Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T19:00:32.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Why should I mention Io?’ Aspects of choral narration in Greek tragedy1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

R. B. Rutherford
R. B. Rutherford
Affiliation:
Christ Church, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The study of narrative, narratology, has for some decades now been a well-established subdiscipline within the large field of critical methodology. Even classical scholars generally resistant to theory have found it acceptable. In part this can be explained by its classical ancestry: it was Plato who emphasised the importance of distinguishing narrator-voice and character-voice, and Aristotle who identified some of the key elements constituting plot structured as story. Part of the success of narratology is also due to the distinction of its classical practitioners. Naturally, the main emphasis among the studies of classical texts has been upon the major narrative forms, epic and the novel; but broader examination of the whole generic range has extended the scope of this method, and the first volume of an encyclopaedic study of narrator and narration in classical literature has recently appeared.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Cambridge Classical Journal , Volume 53 , 2007 , pp. 1 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alden, M. (2000) Homer beside himself, Oxford.Google Scholar
Arthur, M. (1977) ‘The curse of civilization: the choral odes of Phoenissae’, HSCP 81, 163–85.Google Scholar
Bal, M. (1985) Narratology: introduction to the theory of narrative (revised 2nd edn. 1997), Toronto.Google Scholar
Barlow, S. (1971) The imagery of Euripides, London.Google Scholar
Barner, W. (1971) ‘Die Monodie’, in Jens, W. (ed.) Bauformen der gr. Tragödie, Tübingen, 277–320.Google Scholar
Barrett, W. S. (1964) Euripides, Hippolytos, Oxford.Google Scholar
Bers, V. (1997) Speech in speech. Studies in incorporated oratio recta in Attic drama and oratory, Lanham, Maryland.Google Scholar
Bond, G. W. (1981) Euripides, Heracles, Oxford.Google Scholar
Braswell, B. K. (1992) A commentary on Pindar Nemean one, Fribourg.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. (1984) Reading for the plot: design and intention in narrative, New York.Google Scholar
Carey, C. (1981) Commentary on five odes of Pindar, New York.Google Scholar
Chatman, S. (1978) Story and discourse: narrative structure in fiction, Ithaca.Google Scholar
Cobley, P. (2001) Narrative, New Critical Idiom series, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collard, C., Cropp, M., and Lee, K. H. (eds.) (1997) Euripides: fragmentary plays, vol. 1, Warminster.Google Scholar
Conacher, D. J. (1987) Aeschylus, Oresteia. A literary commentary, Toronto.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cropp, M. (1988) Euripides, Electra, Warminster.Google Scholar
Cropp, M., Fantham, E., Scully, S. E. (eds.) (1986) Greek tragedy and its legacy. Essays presented to D. J. Conacher, Calgary.Google Scholar
Cropp, M., Lee, K. H., and Sansone, D. (eds.) (1999–2000) Euripides and tragic theater in the late fifth century, Illinois Classical Studies 24–5, Champaign.Google Scholar
Csapo, E. (1999–2000) ‘Euripidean new music’, in Cropp, Lee, Sansone, 399–426.Google Scholar
Csapo, E. and Slater, W. J. (1995) The contexts of ancient drama, Ann Arbor, Michigan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, B. (2005) Pindar and the cult of heroes, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damen, M. (1990) ‘Electra's monody and the role of the chorus in Euripides' Orestes’, TAPA 120, 133–45.Google Scholar
de Jong, I. J. F. (1987) Narrators and focalizers: the presentation of the story in the Iliad, Amsterdam (revised edn., Bristol 2004).Google Scholar
de Jong, I. J. F. (1991) Narrative in drama: the art of the Euripidean messenger speech, Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, I. J. F. (2001) A narratological commentary on the Odyssey, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, I. J. F. (2006) ‘When narratology meets stylistics: the seven versions of Ajax's madness’, in de Jong, I. J. F., and Rijksbaron, A. (eds.) Sophocles and the Greek language: aspects of diction, syntax and pragmatics, Mnemosyne suppl. 269, Leiden and Boston, 73–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, I. J. F., Nünlist, R., and Bowie, A. M. (eds.) (2004) Narrators, narratees and narratives in ancient Greek literature, Mnemosyne suppl. 257, Leiden and Boston.Google Scholar
Denniston, J. D. and Page, D. L. (1957) Aeschylus, Agamemnon, Oxford.Google Scholar
Dover, K. J. (1971) Theocritus. Select idylls, London.Google Scholar
Easterling, P. E. (1982) Sophocles, Trachiniae, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Easterling, P. E. (1989) ‘City settings in Greek poetry’, PCA 86, 87–109.Google Scholar
Easterling, P. E. (ed.) (1997a) The Cambridge companion to Greek tragedy, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easterling, P. E. (1997b) ‘Form and performance’, in ead. (1997a) 151–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erbse, H. (1984), Studien zum Prolog der euripideischen Tragödie, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, D. P. (1990) ‘Deviant focalization in Virgil's Aeneid’, PCPS n.s. 36, 42–63 (revised in Fowler (2000) 40–63).Google Scholar
