Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T16:01:09.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IV. Form and Mode (2): Speech, Song, Language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2016

Get access

Extract

To generalize: in Greek Tragedy, lyric, whether song alone or dance-song, voices emotion and registers a mood, collective or personal; speech explains mood, attitude, reaction, intention, or decision, from reason. So movement in the drama occurs predominantly through spoken episode alternating with song. In that, at the start of visible European drama, Tragedy no more than inherits from Epic, which was both ‘oral’ as a traditional poetry and largely oral in its dramatic narrative: Homer prefers his persons, not himself, to say why and what they did, are doing, and will do.

Within spoken episode, Euripides favours very strongly two forms: the rhesis, or individually substantive speech, at least six or seven lines long (briefer ones are either formal announcements or acknowledgements, or interdependent parts of dialogue); and stichomythia, dialogue between two, rarely three, persons in which each speaks a single line or half-line or couplet, in turn, in sequences up to a hundred or more lines long.

Type
Research Article
Information
New Surveys in the Classics , Volume 14: Euripides , 1981 , pp. 20 - 29
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 esp. Taplin (1977), pp. 49-60, ‘Action and Formal Structure’; Greenwood, pp. 136-9.

2. Statistical survey by B. Mannsperger, ‘Die Rhesis’, in Bauformen, pp. 143-81, esp. 144-9 (who 143 n. 4 and 168 n. 69 notes that there are no comprehensive studies of Tragic rhesis, in contrast with lyric); also B. Seidensticker, ‘Die Stichomythie’, ibid., pp. 183-220, esp. 209-19.

3. Schadewaldt (esp. pp. 94-262 on E.) remains the major study of monologue, developing for Tragedy Leo, F., Der Monolog im Drama (Berlin, 1908)Google Scholar.

4. Duchemin, J., L’Agon dans la tragédie grecque (Paris, 1968)Google Scholar offers exhaustive formal analyses; cf. my ‘Formal Debates in E.’s Drama’, G & R 22 (1975), 58-71 (principal bibi. at 59 n. 1). Cf. also § 11 n. 8 above.

5. For ‘rhetoric’ in E. see § (c), esp. n. 20 below.

6. Prologue-speeches: Schadewaldt, pp. 6 ff., (‘second’ prologues, by new entrants) 240 ff.; tone, e.g. Grube, pp. 63-8. Emotionally dramatic: Strohm, H., GB 6 (1977), 113-32Google Scholar (Alc., Med., And., and Supp.). Bibl.: Schmid, p. 771 n. 2, Lesky (1972), p. 507 n. 3; cf. n. 2 above.

7. Analyses in Keller, J., Struktur und dramatische Funktion der Botenberichte bei Aischylos und Sophokles (diss. Tübingen, 1959)Google Scholar; Erdmann, G., Der Botenbericht bei E. (diss. Kiel, 1964)Google Scholar. Technique and imagery: Barlow, pp. 61-78; general appreciation: Murray, pp. 140-44, cf. Bremer, J., ‘Why messenger-speeches?’ Miscellanea Tragica (Festschrift Kamerbeek) (Amsterdam, 1976), pp. 29–48 Google Scholar. Bibl.: Schmid, p. 777 n. 4.

8. General assessments of rhesis in the drama by Murray, pp. 138-40 and Lattimore (1964), pp. 64-8; more critical of ‘rhetoric’, Kitto, pp. 265-72.

9. The most useful studies of stichomythia are Schwinge, E.R., Die Verwendung der Stichomythie in den Dramen des E. (Heidelberg, 1968)Google Scholar (very long, over-nice) and Seidensticker, B., Die Gesprächsverdichtung in den Tragödien Senecas (Heidelberg, 1969), pp. 19–75 Google Scholar (summarized in Bauformen, pp. 183-220). I review these and earlier studies of the form, and its problems, in LCM 5 (1980), 77-85 (80 on the remarkable symmetries).

10. Schmid, p. 783 n. 11; Listmann, G.F., Die Technik des Dreigesprächs in der griechischen Tragödie (diss. Giessen, 1910)Google Scholar; Seidensticker in Bauformen, pp. 203 f. (Soph.), 210 f. (Eur.).

11. For the trimeter and the dating of the plays, see § I n. 3. Other main studies: Descroix, J., Le trimètre iambique (Mâcon, 1931)Google Scholar; pauses: Denniston, J.D., CQ 30 (1936), 73-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 192 and Stinton, T.C.W., CQ 27 (1977), 67–72 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; enjambement: Humborg, F., Quaestiones Euripideae etc. (diss. Münster, 1909)Google Scholar. C. Prato is trying to answer the questions: see Ricerche sul trimetro dei tragici greci: metro e verso (Roma, 1975), esp. pp. 9-16 (bibl.) and 111-230; cf. QUCC (1972), 4.73-113 (‘resolution’ a stylistic device to be assessed in context).

