No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
II. Plots and Persons
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2016
Extract
Critics sometimes divide the plays into approximate chronological groups according to form, theme, motive, and patterns of action. A single criterion may group plays quite sharply (the so-called ‘tragicomic’ IT, Ion, and Hel. of the late 410s, for example); but a second may produce different groupings, or none at all, like the pervasive motif of ‘deliverance’ (below) or attitude to myth. Some plays are ‘out of period’, like the very late, thematically concentrated and formally strict Bacc. In sum, such groupings allow too little to natural or deliberate change in technique, or to reversion to earlier style.
The Troades of 415 nevertheless seems to mark a major divide, probably by accident – an impression increased by its own singularity of composition among the extant plays (are its own content and form, essentially illustrative episodes on the theme of war’s brutality, a function of its final place in the most connected trilogy Euripides wrote?). Before Tro., most plays are tragic or pathetic in tone; after it, lighter or at least ambiguous. Early plays body out major, dominating figures and their protracted agony more consistently than later; contrast Medea, Phaedra, Andromache (name-play) and Hecuba (name-play), with principal characters later: only Heracles (before 415?), Orestes (name-play), Pentheus, Agamemnon (IA) and perhaps Hypsipyle are shown at comparable length and intensity. Also, later plays fill up with persons who compete for attention, often theatrically, and so diffuse interest.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981
References
Notes
1. E.g. Lucas, pp. 177-93 and Kitto, pp. 188-90, 250-1 (both admit overlaps); Lesky (1967), p. 137; Schmid, pp. 330-38 (older bibl.). Webster (1967), esp. pp. 31 f., 281, mixes dramatic periods with artificial metrical phases. Similar if not coincident periods in technical development are suggested: see §§ III, IV.
2. Grouped and so called by e.g. Kitto, pp. 311-29; ‘romantic tragedy’, Conacher, pp. 265-313. For comic elements see Grube, pp. 9-10 etc.; Knox, B.M.W., Word and Action (Baltimore, 1979), pp. 250-74Google Scholar.
3. Conacher, pp. 14 f. groups the plays in their attitude to myth and human experience, no patterns of time emerging.
4. See Lesky (1972), p. 381 for other suggested ‘trilogies’ and Webster (1967), pp. 163 f. on thematic productions generally. Koniaris, G.L., HSCP 77 (1973), 85–124 Google Scholar denies thematic connection for the Trojan plays of 415, and demands interpretation of Tro. for itself alone.
5. Knox, B.M.W., YCS 25 (1977), 197 Google Scholar notes that Med. is E.’s only extant play with ‘classical’ (i.e. Sophoclean) single focus.
6. Unity of Hec.: see esp. Conacher, pp. 146-65. And., e.g. Boulter, P.N., Phoenix 20 (1966), 51-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar (themes); Lee, K.H., Antichthon 9 (1975), 4–16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (thematic and formal elements). Unity in theme: HF, e.g. Chalk, H.H.O., JHS 82 (1962), 7–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (virtue, violence, and friendship), Gregory, J.W., YCS 25 (1977), 259-75Google Scholar (Heracles’ dual fatherhood); Or., Smith, W.D., Hermes 95 (1967), 291–307 Google Scholar (disease); Pho., Rawson, E., GRBS 11 (1970), 109-27Google Scholar (family and fatherland).
7. Garzya, A., Pensiero e Tecnica Drammatica in E. (Napoli, 1962)Google Scholar finds ‘deliverance’ as concept and motif determining form in twelve extant plays, Alc, HF., Med., Held., Supp., And., IT., EL, Hel., Pho., Or., IA. Burnett, A.P., Catastrophe Survived (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar takes six of them (Alc, IT., Hel., And., HF, Or.) and adds Ion (and Cresphontes) to show how their complex actions trace ‘mixed reversals’ of fortune; in CPh 71 (1976), 4-26 she adds Hcld, for its rich mixture of various sub-motifs.
