Andromache: Analysis of Setting
The analysis of the setting in Euripides' play "Andromache" explores the significance of sacred spaces, particularly the Temple of Thetis, situated in Thessaly, central Greece. This temple serves as a refuge for Andromache, the widow of Hector, as she seeks safety from Neoptolemus's vengeful wife, Hermione, and her powerful father, Menelaus. In ancient Greek culture, temples were considered sanctuaries for all individuals, reflecting a deep reverence for the divine and established traditions of asylum. The setting highlights a stark contrast between characters based on their actions towards these sacred spaces; for example, Menelaus's violation of the temple's sanctity illustrates his treachery and disregard for moral codes, while Peleus demonstrates nobility by honoring Andromache's plea for protection. The narrative ultimately positions temples as symbols of civilized decency, where respect for the gods and their sanctuaries delineates virtuous individuals from those who embody barbarism. This dynamic within the setting enriches the play's exploration of moral integrity and the consequences of disrespecting sacred traditions.
Andromache: Analysis of Setting
First produced:Andromachē, 426 b.c.e. (English translation, 1782)
Type of work: Drama
Type of plot: Tragedy
Time of work: Shortly after the Trojan War
Places Discussed: Temple of Thetis
Temple of Thetis. Temple in Thessaly, the central region of ancient Greece, near Phthia, the home of Neoptolemus, the goddess Thetis’s grandson and son of Achilles, and Pharsala, the home of Peleus, Thetis’s mortal husband. The ancient Greeks considered temples, and particularly temple altars, sanctuaries—places of asylum for both good and evil people. In Euripides’ play, the Trojan hero Hector’s widow, Andromache, is seeking refuge at the Temple of Thetis from the threat of Neoptolemus’s Spartan wife, Hermione, and her father, Menelaus. She trusts that whoever respects the gods will honor the tradition of sanctuary. However, the Greek king Menelaus does not respect that tradition and lures Andromache away from the altar and lies to her by telling her that her son will be spared if she forfeits her own life. His disrespect for the temple reflects both his untrustworthiness and his barbarism.
Euripides’ symbolic use of temples also occurs when the report comes that Neoptolemus is killed by Spartans while praying in the temple of Apollo in another gross example of Spartan treachery, arrogance, and brutality. Unlike the Spartans, Peleus—who could despise Andromache because his son was killed by her brother-in-law—honors Andromache’s request from the altar for protection, rescuing her from Menelaus.
Euripides thus uses temples as sacred places of refuge, and, by extension, as measuring rods of civilized decency. Characters such as Menelaus who dishonor the sanctity of sanctuaries, demonstrate their vileness, while those who show respect for the sanctuary demonstrate their nobility and righteousness.
Bibliography
Aldrich, K. M. The “Andromache” of Euripides. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961. A detailed analysis of the play. Aldrich makes an argument for the work’s unity of plot and theme.
Allan, William. The “Andromache” and Euripedean Tragedy. Oxford, England: Oxford, 2000. A thorough analysis of the play, which the author asserts deserves a greater degree of critical appreciation than it has received historically.
Grube, G. M. A. The Drama of Euripides. London: Methuen, 1941. A learned, traditional, close reading of the play. Accepts the anti-Spartan tone of the work at face value and sees the characters as lively but not subtle.
Kitto, Humphrey Davy Findley. Greek Tragedy: A Literary Study. London: Methuen, 1939. A classic study of classical tragedy. Argues that Andromache is unified in theme but not in plot and that Hermione, Menelaus, and Orestes embody negative Spartan qualities of “arrogance, treachery, and criminal ruthlessness.” Expresses admiration for the work’s action and characterization.
Kovacs, Paul David. The “Andromache” of Euripides. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980. Argues against the view that Euripides’ tragedies are antiheroic and that they attack traditional attitudes. Instead, Kovacs sees Andromache as conventional and close to Sophocles’ view of the tragic. Kovacs also disputes the claim that Euripides sides with the Sophists in this play.
Vellacott, Philip. Ironic Drama: A Study of Euripides’ Method and Meaning. London: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Sees Andromache as an indictment of cruelty to women and the horrors of war. Vellacott rejects the view that the play’s early episodes are irrelevant to the outcome, maintaining instead that these scenes are essential.