Euripides' "Heracles" 140-325: Staging and the Stage Iconography of Heracles' Bow
George, David P Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1994; 35, 2; ProQuest pg. 145

Euripides' H eracles 140-235: 
Staging and the Stage Iconography 

of Heracles' Bow 

David B. George 

E URIPIDES' HERACLES has not fared well with its cntIcs. 
Since Wilamowitz there has been special concern with 
the problem of unity.1 Some have tried to find a single 

unifying theme or motif to span the play's three (or two) parts;2 
others have argued that this disjunction is what gives the 

1 See U. von W ILAMOWITzM6LLENDORFF, Euripides, Herakles (Berlin 1894: 
hereafter 'Wilamowitz') I 132f, 139, who felt that the lack of unity is in­
tentional; for a more negative view cf G. Norwood, Greek Tragedy4 (Lon­
don 1953) 46f. For an excellent review of the history of Euripidean criticism, 
see A. Michelini, Euripides and the Tragic Tradition (Madison 1987) 3-69, 
and 231-36 for the issue of unity in HeracLes; for the depiction of Heracles in 
Greek art see F. Brommer, Herakles, die zwolf Taten des Heiden in antiker 
Kunst und Literatur (Munster 1953);]. Henle, Greek Myths: A Vase Painter's 
Notebook (Bloomington 1973) 179-82; LIM C IV (1988) 1, 728-838; 2, 
445-559. Also useful for the following discussion are F. Lissarrague, L 'autre 
guerrier (archers, peltastes, cavaliers dans l'imagerie attique) (Paris 1990) esp. 
13f; R. Tolle-Kastenbein, Pfeil und Bogen im antiken Griechenland (Bochum 
1980) esp. 41-46, 51-57. 

2 Wilamowitz I 128, followed by A. Verrall, Essays on Four Plays of Eurip­
ides (Cambridge 1905) 14 0 ff, and L. Greenwood, Aspects of Euripidean 
Tragedy (Cambridge 1953) 59ff, who use late-nineteenth- and early twentieth­
century psychological models to soften the transition between the parts; a 
useful corrective: R. Schlesier, " H eracles et la critique des dieux chez Euripide," 
AnnPisa 15 (1985) 7-40, who argues that critics spend too much time trying to 
fit Euripides' plays into modern models. J. T. Sheppard, "The Formal Beauty 
of the Hercules Furens." CQ 10 (1916) 72-79, sees friendship as the unifying 
theme; H. Chalk, "Bia and Arete in Euripides' Heracles, " JHS 82 (1962) 7-18, 
a redefinition of arete; contra, A. Adkins, "Basic Greek Values in Euripides' 
Hecuba and Hercules Furens," CQ N.S. 16 (1966) 192-219; cf also D. Fudey's 
defense of Chalk in "Euripides on the Sanity of Herakles," in J. Betts, J. 
Hooker, and J. Green, edd., Studies in Honour of T. B. L. Webster (Bristol 
1986) 102-13, esp. 103; J. Gregory, "Euripides' Heracles," YCS 25 (1977) 
259-75 on Heracles' two fathers, a view developed further in Euripides and 
the Instruction of the Athenians (Ann Arbor 1991) 121-54; cf C. Segal's 
review in AJP 114 (1993) 163-66. 

145 



146 STAGE ICONOGRAPHY OF HERACLES' BOW 

tragedy its unique power. 3 As a result, critics have tended to 
explicate the elements of the play that reflect their various 
theories about its unity rather than taking each component as 
part of the dramatic continuum of the playas staged. Moreover, 
this focus on formal structure and unity has brought particular 
censure upon the famous debate between Lycus and Amphi­
tryon over the respective merits of the archer and the hoplite 
(140-235). Its length and its function within the structure of the 
drama have perplexed scholars.4 I shall consider this passage in 
relation to Heracles' bow as a stage prop to show that this logo­
machia, in view of the staging of the play, makes Heracles' bow, 
as well as the various spears that would have been on stage, the 
visual manifestation of many of the play's issues that scholars 
have long noted, especially independence, dependence, and 
friendship. I shall also suggest some implications of the dispute 
and its staging for the relationship between the individual and 
the community.5 For even before Heracles appears, Euripides 
asks his audience to reflect on the iconographic significance of 
that prop, the bow he carries, and what it betokens about who 
and what Heracles is. Thus when the hero does stand before 
the audience, the bow is a constant reminder of the question of 
the meaning of the hero and the myth. 

3 E.g. W. ARROWSMITH, Euripides (=D. Grene and R. Lattimore, edd., The 
Complete Greek Tragedies III [Chicago 1959: hereafter 'Arrowsmith']) 268. 

