UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA

DIVINE AND HUMAN

RESPONSIBILITY IN
EURIPIDES’
HIPPOLYTUS
DIMITRIOS PAPAIOANNOU

[JANUARY 2013]
 DIVINE AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY IN EURIPIDES’
HIPPOLITUS

CONTENTS

1. Biography

2. Sophists

2.1 Philosophical background of the fifth century B.C.

2.2 Euripides and the Sophists

3. Hippolytus

3.1 Hippolytos kalyptomenos and Hippolytos Stephanoforos

3.2 Hippolytus the plot

3.3 Characters and motives

4. The two levels of actions- two horizons

5. The nature of Euripides’ Gods

 BIOGRAPHY

Euripides was born in the island of Salamis, in 480 B.C.E. His father is
said to have been a tradesman or tavern-keeper, his mother a seller of
herbs. His parents, however, must have had some means, judging by the
fact that they gave him a gymnastic education to prepare him for the
athletic contests. This was because they had misinterpreted an oracle given
to them before his birth which had promised the child crowns of victory. It
is said that Euripides actually won these sorts of contests in his boyhood,
but in fact he was destined to win victories in a very different arena.

He often associated with the philosophers Anaxagoras and Socrates,

with the latter of whom he enjoyed an intimate friendship throughout his
life. He also had instruction from Protagoras and Prodicus, who were
sophists, a new class of wise-men who taught the cut and thrust of public
debate and were notorious for the unscrupulous ways, sort of like present-
day lawyers. As a result, he received the best of education in philosophy
and rhetoric. In 455 B.C.E., he first put a series of plays on the stage. He did
not win a prize until 18 years later, at age 43, and seems to have been
victorious only four times in all. Nonetheless, he was indefatigable in
writing tragedies. He took a lively interest in the important events and the
public questions of the time, but personally, he kept away from public life,
avoided society, and lived mostly in the enjoyment of an excellent library,
amid his studies and poetical creations. He was twice left by his wives, a
fact which may have encouraged him in his surly, unsociable ways. In 409
B.C.E., at the age of 71, he left Athens; it was said that he left to get away
from the ceaseless attacks of the comedians, and from his domestic
troubles. He went to Magnesia in Thessaly, where he was received as a
guest of the city. Thence he went on to Pella to the court of Archelaus, king
of Macedonia, who had gathered round him a number of poets and artists,
and who treated him with great respect. Here he spent the last two years
of his life and died in 405 B.C.E. According to a story for which there is little
authority, he was torn to pieces by a pack of hounds when returning from a
nocturnal festival.

The tragedies of Euripides are of very unequal merit. Some of them,

like the Medea or Iphigenia in Tauris, for instance, approach the lofty style
of Sophocles, but others, like the Andromache and Electra, are very
carelessly put together. His strong point is not artistic composition, well
contrived disposition, or the coherent design which gives the inner motive
of the action. It is sufficient, in support of this statement, to call attention
to his habit of prefixing to every piece a prologue, explaining the story to
the spectators, and connected loosely (if at all) with the play. Additionally
noteworthy is the minor connection between the chorus and the action,
and his liking for bringing in a deus ex machina, that is, a god who arrives
onto the stage dangling from a large crane and solves everyone's problems.
There are some critics who see these elements as indicating a more cynical
and wizened frame of mind, where the universe seems so entirely out of
whack that telling a compact plot with tidy lessons that work out does not
seem appropriate.

Euripides is a master in the art of devising pathetic situations, and

shows extraordinary power in representing human passion, especially the
resistless might of love in the case of women. His great talent is showing
the individual psychology of his characters. Through a creative use of
monologues, he places the audience inside their heads at their tortured
moments. In his religious views he differs essentially from Aeschylus and
Sophocles. With Euripides the gods are not moral powers, and fate is not so
much the result of a higher dispensation as a perverseness of accident. The
lack of grandeur is also a point which distinguishes him from his great
predecessors. Instead of their sublime ideas he gives us maxims of worldly
wisdom, often to all appearance dragged in without close connection to the
plot. The motives of action are not so pure as in Aeschylus and Sophocles,
and the characters of the heroes are not raised above the level of ordinary
life, but brought down to it. He seems to be overly fond of pointing out the
faults of his women heroes. His plays pay more attention to the course of
politics than his predecessors'. In deference to the democratic leanings of
his public, he makes his kings cruel tyrants, without dignity or majesty, and
the heroes of the Peloponnese, in particular, he treats with unconcealed
dislike. His dialogues contain show-pieces of rhetoric and sophistic
argumentation. He was eventually very popular with his contemporaries,
and has been still more so with succeeding generations. The tragedians of
the next age made him their model and pattern without qualification, and
the Roman poets preferred paraphrasing his dramas to those of the other
tragedians.

The number of his tragedies is variously given as seventy-five,

seventy-eight, and ninety-two. Eighteen have come down to us: the
Alcestis, Andromache, Bacchae (or the arrival of Dionysus at Thebes and
the murder of Pentheus), Hecuba, Helena, Electra, the Heraclidae (or
Demophoon of Athens protecting the descendants of Heracles against the
persecution of Eurystheus); Heracles in Madness, the Suppliants (or the
mothers of the Seven Chiefs who had fallen before Thebes, at whose
prayers Theseus compelled the Thebans to bury the dead heroes);
Hippolytus, Iphigenia at Aulis, Iphigenia among the Tauri, Ion, Medea,
Orestes, Rhesus, the Troades (or the royal house of Troy after the conquest
of the city); the Phoenissae (so called after the chorus of Phoenician
woman, an incident in the story of Eteocles and Polynices); and a satyric
drama, the Cyclops, the only example of this style of composition which has
survived. The Bacchae was written in Macedonia in the poet's last years,
and performed after his death at the same time as the Iphigenia at Aulis.
 SOPHISTS

PHILOSOPHICAL BACKGROUND OF THE FIFTH CENTURY B.C.

