Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T22:30:02.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Rhetoric of Fear in Euripides’ Phoenician Women*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2017

Efi Papadodima
Efi Papadodima*
Affiliation:
The Academy of [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In accordance with its notoriously rich plot, Phoenician Women explores diverse aspects of fear that affect, and are thematised by, various parties at different stages of the plot.1 Against the background of a virtually ‘irrational’ and inescapable divine necessity (treated as a source of dread in itself), Euripides presents the play’s central crisis as being largely determined by rational and controlled decision-making, within an array of moral disputes that enter the scene. The agents’ decision-making standardly comprises diverging, conflicting, or inconsistent attitudes towards fear and related emotions, such as shame (in both past and present).

The rhetoric of fear thus reflects and further highlights the characters’ conflicting viewpoints, as well as Euripides’ trademark tendency to toy with his audience’s expectations and assumptions about ethical values and what is ‘right’. This article argues that his approach is substantially different from the Aeschylean treatment of the same myth (Seven against Thebes). By offering a concrete and abstract treatment of the situational anxieties over war and familial feud, Euripides’ rhetoric of fear ultimately shifts the focus to the complexities and contradictions of human motivation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 50 , November 2016 , pp. 33 - 49
Copyright
© The Australasian Society for Classical Studies 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank the editor of Antichthon, Professor Han Baltussen, and two anonymous referees for extensive and helpful written comments.

1

The edition used here is that of D.J. Mastronarde, Euripides: Phoenissae (Cambridge 1994).

References

2 On the rich ancient terminology pertaining to the emotion/state of fear (including φόβος, ὄκνος, θάμβος, τάρβος, τρόμος, φρίκη, δέος, σέβας, δεινός), see J. de Romilly, ‘La crainte dans l’oeuvre de Thucydide’, C&M 17 (1956) 119-27; id., La crainte et l’angoisse dans le théatre d’Eschyle (Paris 1958) chap. 1. For a definition of fear (φόβος) as a kind of pain or disturbance deriving from an impression or appearance of a future (not distant) evil that is destructive or distressing, see Arist. Rh. 1382a21-26 (λύπη τις ἢ ταραχὴ ἐκ φαντασίας μέλλοντος κακοῦ φθαρτικοῦ ἢ λυπηροῦ); cf. Arist. Nic. Eth. 1115a9 (προσδοκία κακοῦ, ‘expectation of evil’) and Pl. Laws 644c9-d1. See also Arist. Rh. 1383a17-18 on θάρσος as the opposite of fear. On the broader, versatile issue of the ancient emotions’ perceived texture and representation see e.g. Heath, M., The Poetics of Greek Tragedy (London 1987)Google Scholar; Nussbaum, M.C., Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions (Cambridge 2003)Google Scholar; Konstan, D., The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature (Toronto 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 154-5 and chap. 6; Munteanu, D. (ed.), Emotion, Genre and Gender in Classical Antiquity (Bristol 2013)Google Scholar.

3 In his own words, Oedipus has himself endured horrible sorrows (1725, δεινὰ δείν’ ἐγὼ τλάς); cf. 61 (εἰς ὄμμαθ’ αὐτοῦ δεινὸν ἐμβάλλει φόνον).

4 Cf. Aesch. Sept. and Sophocles’ Theban plays, as well as the lost epic Thebaid. What seems to prompt the curse in the Euripidean version is Eteocles’ and Polynices’ detention of their father in the palace, away from the eyes of the community, a decision motivated by shame (63-5; cf. 874-7 about the futility of that decision, as bitterly recollected by Tiresias).

