Gayatri Gogoi

To what extent if any does Hippolytus reflect Euripides engagement with the thought of the
sophists?
At the heart of Euripides Hippolytus is philosophy; this is what gives the play its poignancy, this is
what puts human emotion at the centre of the dramatic motivation of the play. Euripides
engagement with the thoughts of the sophists is not in constructing elaborate philosophical debates
or arguments; rather, by putting philosophical concern in the nuances of the action, we, as the
audience, are meant to engage in these debates ourselves. Sophists broadly speaking were teacher-
philosophers who claimed to teach arete, virtue, to the aristocratic youth of the democratic 5
th

century Athens, charging high fees in return for instruction in rhetorical skills, political acumen and
philosophical thought which was useful for public life in the political arena. The practical interests
doubtless led to the approach to philosophy of 5
th
century sophists which was rooted in human
affairs, such as the nature of virtue, justice and other human concepts rather than the cosmological
concerns of their predecessors. However, we cannot treat the sophists as a homogenous group,
whose beliefs and ideas were identical, but rather we can use their broad concern with philosophical
concepts in relation to human nature to guide our own interpretation of those same philosophical
ideas in general terms in the play. The similar concern which both sophists and Euripides have with
the exploration of human emotion is key to our understanding of the play as well as the dramatic
pathos of the action.
We should not say that Euripides uses the action of his play to explore philosophical concepts, rather
that his exploration of philosophical ideas shapes our reaction to the play and its characters.
Euripides is not attempting to give us any answers, just highlighting the questions. One of the most
important ideas touched upon in the play is the nature of virtue, especially the relationship of virtue
and knowledge. From a Sophistic point of view, from Plato's dialogue the Protagoras, the
eponymous interlocutor expresses the view that virtues are skills, techne, but is countered by
Socrates claim of the unity of virtues, that all virtue is knowledge. While we cannot charge Euripides
with arguing for or against any such claim of what virtue, or knowledge is, we must nevertheless
acknowledge his engagement with the issue.
Phaedra having revealed her love for her stepson to the nurse and the chorus, makes a speech in
which she touches upon the relationship of knowledge and virtue in lines 380ff:
We know and understand ( ) what is noble, ( literally
noble things) but do not bring it to completion. Some fail from laziness, others because they give
precedence to some other pleasure than being honourable.
The frustration of knowing what is right and failing to execute it is what makes this situation pitiable
not just for Phaedra, but for people in general. Euripides is dealing with human experience, and an
emotion which many among his audience would be familiar and emphasise with, even if the
situation itself is fictional. By appealing to this shared human emotion, Euripides is making his
characters more plausible and more sympathetic.
It is interesting to note that Phaedras interpretation of virtue is that one may know what is virtuous
yet still be unable to execute it because of laziness or weakness of will, akrasia, a state in which one
acts against ones better judgement. In the Protagoras, Socrates claims that this weakness of will
does not exist, claiming no one deliberately desires something bad in full knowledge that it is bad,
Gayatri Gogoi
but rather that his judgement of whether something is good or bad is flawed, by an inconsistent or
defective knowledge, unable to weigh the short term or long term benefits or ills. While it must be
acknowledged that Socrates would not self-identify as a sophist, nor would Plato identify him as
such in his dialogues, and indeed the latter takes a critical approach to sophistry, many others, such
as Anytus who appears in the Meno and was one of Socrates accusers in the trial which led to
execution, would have classified him amongst the sophists as a teacher of philosophy, albeit one
who received no pay for his instruction nor claimed to be able to teach or even know virtue. In any
case, we cannot exclude Socrates from having participated in the general philosophical discussion of
the 5
th
century BC with which Euripides engages.
Phaedra has made a connection between virtue and knowledge but for her virtue can fail even
when one has knowledge of it. However, I believe in the play Euripides in fact shows that virtue fails
because of an imprecise knowledge and understanding of the significant philosophical issues he
discusses. Phaedras conception of virtue is flawed because of her own individualistic approach to
her understanding of it, for example by identifying a pleasure of life which is given precedence other
than honour as being idle chats or gossip. We might charge Phaedra with examining virtue in the
context of her own lifestyle, in the palace surrounded by gossiping women and attendants rather
than in general terms. Therefore we must apply our examination of virtue to Phaedras particular
circumstances in the play but keeping in mind how this relates to virtue more commonly.