From as early as the sixth century B.C., thinkers in Ionia and

elsewhere in the Greek world were speculating about what the universe
was made of and how it came to assume its present form. These thinkers
are conventionally called Presocratics.1 This was the beginning of Greek
philosophy ('the love of wisdom'), which first took root in Ionian Miletus, a
prosperous city on the coast of Asia Minor. The names of three Milesian
philosophers are known to us: Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes, who
are generally called 'the Milesians'. We know of their teachings not first
hand from their own works, which have not survived, but only from
references to them in the works of Aristotle and other authors. Their main
interest as philosophers is indicated by the term commonly applied to the
Milesians and later Presocratics in Greek literature: hoi physikoi 'those
concerned with nature (physis)'. The physikoi sought the basic substance of
the universe, but in addition to science they were also interested in ethics
and the criticism of contemporary religion. This kind of speculation was
continued in Ionia, Italy, Sicily and elsewhere by Heraclitus, Pythagoras,
Empedocles, Democritus and finally by Anaxagoras, who came to Athens in
the middle of the fifth century. The greatest contribution of these
philosophers was their application of rational analysis to the world, which
earlier had been viewed only in mythical terms.

1Socrates is commonly accepted as a turning point in Greek

philosophy. As Cicero explains in his Tusculan Disputations: "Socrates was
the first to summon philosophy down from the skies ... and compelled her
to engage in the investigation of ... moral questions of good and evil" (5.10).
 The traveling teachers called Sophists, whose teachings had an
enormous influence on the thought of the fifth century B.C., were in
general intellectual descendants of the Presocratic philosophers. Perhaps
because of the mutually contradictory answers offered by the Presocratics
as to the nature of the universe, the Sophists turned from theoretical
natural science to the rational examination of human affairs for the
practical betterment of human life. This approach to life began to
undermine the mythological view of the world evident in poetry with its
emphasis on the involvement of anthropomorphic deities in the natural
world and in human action. Divine causation was no longer the only
explanation of natural phenomena and human action.

Most Sophists were non-Athenians who attracted enthusiastic

followings among the Athenian youth and received large fees for their
services. Sophists flocked to Athens no doubt due to the favorable attitude
of Pericles towards intellectuals. Pericles was a staunch rationalist; he had
been trained in music and political affairs by Sophists. He was associated
with the great sophist Protagoras of Abdera and two important Pre-
Socratic: Zeno of Elea and Anaxagoras of Clazomenae. The latter taught
that the universe was governed by pure intelligence and his assertion that
the sun, moon and stars are red hot stones and not gods led to his
prosecution for impiety. Perhaps the best illustration of Pericles's
rationalism is a story told by Plutarch of how Pericles, when an eclipse of
the sun (generally considered a bad omen) frightened the helmsman of his
ship, held up his cloak before the helmsman's eyes and asked him if he
thought that this was a bad omen. Upon receiving a negative answer,
Pericles then asked the helmsman whether there was any difference
between his holding up of the cloak before his eyes and the eclipse of the
sun except that the eclipse was brought about by an object larger than the
cloak (i.e., the moon). Pericles was no doubt applying knowledge he had
obtained from Anaxagoras, who is generally credited with being the first to
explain the true cause of solar eclipses. Pericles's rational approach to life
and that of his circle of friends was as unpopular as his democratic politics
among conservative groups in Athens, but it must have encouraged
Sophists from all over the Greek world to flock to Athens as a potentially
fertile ground for their teachings.

Most Sophists claimed to teach arete 'excellence' in the management

of one's own affairs and especially in the administration of the affairs of the
city. Up to the fifth century B.C. it was the common belief that arete was
inborn and that aristocratic birth alone qualified a person for politics, but
Protagoras taught that arete is the result of training and not innate. The
Sophists claimed to be able to help their students better themselves
through the acquisition of certain practical skills, especially rhetoric (the art
of persuasion). Advancement in politics was almost entirely dependent
upon rhetorical skills. The Athenian democracy with its assembly (ekklesia),
in which any citizen could speak on domestic and foreign affairs, and the
council of five hundred (boule), on which every Athenian citizen got a
chance to serve, required an ability to speak persuasively. The Sophists
filled this need for rhetorical training and by their teaching proved that
education could make an individual a more effective citizen and improve his
status in Athenian society.

Although there were many differences among the Sophists in terms

of their specific teachings, it is safe to say that there was a common
philosophy which many Sophists shared and which permeated their
teachings. The most prominent element in this philosophy was skepticism
('a doubting state of mind'). The skepticism of the Sophists took various
forms: phenomenalism, the belief that we can only know ideas present in
our mind, but not the objects of perception outside our mind (so that it is
useless to make a definitive statement about anything outside our own
mind); empiricism, the doctrine that experience, particularly of the senses,
is our only source of knowledge; and above all, relativism, the theory that
truth has no independent absolute existence, but is dependent upon the
individual and the particular situation in which one finds oneself.
 The relativity of truth was the basis of Protagoras's rhetorical
teaching. He trained his students to argue on both sides of a question
because he believed that the whole truth could not be limited to just one
side of a question. Therefore, he taught his students to praise and blame
the same things and to strengthen the weaker argument so that it might
appear the stronger. These techniques are based on the belief that truth is
relative to the individual. Arguments on both sides of a question are equally
true because those debating a question can only truly know those things
which exist in their own mind and therefore cannot make a definitely true
statement about objective realities outside the mind (phenomenalism).
Truth is what it appears to be to the individual. As Protagoras said: "Man is
the measure of all things, of the things that are, that they are and of things
that are not, that they are not". Since it is not possible to know what is
absolutely true, there is only one standard left by which to determine
correct action: the standard of advantage (interest, expediency). If an
action is advantageous to the individual, then it is good. This idea was
sometimes employed by the unscrupulous to justify morally questionable
behavior, but Protagoras apparently was opposed to an indiscriminate use
of this principle. His belief in the relativity of truth did not prevent him from
believing that in making moral decisions one can still distinguish between
an action which is morally better and one that is morally worse.