4 E.g. Wilamowitz I 139; Verrall (supra n.2) 149ff; E. KROEKER, Der Herakles 
des Euripides (Giessen 1938: hereafter 'Kroeker') 20; G. BOND, Euripides' 
Heracles (Oxford 1981: 'Bond') 101-10, esp. 108: "This \jI6yo~ 'to~6'to'\l (160-4) 
and its answer, three times as long (188-203), are foreign bodies, 'blanks in the 
debate' as Hazlitt once called Burke's splendid reflections "; R. Hamilton, 
·Slings and Arrows: The Debate with Lycus in the Heracles," TAPA 115 
(1985) 19-25, esp. n.2, collects more critical references; M. Padilla, "The Gor­
gonic Archer; Danger of Sight in Euripides' Heracles," CW 86 (1992) 1-12, 
traces how this passage "establishes a formal paradigm" of the" interconnec­
tion between 'sight' and 'danger', visibility and vulnerability." 

5 This is particularly important for the ephebes if those who claim that trag­
edy is intended especially for them are correct. See J. Winkler, "The Ephebes' 
Song: Tragodia and Polis," in J. Winkler and F. Zeitlin, edd., Nothing to Do 
with Dionysos (Princeton 1990) 20-62; P. Vidal-Naquet, "Les jeunes, Ie em, 
l'enfant grec et Ie cuit," in J. Le Goff and P. Nora, edd., Faire de l'historie III 
(Paris 1974) 137-68 (="Recipes for Greek Adolescence," in Vidal-Naquet's 
The Blaek Hunter, tr. A. Szegedy-Maszak [Baltimore 1986J 129-56), and "Le 
Philoetete de Sophocle et l'Ephebie," AnnEconSoeCi7) 26 (1971) 623-38 (=J.-P. 
Vernant and P. Vidal-Naquet, My the et tragedie en Grece aneienne [Paris 
1979J I 159-84). 



DAVID B. GEORGE 147 

The argument in the passage itself, between bow and spear, 
seems to represent two different issues: for Lycus, it is lack of 
courage (d)\jfuXia); for Amphitryon, independence. In his 
speech Lycus seeks to justify his murder of Heracles' family, 
especially the boys. What arguments can Megara and Am­
phitryon make that he should not? Heracles is the son of Zeus. 
Where is Zeus? He then turns to question Megara's evidence 
(CSEJ.1VOV) that Heracles is the best man (apicswu q>O)to<;). He 
killed animals with his own hands? No, says Lycus, he used 
nets. Aside from the rather bad pun (~poXol<;/~paxiovo<;), this 
would have been a startling accusation. For Lycus' description 
of Heracles as one who made his reputation in the marshes 
(151) trapping animals (1S7f) recalls what Vidal-Naquet has 
termed the "black hunter," or an "ephebe manque."6 Lycus in 
effect describes Heracles as an ephebe who has failed to 

become a man. In any case, all these things give Heracles only 
the appearance of courage (oo~av ... £U\jfuXia<;, 157).7 For in the 
real world, the world of adult men, Heracles is for Lycus 
(159-64) a man 

OS ouno.' aontS' EOXf npos Amal Xfpt 
DUO' ~A8£ MYXT]S £1(6s, UAAU '"C6~' £-XWV 
KUKlO''tOV OTCAOV, 'tlll CPUylll TCPOX£lPOS f]v. 
UvopoS 0' £AfYXOS OUXt '"CO~' fU\jIUXtaS, 
UAA' 0<; I-1£VWV ~A£rc£l 't£ KuvnOfpK£'tat 
Sapos .aXftaV aAoKa .USlV £1-1~f~WS. 

In Lycus' view Heracles' use of the bow is the final proof that 
he lacks true £D\jfUXia. Warfare with the bow is no £AEyX0<; for 

6 See P. Vidal-Naquet, "The Black Hunter and the Origin of the Athenian 
Ephebia," in The Black Hunter (supra n.5) ch. 5, especially his contrast (118) 
between the two types of hunts-adult in the daytime with a spear and child­
ish at night with a net. Euripides' etymological play at 153f (~p6XOt9' ~paxi­
OVOC;) calls particular attention to this charge: see Bond ad lac. Euripides will 
return to Heracles' use of nets at 729f, where Amphitryon notes that Lycus 
~p6xot(Jl b' apKu(J)v 1((KATtlOTtal ~t(pll<p6pOt()"1. Other aspects of Euripides' treat­
ment of Heracles would mark him out as a 'black hunter': use of the bow 
rather than the spear, works at the borders of civilization (20, 700), and action 
as an individual rather than part of the unit (565ff, 590ff). 

7 Cf. LS] s.v. b6~a III.2: "mostly, good repute, honour, glory" (my em­
phasis), citing this line. But given the context, it must have the sense of "mere 
reputation, appearance." The charge of cowardice must have been especially 
shocking, as Heracles was held to be unable to hear the prayers of cowards: 
cf. rib. 29.6; L. Farnell, Greek Hero CullS and the Ideas of Immortality 
(Oxford 1921) 148. 