5 Sung by women from Phoenicia. On account of their mythical genealogy, the Chorus are quite familiar with the city’s history and actually consider themselves to be linked with the Thebans by bonds of blood (214-9, 239-49, 677-8, 828-9); at the same time, their foreign origin has the effect of making them considerably more restrained and detached than the native Aeschylean Chorus. See suggestively Arthur, M.B., ‘The Curse of Civilization: The Choral Odes of the Phoenissae ,’ HSCPh 81 (1977) 163-185 Google Scholar, and J. Gould, ‘Tragedy and Collective Experience’, in M.S. Silk (ed.), Tragedy and the Tragic: Greek Theatre and Beyond (Oxford 1996) 217-43.

6 See Arthur, ‘Curse of Civilization’ (n. 5) 163-85. Swift, Cf. L., ‘Sexual and Familial Distortion in Euripides’ Phoenissae ,’ TAPA 139 (2009) 71-77 Google Scholar for a reading of the nature vs culture motif as representative of human sexuality. See also Saïd, S., ‘Greeks and Barbarians in Euripides’ Tragedies: The End of Differences?’, in T. Harrison (ed.), Greeks and Barbarians (Edinburgh 2002) 95 Google Scholar.

7 In Aesch. Sept. fear is predominantly viewed in the light of its polarisation between the female Chorus, who repeatedly manifest their virtually unbridled agony and terror with special emphasis on its affective symptomatology (see n. 10 below), and the ruler Eteocles, who overall remains confident and resolute, and who furthermore attempts to control or suppress his people’s fear through various means. See further Byrne, L., ‘Fear in the Seven against Thebes ’, in S. Deacy and K.F. Pierce (eds), Rape in Antiquity: Sexual Violence in the Greek and Roman Worlds (London 1997) 143-162 Google Scholar. For Aeschylus’ rich and complex depiction of fear (imagery, metaphor, realism, precision), which functions as a unifying theme in most of his extant dramas (especially in Pers., Sept., and Ag.), see notably de Romilly, La crainte et l’angoisse (n. 2), and I. Kantzios, ‘The Politics of Fear in Aeschylus’ Persians’, CW 98 (2004) 3-19.

8 The queen does not feature in either the Homeric or the Aeschylean version of the story. For her moral and intellectual input in Euripides, see Mastronarde, ‘The Optimistic Rationalist in Euripides: Theseus, Jocasta, Tiresias’, in M. Cropp, E. Fantham, and S.E. Scully (eds), Greek Tragedy and its Legacy (Calgary 1986) 204-6.

9 For a defence of the scene’s authenticity, see Mastronarde, Phoenissae (n. 1) 168-73.

10 Cf. Hom. Il. 20.156. The Chorus in Aesch. Sept. is recurrently terrorised by a string of ominous sounds of war and death that they either sense or envisage. The emphasis is placed almost exclusively on sound rather than vision. See 103, 121-2 (φόβος δ’ ἀρείων ὅπλων); 203-4 (ἔδεισ’ ἀκού- / σασα τὸν ἁρματόκτυπον ὄτοβον ὄτοβον; cf. 245); 212-14 (δὴ τότ’ ἤρθην φόβῳ πρὸς μακάρων λιτάς); 239-41 (ταρβοσύνῳ φόβῳ; cf. Aesch. Supp. 736); 249 (δέδοικ˙ ἀραγμὸς δ’ ἐν πύλαις ὀφέλλεται). Though eliciting some action (prayer to the gods [129-34, ἐπίλυσιν φόβων ἐπίλυσιν δίδου]), the women’s terror is predominantly imprinted in a series of intense and thoroughly disruptive bodily reactions (trembling, shrieking, hair standing on end, inability to sleep or control their tongue, inarticulate sounds and wails, panicky flight; on this affective symptomatology of fear see de Romilly, La crainte et l’angoisse [n. 2] chap. 1). See also Konstan, Emotions (n. 2) 150-3; cf. W.I. Miller, The Mystery of Courage (Cambridge MA 2000) 207.