The Sophists were also interested in the cultural development of man

as a member of society. The Sophists saw man himself as a product of
nature, but society and civilization as artificial human products. On one
hand, man is a natural creature subject to certain laws of nature which he
cannot help but obey. On the other hand, he lives in a society, the rules and
structure of which have no roots in nature and are based only on custom.
The distinction here apparent is one between nature (physis) and custom
or convention (nomos), a commonplace antithesis in fifth century literature
popularized by the Sophists. One of the great controversies of the fifth
century was whether the gods, human society and distinctions among
human beings such as Greek and Barbarian, master and slave, were the
result of physis or nomos, nature or custom. Before the fifth century,
human institutions and customs were generally seen as handed down by
the gods and part of the natural order of things, but contact with other
civilizations began to make it evident that institutions and customs were
different among different peoples and introduced the idea of cultural
relativism. According to this theory, societies create their own customs and
institutions to suit their own peculiar needs and conditions. A graphic
example of cultural relativism occurs in Herodotus's Histories (3.38). In
order to illustrate the point that everyone thinks his own customs and
religion are the best, Herodotus tells the story of certain Greeks at the
court of the Persian king who are shocked and disgusted when he asks
them how much money they would require as an inducement to eat the
dead bodies of their fathers. On another occasion with Greeks present, the
king asked some Indians, who in fact did eat their fathers' corpses, what
they would take to burn their dead as the Greeks do. The Indians' horror at
this suggestion equaled that of the Greeks on the earlier occasion.
Herodotus concludes this anecdote with a quotation from the poet Pindar:
"Custom is the king of all". This was also the attitude of most Sophists with
regard to the origins of the gods, human society and distinctions among
human beings. All these were considered by the Sophists as human
creations designed to serve specific needs. Thus, there began to grow up
the antithesis between man-made law (nomos) and natural law which has
its origins in unchanging nature (physis). A modern example of a nomos is
the agreement that a red traffic light means 'stop' while a green one means
'go', while an instance of a natural law is the law of gravity. If a legislative
body so ordained, red could mean 'go' and green, 'stop'. Under the right
circumstances, the traffic light can be ignored with impunity. On the other
hand, the law of gravity cannot be repealed by man and compels obedience
to itself.

Although the physis - nomos antithesis was common in the teachings

of most Sophists, their views of physis with regard to human nature could
differ widely. To some Sophists, the realization that all men have much the
same human nature required the abolishment of all artificial distinctions
among men, such as Hellene and Barbarian, master and slave. Other
Sophists saw human nature as an aggregate of man's animalistic
inclinations to aggression and domination by physical strength. Human law
(nomos) which restricted those inclinations was seen as an artificial
constraint contrary to the natural order of things, created by the weaker
members of society. This view was the philosophical basis of the rhetorical
argument of "the right of the stronger" ("might makes right") which is used
by a number of speakers in Thucydides's History and which you will see
advanced by the sophist Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic. The Sophists
who advocated this argument saw men in the image of animals in the wild
and often recommended the animal world as a model for the human.
According to this view, any attempt to constrain the natural human
tendency of aggression is not only wrong, but useless. Nature overrides any
artificial constraints set up by man. Just as in the animal world, the strong
will always be victorious over and dominate the weak. Not all Sophists,
however, subscribed to this theory. Protagoras believed that men, left to
their own natural savage instincts, would destroy each other. In his view
nomos, although only an artificial creation of man, enables men to survive
and makes possible civilized communal life.2

2In addition to the arguments of advantage and the right of the

strongethird line of argumentation popularized by the Sophists was that of
probability. This argument was especially useful in the court room where
the lack of evidence and/or witnesses made a charge difficult to refute. For
example, a man charged with assault against a larger and stronger man
could argue that it is not likely that he would have attacked such a person.
On the other hand, if the man accused of assault were very large, he could
argue that a man whose very size would make him a suspect would not be
likely to have committed such a crime.
The intellectual revolution fomented by the Sophists also reached into the
area of religion. Most Sophists saw the gods as creations of men. In general,
Sophists were either agnostic or atheistic and saw the world as operating
on the principle of natural rather than divine causation. There was very
little room in Sophistic thought for the old anthropomorphic gods. This, of
course, is not to say that the gods disappeared from ancient Greek life
because of Sophistic skepticism. The Sophists and their students
represented an intellectual minority. The average man, who could not care
less about these avant-garde theories, distrusted intellectuals and regarded
the agnosticism and atheism of the Sophists as irreligious and impious.

Protagoras was an agnostic who claimed not to know whether the

gods existed or not or anything about their appearance. Many other
Sophists tended toward atheism. The sophist Prodicus taught that men
deify those things which are important to human life such as the sun,
moon, rivers, springs, bread (Demeter), wine (Dionysus), fire (Hephaistos)
and water (Poseidon) and at the same time (somewhat inconsistently from
the modern point of view) the discoverers and providers of bread, wine and
fire (also called Demeter, Dionysus and Hephaistos). Thus the goddess
Demeter was considered simultaneously to be bread and the provider of
bread just as Dionysus and Hephaistos were similarly viewed with regard to
wine and fire. Another atheistic theory about the origin of the gods is
attributed to a certain Critias, an associate of Plato, who was not himself a
professional sophist, but whose views were closely allied with those of the
Sophists. Critias asserted that the gods were a contrivance of governments
to insure that men would believe that everything done on earth whether
openly or secretly was seen by the gods and would consequently be
discouraged from violating the laws of the state. Otherwise, men, if not
detected by other men, could break the laws of the state without fear of
punishment. In this theory, belief in the gods brought stability to the state
by providing sanction for its laws.

Properly a name given by the Greeks to all those who professed

knowledge, or a particular knowledge or a particular art. Hence the Seven
Wise Men are often thus called; but the name was especially applied to the
educated men of ready speech, who, from about the year 450 B.C., used to
travel through Greece from place to place, and imparted what they knew
for money. They have the merit of having popularized the interest in
knowledge which had up to that time been confined within narrow circles,
and especially of having contributed to the formation of eloquence. For
they were the first to make style an object of study, and to institute serious
investigations into the art of rhetorical expression. Their teaching was
chiefly intended to give their pupils versatility in the use of speech, and
thus to fit them for taking part in public life. As the subject of their
discourses, they chose by preference questions of public interest to persons
of general education. The expression, however, always remained the
important thing, while positive knowledge fell more and more into the
background. Some of them even started from the position, that virtue and
knowledge were only subjective notions. Protagoras of Abdera, who
appeared about 445 B.C., is named as the first Sophist; after him the most
important is Gorgias of Leontini; Prodicus of Ceos and Hippias of Elis are
contemporaries of the other two. Wherever they appeared, especially in
Athens, they were received with the greatest enthusiasm, and many
flocked to hear them. Even such men as Pericles, Euripides, and Socrates
sought their society; and Socrates owed to them much that was suggestive
in his own pursuit of practical philosophy, though, on the other hand, he
persistently attacked the principles underlying their public teaching. These
principles became further exaggerated under their successors who did not
think they needed even knowledge of fact to talk as they pleased about
everything. Accordingly the skill of the Sophist degenerated into mere
technicalities and complete absence of reason, and became absolutely
contemptible. With the revival of Greek eloquence, from about the
beginning of the 2nd century A.D., the name of Sophist attained a now
distinction. At that time the name was given to the professional orators,
who appeared in public with great pomp and delivered declamations either
prepared beforehand or improvised on the spot. Like the earlier Sophists,
they went generally from place to place, and were overwhelmed with
applause and with marks of distinction by their contemporaries, including
even the Roman emperors. Dion Chrysostom, Herodes Atticus, Aristides,
Lucian, and Philostratus the elder, belong to the flourishing period of this
second school of Sophists, a period which extends over the whole of the
2nd century. They appear afresh about the middle of the 4th century
devoting their philosophic culture to the zealous but unavailing defence of
paganism. Among them was the emperor Julian and his contemporaries
Libanius, Himerius, and Themistius. Synesius may be considered as the last
Sophist of importance.

