Orpheus and Eurydice: Through the Lens of Attachment Theory

By Heartscape Intern, Tan Min Wen

Someone has to leave first. This is a very old story. There is no other version of this story. — Richard Siken, The Worm King's Lullaby

Try as we might, there is no force on Earth that can make the people we love stay, just as there is nothing those who love us can do to keep us from leaving. Whether it is a change of heart, the pull of circumstance, or something as final as death, someone always has to leave first. It’s a story we recognise in our own lives, in the people around us, and in tales as old as myth. Few tell it more precisely than the tragedy of Orpheus and Eurydice.

The Myth of Orpheus and Eurydice

The Greek myth of Orpheus and Eurydice is one of endless fascination in pop culture, and has inspired countless retellings across literature, film and theatre, including the popular Broadway musical Hadestown. The tale, at its core, is about Orpheus’s love for Eurydice, and his inability to cope with her leaving first. When she is unexpectedly taken by death, he refuses to let her go, instead journeying into the underworld and bargaining with Hades, Greek god of the dead, to bring her back. Hades agrees, but on two conditions: Eurydice will walk behind Orpheus on the journey out, and if he turns to look at her before they reach the world of the living, she will remain in the underworld.

Every version of this story ends the same way: Orpheus looks back and loses Eurydice to death again. Some say she stumbles and he turns to catch her. Some say he reaches the surface and looks back in excitement to embrace her, not realising she’s still a few steps short of freedom. But in the most widely told version, the walk back is long and dark, and he cannot see or hear or touch her. Left alone with his thoughts as doubt creeps in, he becomes convinced that he’s been tricked, that she was never actually following him at all. Certain of this, he turns to check, in that instant losing her for good.

No version of the story doubts that Orpheus loves Eurydice. In fact, it’s often argued that an Orpheus who never looked back would not have loved her enough to walk into the underworld in the first place. It’s a human impulse to look back at the people we love — be it out of eagerness, care, or a need for reassurance that they are still there. But in the version where he looks back out of doubt, it’s that very anxiety, however rooted in love, that seals his lover’s fate.

The Myth as a Metaphor

Read as a metaphor, Eurydice’s sudden death represents an attachment injury event. These are moments of abandonment or betrayal at a time of critical need that damages the sense of safety in a relationship long after the original incident has passed (Johnson et al., 2001).

Attachment injuries tend to lead to dynamics that mimic those of anxious-avoidant relationships, regardless of the couple’s pre-injury attachment styles. The injured partner exhibits behaviours akin to anxious activation, such as heightened reassurance-seeking, rumination, and hypervigilance; while the offending partner exhibits those akin to avoidant deactivation, such as emotional, physical or sexual withdrawal (Davidar et al., 2026).

Rumination refers to sustained, repetitive thinking about past actions, current negative emotions, and negative consequences. On his journey out of the underworld, Orpheus ruminates on his deal with Hades, his uncertainty about Eurydice’s presence behind him, and his fear of not getting her back. Despite having been told by Hades that she is following behind him, Orpheus is hyperaware of his inability to feel her presence — why is she casting no shadow, and why do her footsteps make no sound? Eventually, the repeated mental revisiting of his fears convinces him of their truth. Unable to bear the possibility of her absence and overwhelmed by his need to reassure himself that she is there, he turns, instantly making a reality out of his worst fears.

In our own romantic relationships, attachment injury events include instances of infidelity, abuse, or a lack of support during a crisis or time of need. Post-injury, the injured partner may experience rumination about the injury event and what it means about their personal value or their relational replaceability (Davidar et al., 2026), and such thoughts can trigger intense, distressing emotions that may be difficult to self-regulate. In response, the injured partner may engage in destructive behaviours in an attempt to soothe themselves. For example, injured partners frequently experience hypervigilance towards the offending partner post-injury, manifesting in the monitoring of behaviours, whereabouts, and communications (Davidar et al., 2026). They may also engage in excessive reassurance-seeking from their partner (Davidar et al., 2026).

While these behaviours are intended to soothe affect dysregulation, they often have the opposite effect, resulting in the offending partner withdrawing physically or emotionally (Davidar et al., 2026), further compounding the existing attachment wound (Johnson et al., 2001).