148 STAGE ICONOGRAPHY OF HERACLES' BOW 

£\nvuxia. In fact it is quite the opposite. A real man will stand in 
the ranks with his fellow hoplites and face the front line of the 
enemy. Because it allows ready flight, the bow is the coward's 
weapon. As before, OC; OU1tOt' a01tio' EOx£ would in effect de­
clare that Heracles is not just a coward but not a fully adult male 
who has been integrated into the community.8 

Amphitryon uses the first half of his speech to refute the 
charge that Heracles is guilty of cowardice (o£tAia, 170--87).9 But 
when he turns to address the bow vs spear question his point is 
no longer that Heracles is no coward but rather that the bow is 
to 1tavoo<pov 0' £uPTlJ..la (188) because it frees a man from depen-

8 Wilamowitz's translation (II 179) of 163f as "Den Blick gerichtet auf den 
Wald von Speeren, Der driiben starrt-und keine Wimper zuckt," with his 
explanation at III 45, and L. PARMENTIER'S" elle <epreuve de la bravoure> con­
siste a rester a son poste, et a voir, sans baisser ni detourner Ie regard, accourir 
devant soi tout un champ de lances dressees, toujours ferme a rang" (Hera­
kles [Paris 1923: hereafter 'Parmentier']) are preferable to Arrowsmith's "no, 
your real man stands firm in the ranks and dares to face the gash the spear 
may make." Cf Bond 11 of. This tension between bowman and spear man is 
old (cf IL 4.85f£). Indeed if R. Drews (The End oj the Bronze Age: Changes in 
WarJare and the Catastrophe c. 1200 [Princeton 1993] esp. ch. 11, 13) correctly 
argues that the collapse of Bronze Age societies was brought about by a shift 
to massed men with spears and swords against chariots and bowmen, then 
this dispute probably reflects Iron Age societies' attempts to come to grips 
with the social implications of that shift. Again, all this takes on added 
significance when we consider the ephebes in the audience, for the spear and 
shield mark their transition into full adulthood. See also A. N. Snodgrass, 
"Hoplite Reform and History," JHS 85 (1965) 110-22; A. Arnaud, "Quelques 
aspects des rapports de ruse et de la guerre dans Ie monde grec du YIIIe au y. 
siecle" (Paris 1971) 2M; E. L. Wheeler, "Ephorus and the Prohibition of 
Missiles," TAPA 117 (1987) 157-82, esp. 170-73; W. K. Pritchett, The Greek 
State at War I-Y (Berkeley 1971-91) IY 30£. 

9 Hamilton's discussion (supra nA) shows the point for point balance of the 
arguments within the speech. It is interesting to note that Amphitryon is 
rather ambiguous about Heracles' use of weapon in his description of his 
son's participation in the gigantomachy (179). Although peAT) could of course 
refer to either a spear or arrows, its most natural association would be with 
arrows. Not until 1193 is the weapon expressly called a spear. Aside from the 
adjective, given the importance of the spear 'Us the bow, Bond (158 ad 1193) is 
surely wrong to take b,(l Mpu ytya.vw<povovas "just to mean 'battle'." 



DAVID B. GEORGE 149 

dence upon his fellow men. 10 This independence IS of course 
not possible for the hoplite (190-93): 

ay~p 01tA-l'TI]<; &OUAO<; Eon '"troy 01tA-roy 
KUt 'Wl<; oUY'"tUX9£lOtV 01)Ot f.1~ ayu9ol<; 
ulHo<; '"tE9YllKE OHAtal Til t '"troy 1tEAU<;.ll 

The hoplite warrior is dependent upon his fellow hoplites. If 
they are not reliable, regardless of his own merits, he will die 
because of their cowardice. The obvious intent of this assault 
upon the hoplite is to show that the bowman is free of any such 
dependency. He stands or falls on his own ability. The father of 
Heracles then continues with the other great advantages of the 
bow. Whereas the hoplite has one spear, the bowman has a 
multitude of arrows. Moreover, the bowman can hurt his foe 
from afar without exposing his own body to risk. Amphitryon 
concludes his discussion on the bow gnomically by declaring 
that to hurt the enemy and not be hurt yourself is after all what 
battle is about about (201H): 

10 The reader senses that within the drama the reason for this shift is Am­
phitryon's own frustration at having to depend upon others who were un­
willing or unable to help him when his own winds of fortune changed. His 
former comrades in arms, though willing to help, are like him too old to be of 
any use (cf 233, 267). They can barely help themselves walk (125-29, 266-69; 
cf 312-15). And the young men of Thebes are full of OEtA-ta. Indeed Amphi­
tryon returns to this complaint toward the end of his speech when he chides 
them for being untrustworthy friends (217ff). Had Amphitryon been a bow­
man and able to act independently, the story might be different. Moreover, 
the point that the bow is a prudent man's weapon is probably directed 
against Lycus' protestations at 165f that his murder of Heracles' children is 
not a matter of shame (uvatOEta), just prudence (fUAa~Eta, 165f). For Amphi­
tryon continues by addressing the tyrants' reasons for killing the children 
(206-12) and advising him not to use force against them, for the winds of 
fortune will one day change (215f). 