EURIPIDES AND THE SOPHISTS

The restless spirit and intellect of Euripides are products of an

equally restless spiritual era. Euripides grows at a time when the sophistic
movement in Athens is prospering , and his work reflects the spiritual strife
and ferment of the period. Euripides is considering as 'pupil of the sophists'
and apostle of the sophistic movement from some scholars, but such a view
is exaggerated. Euripides certainly watched with interest the intellectual
movement of his time, he knew the ideas of contemporary thinkers and
reflects many of these projects, but we should not think that always
accepts them: in many cases it is quite evident this review stance towards
them. Nor should we think that the works of Euripides was a kind of
"ideological manifestos" which aimed to propagate the ideas of
sophistication in public. The aim of Euripides was not to raise a certain
ideology, but rather to present dramatically with clean and exciting
theatrical way, the struggle and collision of different ideas, which saw the
spiritual life of his time.

One area where Euripides’ theater has received a strong influence of

the sophistic movement is the use of rhetorical art. The sophists had a key
role in the development of the art of persuasion and many of them taught
rhetoric to their students. The sophists were instrumental in the
development of the art of persuasion and many of them taught rhetoric to
their students. One of his favorite rhetorical exercises sophists were putting
their students to argue both sides of an issue, or to argue for and against
the same terms. This sophistic exercise reflected the "agon" (or formal
debate) which are very common in the tragedies of Euripides: the dramatist
presents two persons to argue opposing views; each person recites an
extensive quotation where arguing for his view and refutes the arguments
of his opponent · then follows a charged crosstalk, as a rhetorical
skirmishes between the two rivals. Usually sayings struggles reasons
consciously rhetorical and use many features of Attica rhetoric tricks.
Sometimes people read aloud their speeches before a judge, who will
decide who is right (eg Hecuba Hecuba and Polymistor speak with judge
Agamemnon, in the Trojan Women Hecuba and Helen with Menelaus as a
judge , in Orestes Orestes and Tyndareus with judge Menelaos). Then the
battle grounds have something of the atmosphere of the court, where
parties compete with sayings to convince the judges.

Favorite theme of Sophistic thought preoccupied Euripides: eg the

issue of education-predominant concern of the Sophists, who claimed that
they could pass on to their students all the tools needed for success in life.
Euripides dramatized this in the tragedy "Antiope" through a mental
conflict between the two brothers, Amphion and Zethos: Amphion supports
the theoretical life of contemplation and intellectual creation, the Zethos
the practical life of political action. Another issue raised in several tragedies
of Euripides is political power, the limits of strength and power and its
relationship to the law-again fundamental questions in political theories of
the Sophists. At Phoenician is a formal debate between Eteocles reasons
and Polynices on the issue of power. Eteocles appears as an advocate of
absolute power; proclaims that he would not hesitate at nothing to gain
and maintain power. His views may reflect contemporary theoretical
discussions of the sophists (cf. Thrasymachus in Republic and Callicles in
Gorgias of Plato, who theoretically defend the law of the fittest and the
right of the powerful to dominate and exploit the powerless; similar
arguments advanced by the Athenians in their dialogue with Milia in
Thucydides' History). In contrast, Jocasta (who acts as referee in the game)
defends equality between citizens and democracy. In other cases Euripides
seems to question the social distinctions and boundaries of social classes:
present simple and humble people like the farmer in Electra or the
anonymous farmer in Orestes, who show great loyalty, dedication and
generosity to the law, unlike others, aristocrats characters the same works
that appear vicious and vile. Challenging the old aristocratic attitudes that
identified their nobility of origin by virtue of character is another spiritual
conquest of sophistic.

HIPPOLYTUS

HIPPOLYTOS KALYPTOMENOS AND HIPPOLYTOS

STEPHANOPHOROS

Euripides twice treated the Hippolytus myth in dramatic form, which

was unusual for a Greek tragedian. This is, in fact, the only known instance
of a Greek dramatist composing two tragedies on the same mythic source.
It therefore seems likely that Euripides was deeply interested in this
narrative. His first treatment, entitled Hippolytos Kalyptomenos (Hippolytus
Veiled), was met by the disfavor of the Athenian audience. Though only a
brief fragment of this play survives, scholars generally agree that this text
portrayed Phaedra as sexually voracious. This representation of Phaedra as
a lustful woman who directly propositions Hippolytus likely offended
Athenian audiences who would have been appalled by the portrayal of illicit
female desire. The play likely portrayed Hippolytus as an innocent youth so
overwhelmed with shame after Phaedra’s sexual advances that he veils his
face.

Euripides’ initial failure at the City Dionysia may have motivated him
to revisit the Hippolytus myth. The extant dramatization, titled Hippolytos
Stephanophoros (Hippolytus Crowned) or simply Hippolytus, is generally
believed to have corrected the characterizations that made the first version
so unpopular. This belief originated with Aristophanes of Byzantium, and
many modern scholars continue to hold this view. In this reading, both
Phaedra and Hippolytus remain chaste and share some of the responsibility
for their tragic fates. Instead of a brazen Phaedra propositioning
Hippolytus, the nurse betrays her mistress, which results in the downfall of
these two characters. Ultimately, all characters seem to be absolved of
their moral responsibilities. Rather, Aphrodite receives blame for the
deaths of Hippolytus and Phaedra, and the conclusion of the play
establishes ongoing strife between the goddess of love and the goddess of
chastity. Athenian audiences responded more positively to this reworked
version of the Hippolytus myth. Hippolytus was first performed for the City
Dionysia in 428 B.C.E. and won first prize. Euripides’ tragedy forms the basis
of a number of later adaptations of the Hippolytus myth, most notably
Racine’s seventeenth-century drama Phèdre (composed in French).