Although she has not gossiped as such within the play, she did give in to her nurses appeal to tell
her about her passion for Hippolytus. In this case, she seems to give in to the nurses supplication
out of virtuous ideals, saying I have too much respect for your suppliant hand not to give it you.
However, we might wonder whether Phaedra may have been more willing than she appeared to
divulge her secret, and that her revelation was based on more than just respect for a suppliant. In
Greek society, ones time was an external identification, based on visible signs of regard and honour,
and once again Phaedra construes honour based on her environment. Although Phaedra is acting
honourably by wishing to kill herself on account of her shameful lust, she receives no recognition for
it. Therefore, by making her struggle known to the nurse it gains meaning and her behaviour is
substantiated as honourable, in a way, making her suffering worthwhile. However, we cannot deny
that this has the eventual effect of hastening her own suicide as the nurse tells Hippolytus of his
stepmothers lust, leading to his own exile and death. She is giving into pleasure not because she is
giving precedence to it above honour, but because she is giving precedence to honour. From a
sophistic point of view, arete, or virtue, which they claimed to teach, had a more general meaning of
success or excellence, which enabled young aristocratic men to succeed in political life to gain
recognition and a good reputation, differing from an internal and personal sense of virtue such as is
envisaged by Socrates in the Meno. Phaedra seems to be prioritizing her external honour rather than
internal integrity.
While Phaedra seems to behave virtuously in admitting her love to the nurse, both superficially and
internally, by respecting the suppliant and being concerned with her honour, we can see how in
actuality it constitutes a failure to realise the long term consequences of her actions, gaining
momentary recognition of her virtuous action as a payoff for the sorrowful results. Euripides seems
to try and reconcile the two ideas of why one fails to act virtuously, or at least he presents us with a
choice about how we can interpret the situation.
Gayatri Gogoi
In a similar way, Phaedras false rape accusation in the note she leaves for Theseus after her suicide
shows her false understanding of what it means to be virtuous. For Phaedra, her outward
appearance of virtue is a priority rather than an internal knowledge of her own virtue, meaning that
in case Hippolytus tells Theseus of her lust, she has a way of preserving her honour even after her
death. However, her plan backfires, as Artemis reveals Phaedras deceit, sullying what had been a
good reputation with the stain of dishonesty.
This is linked to Phaedras observations about the two-faced nature of aidos, one being being no bad
thing, another a burden upon houses. Aidos, a sense of shame, was another concern of sophists and
another part of what it means to be virtuous, as it is identified by Protagoras in his story of the
origins of aidos and dike as being essential for men to live in civic harmony. However, while we
might conventionally link aidos with virtue, it is to aidos that Phaedra also attributes the failure of
virtue. While we might find this surprising, Euripides shows once again that this is because of
Phaedras inability to fully understand aidos which leads to the misinterpretation of when one
should be aware of ones sense of shame and respect.
When giving into the nurses supplication, it is because of aidos that Phaedra agrees to submit,
despite the fact it is in fact damaging to her in the long term. As Conacher says Phaedra allows a
sense of conventional respect to overcome her judgement of right in reference to ho kairos, the
right time. The idea of ho kairos, meaning the timely or the appropriate, is another matter of
philosophical within this period. As Conacher writes The distinction of good and bad aidos depends
of the rightness, or otherwise, of the situation, and clearly in this situation Phaedra has not been
able to judge correctly whether to tell her nurse or not, and this is heightened by her inability to fully
understand her nurse, and that she has Phaedras wellbeing and life at the top of her priorities. That
is not to say that it is not virtuous to acquiesce to the pleas of a suppliant, but rather, the
conventionally right action in this case is the less right action rather than not telling, in view of the
fact that by revealing her love Phaedra leads herself and Hippolytus to death.