11 On key differences from both the Aeschylean shield scene and the Homeric Teichoskopia scene (Il. 3.161-244) see Barlow, S.A., The Imagery of Euripides: A Study in the Dramatic Use of Pictorial Language (New York 1971) 57-60 Google Scholar, and Th. Papadopoulou, Euripides, Phoenician Women (London 2008) 46-8.

12 The Scout in Aesch. Sept. shudders (489-90, ἔφριξα) upon witnessing the tremendous figure and huge shield of Hippomedon, who glances fear (498, φόβον βλέπων) and boasts that Fear himself is standing with him at the gate (500, Φόβος).

13 Cf. 1104-5 with n. 28. In Aesch. Sept. Parthenopaeus is said to be advancing with a terrifying look (537, γοργόν τ’ ὄμμ’ ἔχων), despite being otherwise defined as a maiden-faced half-man, half-boy named after delicate virgins. On the theme of naming (and misnaming) and its possible moral ramifications or ambiguities in both plays, see Papadodima, E., ‘Names and the Theme of Naming in Aeschylus’ Seven against Thebes and Euripides’ Phoenician Women ’, AC 56 (2013) 136-154 Google Scholar. Cf. also Eur. Phoen. 454, where Jocasta urges her sons to turn and face one another while exchanging words, by first exhorting Eteocles to restrain the fierceness of his look (δεινὸν ὄμμα).

14 The Scout’s relevant descriptions in the Aeschylean shield scene, aside from highlighting the interplay between a terrified Chorus and a fearless Eteocles, are more importantly put to practical use in so far as they determine the prince’s own choice of generals.

15 The old Jocasta (303-4, τρομερὰν βάσιν) expresses her affection for her son, restoring the normality of familial bonds to some extent. A manifestation of that affection is her hesitation to inquire into Polynices’ life as an exile – a hesitation prompted by her worry that such a discussion would grieve him (383-4, δέδοιχ’).

16 Notice 269-70 (ἢ κτύπον φοβούμεθα; / ἅπαντα γὰρ τολμῶσι δεινὰ φαίνεται); cf. Soph. Acrisius frag. 61.2 Radt, and Eur. El. 747-8.

17 Cf. the similar reactions of Orestes and Pylades in Eur. IT 67-8 (while the pair explores a par excellence hostile and threatening foreign environment).

18 A type of animosity that the hero considers terrible (374, δεινόν).

19 A view that reinforces the (perceived) common connection between wealth and luxury (especially of Oriental societies) and softness, unmanliness, or δειλία. See suggestively Herodotus (passim), Eur. Tro. 991-7.

20 Cf. Aesch. Pers. 784 (about Xerxes).

21 The Aeschylean Eteocles, of course, does not interact with the Scout and, much less, with the Chorus on equal terms. The hero simply makes use of the Scout’s, valuable no less, pieces of information, while at the same time seeking to silence the women’s frantic reactions (partly by force and partly by persuasion), since he considers that they are both ill-founded and harmful, as well as undignified/unsuited to Greek civilisation (e.g. 250-62, 268-70). See also L. Deubner, Attische Feste (Berlin 1932) 24.

22 Cf. Arist. Rh. 1382a30-31.

23 A pattern of interaction that recalls the generic interplay or tension between boldness/rashness and thoughtfulness/careful planning, or between brawn and brains (as e.g. in the interaction between Hector and Aeneas, as well as that between Idomeneus and Odysseus, in [Eur.] Rhesus).

24 ἔκπληξις relates mostly to panic; see R. Zaborowski, La crainte et le courage dans l’Iliade et l’Odyssée: Contribution lexicographique à la psychologie homérique des sentiments (Warsaw 2002).

25 See Arist. Rh. 1383a5 – about the view that some hope of being saved from the cause of one’s distress is a necessary incentive to fear. The complementarity of fear and hope is a commonplace in ancient Greek thought: see e.g. Pl. Laws 644c-d; cf. Soph. Eriphyle frag. 201f Radt. For certain themes by which Euripides constructs and intensifies the dashing down of hope in the drama, see Podlecki, A.J., ‘Some Themes in Euripides’ Phoenissae ’, TAPA 93 (1962) 355-373 Google Scholar.

