This paper deals with a notorious problem in Euripides' Hippolytos, the interpretation of αιδως in 385. There are two aims of this paper. One is to justify, with some modifications, a very interesting, but not widely accepted interpretation proposed by E. Craik, which reads the word as a metonym for ερωζ. The other is to identify what role the word αιδως plays in its context, and to clarify the function of the opening part within the whole speech. I begin by comparing the opening part with the whole speech, especially lines 391ff. They indicate two important contrasts: a general statement about the destruction of human life vs. a specific one concerning Phaedra's own behavior: those who have destroyed their lives leaving aside their γνωμη vs. Phaedra, who shows tenacity in resisting her strong passion without forsaking her γνωμη. These contrasts suggest that the destruction stated in the opening part is not Phaedra's, but concerns rather those whose characteristics are exactly opposite to Phaedra's. Then I investigate the context around αιδως. I note three points: Phaedra's concern on destruction caused by ηδονη (especially αιδως); a certain implication of the two examples preceding αiδωζ(μακραi λεσχαι and σχολη, working in combination in this passage); and the narrowing down of the meaning of the bad αιδως by means of the expression αχθοζ οικων. Especially the third point reminds us of the fact that the most important thing for Phaedra to avoid is the destruction of her family, which, as we know, is being set in motion by Kypris. They suggest, I think, that we should see the meaning of αιδως in its relation to Kypris, and Craik's explanation should then be given due consideration. This reading can be supported by adducing some metonymical usages of αιδως(e.g. Il. 22. 74, 17. 335; Od. 3. 24), which indicate objects or causes of the feeling of αιδως rather than the feeling itself. Their concrete meanings are respectively a genital, withdrawal from the battlefield, and questioning a venerable elder. They have nothing in common except being objects or causes of the feeling of αιδως. It suggests the word could indicate other types of objects or causes of αιδως according to context, and one of them is adultery, about which Phaedra would feel αιδως. Why then does Euripides use such a metonymical expression? The context helps us. The wording of 380-7 reminds us repeatedly of the odious character of ηδονη or αiδωζ. In such a context the metonymy in question focuses our attention on some aspects of adultery related to αιδως, and makes us notice Phaedra's good sense behind it. Perhaps we can also sense a condemning tone there. Phaedra's good sense is expressed more explicitly in 388-90, which I read as Phaedra's declaration that she will not discard her own good sense unlike those who are mentioned in the opening part. This means, considering the two contrasts mentioned above, that the opening part focuses our attention on Phaedra's attitudes toward γνωμη, on which she makes the final appeal in 426-30.