Therefore it seems that Phaedra knows what virtue is but does not fully understand what it means
to be virtuous. That is not to say that she is not a virtuous woman, but that her conception of virtue
is flawed, because of her lack of understanding of an internal morality rather than external signs of
one, and because of her inability to perceive when one should obey the conventions of morality or
an innate sense of what is. That Phaedra is nevertheless destroyed for her pursuit of a flawed
interpretation of virtue is what forms the tragedy of the play, in which mortals can be so easily
mistaken, but with disastrous consequences. What she was doing was good, but it was not good
enough.
We might also interpret Phaedras dual aidos in another way, in which good aidos is linked with
modesty and sophrosune and bad aidos with an excess. The concept of sophrosune is one which
both the sophists and Euripides were interested in, and the Hippolytus shows us how sophrosune
can have different interpretations in different circumstances. In the Phaedrus the term is used to
those who can in the presence of beauty keep their impulses under control to instant gratification.
We however might construe it as self-control or modesty in more general terms. The changing
interpretation of aidos and of sophrosune is very evident in the character of Hippolytus. Sophrosune
in most instances is meant to refer to Hippolytus chastity, and his utmost devotion to the goddess
Artemis. This we might deem a good aidos, in his devoted respect to the goddess. It is this which
Gayatri Gogoi
leads her to come down to explain events at the end of the play and promise vengeance upon
Aphrodites next favourite. However, we soon realise how this good aidos can also be seen as bad
aidos when we realise that in fact Hippolytus chastity is not in fact controlled but excessive. His
overzealous concern for abstinence is a perversion of the usual social order, and as the royal heir of
Theseus as prince of Troezen he is not fulfilling his social obligation to continue the royal line. Greeks
of the 5
th
century would have found his chastity abnormal, as long and continued periods of
abstinence were not common, instead, men would keep chaste before a hunt. Furthermore, in
taking his chastity to excess, Hippolytus likewise takes his aversion to the goddess Aphrodite to the
extreme, angering her in his refusal to worship. This is the aidos which is a burden on houses.
Furthermore, Conacher tells us that Antiphon says whoever neither desires nor touches what is
shameful and evil is not sophron, for not having conquered anything he has not made himself well
behaved by overcoming anything. It seems that to desire is in fact an integral part of sophrosune,
but the denial of those desires as a measure of self-control is what makes one sophron. For
Hippolytus, abstinence is not a measure of self-control because he does not seem to have any desire
for women, nor any understanding of them, if his misogynistic rant is evidence for his complete
inexperience with the opposite gender. Therefore, who is more admirable as a virtuous character?
Phaedra wasting away as she struggles with her self-imposed restraint, in response to her shameful
desires? Or Hippolytus who restrains himself from what he does not even desire? Even his woman-
hating outburst shows that while his sexual passion is absent, his passion of anger is still present and
unrestrained hardly the mark of a sophron man. Hippolytus believes his virtue comes from nature
and not by teaching, once again showing a connection with sophistic and Socratic ideas, such as in
the Meno. However, Hippolytus self-belief about his virtue is in fact self-delusion. While Phaedra
fails in her attempt to understand the subtleties of virtue, Hippolytus fails to even engage with them,
steadfast in his belief about his uprightness until the end. The audience are left to question however
and we are meant to try to understand for ourselves what virtue is.
Therefore, it is obvious that sophistic thought shapes the entire dramatic themes of the play, as we
encounter the subtle nuances in relation to philosophical ideas and concerns prevalent in 5
th
century
Athens. Human feeling and human failure in understanding these concepts form the powerful
emotion of the play. Phaedras behaviour is rendered all the more poignant in the light of her
inability to fully understand the concepts by which she lives her life, of honour and shame and self-
control. Hippolytus virtue likewise, the most important thing to him in his life, is called into question
and found wanting. This imperfect understanding is what renders the play so powerfully human, and
so distinctly relatable. We are meant to think upon our own struggle with what it means to be
sophron, what it means to have a sense of shame, and what it means to be virtuous.