11 Wilamowitz (III 52), followed by Bond (118), transposes these lines be­
cause (he argues) the sequence would be more logical: the hoplite (a) has only 
one weapon and (b) must depend upon his fellows; the bowman (a) has 
many arrows and (b) does not have to depend upon friends. He adds: "Wie 
fadenscheinig die sophistische Argumentation in allen Stucken ist, braucht 
nicht gezeigt zu werden." The bowman's independence, however, not stated 
in the text, is to be inferred from the hoplite's weakness and perhaps the 
gnomic saying at the end of the passage (201 ff). As the Mss.' reading stands, 
the hop lite is dependent upon his friends and has only one weapon, whereas 
the bowman has many weapons and can do harm from afar. Cf Parmentier 
(supra n.8: 29 n.1): "Wilamowitz place les vers 193-194 aprcs Ie vers 190. Mais 
il convient de ne pas demander trap de logique a cette argumentation sophis­
tique." Cf W. Verdenius, "Notes on Euripides' Heracles vv. 1-522," Mnem­
osyne sa 4 40 (1987) 1-17. 



150 STAGE ICONOGRAPHY OF HERACLES' BOW 

... 'to'\ho 0' tv llaXTI t 
oo<pov llaAto'ta, op&v'ta 1tOAell iou<; KaKW<; 

o<ln~ew 'to o&lla, Ill, 'K -ruXTI<; roPlltOIlEvov.12 

What began as a defense of Heracles and his bow has turned in­
to an indictment of the hoplite. It would seem that Amphitryon 
is rejecting not just the spear and hoplites but community as 
well. 13 There is the further irony that Lycus the usurper is 
defending community values while Amphitryon the paragon of 
community virtues rejects them. By this reversal Euripides 
forces his audience to confront a central question of this play: 
what is an individual's duty to the community especially when 
it has become tyrannical or when the community fails to pay 
the individual the obligations it owes him? Thus through their 
exchange Heracles' bow becomes the visual vehicle of this 
conflict of individual over corporate values. It also ties together 
other collateral issues (change of fortune, friends, and depen­
dency upon community) in the first part of the play. 

Indeed, from the beginning of the play, Euripides fixes his 
audience's attention upon how the shifting winds of fortune 
have caused Hcracles' family to be deserted by the community 
and friends on whom they should have been able to depend. 14 

12 These lines should be translated: "in battle this is the greatest wisdom: 
while harming the enemy to keep your own hide safe so that it is not 
anchored to a chance (assignment of fellow soldiers)." ('oP!J.lO"~.tEVOV agrees with 
'to O"W f.la , and EK 'tUXTJ~ refers to the 'tOt~ O"uv'tax9EtO"lV of line 191. It has to do 
with the luck of the draw for partners in a phalanx. Bond (120), though 
wrong to understand be 'tUXTJ~ as "the luck inherent in battle," correctly 
rejects Paley's suggestion (Euripides [London 1880]) to take OOPf.llo"f.l£VOU~ (LP) 
with 1toAEf.liou~, which Arrowsmith follows: "unless he <your foe> stands se­
cure, beyond your range." Cf Wilamowitz's "vom Zufall unabhangig Oem 
Feind zu schaden, selbst sich wohl zu wahren" and Parmentier's" en tenant 
son personne en surete et sans dependant du hasard." Cf Verdenius (supra 
n.11)11. 

13 This must surely have been disquieting to the ephebes in view of the 
ephebic oath (Lycurg. Leoe. 76): f.ll)'t£ 'to. tEpa 01tf.a Ka'tatO"xuvE1V, f.ll)'t£ 
'tl]V 'ta~lV Aet\jlElV, Uf.lUVE1v of: 't11 1ta'tpiOl Kat uf.ldvw 1tapaowO"Elv. J.-P. 
Vernant, "Entre la honte et la gloire: l'identite du jeune Spartiate" in his 
L'individu, la mort, l'amour: soi-meme et l'autre en Greee aneienne (Paris 
1989) 173-209, provides some interesting parallels with the way the Spartan 
agoge dealt with the shift from the individual Homeric warrior ideal to the 
corporate hoplite warrior and the tension created between them. 

H Indeed if we were to ask what is the H eracle s about with or without 
unity, on a very gross level we would have to respond <ptAia. The Heracles vir­
tually ends with the truism-oO"'tl~ of: 1tAoU'tOV 11 cr9rvos f.laAAov <PlAWV uya9wv 
1t£1tacrBat ~OUAE'to:l, KaKw~ <ppovEl (1425f). Cf Sheppard (supra n.2). All com-



DAVID B. GEORGE 151 

Both Megara and Amphitryon state this complaint expressly. 
Amphitryon declares that they are in u1topim orotllpiuC; 
because they lack friends who can help (54ff): 

cptA<OV OE 'rous !lEV ou cracpEtS opro cptAOUS 
oi 0' OV'tES op8ros &Suva'rot 1tpOO"<Oq>EAEtV (55£). 

