Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T04:22:07.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

V. Ideas and Meanings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2016

Get access

Extract

The ‘literary contest’ in Aristophanes’ Frogs has Euripides say that poets should be admired if they show cleverness and give good advice, and make their fellow citizens better men (1008-10). The purpose of that headline to the comic contest is clear, for it concentrates on Euripides’ characters, and his intellectualism, as ‘moral’ influences on his audience; but we might have expected his contemporaries, like ourselves, to want tragic poets rather to illuminate universals from divine and heroic myth. The plays in fact seldom give direct ‘advice’, and only by emphasizing the moral of the stage-action with general imperatives, e.g. And. 622–3 ‘suitors, make sure you marry daughters of good mothers!’, 950, Supp. 917. Instead, Tragedy ‘taught’ by implication. Euripides’ meanings are very hard to see, because of the rich diversity and inconsistency of his work. He is constantly tensed between subscription to the mythic externals like story and ambience, and desire to create setting and persons immediate to the Athenians’ ready experience; he is so clearly uncomfortable with the traditional religious and moral values which tragic myth enshrined; so variable from play to play in dramatic conception and individual ideas; so obviously ‘modern’ in the intellectual experimentation of his poetic style.

Type
Research Article
Information
New Surveys in the Classics , Volume 14: Euripides , 1981 , pp. 30 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

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

Notes

1. See Dover, K.J., Arisiophanic Comedy (London, 1972), pp. 183-9Google Scholar; cf. Jones, pp. 239-42, Taplin (1977), pp. 166 f.

2. Lesky (1972), p. 520 cites a bon mot of H. D. F. Kitto, ‘You never know where you are’. Interpretations of E., many despairing of synthesis, are reviewed by e.g. Rivier, A., Essai sur le tragique d’E. (Lausanne, 1944), pp. 9–21 Google Scholar (Paris, 1975, pp. 3-27); Lesky, A., AAHG 2 (1949), 34-9Google Scholar; Greenwood pp. 1-91; J. C. Kamerbeek in Entretiens, pp. 3-6; Jones, pp. 268 f.; Conacher, pp. 12-14; Rohdich, H., Die em. Tragödie (Heidelberg, 1968), pp. 13–16 Google Scholar; Vellacott, pp. 2-8. The ‘rationalist’ view of A. W. Verrall was perpetuated by Norwood, G., Essays on Euripidean Drama (Cambridge, 1954), pp. 1–51 Google Scholar; in the same vein Greenwood and Vellacott.

3. Schmid, pp. 318 n. 5, 690-1 nn. for the ancient references.

4. The classic modern statement is Reinhardt, K., ‘Die Sinneskrise bei E.’, in Tradition und Geist (Göttingen, 1960), pp. 223-56Google Scholar. Cf. esp. Lucas, pp. 175-6, 232-43; Webster (1967), pp. 21-9, Lesky (1967), pp. 133-7 and (1972), pp. 512-18 (bibi.). Winnington-Ingram, R.P., ‘Euripides: Poietes Sophos’, Arethusa 2 (1969), 127—42Google Scholar is important.

5. Nestle, W., E.: der Dichter der griechischen Aufklärung (Stuttgart, 1901)Google Scholar was very influential (and remains the fullest collection of material); bibl. in Schmid, pp. 315-17, who p. 686 n. 1 notes that Masqueray, P., E. et ses idées (Paris, 1908)Google Scholar more accurately read E. as a mirror of contemporary thought.

6. The rôle of ‘chance’ in E.’s plays is much disputed. References and older bibl. in Schmid, p. 702 n. 4; played down by e.g. Webster (1967), p. 287 n. 16; allowed by e.g. Lesky (1972), pp. 424-5 (bibl.), cf. Lucas, p. 24, Burnett, A.P., CPh 55 (1960), 151-63Google Scholar (on Hel.). Cf. § II n. 12 above, and n. 15 below.

7. Socratic controversy argued most strongly by Snell (1964), pp. 48-69, with fuller bibl. in (1971), p. 63 n. 62; cf. e.g. Dodds, E.R., The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley, 1951), pp. 186 Google Scholar f. (an earlier discussion of moral failing in Hipp, in CR 39 (1925), 102-4). Reserve by e.g. Barrett, ed. Hippolytos ad loc; Conacher, p. 54; Moline, J., Hermes 103 (1975), 45–67 Google Scholar. Thoughts like Hipp. 380-1 are found in fr. 840, 841, from the Chrysippus, also about irresistible (but pederastie) love, but the play cannot be dated; cf. fr. 572.4-5, from the late Oenomaus. For the difficult passage Med. 1021-80, esp. 1079, see Diller, H., Hermes 94 (1966), 267-75Google Scholar and (bibl.) Lesky (1972), pp. 311-12; cf. § II n. 21 above.

8. Thematic importance for this question (Hipp. 79-80, Supp. 913-17, Hec. 599) was suggested by Lesky (1972), p. 514 n. 8.

9. Heinimann, F., Nomos und Physis (Basel, 1945)Google Scholar analyses the sophistic debate; cf. Dodds (n. 7 above), pp. 182 f. and e.g. Adkins (n. 14 below), pp. 106-12. For E. see Schmid, p. 725, Lucas, pp. 234-5, Lesky (1967), 172-3, Webster (1967), pp. 23-4. Also: Romilly, J. de, La loi dans la pensée grecque (Paris, 1971)Google Scholar.

10. Necessary warnings by e.g. Lucas, p. 242; Grube, pp. 80-98, esp. 92 ff.; Webster (1967), p. 290; Lesky (1967), p. 175 and (1972), p. 514; cf. § II n. 24 above.