Healing the Attachment Injury

None of this means that the common behaviours and emotions experienced post-injury are wrong, invalid, or something to be ashamed of. However, they often come in the way of healing the attachment wound.

Attachment injuries can be extremely difficult to move past as they often reemerge intensely in the injured partner and can be compounded if they are not properly reassured. Over time, failing to repair the relationship can deepen the wound, preventing the couple from building healthier, more positive dynamics (Johnson et al., 2001).

Drawing on attachment theory, Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy (EFCT) works to build attachment security through a focus on emotional experiences (Bodenmann et al., 2020). In the aftermath of an attachment injury, EFCT can help the injured partner process the trauma of the wound, facilitate accountability and empathy in the offending partner, and rebuild trust in the relationship (Davidar et al., 2026; Johnson et al., 2001).

A core focus of EFCT is the effective communication of emotions between partners. To break negative cycles, partners can try to pause when they feel angry or defensive, search for the more vulnerable underlying feelings, and express those instead. For example, telling your partner “I feel disconnected to you and am scared that I don’t matter to you” invites closeness rather than defensiveness.

Effective communication can also be used in the conveying of emotional needs (Johnson et al., 2001). By directly communicating your emotional needs to your partner — for example, telling them “I’m feeling anxious and would really like it if you could reassure me that you still love me” — you can still seek the reassurance you need in a more healthy manner, helping to foster a secure relationship.

On an individual level, self-regulation alongside co-regulation can be extremely helpful. Leaning on a partner to soothe affect dysregulation is healthy in moderation, but when it becomes the only way to feel calm, it can start to feel suffocating to the partner providing it, resulting in further withdrawal (Ferguson & Karantzas, 2023; Righetti et al., 2022). Building some capacity to self-soothe protects the relationship from being asked to carry all of that weight. One way to self-regulate is by practicing mindfulness through non-judgemental awareness of your thoughts and emotions. For example, when you are experiencing emotional distress or ruminative thought patterns, allowing these emotions or thoughts to exist without assigning judgement to or identifying with them can facilitate emotional regulation and processing (Guendelman et al., 2017).

At the same time, it is important for the offending partner to validate the injured partner’s pain, rather than being defensive (Johnson et al., 2001). When a partner expresses hurt or brings up a past betrayal, it may be instinctive to respond by denying, minimising, or explaining away the action. However, relational repair can only happen when you can openly acknowledge your partner’s pain, accept responsibility for your part in the distress, and express genuine regret and empathy, even if you did not intend to cause harm.

The Ending We Get to Rewrite

Orpheus's story ends in loss because the myth demands it, which is what makes it a tragedy. But what happens after an attachment injury in real relationships isn't fixed the way the myth is. What determines the ending isn't whether the injury happens, but whether it gets acknowledged, felt, and repaired, or left to slowly deteriorate the relationship. Orpheus turns, in every version of the story, but we don’t have to. We can keep going forward until we reach the light, and find that our partner has been standing with us all along.

References

Bodenmann, G., Kessler, M., Kuhn, R., Hocker, L., & Randall, A. K. (2020). Cognitive-Behavioral and Emotion-Focused Couple Therapy: Similarities and Differences. Clinical psychology in Europe, 2(3), e2741. https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.v2i3.2741

Davidar, R. S., Ballal, D., & Premlal, D. (2026). Systematic review and framework synthesis of attachment injuries among romantic couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 43(9), 2682–2706. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075261436570

Ferguson, E. K., & Karantzas, G. C. (2023). The roles of self-regulation and partner regulation on romantic relationship quality. Family process, 62(1), 406–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12782

Guendelman, S., Medeiros, S., & Rampes, H. (2017). Mindfulness and Emotion Regulation: Insights from Neurobiological, Psychological, and Clinical Studies. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 220. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00220

Johnson, S. M., Makinen, J. A., & Millikin, J. W. (2001). Attachment injuries in couple relationships: A new perspective on impasses in couples therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27(2), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2001.tb01152.x

Righetti, F., Đurić, M., Hofmann, W., & Finkenauer, C. (2022). Self‐regulation in close relationships. Personal Relationships, 29(4), 674–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12449