12. Drew-Bear, T., ‘The trochaic tetrameter in Greek Tragedy’, AJP 89 (1968), 385–405 Google Scholar omits Imhof, M., MH 13 (1956), 125-43Google Scholar from his bibl. Summary information in Bauformen, pp. 164-7.

13. For the chorus in Pho. see esp. Conacher, pp. 245-8.

14. Kranz, W., Stasimon (Berlin, 1933)Google Scholar remains the cardinal work on the Tragic chorus. Useful generalizations by J. Rode, ‘Das Chorlied’, in Bauformen, pp. 85-115 (good bibl.). A. M. Dale, ‘The Chorus in the Action of Greek Tragedy’, Coll. Papers, pp. 210-20 is concise. For E. in particular Grube, pp. 99-126 is very balanced and Webster (1967), pp. 283-5 helpful; cf. Murray, pp. 149-58; Kitto, pp. 259-65, 341-6; Vickers, pp. 13-23; Möller, C., Vom Chorlied bei E. (diss. Göttingen, 1933)Google Scholar; Parry, H., The Choral Odes of E. (diss. Berkeley, 1963)Google Scholar (structure and dramatic relevance); Walsh, G.B., The Relief Odes of E. (diss. Yale, 1974)Google Scholar; Padel, R., CQ 24 (1974), 227-41CrossRefGoogle Scholar (‘imagery of the elsewhere’: mainly Hipp. 732-75, Hel. 1451-1511); ‘thematic’ stasimo, e.g. (Hel) Wolff, C., HSCP 77 (1973), 61–84 Google Scholar; (Pho.) Arthur, M.B., HSCP 81 (1977), 163-85Google Scholar.

15. See esp. Kranz (previous n.), pp. 235-41; Webster (1967), pp. 17-20; Rode in Bauformen, pp. 111-13; Panagl, O., Die dithyrambischen Stasimo des E. (diss. Wien, 1967)Google Scholar and (oratio recta in them) WS 6 (1972), 5-18.

16. Lyric exchanges (and stasima and monody) in their dramatic and musical-poetic quality are best appreciated for English readers by Webster (1967), pp. 17-20, 282-7 and, more on formal aspects, his The Greek Chorus (London, 1970), pp. 143-9, 156-73, 209-11; cf. Barlow, pp. 56-60. H. Popp, ‘Das Amoibaion’, in Bauformen, pp. 221-75 is strong on form and metre, weak on other questions (and notes the little special literature).

17. W. Barner, ‘Die Monodie’, in Bauformen, pp. 277-320 is wide-ranging (278 n. 9 for the thin literature to 1970, esp. Schadewaldt, pp. 14-19, 143-78). Barlow, pp. 43-60 illuminates monody’s ‘personal and subjective landscapes’.

Lyric metre: formal analysis is very difficult and disputed. Schröder, O., Euripidis Cantica (Leipzig, 1928)Google Scholar needs replacement. Some songs in Raven, D.S., Greek Metre (London, 1962)Google Scholar; Dale, A.M., Metrical Analyses of Tragic Choruses I: Dactylo-Epitrite, BICS Suppl. 21 (1971), 42–101 Google Scholar (more promised). Dale, Coll. Papers, pp. 257 f. (‘Expressive Rhythm in Greek Drama’, pp. 248-58, cf. 156-69) says most lyric is not susceptible to analysis at all in terms of emotional quality or ethos, but Wilamowitz, U.von, Griechische Verskunst (Berlin, 1921)Google Scholar and her own The Lyric Metres of Greek Drama (Cambridge, 1968) show what a sensitive ear can achieve. Also: J. Denniston in Greek Poetry and Life ( Murray, G. Festschrift) (Oxford, 1936), pp. 121-44Google Scholar (iambics); Conomis, N.C., Hermes 92 (1964), 23–50 Google Scholar (dochmiacs); Stinton, T.C.W., CQ 27 (1977), 27–66 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (pause and period); Brown, S.G., ‘Metrical Innovations in E.’s Later Plays’, AJP 95 (1974), 207-34Google Scholar. Pulquerio, M. de Oliveria, Caracteristicas metricas das monodias de E. (Coimbra, 1969)Google Scholar. A sequel to Kraus, W., Strophengestaltung in der griechischen Tragödie I: Aischylos und Sophokles (Wien, 1957)Google Scholar would be invaluable; it gives some help for E.