He thought some to be "friends" who were not, while others 
would be but did not have the ability. Megara too will complain 
that ou'!:' f:Y CPlAol<JlY £A.1tibEC; oOO'tllpiuC; ft' EOttY l1JllY (84f). They 
are alone, without hope, betrayed by those who should have 
helped them, including the gods. For as Megara had said at the 
ou tset of her speech (62): roc; OUbEY ayepcimOlOl troy edroy 
oucp£c;Y-' Their friendship is just as unsure as the human kind. 
Later just before the first stasimon Amphitryon will be less 
oblique. He will tell Zeus ap£tlll O£ YlKro 8vlltoC; roy eEOY Jl£YUY 
(341), for Amphitryon understands how but lacks the ability to 

mentators see friendship as an important issue within the play. When a fifth­
century Athenian aristocrat said (jJtAia, the word would have had a different 
ethical context than our word "friendship." Within the Athenian aristocrat's 
moral construct, qnAia would be primarily a matter of obligations and duties, 
not feelings or goodwill. A (jJlAO<; is one who has done a Xapt<; and to whom a 
Xapt<; is owed or vice versa. One cannot be a good (jJiAO<; without repaying his 
debts. Amphitryon says as much in his gnomic tag at 57f£. Intentions playa 
very small role within this system of morals. See A. Adkins, "'Friendship' and 
'Self-sufficiency' in Homer and Aristotle," CQ N.S. 12 (1963) 30-45; cf K. 
Dover, Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle (Berkeley 
1974) 276ff. Heracles will fault himself for not being present to do his duty to 
his family (574-82). He had left his family undefended. Intentions do not 
matter, only outcome, even though he had set the people of Thebes under 
obligation to him by his mighty deeds and they should have defended his 
family. Thus he renounces his labors. Friends should repay debts. 

15 Although this phrase is gnomic and means that good fortune may change 
into bad, given the context of Amphitryon's and Megara's speeches, there is 
also the notion that the friendship of the gods (reflected in good luck) is 
ultimately of the fair-weather kind. Thus the line can be rendered: "how un­
stable <because they are inscrutable> are the relationships of the gods with 
men." (J(X(jJ£<; has the idea of both "sure, reliable" and "clear." Cf Bond 78, 
whose comments (75) on 00.(1)1::1<; in line 55 are instructive both in that line and 
here. clVOPW1tOlOl would be both dative of advantage and disadvantage. 
Neither Wilamowitz's translation ("doch dunkel alles was die Gotter sen­
den"), nor Parmentier's ("combien les desseins des dieux sont obscurs pour les 
hommes"), nor Arrowsmith's ("how dark are all the ways of god to man") 
quite do the line justice. Kroeker's discussion is thought provoking (12f), but 
he moves too far away from the immediate sense of the text when he reduces 
Megara's meaning to "das menschliche Sein in seiner tragischen Verkettung 
mit Schicksal und Leiden wird sichtbar." Surely Megara's point is that one 
cannot rely on the gods because one cannot figure them out. Cf the Chorus at 
655-72. 



152 STAGE ICONOGRAPHY OF HERACLES' BOW 

fulfill his duty to his friends, whereas Zeus who has the power 
does not even know how to help (O'cOl~ElV ()£ 'tOU<; O'OU<; OUK 
btlO''taO'Ul <plAoue;, 346). Concomitant with all these complaints 
about friendship is the recognition of mutability in the human 
experience (cf Megara at 63f). This mutability creates the need 
for friends and makes those very friends untrustworthy and the 
gods incomprehensible, thus Amphitryon's insistence upon in­
dependence. Yet it is also this very mutability with its possibil­
ity for change that gives Amphitryon hope for help and justice. 

This point is elaborated in an important exchange between 
Megara and Amphitryon (87ff). Megara demands that Amphi­
tryon develop a plan to save them from death. He admits that 
he cannot. Even though they are weak, they can at least wait 
and prolong the time before death. Megara with savage sarcasm 
asks him if he really enjoys his life and suffering so much. 
Amphitryon responds pointedly that he does indeed. He re­
joices in life and especially its mutability: Kat 'tWl()E xaipro Kat 
<P1AW 'tae; EA1tl()ae; (91).16 He develops this theme further in a 
very sophistic speech just before the parodos (95-106). There 
he argues that, based on the principle that opposites give rise to 
their opposites, their luck may yet change. The storm will not 
last forever. The winds will change their direction. He caps his 
speech with the rather startling (and much discussed) declara­
tion (l05f): 

o{no<; 8' O:V1lP aptcr'to<; OO'tl<; EAntOl 
1tEnotB£v ai.d· 'to 8' o:nop£tv o:v8po<; KUKOUY 

Amphitryon rejects any hope that depends upon the 
community and its obligations to his family. As noted earlier, 

16 Given the context, £A1tlt; has to refer to the hope that mutability gives. 
17 "The best man is he who always relies on hope (the mutability of nature). 