26 In the Aeschylean version too the Messenger first announces the joyous message about the city’s salvation, but immediately distinguishes between the developments at the six gates, where all went well, from those at the seventh one, at which the brothers slaughtered each other. This pattern essentially leaves horror as the only possible response, along with mourning and some fresh anxiety for the community’s lot (e.g. 834, 843, 849-51).

27 Cf. Aesch. Sept. 792, and Eur. Heracl. 791-2.

28 Cf. Hom. Il. 4.281-2, 7.62, 13.470-3, and Ar. Frogs 822-5. Notice Aesch. Sept. 563-4 (τριχὸς δ’ ὄρθιος πλόκαμος ἵσταται), where the Chorus depict their physical distress and dread after hearing of Parthenopaeus’ approach along with the assailants’ loud threats. See also Aesch. Cho. 32 (ὀρθόθριξ) and n. 13.

29 See Mastronarde, Phoenissae (n. 1) on ll. 1124-5 for the remark that φόβῳ is a dative of manner (rather than active in sense, that is, ‘so as to inspire fear’).

30 The boasting Capaneus was destroyed by Zeus’ thunderbolt, which made the earth resound and terrified everyone (1180-2, ἐκτύπησε δὲ / χθὼν, ὥστε δεῖσαι πάντας; cf. [Aesch.] PV 1089-90).

31 Cf. Hom. Od. 9.376-7 and Il. 10.190.

32 Cf. the Chorus’ definition of Strife (Ἔρις) as a goddess to fear (798, δεινά).

33 Cf. Eur. Tro. 1026; Aesch. Sept. 804-5 [παραφρονῶ φόβῳ λόγου], 835-9; Eur. Hec. 85-6 (φρὴν . . . / φρίσσει, ταρβεῖ).

34 Cf. Aesch. Sept. 720-6 (πέφρικα τὰν ὠλεσίοικον, / θεὸν οὐ θεοῖς ὁμοίαν) and 790-1 (νῦν δὲ τρέω / μὴ τελέσῃ καμψίπους Ἐρινύς), where the mere thought of the dreadful goddesses inflicts physical terror on the Chorus. See also Thebaid frag. 2.8 Allen, and Pind. Ol. 2.41.

35 Accentuated by the fact that their mutual slaughter takes place after the battle, by contrast with the Aeschylean version.

36 Cf. Arist. Rh. 1383a5, about how fear makes people deliberative. Similarly, after the killing of the brothers, Creon clarifies (whether sincerely or not) that he is resolute in banishing Oedipus not out of enmity or spite, but out of fear (δεδοικώς) of his avenging spirits (ἀλάστορας) who might harm the land (1592-4).

37 See also A.A. Lamari, Narrative, Intertext, and Space in Euripides’ Phoenissae (Berlin 2010) 59-70.

38 Cf. 505-6, 602-3, as well as Thrasymachus’ views in Pl. Rep. 336ff. See also D.L. Cairns, ‘Values’, in J. Gregory (ed.), A Companion to Greek Tragedy (Malden MA 2005) 309-10. Polynices himself, whilst claiming to be motivated by justice (469-72), also acknowledges property’s primary importance in quite strong terms (438-42), although his disposition may well be tailored by his status as an exile, virtually deprived of all privileges (386-407). Polynices is indeed preoccupied with the traditional aristocratic values / idea(l)s of nobility, wealth, power, and honour. See also Papadopoulou, Phoenician Women (n. 11) 58-61, for his partial interpretation or manipulation of those values as a means for justifying his expedition against his fatherland. For greed as a characteristic of tyrants cf. Eur. Suppl. 450-1.

39 See suggestively Redfield, J., Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector (Durham and London 1994) 115 Google Scholar.