HIPPOLYTUS-THE PLOT

The play, Hippolytus, takes place in Troezen, a costal town near to

Athens. Theseus is spending his time in Troezen as a voluntary exile to
atone for his killings. His step wife, Phaedra, and his illegitimate son
Hippolytus both join him in this story. Hippolytus, being Theseus’
illegitimate son, has been raised and trained in Troezen since childhood.

At the beginning of the play Aphrodite, a goddess (particularly the

one associated with love) appears and mentions how Hippolytus, having
sworn chastity, honours Artemis instead, and how she plans to punish
Hippolytus for scorning women and, thus, her as well. This plan,
incidentally, revolves around Phaedra, Hippolytus’ stepmother, of which
Aphrodite has charmed into falling in love with Hippolytus. This charming
proves to be the pivotal issue which drives the play’s plot.

Hippolytus, following Aphrodite’s’ explanation of her revenge,

appears in a temple showing reverence to a statue of Artemis, who
happens to also represent chastity. He is then approached by a servant who
warns him not to displease Aphrodite, but the servant is ignored. This first
scene reveals that Hippolytus is not at all interested in women and is quite
ignorant of his impending fate. Also, his seeming disdain for Aphrodite’s
hints, though does not justify, that Aphrodite’s’ revenge is reasonable.

The chorus, a common tool for Greek playwrights, consists of the

married women of Troezen. They enter the play following the temple
scene, describing how Phaedra does not seem to be eating or sleeping.
Phaedra’s nurse manages to wrangle from her the fact that she has fallen in
love for Hippolytus, and Phaedra explains that that is the cause for her
fasting as she desires to die with honor. The nurse, believing that the issue
can be resolved, lies to Phaedra and tells her she can be cured with some
unknown medicine. She then proceeds to tell Hippolytus about Phaedra
and her love for him. After telling Hippolytus she makes him swear to tell
no one no matter what about what she has said. Hippolytus then remarks
angrily about his disdain for the nature of women, partially revealing why
he has chosen a life of chastity, and further revealing why Aphrodite wants
to exact revenge upon him. Phaedra, understanding that Hippolytus now
knows, believes herself to be doomed to ridicule and such and so she
commits suicide. Before she does so, she makes the Chorus swear secrecy
regarding her death. Thus, she dooms Hippolytus, though he is unaware.

In the next scene, Theseus returns only to find his wife dead with a
letter on her body explaining that she had committed suicide because
Hippolytus raped her. The chorus, being bound by their pact with Phaedra,
cannot tell him the truth. Hippolytus appears, and though he seems quite
innocent in his demeanor Theseus immediately questions him about the
alleged crime. Hippolytus, being true to his word, holds his tongue and does
not tell Theseus what he knows; only that he is innocent. Theseus, believing
the letter to be the truth, curses Hippolytus using one of the three curses
which his father Poseidon (the god of water, ocean, and sea) has promised
him and then exiles him.

After the chorus sing a lament to Hippolytus’ fate, a messenger

enters the scene and tells Theseus that Hippolytus is dying due to an
accident wherein a bull scared the horses of his chariot which ended up
dragging him about. The messenger, pitying Hippolytus, tries to sue pardon
for him saying that he is innocent, but Theseus refuses to believe and is
quite happy with the turn of events.

Suddenly, Artemis appears Theseus and tells him the truth of the
situation. She lays partial blame on Theseus for cursing his son, but
understands that the main faults lays with Aphrodite. She promises justice
by saying she will kill one of Aphrodites’ favorite humans. Hippolytus is then
carried in to a remorseful Theseus, and though Hippolytus was obviously
wronged he forgives Theseus and does not lay the blame of his death upon
him. Thus, the play of Hippolytus ends.
 CHARACTERS & MOTIVS

APRHODITE- Aphrodite is the goddess of love. Infuriated over Hippolytus’

refusal to worship her, she concocts a plot of revenge. Aphrodite causes
Phaedra to fall in love with Hippolytus, which ultimately causes his
downfall. Euripides portrays Aphrodite as a terrifying and vindictive deity,
unlike the voluptuous woman often depicted in visual art. Her opening
monologue conveys an imperious attitude, and she sees the world and its
people as her domain. Because Aphrodite is the goddess of love, her
perception of the world seems reasonable, since her power extends to the
everyday lives of the mortals over whom she rules. This is not, however, the
benign emotion that today we might associate with the word “love.”
Rather, Euripides depicts erotic love as a consuming and destructive force.
As Aphrodite states, those who fail to accord the proper respect to her will
face obliteration. The terrifying power of love is essential to understanding
Aphrodite’s anger at Hippolytus and the development of the play.

Aphrodite directs her fury at Hippolytus because he refuses to

worship her. He is, as he explains in Scene I, not interested in erotic love
and consequently reveres the goddess of love “from a long way off.” He
instead remains chaste and worships Artemis exclusively. This, of course,
infuriates Aphrodite who vows to punish him for his blasphemy. Because he
will not honor erotic love, she decides that its power will destroy him,
thereby proving her supremacy over humanity to all those who hear of
Hippolytus’ destruction. Her vehicle for punishing him is Phaedra, his
stepmother, who thus becomes a victim of love.

HIPPOLYTUS- Hippolytus is the illegitimate son of Theseus and the Amazon

Antiope (alternately Hippolyte). As a child, he was sent to Troezen to be
raised by his great-grandfather Pittheus. Theseus hoped that when Pittheus
died, Hippolytus would inherit the rule of Troezen while his legitimate
children would rule over Athens. Hippolytus worships Artemis, the goddess
of the hunt, to the exclusion of the other gods. He is committed to
remaining chaste, which angers Aphrodite, the goddess of love. Angry at his
refusal to honor her, Aphrodite plots against him, causing his stepmother,
Phaedra, to fall in love with him. When he rejects Phaedra’s desire, she
commits suicide and accuses him of raping her. When Theseus discovers
Phaedra’s accusations, he curses Hippolytus, who dies because of the curse.

PHAEDRA-Phaedra is the wife of Theseus and therefore Queen of Athens.

She is the daughter of Minos, king of Crete, and came to Athens after
Theseus killed the Minotaur. After marrying Theseus, she falls in love with
his illegitimate son Hippolytus. Aphrodite causes Phaedra’s desire in order
to further her plot to destroy Hippolytus. Phaedra tells her nurse about her
passion for her stepson, who then reveals this to Hippolytus. In order to
preserve her honor, Phaedra commits suicide by hanging herself, but not
before writing a letter accusing Hippolytus of raping her. Most critics
(including Aristophanes) agree that Phaedra and not Hippolytus is the
principal character in this play.