It is the mark of a base man to be at a loss." See Bond (89ff) for discussion 
and references. It seems logical from the nature of their exchange to take EA1tlt; 
here and at 91 as a shorthand for Amphitryon's earlier Xpovov Of ~TlKUV(J)I-U;V 
Qv't£t; uo8£v£1t; (87). Thus it is a hope for change. Cf Kroeker 14ff. This speech 
is reminiscent in many ways of Ajax's about the vicissitudes of "long and im­
measurable time" (Soph. Aj. 646-92; cf esp. H F 101 ff with Aj. 670ff). Critics 
have long noted numerous connections between the Heracles and Sophocles' 
Ajax, especially the different attitudes each play displays toward change. Note 
that the Ajax also has an exchange based on the merits of the bow and spear 
(1120ff). Cf Furley (supra n.2) 102ff; J. De Romilly, "Le refus du suicide dans 
L'Heracles d' Euripide," Archaiognosia 1 (1980) 1-10. For Sophocles' hero the 
mutability of the world is a cause for despair and ultimately the cause of his 
suicide. Here for Amphitryon this flux of nature is the basis for hope, hope 
that time will bring change. 



DAVID B. GEORGE 153 

this is played out in the debate over the spear (hoplite) and bow. 
It is important to note, moreover, that throughout this play the 
spear is a symbol of the individual's obligation to the com­
munity and the community's obligation to the individual. 
Indeed from the outset of the play, Herac1es' family is repre­
sented before the altar of Zeus Soter, where the spear he used 
in the Minyan war has been offered as a trophy. This spear and 
the altar on the stage would have been the visible tokens of 
what the god owes him from his birthright and what the 
community owes him because of his participation in the war. 
Both Amphitryon and Herac1es cite this participation as the 
basis of Thebes' obligation to Herac1es. Amphitryon says 
(218-21) 

(1 yrlia Kcio~l.OU (X"CLI. yap ES cr' a<pi~Ollat 
AOYOUS OVEtotcrTIlpas £voa'touIlEvOS), 
'tOta1h' alluVEe' 'HPCLlCAEt 'tE1cvotcri 'tE; 
M tVucrats OS cis unacrt <51a IlciXTJS 1l0Arov 
9lJ~as EeTJKEV 01111' £AEUeEpOV ~A£nEtv. 

In accord with his focus on independence, Amphitryon reports 
the battle as a monomachia. 18 Here Herac1es fights one for all. 19 

He is the independent champion upon whom all others de­
pend. This is the only place where this conflict is described in 
such terms. Amphitryon is again rejecting the community, but 
it is nonetheless the basis for Thebes' debt to Herac1es. The 
Thebans should have come with sword, fire, and spear. 

Indeed Heracles will ask Megara about his friends' failure to 
help based upon his battles with the Minyans (560). When 
Megara tells him that misfortune has no friends, Heracles will 
renounce his labors and declare (565-73): 

EYro oE, vuv yap TIlS EIl11S EPYOV XEPOS 
npo)'tov IlEV dill Kat Ka'tacrKchvw 061l0US 
KatVWV 'tupcivvwv, Kp<i'ta 0' avocrwv 'tf)..lrov 
ptllfW lCUVWV EAKTJIlU· KaOlldwv 0' ocrOUS 

18 Cf Bond ad lac. It is noteworthy that Apollodorus (Bibl. 2.4.11) makes 
this victory the basis for Creon's giving Megara as wife to Heracles. For 
monomachia in general see E. L. Wheeler, "Hoplomachia and Greek Dances 
in Arms," GRBS 23 (1982) 223-33; Pritchett (supra n.8) IV 15-2l. 

19 J. Diggle, Studies in the Text of Euripides (Oxford 1981) 47f, gives good 
reasons to support Elmsley's emendation for ae; de; f!tVumcn 1tacn, the reading 
of L. Cf A. Lesky, Gesammelte Schriften (Bern ]969) ]51 n.15 for other 
examples in Euripides of the antithesis of one for many. 



154 STAGE ICONOGRAPHY OF HERACLES' BOW 

KUKOUC; E<pT)UPOV E-\) 1tu8ov'tuc; E~ EflOU 
't(in KUAAtvtKOlt 'to)lO' 01tAOlt XEtPcOOOflUl 
'touS Of 1t'tEPClYtOlS OlU<POProV 'to~e\)flUOlV 
vEKProV a.1tUV't' 'IoflT)VOV Efl1tA"Oo) <povou, 
~tPKT)C; 'tE V&flU AEUKOV ui;·!UX8"Of'tUl. 
'ton yap fl' UflUVEtv fl&AAOV ft oaflupn XPT] 
KUt 1tUlOt KUt YEpovn; XUlPOV'to)V 1tOVOl, 
fla'tT)V yap mhouc; 'to)VOE fl&AAOV ftvuou. 

