ct? The answer, I think, is indicated above.
In the uncritical and boisterous atmosphere of the Satyr-play it was natural
hospitality, not especially laudable or surprising. From the analogy of similar
stories I suspect that Admetus originally did not know his guest, and received
not so much the reward of exceptional virtue as the blessing naturally due to
those who entertain angels unawares. If we insist on asking whether Euripides
himself, in real life or in a play of his own free invention, would have considered
Admetus's conduct to Heracles entirely praiseworthy, the answer will certainly
be No, but it will have little bearing on the play. In the Alcestis, as it stands,
the famous act of hospitality is a datum of the story. Its claims are admitted
on the strength of the tradition. It was the act for which Admetus was specially
and marvellously rewarded; therefore, obviously, it was an act of exceptional
merit and piety. Yet the admission is made with a smile, and more than one suggestion
is al