Although Aristophanes accused Euripides of portraying only perverse

or monstrous women on the stage, Euripides has a clear interest in women
and their role in Greek society. From Phaedra’s first appearance, we can
see that she and not Hippolytus is the play’s central character and that
Euripides is deeply concerned with the development of her character. He
grants her character interiority that he denies to Hippolytus and Theseus,
as we can see in her nuanced defense of her actions. She describes her own
motives with perfect clarity, first explaining her resolution to remain silent
and then her determination to die. This sequence demonstrates Phaedra’s
psychological self-awareness.

THESEUS- Theseus is the king of Athens. He is in Troezen with his wife

Phaedra serving a year of voluntary exile for murdering the Pallantids, who
are nobles of Attica, the region around Athens. His illegitimate son
Hippolytus also lives in Troezen. At the beginning of the play, Theseus is
absent, having gone to Delphi to visit the oracle. When he returns to
Troezen, he finds that his wife has committed suicide and has implicated
Hippolytus. He curses his son, who dies as a result.

ARTEMIS- Artemis is the virginal goddess of the hunt, chastity, and

childbirth. She is often depicted as a hunter, carrying a bow and arrow. In
the play, she is the patron of Hippolytus, who prefers to remain chaste and
enjoys hunting. After Aphrodite destroys her favorite, Artemis vows to
avenge his death. She appears only in the epilogue to reveal the truth of
what has happened over the course of the play. The use of a deus ex
machina (meaning “god out of the machine,” a deus ex machina is a plot
device in which a person or thing appears unexpectedly and provides a
contrived solution to an apparently unsolvable problem) is a common
feature in Euripidean tragedy. In the case of Hippolytus, the deus ex
machina is Artemis, quite literally a goddess. She appears in the epilogue to
explain the truth to Theseus and Aphrodite’s anger to Hippolytus. Perhaps
most importantly for the audience, she indicates why she refused to help
her favorite: “No one may fly in the face of another’s wish: we remain aloof
and neutral. Else, I assure you, had I not feared Zeus, I never would have
endured such shame as this—my best friend among men killed, and I could
do nothing.” As is typical of the deus ex machina, Artemis resolves many of
the lingering problems at the conclusion of the play.

THE TWO LEVELS OF ACTIONS- TWO HORIZONS

As Euripides depicts it, the relationship between gods and humans

seems tenuous at best. The gods seem to use men as their playthings,
enacting strife between the gods through human surrogates. In turn,
humans seem to worship the gods both out of piety and out of a desire to
placate them and avoid incurring their wrath. Each has few responsibilities
to each other. Humans must revere and celebrate the gods, while the gods
are free of the burden of protecting men. Throughout the play, the
influence of the gods on the actions of the characters is evident, especially
when Aphrodite affects the actions of Phaedra. Also central to the plot is
the god-god interactions between Artemis and Aphrodite.

First of all a few terms need to be defined. Most important would be

the nature of the gods. They have divine powers, but what exactly makes
the Greek gods unique should be explored. The Greek gods, since they are
anthropomorphic, have many of the same characteristics as humans. One
characteristic of the gods which is apparent is jealousy. Aphrodite seems to
be jealous of Artemis because Hippolytus worships Artemis as the greatest
of all gods, while he tends to shy away from worshipping Aphrodite (10-16).
This is important because it sets in motion the actions of the play when
Aphrodite decides to get revenge on Hippolytus. The divine relationship
between the gods is a bit different, however. Over the course of the play,
Artemis does not interfere in the actions of Aphrodite, which shows that
the gods, while divine, do have restrictions; in this case, it shows the gods
cannot interfere with each other. (1328-1330). The gods are sometimes evil
and revengeful, though, as can be seen by what Artemis has to say about
Aphrodite: "I'll wait till she loves a mortal next time, and with this hand -
with these unerring arrows I'll punish him." (1420-1422)

The relationship of mankind and the gods also needs to be discussed.

This relationship seems to be a sort of give-and-take relationship, in part.
The Greeks believed that if they gave to the gods, through prayer and
sacrifices, that the gods would help them out. This is especially true of
Hippolytus and his almost excessive worship of Artemis. Also, Theseus
praying to his father Poseidon is another example of this, only Theseus
actually gets what he prays for. (887-890) Just because mankind
worshipped the gods, however did not mean that the gods had any sort of
obligation to help out the humans. Artemis did nothing to protect
Hippolytus from being killed. But not all relations between the gods and
mankind were positive from the humans' standpoint. Since Aphrodite is
angry with Hippolytus for not worshipping her, she decides to punish him
by making Phaedra love him, then making it seem that he rapes her, when
she actually hangs herself, whether that is through her own actions or is the
doing of Aphrodite.

The thoughts and actions of Hippolytus and Phaedra certainly are

irrational at times. After all, a stepmother falling in love with her stepson is
unlikely, but probably even less acceptable. This is directly related to the
gods. What Aphrodite does to Phaedra certainly causes her to do some
strange things. For instance, first Phaedra seems to go crazy, and then she
decides to hide her new-found love for Hippolytus from the nurse. Later,
though, she decides to tell the nurse, and when she finds that the nurse has
told Hippolytus, decides that the only logical course of action is to kill
herself. This action is certainly related to the gods because Aphrodite
makes it look as if Phaedra's suicide is really the fault of Hippolytus. Some
of Hippolytus' actions are related to the gods as well. When Theseus
discovers that Phaedra is dead and decides to exile Hippolytus, Hippolytus
does object to his banishment, but eventually he stops arguing with his
father. At this point, he prays to the gods that he be killed in exile if he is
guilty of the death of Phaedra. It is also possible he may be expecting
Artemis to help him out, though she does nothing until he is on the verge of
death.

The characters do worry about how the gods react to them at times.
Hippolytus does not seem to concern himself much with how Aphrodite
reacts to his behavior. At the beginning of the play, the old man questions
Hippolytus' decision not to worship Aphrodite, but Hippolytus really does
not worry that he may be making Aphrodite angry. He does care how
Artemis reacts, however, because he is hoping to keep her happy so that
she may help him out if he should need it. Theseus certainly concerns
himself with how the gods react, since he needs Poseidon to send a bull to
go kill his son. At the end of the play he does care what Artemis has to say
about him killing his son. He believes that he should be the one to die,
though Artemis is able to convince him that he was fooled by the gods.
Phaedra, on the other hand, really is in no position to care much about how
the gods react to what she does. This is because she is under the control of
Aphrodite. Aphrodite makes her love Hippolytus, it certainly is not of her
own free will.