Here, just as his father had done, he expressly rejects com­
munity. They should have defended his family as he advanced 
the common good. They did not. They have not fulfilled their 
xaptC; to him. Thus he will henceforth reject his labors and, in a 
sense, any duties to community beyond his family.20 Obliga­
tions do not exist outside it. He alone will kill the tyrant then all 
men of Thebes who did not come to his family's aid. They have 
failed in their obligation to him. He renounces his duties to 
them. He will use his bow to prove his independence and kill 
them alP! The very bow he used to civilize the world for the 
sake of mankind will be the instrument that destroys the city 
(el 20).22 Further, he will renounce his epithet KaAAlVtKOC; that 
marks him out as the patron of war and athletic competitions. 23 

In short, he docs not want to be counted in the community. 
Euripides of course undercuts all this. The hybris of Heracles 

in rejecting community and his desire to kill his fellow citizens 
is in his madness turned against his family. The bow with which 
he intends to bring down the community will instead bring 
down a son and a wife. He would have felled his father too had 
not Pallas Athena armed with a spear stopped him. Many have 
noted the similarities between Euripides' description of Athena 
and the chryselephantine statue on the Acropolis (e.g. Gregory 
[supra n.2J 139). They suggest that this was intended to presage 

20 This is particularly striking, as the Greeks believed that the city had its 
origins in families working together and that they derived their duties and 
obligations from this. See H. J eanmaire, Couroi et couretes (Lille 1939) 115-
44. For a discussion of the role of sacrifice in this play, see H. Foley, Ritual 
Irony. Poetry and Sacrifice in Euripides (Cornell 1985) 147-204. 

21 The 'tOOl lCUAAlVl1COn 'toolO' D1tAOn of line 570 should be taken in the sense 
of -this triumphant bow" given the 1t't£po)'tOt~ ... 'to~£UJ.1UcrlV of line 571. One 
should envisage Heracles holding his bow up for all to see. It is after all what 
frees him of his dependency on his countrymen. 

22 See Bond ad 20. It is noteworthy that Amphitryon has no problem with 
Heracles' intention to destroy the city (599f). 

23 See Farnell (supra n.7) 147ff for the significance of this epithet. 



DAVID B. GEORGE 155 

the service that Athena will provide to Heracles. In whatever 
respect Athena is always Heracles' benefactor, her deterrence 
of his patricide is not as important as her appearance as a hoplite 
(1003). Given the context of spears in the play, the point is not 
that she is from Athens but rather that she is representative of 
community. The playwright will underscore this equation of 
hoplite and community in the next episode. 

Theseus arrives just after Heracles awakens to realize what he 
has done. One notes instantly that Theseus comes with hop­
lites. Indeed his first words to Amphitryon are llKW cruv 
liA.A.ou; .... cruJlJlaxov CPEPWV Bop'\) (1163, 1165). He, in sharp and 
dramatic contrast to Heracles, does not come alone (el 595-98). 
Theseus is a hoplite and brings with him the EV01tA.ol rfI<; 'A8Tl­
valwv KOPOl (1164). One must assume that as Theseus stands 
upon the stage he holds a spear. The visual effect would have 
been striking. Heracles, bound, his bow tossed to the floor; 
Theseus with spear ready to rescue.24 Indeed in this episode we 
see acted out the value of a friend who can help. Theseus is 
both willing and able to be a friend. Heracles has put him under 
obligation by the xapu; of freeing him from the underworld; 
Theseus will repay this xapt<; (1220-25): 

OUOEV !lEAEt !l01 OUV yf. OOl1tpaOOEtv KCXKroS' 
KCXt ya.p no't' EU'tUXT\cr'. EKEtcr' eXY0 l.cr't£OY , 
o't' f~Eoffi(Jas !l' fS <paoS Yf.KProv 1tapcx. 
xap1Y oE YTIpaOKOUOCXY ixSCXtPffi <ptAON, 
KCXt 'troy KcxAroy !lEY ocrns a1toAcxuf.tV SEAf.t, 
OU!l1tAEtV OE 'tOtS <ptAo101 ouo'tUXOU01V 015. 

The Athenian national hero always pays his debts; this is what 
makes him a good friend. It does not matter to him what Hera­
des has done; no pollution is so great that it could keep Theseus 
from fulfilling the requirements of their friendship. ou8d.c; 
aA.acr'twp 'tOtC; cplA.OlC; EK 'tmv cptA.WV (1234). Rather Theseus' 
friendship will allow Heracles to find purification for his crime 
and restore to him the honor that is his due (1322-39).25 
Amphitryon's view of the hope that the mutability of the 
human condition offers is vindicated; but his understanding of 

24 The image of a bound Heracles may have some cultic significance: see C. 
Faraone, "Binding and Burying the Forces of Evil: The Defensive Use of 'Voo­
doo Dolls' in Ancient Greece," ClAnt 10 (1991) 165-200, esp. 195 and fig. 5. 

25 It is noteworthy that Theseus again says that this motivation is the repay­
ment of his debt: lCayw XaptV (JOt Tile; [/llle; (Jw'tTlpiue; 'tllVO' av'ttowow 
(1336£). 



