|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only a few fragments remain of the other plays in the trilogy (the Egyptians and the Danaids), but with the help of other references to the myth it is possible to make a rough reconstruction. It is probable that in the second play the Danaids married their cousins, perhaps as the result of a battle in which the Egyptians were victorious. On the wedding night, which would take place presumably in the interval between the second and third play, the Danaids, at the urging of their father, kill their husbands; the sole exception to this mariticide is Hypermestra, who spares Lynkeus. In the final play Hypermestra is exonerated by Aphrodite and her sisters are in some way reconciled to marriage.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Psychological Interpretations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Despite the intimations of Méautis two generations ago,3 it was not until recently that studies appeared emphasizing the perspicuity and accuracy of Aeschylus' powers of psychological observation (e.g., Devereux 1976). Psychoanalytic investigation of Aeschylean drama, however, has tended to be confined to the Oresteia and, less often, to the Prometheus; any interest in the psychological meaning of the other plays, including the Suppliants has been usually peripheral and unsystematic. Attempts by the psychoanalyst D. Kouretas (1957) and by the classicist R. Murray (1958) to apply contemporary psychology to the Suppliants have been, for different reasons, less than completely successful. Although Murray's analysis of the imagery of the Io motif in the Suppliants is one of the finest works of Aeschylean scholarship, his references to such psychic phenomena as the ''death wish," "atavistic obsession," "deep but unconscious feeling," and "subconscious" identification are handicapped by the lack of a psychological framework in which to locate these phenomena. Thus, while the fact of neurotic obsession is recognized (referred to as "half sight," "curiously warped understanding," or "confused, blinded mental processes"), investigation of the nature and cause of the obsession in the Danaids' relationship with their father is omitted entirely. Similarly, the Danaids' identification with their ancestress Io is regarded as an involved allegory rather than as a psychological determinant of the Danaids' behavior (Murray 1958: 72,69,53,26,69,70,83). Kouretas' treatment of the Suppliants, on the other hand, is so summary as to be nearly superficial, leaves major elements of the drama unexplained or inexplicable, and, as we shall see, contains some questionable psychology. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
2 For a reasonable reconstruction of the trilogy, see Winnington-Ingram (1961). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 Méautis (1936) 58 refers to Aeschylus as "ce fin psychologue . . . cet observateur profond de l'âme humaine." |
|
|
|
|
|