As far as what the characters expect from their gods, it varies by

person. Theseus, being the son of Poseidon, was supposedly given three
curses by his father, and he expects Poseidon to help him out and kill
Hippolytus. (887-889) Hippolytus never really expects anything specific
from Artemis during the play, but he does tell the gods that he should die in
exile if he is guilty of the rape of Phaedra. Even as he is dying, he does not
expect Artemis to help him. Interestingly, he even apologizes to his father
and to Artemis for causing them to suffer because of his death. Phaedra
wishes that her judgment had not be interfered with by the Aphrodite,
because she is the one who caused Phaedra to fall in love with Hippolytus.

The gods treat human beings more or less as pawns to do with as

they please. It seems like it is all a game to them. In Hippolytus, it is game
of revenge between Aphrodite and Artemis. Aphrodite interferes in the life
of Hippolytus, someone loved by Artemis, then Artemis vows to take
revenge on Aphrodite to avenge the death of Hippolytus. Despite the fact
that he worships her above all others, she still does not help him out
throughout the entire play. This indicates that Artemis may not care for him
as much as we are led to believe. She says she would take revenge, but
there is no guarantee it will happen. From this, we can see that the gods
often did not treat the humans very well. In a way, Poseidon treats Theseus
well by granting his wish for the death of Hippolytus. This joy is short-lived,
however, when he discovers that he has been fooled by the tricks of
Aphrodite.

Why the gods would treat the humans this way is a somewhat
complicated question. An easy answer would be that they have the power
to do to the humans what the please. But there are other reasons as well.
For instance, the theme of revenge plays a major role in the plot. The
actions of Aphrodite against Hippolytus are motivated by revenge. The
gods, at least in Hippolytus, are not malicious and wanting humans to suffer
for no good reason. Therefore, the most important reason for gods treating
humans the way they do is that they are reacting to the actions of humans;
this is especially true of Aphrodite's reaction to Hippolytus's failure to
worship her. The gods must derive something from the suffering of the
humans; otherwise there is no point in making them suffer. In this case, the
gods derive both sorrow and joy from the suffering of the characters.
Aphrodite certainly is happy that Hippolytus suffered and died through her
own actions, and that she causes Theseus to suffer as well by taking his son
away. On the other hand, she probably does not care much that she also
caused the death of Phaedra. Phaedra only serves as a pawn to get revenge
on Hippolytus. Aphrodite only cares to punish Hippolytus, and she would
have used Phaedra in whatever capacity necessary to get that revenge.
Artemis, however, is saddened by the loss of Hippolytus: "You and I are the
chief sufferers Theseus." (1337) Because of this, she vows to avenge
Hippolytus' death, and also tells him that he will not be forgotten by future
generations of Greeks, that his name will live on in glory. Interestingly,
Hippolytus was able to forgive his father even though his father caused his
death. That should not be surprising, because he realizes that his father was
fooled by the gods, and being an irrational human, could not really be
expected to know he was being tricked. Also, Artemis does not blame
Theseus for the death of his son: "It is natural for men to err when they are
blinded by gods." (1433-1434) The most important thing that the ending
shows is that sometimes the gods do care what happens to the humans. It
also shows how easily the power of the gods, particularly that of Poseidon,
could be misused because Theseus gets what he prays for, the death of his
son, but it is not really what he wanted.

T wo major themes are present in Hippolytus: revenge and forgiveness.

Almost the entire plot of the play is based on revenge. There is the revenge
between gods and humans, and humans and humans. Initially, we have
Aphrodite wanting revenge on Hippolytus for worshipping Artemis and not
her, which of course sets in motion the actions of the play. Then we have
the revenge of Theseus against Hippolytus, when he believes that his son
raped his wife and killed her. This does not end up as revenge, however, as
Theseus eventually suffers as a result of his son's death.

One final form of revenge comes at the end of the play, when
Artemis vows to avenge the death of Hippolytus by interfering with a
human loved by Aphrodite. It is all a vicious cycle of revenge. This same
story could very easily happen again if Artemis does avenge his death. Also,
forgiveness is an important theme. Even though his father is responsible for
his death, Hippolytus is nevertheless able to forgive him. This comes from
the realization that his father had been deceived by the gods. In the end,
this proves once again that the Greeks were at the mercy of their gods and
that they had to try to live their life the best they could in spite of that fact.

THE NATURE OF EURIPIDES’ GODS

Complex issue is the attitude of Euripides towards the gods and

traditional religion. In many cases Euripides' heroes criticize the established
religious beliefs and the gods of the inherited myths. Amphitryon, in
Heracles, blames Zeus that abandons the faithful and ignores the law. In
the same work, Heracles challenges the mythological stories about love
affairs and adulteries of the gods and their disputes: these are all miserable
inventions of poets, because god, if is god does not need anything. These
words are not far from complete denial of the traditional religion of
Olympus, as founded on the known myths. There are other cases where
heroes of Euripides contest mythological stories as improbable or silly (eg.
Birth of Helen from the egg of Leda, the crisis with the three goddesses who
caused the Trojan War, etc...). Others heroes of Euripides criticize the gods
for their cruelty (so Cadmus in Bacchae complains about the excessive
cruelty of Dionysus, the old slave in Hippolytus notes that the gods should
forgive and treat more wisely than people, Iphigenia in Iphigenia in Tauris
appalled for the sacrifice required by Artemis).

The discussion between Hippolytus and the servant further

emphasizes the similarities between gods and humans. The servant
demonstrates that the rules that govern human interactions likewise define
the relationships between gods. He states that for both gods and men,
haughty behavior will incite arrogance and affability will curry favor.
Euripides thus reinforces the fallibility of the gods. He shows that the gods
are subject to the same emotional responses as humans and therefore act
much as their mortal counterparts do. The only major difference between
gods and mortals is the power that the gods wield.