Fowler, D. P. (2000) Roman constructions, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraenkel, E. (1950) Aeschylus, Agamemnon, Oxford.Google Scholar
Friis Johansen, H. and Whittle, E. W. (1980) Aeschylus, The suppliants, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Furley, W. D. and Bremer, J. M. (2001) Greek hymns, 2 vols., Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Gantz, T. N. (1993) Early Greek myth: a guide to literary and artistic sources, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Garvie, A. F. (1969) Aeschylus' Suppliants: play and trilogy, Cambridge (repr.with new introduction, Bristol 2006).Google Scholar
Genette, G. (1972) ‘Discours du récit’, in Figures III, Paris;Google Scholar
Eng. tr. by Lewin, J. E. as Narrative discourse, Ithaca (1980).Google Scholar
Goldhill, S. (1986) Reading Greek tragedy, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldhill, S. (1994) ‘The failure of exemplarity’, in de Jong, I. J. F. and Sullivan, J. P. (eds.) Modern critical theory and classical literature, Leiden, 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldhill, S. (1996) ‘Collectivity and otherness – the authority of the tragic chorus: response to Gould’, in Silk (1996), 244–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldhill, S. (1997) ‘The audience of Athenian tragedy’, in Easterling (1997a) 54–68.Google Scholar
Gould, J. (1996) ‘Tragedy and collective experience’, in Silk (1996), 216–43 ( = Gould (2001) 378–404).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, J. (1999) ‘Myth, memory and the chorus’, in Buxton, R. (ed.) From myth to reason ? 107–16 (= Gould (2001) 405–14).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, J. (2001) Myth, ritual, memory and exchange, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goward, B. (1999) Telling tragedy: some narrative techniques in Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, London.Google Scholar
Griffith, M. (1977) The authenticity of the Prometheus bound, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Griffith, M. (1990) ‘Contest and contradiction in early Greek poetry’, in Griffith, M. and Mastronarde, D. (eds.) Cabinet of the Muses, New York, 185–207.Google Scholar
Griffith, M. (1999) Sophocles, Antigone, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Haffenden, J. (2005) William Empson. Vol. 1, Among the mandarins, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, E. (1989) Inventing the barbarian: Greek self-definition through tragedy, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hall, E. (1996) Aeschylus, Persians, Warminster.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. (1986) Aristotle's Poetics, London.Google Scholar
Heath, M. (1987) The poetics of Greek tragedy, London.Google Scholar
Heath, M. (1989) Unity in Greek poetics, Oxford.Google Scholar
Herington, J. (1984) Poetry into drama: early tragedy andthe Greek poetic tradition, Berkeley and Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Hornblower, S. (2004) Thucydides and Pindar, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hose, M. (1990–1991) Studien zum Chor bei Euripides, Stuttgart.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, G. O. (1985a) Aeschylus, Septem contra Thebas, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, G. O. (1985b), review of Winnington-Ingram (1983), in JHS 105, 179–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, G. O. (2000) Greek lyric poetry, Oxford.Google Scholar
Jouan, F. (1966) Euripide et les chants cypriens, Paris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaimio, M. (1970) The chorus of Greek drama in the light of the person and number used, Comm. Humanarum Litterarum 46, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Kirkwood, G. (1982) Selections from Pindar, Chico, California.Google Scholar
Knox, B. (1979) Word and action: essays on the ancient theater, Baltimore and London.Google Scholar
Kranz, W. (1933) Stasimon, Berlin.Google Scholar
Kraus, C. (1991) ‘Logos men est archaios: stories and story-telling in Sophocles' Trachiniae’ TAPA 121, 75–98.Google Scholar
Leigh, M. (1997) Lucan: spectacle and engagement, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, G. E. R. (1966) Polarity and analogy: two types of argumentation in early Greek thought, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lodge, D. (1977) The modes of modern writing, London.Google Scholar
Lodge, D. (1981) Working with structuralism, London.Google Scholar
Lowe, N. J. (2000) The classical plot and the invention of western narrative, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McQuillan, M. (ed.) (2000) The narrative reader, London.Google Scholar
Markontanatos, A. (2002) Tragic narrative: a narratological study of Sophocles' Oedipus at Colonus, Berlin and New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mastronarde, D. J. (1986) ‘The optimistic rationalist in Euripides’, in Cropp, Fantham and Scully, 201–11.Google Scholar
