rape, and the account about how he takes care of Ion would look overtly biased.

1–4

Entering probably through the eisodos that leads away from Delphi (ch. 5), Hermes introduces himself with his lineage and his role amon...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Preface
• Table of Contents
• Introduction
• Critical Edition
• Commentary
• Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography
• Indices