156 STAGE ICONOGRAPHY OF HERACLES' BOW 

the nature of independence is wrong. All men, including Hera­
des, need friends upon whom they can depend because of this 
hope-giving mutability. Although Heracles is a very great man, 
he cannot succeed without his friend, without a community. To 
underscore his need, the playwright makes Herades request 
that Theseus help (crU"(lCU'tUcr'tT,crov) him finish his labors 
(1386ff).26 He is now as dependent upon his friend as members 
of the chorus were upon each other during the parodos (cf 
1394-1404,117-29).27 Heracles, lCUAAlVtlCO<;. must depend upon 
Theseus and the Athenian hoplites to finish his labors. 

We should note, moreover, that it was not Theseus' friend­
ship, his arguments, or his offers of honor that turn Herades 
away from his thoughts of suicide: it was Heracles' realization 
that to commit suicide would be seen as an act of cowardice 
(1347-52): 

EOKE'I'aflllV 6£ KatrcEp EV KaKOlOW rov, 
flT] 6ElAtav O<PACO nv' EKAmwv <paoe;' 
'"Cale; crufl<popa'ic; yap ocrnc; oux u<picr'"Ca'tut, 
ou6' uvopoe; av ouvat8' U7tOOTTlVat ~£AOe;. 
EYKUp'tEP"OCO ~{o'tov' etflt 0' Ee; 7toAw 
'tT]V o"v, Xaptv 'tE flUptCOV oropcov EXCO. 

He is no coward; he will stand in the front ranks of life and 
fight. 28 Just as Amphitryon's understanding of Herades was 
wrong, so too is Lycus'. Yet it is not his independence upon 
which his heroism rests but his willingness to accept friendship 
and to depend upon another. Heracles' heroic act is to allow 
himself to be accepted into the community of Athenian hop­
lites, to allow himself to be helped by them, to take such honor 
as they will give him. For the audiences this would have been 
particularly moving. There must have always been a tension 

26 Note all the compounds of cruv (cruYl(all', 1386; cruYl(atacrt"crov, 1387; 
crufl1tEv%crat', 1390) that Heracles uses. 

27 Note too that Heracles needs his father's help to bury his sons (1420ff). 
28 Cf Bond 401ff. Note especially his discussion of the military metaphor in 

eYl(aptEp"cr(i) at 1351. Cf Kroeker 102, 139. The reading of line 1351 is, as Lee 
says in his Teubner edition (Euripides, HercuLes [Stuttgart 1988]), ulocus 
vehementer disputatus." On the reading ~lotOV 'liS 8avatov, see especially J. M. 
Bremer, rev. A. Lesky, Die tragische Dichtung der Hellenen, Mnemosyne SER. 

4 30 (1977) 199; De Romilly (supra n.17) 6, both essentially following W. 
Kranz, U 'EYKaptEp"cr(i) 8avmov," PhilWoch 47 (1927) 138f. But whatever the 
reading (U rester ferme devant la mort," De Romilly, or U I shall stand fast and 
endure life," Bond), Heracles' point is clear: he will not kill himself. Moreover, 
he sees this act of resisting suicide as heroic. 



DAVID B. GEORGE 157 

between the old Homeric heroic ideal of the lone warrior 
standing in battle and the corporate warrior that was required 
for 'modern' warfare. Indeed this seemed to play an important 
part in both Spartan and Athenian education. Both states would 
train their youth to be independent and hunt with nets and 
bows on their own before they were made a part of the citizen 
body by taking up the spear and shield of the hoplite. But 
questions remain: with what weapons will Heracles continue to 
fight and what of the bow and its symbolism? 

Heracles will answer this question. Indeed as he finishes his 
speech he turns to address his weapons as the instrument of his 
family's death. He will wonder outright how he can continue to 
carry or use them when each tir;:e they brush against his chest 
they will cry out: lllllV 't£KV' £lA£s Kat 6allapO'· llllas £X£tS 
7t<ll()OK'tOVO'U\; (WU\; (1380£). Yet he declares that he must keep 
them, for they are after all the tools with which he performed 
his greatest deeds in Hellas, and without them he would be at 
the mercy of his enemies. He will be of no use to himself or his 
friends: ou An1t'tEOV "Ca()', aSAtW\; ()E O"WO""CEOV (1385). Heracles 
keeps the bow because it is such a part of his identity that 
without it he has nothing to bring to the community. The com­
munity that takes Heracles takes him as he is. Thus while Hera­
cles (leaning on Theseus with spear) walks out with the chorus, 
the bow and arrows he grasps would visually underscore for 
the audience that both Lycus and Amphitryon have misunder­
stood their iconography. They are not the symbol of cowardice 
that Lycus claimed nor of independence, as Amphitryon 
thought, but rather the emblem for his heroic resolve to live 
and his desire to be a true friend, one who can both give and 
receive help. Thus the individual quest for glory and honor 
must be maintained-now in the context of community. In the 
world of Euripides, this is the best that it gets. 29 

ST ANSELM COLLEGE 

January, 1995 

29 I would like to thank Professors William Scott and Z. Philip Ambrose for 
comments on earlier versions of this article.