18. E.g.: naturalness, Ar. Rhet. 1404b24 f.; Long, de subl. 40.3 (see D. A. Russell’s Commentary); fluency: Dion. Hal. de comp. verb. 23; simplicity: Hor. A.P. 95 f.; E.’s language like the comedian Philemon’s: Satyrus, vit. Eur. POxy 1176.39. vii. 15-36. Cf. on rhesis, § (a) above.

19. Esp. Quint. Inst. Or. X. 1.67-8 (depiction of feelings); Dio Chrys. XVIII.7; LII.11 (model for the man of affairs); cf. Bonner,, S.F Education in Ancient Rome (London, 1977), esp. pp. 214-15Google Scholar. The ancient scholia at e.g. Alc. 779, Tro. 634, Pho. 388 criticize ‘inappropriate philosophizing’; other references at Schmid, pp. 769 f.

20. Miller, T., E. rhetoricus (diss. Göttingen, 1887)Google Scholar; Lees, J.T., Dikanikos logos in E. (Lincoln (U.S.A.), 1891)Google Scholar; cf. Schmid, pp. 751-3. Perspective restored by Tietze, F., Die eur. Reden und ihre Bedeutung (Breslau, 1933)Google Scholar, a dissertation of wide effect; now, e.g., Murray, R.L., Persuasion in E. (diss. Cornell, 1964)Google Scholar. Johansen, H.Friis, General Reflection in Tragic Rhesis (Copenhagen, 1959)Google Scholar (bibl.), is a model study of one feature, because it frequently illuminates the whole and not the particular context. Schadewaldt, as always, gives both detail and sensitive conspectus. For the agon in particular see n. 4 above.

21. Most treatments of stichomythia analyse its linguistic devices: see n. 9 above.

22. Frogs 1309 ff. (choral); 1331 ff., Wasps 317 ff., Thes. 1022 ff. (monodic); cf. § I n. 2 above.

23. Compendious exemplification, and older bibl., Schmid, pp. 790-812, esp. Kranz (n. 14 above); Breitenbach, W., Untersuchungen zur Sprache der eur. Lyrik (Stuttgart, 1934)Google Scholar (Index Locorum by K. H. Lee, Amsterdam, 1979); Smereka. More recently: Heitsch, E., Zur lyrischen Sprache des E. (diss Göttingen, 1955)Google Scholar (the ‘intellectualism’ of E.’s later lyric language); Bergson, L., L’épithète ornamentale dans Eschyle, Sophocle et E. (Uppsala, 1956)Google Scholar. Bibl.: Lesky (1972), pp. 155 n. 1, 510 n. 12.

24. Stevens, P.T., Colloquial Expressions in E. (Wiesbaden, 1977)Google Scholar (bibl.), esp. pp. 64-8.

25. Pöschl, V., Gärtner, H., W.Heyke, , Bibliographie zur antiken Bildersprache (Heidelberg, 1964)Google Scholar. Specifically: Pauer, K., Die Bildersprache des E. (diss. Breslau, 1934)Google Scholar; Rudberg, G., ‘E.’s Naturgefühl’, SO 12 (1933), 39–51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pot, E.E., De maritieme Beeldspraak bij E. (diss. Utrecht, 1943)Google Scholar; Stamprli, R.F., The dramatic function of animals and animal imagery in ... E. (diss. Vanderbilt, 1971)Google Scholar. Barlow, Imagery is the widest comparative study of intention, means, and effect.

26. Hipp.: respectively,; Segal, C.P., HSCP 70 (1965), 117-69Google Scholar and Bremer, J.M., Mnem 28 (1975), 268-80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bacc: Scott, W.S., TAPA 105 (1975), 333-46Google Scholar. For Bacc. also e.g. Conacher, pp. 73-7; Med. (the elements, animals) Musurillo, H., AJP 87 (1966), 52–74 Google Scholar.

27. On such usage see Barlow, pp. 106 ff.; Arnott, W.G., Mus.Phil.Lond. 3 (1978), 14–20 Google Scholar; in general e.g. Lattimore (1964), pp. 57 f.

28. These two songs wonderfully appreciated by Stinton, T.C.W., E. and the Judgement of Paris (London, 1965), pp. 13–25 Google Scholar.

Additional Notes. General assessments of E.’s poetry are rare, e.g. Lattimore (1958), pp. 111 ff. For lexicography see my Appendix (vii).