40 See more broadly Wissmann, J., Motivation und Schähmung: Feigheit in der Iliad und in der griechischen Tragödie (Stuttgart 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 See 239-41 (θούριος μολὼν Ἄρης / αἷμα δάιον φλέγει; cf. δάιον τέρας for the Sphinx in 1023 bis) and 930-52 (cf. 1062-6 [Καδμείαν μέριμναν]). The selection of Menoeceus is bound up with his belonging to the lineage of the Sown-men, as well as with his status as a parthenos. For the possible significance of the latter attribute see Swift, ‘Sexual and Familial Distortion’ (n. 6) 69-71. In Aesch. Sept. Cadmus is presented as having eventually earned Ares’ protection of his city.

42 Menoeceus refers to himself as a προδότης (996, 1003), a quite strong term. Cf. Eur. Or. 1056-7.

43 See Mastronarde, Phoenissae (n. 1) on l. 995, for the possible implication that as an old man Creon attaches great value to the children who represent the survival of his oikos or that as an old man he has already served his city sufficiently. The latter interpretation would, then, pose the question of the transferability of χάρις (‘service’, ‘favour’, ‘gratitude’). Cf. Eur. Hec. 275-8, with 301-5, 829-30, 1175-7.

44 See also Konstan, Emotions (n. 2) 130.

45 If we take into account the way in which the dramatist’s later plays treat the recurrent, as well as versatile, motif of (voluntary) self-sacrifice, usually of maidens, and attendant values or considerations (Hec., Heracl., Erechtheus, Phrixus B, IA). We might suggestively recall the Maiden’s rhetoric in Eur. Heracl. (474-596), which focuses on identical concerns (renown vs disgrace that makes life not worth living, nobility, freedom, dignity, gratitude, condemnation of φιλοψυχία [‘love for one’s life’, with connotations of cowardice]). See H.P. Foley, Ritual Irony: Poetry and Sacrifice in Euripides (Ithaca NY 1985); Garrison, E.P., Groaning Tears: Ethical and Dramatic Aspects of Suicide in Greek Tragedy (Leiden 1995)Google Scholar; Balot, R., ‘Courage in the Democratic Polis’, CQ 54 (2004a) 406-423 Google Scholar; Balot, R., ‘The Dark Side of Democratic Courage’, Social Research 71 (2004b) 73-106 Google Scholar.

46 A shift that refers to the very root of the conflict rather than to urgent actions or decisions relating to a virtually unavoidable war, as in Aeschylus. In the Aeschylean version what signals the turning-point with respect to both Eteocles’ outlook and his community’s reactions is the hero’s vehement, seemingly impulsive, decision to confront his brother at the seventh gate, in the light of the armies’ imminent clash (672-6). From that point on, the Aeschylean Eteocles diverts his attention from the war’s logistics and practicalities, which dominated his reasoning thus far, and focuses on his family’s special background and foretold doom, which he accepts as a concluded and irreversible fact (657-8, 689-91, 695-7, 709-11). His resolution gives rise to a more metaphysical type of agony, verging on horror at things already known or set in motion, that increasingly governs the Chorus. See H.H. Bacon, ‘The Shield of Eteocles’, Arion 3 (1964) 30-2, and G.O. Hutchinson (ed.), Aeschylus, Septem contra Thebas (Oxford 1985) 148; more broadly, F.I. Zeitlin, Under the Sign of the Shield: Semiotics and Aeschylus’ Seven against Thebes (Rome 1982) chap. 17.

47 This is not to say that Polynices is necessarily blameless with respect to his decision to attack Thebes or even with respect to his lingering demands (if we take into account that as the younger son [71] he would, but for the curse [68], have no legitimate claim to the throne – a detail that is not mentioned in the Aeschylean version). Notice Jocasta’s concise assessment of both of her sons’ conduct in 874 (ἥμαρτον ἀμαθῶς). See also n. 38.