11. On this quality of Hel. see G. Zuntz in Entretiens, pp. 199-241; Conacher, p. 290 n. 7 (bibl.); Kannicht’s, R. Commentary (Heidelberg, 1969)Google Scholar; Segal, C., TAPA 102 (1971), 553–614 Google Scholar. Myth and reality: J. Kamerbeek in Entretiens, pp. 1-41. Also: Luschnigg, C.E., The logos-ergon conflict; a study of Euripidean tragedy (diss. Cincinnati, 1972 Google Scholar).

12. Women in E.: Schmid, pp. 321 f., 690 n. 6, 693 f. (references and bibl.); Lucas, pp. 242 f. (women hard to one another); Lesky (1967), pp. 140 f.; Vellacott, pp. 82-126 finds their ‘precarious condition’ a major theme. Women driven to wrong by men: Alsina, J.C., Helmantica 9 (1958), 87–131 Google Scholar; to revenge by men’s unfeeling designs (Med), Dihle, A., A & A 22 (1976), 175-84Google Scholar.

13. So Murray’s title; cf. Dodds, ed. Bacchae, Preface. Zuntz (1963), pp. 78-81; Walcot, pp. 76-103 (social values and background). Vellacott, pp. 17-19, 153-77 makes the tension a premiss of his interpretation. Cf. next n.

14. Zuntz, G., Opusc. Selecta (Manchester, 1972), pp. 54–61 Google Scholar (written 1954) corrected the excesses associated esp. with H. Grégoire, the ‘Budé’ editor, Delebecque, E., E. et la guerre du Péloponnèse (Paris, 1951)Google Scholar, and Goossens, R., E. et Athènes (Bruxelles, 1962)Google Scholar(written 1945); these books nevertheless have referential value, like the similarly tinged Benedetto, V. di, E.: teatro e società (Torino, 1971)Google Scholar. Zuntz himself (1963) interprets the tension best, for Hcld, and Supp.; cf. Grube, pp. 29-36; Lucas, pp. 238-42; Lesky e.g. (1967), p. 159. Recently on e.g. Or.: Romilly, J. de, Studi... Cataudella I (Catania, 1972), pp. 237-51Google Scholar (public condemnation to death) and Burkert, W., A & A 20 (1974), 97–109 Google Scholar (aristocratic resort to violence).

The plays are inevitably read as evidence for moral and political values. This risks making sociologist out of thinking poet who necessarily described dilemma and behaviour in contemporary terms, and ignoring other dangers of misinterpretation (n. 10 above). Adkins, A.W.H., Moral Values and Political Behaviour in Ancient Greece (London, 1972)Google Scholar (ref. to his earlier books) and CQ 16 (1966), 193-219 (Hec., HF) does not wholly avoid it; Bergson, L., Die Relativität der Werte im Frühwerk des E. (Stockholm, 1971)Google Scholar is judiciously reviewed by Taplin, O., CR 24 (1974), 127-8Google Scholar.

Another extreme is to read the plays against a socio-political credamus. This approach, strongest in E. Europe, can seem coldly determined, but may rest on useful observation of detail and theme. Kuch, H., Philologus 123 (1979), 202-15CrossRefGoogle Scholar sets out the premisses, with copious bibl.; his own Kriegsgefangenschaft und Sklaverei bei E. (Berlin, 1974) (And., Hec, Tro.) leaves the work of art largely intact.

15. HF indeed causes despair: the play itself says, inescapably, that the madness is caused by the gods – as Heracles accepts (1303-8, cf. 1392-3), only to deny their credibility in poetic myth (1340-6); for this intractable problem see Lesky (1972), pp. 379-81 (bibl.); Stinten, T.C.W., PCPS 22 (1976), 821 Google Scholar; Brown, A.L., ib. 24 (1978), 22–30 Google Scholar. For Hipp, see e.g. R. G. Winnington- Ingram in Entretiens, pp. 169—97 (the gods symbolize the reality human nature and failing cannot escape); Köhnken, A., Hermes 100(1972), 179-90Google Scholar (divine prologue and epilogue stamp Hippolytus’ illusion as truly tragic). For Bacc, the most discussed of all plays (see APh!), see esp. Winnington-Ingram, R.P., E. and Dionysus (Cambridge, 1948)Google Scholarand Dodds, E.R. incomparable Commentary (Oxford, 1960 Google Scholar); (bibl.) Lesky (1972), pp. 484-99.

On gods and myth in E. Grube, pp. 41-62 writes very fairly; cf. e.g. Lucas, pp. 233-4 (E. a sceptic but accepting the poetry of myth); Conacher, esp. pp. 3-23 (grades of scepticism, satire, and disbelief corresponding to the prominence of action humanly motivated and determined); Lloyd-Jones, pp. 145-55 (protest against ‘symbolic’ interpretations); Vickers, pp. 279-337 and passim (myth used for its social and ethical implications, permitting E. richly diverse and profound criticism of man’s failings). In general: Webster (1967), pp. 290-6; Matthiessen, pp. 173-86 (late plays); Lesky (1967: use Index) and (1972), pp. 514-22 (best bibl.).

16. Interesting that in these four plays the god is Apollo, who bears E.’s strongest criticism, especially for his oracular voice (a general condemnation, or of contemporary Delphic influence?), e.g. And. 1027-36, 1161-5; El. 979-81, 1245-6, 1302 - but contrast e.g. El. 399-400, 1247, Ion 1609-12, Or. 1666-7, Pho. 954-9. On e.g. Ion see Conacher, pp. 276-81, Lesky (1972), pp. 435-6.

17. A benevolent view of myth in IT, Hel., and Ion is taken by Whitman, C.H., E. and the Full Circle of Myth (Harvard, 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (‘plays of purity and redemption’). On the deus see esp. § II n. 13.