8. ‘Suppliant-plays’: Strohm, pp. 3-49 (‘Agon und Altarmotiv’); Zuntz (1963), pp. 3-54; J. Kopperschmidt, ‘Hikesie als dramatische Form’, in Bauformen, pp. 321-46; cf. Garzya, Burnett in n. 7 above.
9. Sophistication and variation of the dramatic sequence ‘ignorance, recognition, intrigue’ in the run of plays EL, IT., Ion, HeL, Antiope, Hypsipyle were described first by Solmsen, F., Hermes 69 (1934), 390–419 Google Scholar (cf. Philologus 87 (1932), 1-17). Now, see esp. Strohm, pp. 64-92; Matthiessen, pp. 93-143.
10. Med., EL, Bacc. are ‘revenge-plays’ (Lattimore (1964), p. 51 adds Held.); so certainly is Hec. ( Meridor, R., AJP 99 (1978), 28–35 Google Scholar on Hecuba’s duty to avenge Polydorus). Vellacott, p. 226 says ‘revenge’ is the theme of all plays between Alc. and Hel But Bacc. also shows ‘divine punishment’ (with uniquely human agent, Burnett, A.P., CPh 65 (1970), 15–29 Google Scholar), like Hipp.; Tro. (1-97) implies it. For ‘reversals’ as a plot-style, cf. n. 7.
11. Falsehood and deception in the plays: Jaekel, S., Arctos 11 (1977), 15–40 Google Scholar. For ‘red herrings’ see esp. Arnott, W.G., Mus.Phil.Lond. 3 (1978), 1–14 Google Scholar (bibi.); Hamilton, R., AJP 99 (1978), 277–302 Google Scholar (Ion, IT, Hel, Alc).
12. Circumstance and accident, and human endeavour to surmount them, are thematic: e.g. Lesky (1967), p. 187; (1972), pp. 424-5; Burnett (n. 7 above), pp. 67 ff., esp. n. 19; cf. Conacher, pp. 17 ff. Schmid, p. 702 n. 4 and Webster (1967), p. 287 n. 16 (both give bibl.) deny to E. the fully conceived Hellenistic ‘god’ Tyche (‘Chance’); cf. in § V below.
13. Deus and aetiology, cult: Webster (1967), pp. 290 f., cf. (‘aesthetic/ritual’) Murray, pp. 144-8; Spira, A., Untersuchungen zum Deus ex machina bei E. (diss. Frankfurt, 1960)Google Scholar (praised by e.g. Lloyd-Jones, p. 155), but his view of the deus as a ‘theodicy’ is generally rebutted: see Lesky (1972), pp. 518 f. (evaluative bibl.); cf. in general Kitto, pp. 284-7, Grube, pp. 73-9, Strohm, pp. 151-5.
14. Cf. Lattimore (1964), pp. 28-55.
15. For this favourite motif and coup see esp. Schmitt, J., Freiwilliger Opfertod bei E. (Giessen, 1921)Google Scholar; Strohm, pp. 50-63. Cf. Kitto, pp. 254-9; Webster (1967), pp. 103 f., 279; Vellacott, pp. 178-204.
16. Webster (1967), p. 280 stresses ‘naturalistic’ causation and pp. 287-9 the ‘family’; earlier, Strohm, pp. 147 ff. had brought out this ‘ethical’ quality in later plays.
17. Antiope, frags. IV-XXVI ed. Kambitsis, cf. his pp. XXII-XXX. For bibl. see esp. Snell (1964), pp. 70-98, revised in (1971), pp. 76-103.
18. See Strohm in n. 16 above.
19. Aristot. Poet. 1460b33. Ar. Frogs 842, 1063 ff. beggars and 846 cripples (cf. Ach. 412 ff., Peace 147 f.); 1043 ff., 1050 ff., 1079 (and Thes. 544-7) adulteresses; E.’s rejoinder Frogs 949 f., 959 ff., 971 ff.