Not only are the gods similar to humans, Euripides creates a world in which
humans expect the gods to interfere in their affairs. Beyond the obvious
examples of Aphrodite and Artemis, who are intimately involved in the
action of the play, the chorus refers to other deities who could have caused
Phaedra’s mania, including Pan and Hecate. Pan is a nature god, usually
depicted as a faun, who rules over wilderness, and Hecate, whom antiquity
portrayed as a virgin, is associated with crossroads, liminal spaces, and
magic. All of the divine figures mentioned by the chorus are somehow
“other,” which is appropriate based on Phaedra’s wild behavior. Beyond
the scope of the play, the chorus’ speculation indicates the greater
perception in Greek society that the gods involved themselves in the
everyday lives of humans.*

It is true that often the gods of Euripidean theater are presented as

ruthless, incredibly tough, resentful and vindictive without any compassion
for people, dominated by passions similar to those of humans (eg.
Aphrodite and Artemis in Hippolytus, Hera Heracles and Athena in the
Trojan Women, crashing mercilessly human victims to satisfy their personal
desires and selfishness). In Aeschylus gods presented themselves as
representatives of the cosmic order and justice: impose on people
sufferings and passions in order to teach them, to encourage them to
acquire knowledge. In Sophocles gods also appear as observers of a
transcendent order, but the human mind cannot comprehend: the gods of
Sophocles are distant, the will and justice is obscure and incomprehensible
to humans, but they are not putted into question. Instead, the universe is
governed by Euripides gods like the gods of Homer: they are not morally
superior to the people, they have the same passions and the same defects
as mortals but much stronger. Next is the violence, injustice and horror
dominate in such a universe. In this regard, Euripides proves far more
pessimistic than their predecessors, but also more realistic in his perception
of the world. These hard and cruel gods of Euripidean theater with
completely human passions, are somehow symbolic images and
incarnations of human passions, violent elements and obscure powers
inherent in the human psyche and govern our existence. In metaphysical
terms, the gods of Euripides are dramatic representations of evil and
absurdity inherent in the universe.

This criticism of the gods and the pessimistic presentation in

Euripides theater contributed Euripides to gain the reputation of the
atheist. Comic poets (eg. Aristophanes in Thesmophoriazusae) characterize
him openly atheist and denier of established religion. Younger scholars also
wanted to present Euripides as agnostic, connecting it with the Sophists'
agnosticism (as Protagoras) and rationalist. Such views, however, if are not
completely untrue, are simplistic. Euripides maybe was criticizing the
traditional religion, but he was not atheist or religiously indifferent. As we
will see below, the poet nurtured a strong and longstanding interest in the
mystery cults and religious events with ecstatic character. Bacchae, rough
poetry and ecstatic chorus, constitute the most powerful depiction of
Dionysus religious spirit in ancient literature. And other works show a keen
interest in Euripides for religious events and phenomena. The poet shows
very successfully the warm piety young heroes as Hippolytus (the chaste
and puritanical young who is devoted to Artemis, the goddess of virginity)
or Ion (the young deacon of Apollo), a rationalist could not give such a
convincing and vivid picture of religious piety. Very often Euripides chooses
a religious, ceremonial backdrop for the action of his works: Ion played
before the temple of Apollo at Delphi, Iphigenia in Tauris at the Temple of
Artemis in Tauris, the Suppliants in the sanctuary of Demeter at Eleusis in
Andromache; Neoptolemos killed in the temple of Apollo, the Aegisthus in
Electra is a sacrifice to the sacred grove of the Nymphs etc.

How could we, determine the religiousness of Euripides? How does

the criticism of traditional religion with the interest in religious phenomena
and mystical cults compromise? Perhaps the answer lies here too, to the
trend for constant search that characterized the restless and inquiring mind
of poet. Euripides never ceased to contemplate on the subject of religion,
the nature of the gods, the meaning of existence and the world. Both his
criticism and his interest in religion, despite the inconsistency, have
ultimately the same starting point: the ceaseless spiritual concern of the
poet, which pushes the search for truth. Perhaps the purest expression of
religious searches of Euripides located in those passages where the poet
meditates on the nature of the divine and acknowledges the difficulty of
the human mind to grasp: eg. in the prayer of Hecuba in The Trojan Women
(884: "Oh you who hold the earth and got over her seat you, Zeus, whoever
you are - hard to speculate and to understand - whether you're the
necessity of nature or the mind dominates the man ... ") or the famous
chorus of Helen (1137:" what is God, what is not god and what is between
their mortal who will investigate and tell? Far is the terminus for anyone
looking for the divine that is changing constantly and turns in unexpected
luck "). Such passages reveal the metaphysical concern of Euripides and the
constant meditation on the notion of the divine. The passage from the
Trojan Women somewhat akins to metaphysical thinkers like Diogenes of
Apollonia and Anaxagoras, connecting the concept of the divine with the
spiritual element of thought. Many associate the passage from Helen with
Protagoras’ agnosticism. But there is a fundamental difference that
distinguishes Euripides from the rationalist agnosticism of sophists:
Protagoras declares complete ignorance about the existence of gods, while
Euripides refers only to the difficulty to understand the nature and meaning
of their behavior. Furthermore, the integral agnosticism Protagoras
inevitably leads to religious indifference (since we cannot even know if
there are gods, best not to deal with the issue). Instead, the passages of
Euripides testify active religious meditation: reveal the agony of the human
mind in its attempt to capture the divine and understand its place in the
world.

This agony of thought is the main characteristic of the spirit of

Euripides and governs the searches in the religious field, as well as in all
other areas.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
C. Collard, Euripides, Greece and Rome New Surveys in the Classics no. 14,
Oxford 1981.

B.M.W. Knox, «Euripides», P.E. Easterling-B.M.W. Knox, The Cambridge

History of Classical Literature, Book Ι: Greek Literature, Cambridge 1985

A. Lesky, Die tragische Dichtung der Hellenen, Göttingen 3 1972,

A. Lesky, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, Bern & Munich 1971.

Bates, Alfred, ed. The Drama: Its History, Literature and Influence on
Civilization. Vol. 1. London: Historical Publishing Company, 1906.

Buxton, Richard. The Complete World of Greek Mythology. London:

Thames & Hudson, 2004.

Euripides. Hippolytus. Trans. David Grene. Euripides I. Eds. David Grene and
Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955.

Newton, Rick M. "Euripides 'Hippolytus Kalyptomenos.'" Hermes Vol. 108,

No. 3 (1980)

Roisman, Hanna M. "The Veiled Hippolytus and Phaedra." Hermes Vol. 127,
No. 4 (4th Qtr., 1999)

Trzaskoma, Stephen M, R. Schott Smith, and Stephen Brunet, eds. and

trans. Anthology of Classical Myth: Primary Sources in Translation.
Cambridge: Hacket Publishing Company, Inc., 2004.