On Alcestis

I can't say I'm terribly familiar with Greek theatre. I've mentioned before my former dedication to the mythology of the Hellenes sometime in my early adolescence. While I've studied much, I've forgotten much (adults are wont to forget a great many things, I'm coming to find) and it shows in my particular lack of knowledge on the subject of Alcestis and her sacrifice in the name of her husband. Most who write about this play concentrate on the title character, as Euripides is famous for strong female roles. I would rather move this in the direction of her husband.

Having graduated, I'm no longer so active in theatre as I was, but I still hold some interest. Hence I go to as much theatre as I can (afford), to hold true to some form of culture. Euripides' staging of Alcestis is currently being produced by my alma mater, and being faithful to the University of Utah Theatre Department, I found myself in attendance. I was not previously (to my memory) acquainted with the myth in question, but with a slight amount of research via Wikipedia I was ready for whatever was thrown at me, no matter how thickly Jacobean the translation may be. (It wasn't, but I always expect it to be for some reason.)

Alcestis is the wife of Admetus, the king of Pherae in Thessaly. Admetus bargains with the Fates to lengthen his lifetime under the condition that he find someone to die in his place when his death knell rings. The terms are simple, surely an aged parent would not be opposed to stepping in? They are near expiration themselves after all, right? Pheres, Admetus' father, will have no part in this foolish scheme. Alcestis, however, loves her husband enough to die for him and does so.

This is not at all the end of the myth, but in my discussion I will be compelled to make interjections. The first problem presented is that of paying up where it is due, or: Don't Tempt Fate. Having grown up in a WASP nest, I really have no clue where to start in trying to understand and identify with ancient Greek theology. Normally one would jump to the conclusion, in trying to relate Christianity to Greek mythology, that Zeus and God co relate. It makes sense. Zeus is the King of the Gods; God is King. Zeus smitteth the same as the Christian God, etc. I want to contest this viewpoint. (I'm starting to formulate an interesting tangent, but now is not the time. Blast writing structure and conforming to main points! That's not how the human mind works! But it's logical, and I can't argue that.) After some consideration, I would beg to argue that it is the Fates who are more like God. Now I can talk about tempting deities.

What Admetus doesn't seem to realize is that the Fates are all knowing. We should know this, as the cliche 'Don't Tempt Fate' seems to suggest, but is it always that obvious to the common man? I don't know that the fact that God, or in this case the Fates, having infinite power is really the force in question here. I would think that if anyone were so foolish as to propose a bargain with a deity they would immediately be struck down dead, if that were the case. In regards to the Fates in particular, considering their jurisdictions, I think that the problem in tempting them is in forgetting that they are Timeless. (This is where Zeus differs from God. There is nothing I'm aware of that claims Zeus as anything beyond time.) I recall a chapter in CS Lewis' 'Mere Christianity' talking about the relationship between God and Time. He suggests that time is a line, and that God is the paper on which that line is drawn. He is there, in every moment, at all times. He knows what will happen because He is living that moment as surely as He is living the day you were born, and as surely as He is living the day Charles I lost his head. The Fates must be the same way. Therein lies the danger of this temptation. The Fates, no matter how drunk they are, still know that Admetus will not find a replacement, and that Alcestis will take his place because they're living in the moment of her death.

Promptly after this tragedy, Heracles arrives at the palace in need of a place to stay. Admetus is renowned for his hospitality, having before shown great courtesy to Apollo. This is in direct violation of a vow he made to Alcestis that he would remain in mourning for the rest of his days and make no merry spectacle. Spectacle is hardly avoidable in the presence of Heracles. Alcestis' death is kept secret from the guest; Admetus' obligations to entertaining house guests takes precedence. In good Heraclean fashion, the super man launches himself into debauchery and booze, much to the dismay of the household staff who are in sorrow. He takes it too far, and one of the servants snaps and tells him all. And, in good Heraclean fashion, the hero of ages takes it upon himself to bring Alcestis back from the Underworld. He does so, and Admetus is reunited with his beloved wife.

We can already establish that Admetus, despite being very generous in hospitality, is very self interested. He's a politician, and politicians have much to be concerned about when it comes to public perceptions. Sure, he may have noble intentions in opening his home to such guests as Apollo and Heracles, but there is a time and place for rejection of principles on behalf of a more noble cause. Admetus' vow to his wife should be of the utmost priority at this point. Perhaps I read in to this too much as a 21st century spectator. Perhaps the Greeks understood that a man should always stand ground against silly promises made to silly girls because women are subject to men first, not the other way around.

I don't quite buy that, and I turn to Orpheus and Eurydice, another myth that continually came to mind in the duration of the performance of Alcestis. I was struck with the parallels of a man losing his wife and having to bring her back from death. But which myth came first? What myth is the standard, and what myth stands to counter it? As it turns out, Orpheus and Eurydice comes after Admetus and Alcestis in myth chronology, however it was the latter that came first in oral tradition. So the Greeks had to have seen these parallels also, and I would venture a guess that Admetus' betrayal of Alcestis would have been seen as inappropriate as well, or at least commented on and debated. If one man may go down and appeal to Hades for the soul of his beloved wife, what would stop another man from attempting the same?

I personally found Admetus to be obnoxious and selfish. In the first half of the play he shlumps around moaning about the impending death of Alcestis instead of actively looking for a solution to his problem. If this were a man, he would have realized his folly in tempting the Fates and died honorably. I don't think he loves Alcestis at all in the same way she loved him or as Orpheus loved Eurydice. He loves getting what he wants and having his way. In the end he gets what he wants, but he does nothing to deserve it. If anything, Alcestis is rewarded for her courage and unconditional love for him by having her life restored. Her child is no longer without a mother. Admetus is still a pompous ass who has yet to learn that there are consequences to his actions. He cannot be redeemed by his hospitality, no matter how Euripides spins it. It only shows that Heracles is a better man, sinner as he is.

What is the moral this king learns, I wonder? If we can apply CS Lewis' theory of God and Time to the Fates, then they knew that Alcestis would be brought back to life. They saw Heracles fighting off Death to win her soul. The lesson to be learned here is that they are all seeing, all knowing, and that it is useless to try to tempt them for your own personal gain. They aren't so horribly vindictive in this case since they knew she would return to life. This is all just a good lesson to learn, right? Does Admetus get this? I'm not convinced. When she is presented to him by Heracles in the guise of a lowly maid servant, he rejects her out of love for his wife. It doesn't take much for him to change his mind though. Politicians are all show and no sincerity that way.

I did enjoy the piece. Short as it was, and simple as Greek theatre tends to come across, it was enough to get the gears turning. The play is often labeled as a tragicomedy. For myself, I think the definition is fitting in the outcome of the story. The tragedy is the moral regression of Admetus' character. The comedy is the irony of duping omniscient entities.