20. Unitary conception still canvassed by e.g. Blaiklock, E.M., The Male Characters of E. (Wellington, 1952)Google Scholar. Individual scenes: esp. Howald, E., Untersuchungen zur Technik der eur. Tragödie (Leipzig, 1914)Google Scholar. ‘Episodic’ psychology: esp. Zürcher, W., Die Darstellung des Menschen im Drama des E. (Basel, 1947)Google Scholar. Kitto, pp. 252-9 relates quality and consistency of characterization to dominance of theme over persons (early) or to persons embodying the dramatic idea (late). The best history of the discussion begins A. Lesky’s important ‘Psychologie bei E.’, in Entretiens, pp. 125-68; cf. his AAHG 7 (1954), 147 f.; Ges. Schriften (Bern, 1966), pp. 247-63. Good general discussions of characterization by Garton, C., JHS 77 (1957), 247-54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gellie, G.H., AUMLA 20 (1963), 241-55Google Scholar; Gould, J., PCPS 24 (1978), 43–67 Google Scholar (provoked by Easterling, P.E., G & R 20 (1973), 3–19 Google Scholar, on Aeschylus). For E. cf. also Jones, pp. 252 ff. (penetration), 273 f. (subjectivity). Cf. nn. 24-27 below.
21. ‘Passion and reason’, esp. in erotic contexts: Lucas, pp. 178-82; Webster (1967), p. 281; Lesky (1967), pp. 154 f. Knox, B.M.W., YCS 25 (1977), 193–225x Google Scholar finds in Med. the eruption of suppressed violence (cf. Alcmena in Hcld., Hecuba too?); for the infanticide see now P. E. Easterling, ibid., 177-91; on the difficult verse Med. 1079, and context, cf. § V n. 7 below.
22. I borrow ‘brutalized’ from Webster (1967), p. 281, who goes too far in extending this character-style into e.g. Iphigenia (IT) and Creusa (Ion).
23. Extensive lists of dramatic types in Schmid, pp. 765 ff. Voluntary sacrifices: n. 15 above; noble captives, e.g. Daitz, S.G., Hermes 99 (1971), 217-26Google Scholar (on Hec); Lesky (1972), p. 513 n. 6; Vellacott, p. 219; Synodinou, K., On the Concept of Slavery In E. (Ioannina, 1977)Google Scholar. Slaves ‘in the drama’ well analysed by Brandt, H., Die Sklaven in den Rollen von Dienern und Vertrauten bei E. (Hildesheim, 1973)Google Scholar. Cf. § V n. 14.
24. Dale, ed. Alcestis, pp. xxii ff., the phrase, p. xxvii; Coll. Papers, pp. 139-55 (‘Ethos and Dianoia’), esp. 150 ff., and pp. 272-80 (‘The Creation of Dramatic Characters’). Cf. e.g. Kitto, pp. 256 f., Walcot, pp. 59 ff., Jones, pp. 260 f.
25. See esp. Webster (1967), p. 289 n. 19 and Gould (n. 20 above), with bibl.; earlier e.g. Murray, pp. 131-5, 159 f.
26. E.g. Lattimore (1958), pp. 105 ff., Lucas, pp. 230-32, Webster (1967), pp. 287 ff.; H. Diller in Entretiens, pp. 89-121 traces E.’s realism to the clear appreciation by his characters of their place in the dramatic environment. Cf. n. 16 above.
27. A good survey of these readings by Segal, C., CW 72 (1978), 129-50Google Scholar. Examples: Sale, W., YCS 22 (1972), 63–82 Google Scholar (Pentheus), cf. his Existentialism in E. (Victoria, 1977) (Med., Hipp., Bacc); Rankin, A.V., Arethusa 7 (1974), 71–94 Google Scholar and Smoot, J.J., Arethusa 9 (1976), 37–51 Google Scholar (Hippolytus). Devereux, G., JHS 90 (1970), 35–48 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (psycho-clinical interpretation of Cadmus with Agave, Bacc. 1230 ff.); Dreams in Greek Tragedy (Oxford, 1976), esp. pp. 257-318.