Mastronarde, D. J. (1994) Euripides, Phoenissae, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mastronarde, D. J. (1999) ‘Knowledge and authority in the choral voice of Euripidean drama.’, Syll. Class. 10, 87–104 (∼ ‘Il coro euripideo: autorità e integrazione’, QUCC 60 (1998) 55–80).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelini, A. N. (1982) Tradition and dramatic form in the Persai of Aeschylus, Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelini, A. N. (1987) Euripides and the tragic tradition, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Miller, A. M. (1993–1994) ‘Pindaric mimesis: the associative mode’, CJ 89, 21–53.Google Scholar
Nisbet, R. G. M. and Hubbard, M. (1970) A commentary on Horace, Odes book I, Oxford.Google Scholar
Nordheider, H. W. (1980) Chorlieder des Euripides in ihrer dramatischen Funktion, Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Osborne, R. (1993) ‘Competitive festivals and the polis: a context for dramatic festivals in Athens’, in Sommerstein, A. and others (eds.) Tragedy, comedy and the polis, Bari, 21–37.Google Scholar
Panagl, O. (1971) Die dithyrambischen Stasima des Euripides: Untersuchungen zur Komposition und Erzähltechnik, Vienna.Google Scholar
Parker, R. (1997) ‘Gods cruel and kind: tragic and civic religion’, in Pelling, C. (ed.) Greek tragedy and the historian, Oxford, 143–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pease, A. S. (1935) Publi Vergili Maronis liber quartus, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Phelan, J. and Rabinowitz, P. J. (eds.) (2005) A companion to narrative theory, Oxford.Google Scholar
Pickard-Cambridge, A. W. (1968) The dramatic festivals of Athens (2nd edn. by Gould, J. and Lewis, D. M., reissued with addenda (1988)), Oxford.Google Scholar
Prince, G. (1980) ‘Introduction to the study of the narratee’, in Tompkins, J. P. (ed.) Reader-response criticism: from formalism to post-structuralism, Baltimore and London, 7–25.Google Scholar
Prince, G. (1982) Narratology: the form and functioning of narrative, Berlin, New York and Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, G. (1987) A dictionary of narratology, Nebraska and Aldershot.Google Scholar
Revermann, M. (2006) ‘The competence of theatre audiences in fifth- and fourth-century Athens’, JHS 126, 99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, P. J. (2003) ‘Nothing to do with democracy: Athenian drama and the polis’, JHS 103, 104–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, N. J. (1985) ‘Pindar and ancient literary criticism’, PLLS 5, 383–401.Google Scholar
Richardson, S. (1990) The Homeric narrator, Nashville.Google Scholar
Rood, T. (1998) Thucydides: narrative and explanation, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, R. B. (1994) ‘Learning from history: categories and case-histories’, in Osborne, R. and Hornblower, S. (eds.), Ritual, finance, politics: democratic accounts presented to David Lewis, Oxford, 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, W., and Stählin, O. (1929–1948) Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, Munich.Google Scholar
Schwartz, E. (1887–1891) Scholia in Euripidem, Berlin.Google Scholar
Scullion, S. (2002) ‘Tragic dates’, CQ 52, 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silk, M. (ed.) (1996) Tragedy and the tragic, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sourvinou-Inwood, C. (1989) ‘The fourth stasimon of Sophocles' Antigone’, BICS 36, 141–65.Google Scholar
Sourvinou-Inwood, C. (2003) Tragedy and Athenian religion, Lanham, Maryland.Google Scholar
Stinton, T. C. W. (1986) ‘The scope and limits of allusion in Greek tragedy’, in Cropp, Fantham and Scully, 67–102 ( = Stinton (1990) 454–92).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stinton, T. C. W. (1990) Collected papers on Greek tragedy, Oxford.Google Scholar
Taplin, O. (1977) The stagecraft of Aeschylus, Oxford.Google Scholar
Taplin, O. (1984–1985) ‘Lyric dialogue and dramatic construction in later Sophocles’, Dioniso 55, 115–22.Google Scholar
Verdenius, W. J. (1987) Commentaries on Pindar, vol. 1, Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, M. L. (1987) Euripides, Orestes, Warminster.Google Scholar
West, M. L. (1992) Ancient Greek music, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willink, C. W. (1986) Euripides, Orestes, Oxford.Google Scholar
Winnington-Ingram, R. P. (1969) ‘Euripides, poietes sophos’, Arethusa 2, 127–42.Google Scholar
Winnington-Ingram, R. P. (1977) ‘Septem contra Thebas’, YCS 25, 1–45 (revised in Winnington-Ingram (1983) 16–54).Google Scholar
Winnington-Ingram, R. P. (1983) Studies in Aeschylus, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Young, D. C. (1968) Three odes of Pindar, Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeitlin, F. (1986) ‘Thebes: theater of self and society in Athenian drama’, in Euben, J. P. (ed.) Greek tragedy and political theory, Los Angeles and London, 101–41 (repr. in Winkler, J. J. and Zeitlin, F. (eds.) Nothing to do with Dionysus? (Princeton 1990) 130–67).Google Scholar
Zeitlin, F. (1996) Playing the other, Chicago.Google Scholar