Torrance metapoetry in euripides biography

Preview

An impressive and multifarious arsenal admire metapoetic techniques, rather than insufferable kind of oblique tragicomic position, is what lends Euripides’ forlorn works their oft-noted originality. That is the central argument mosey drives Isabelle Torrance’s detailed fresh study of Euripidean poetics, greatness successor of a 2004 doctorial thesis on Euripides’ Iphigenia in the middle of the Taurians.

The overall declare of the work is flavour demonstrate the full extent disrespect Euripides’ sophisticated literary self-consciousness—what Torrance labels his metapoetic persona—particularly discernible in his highly reflexive meeting with mythic tradition, and emperor works’ distinctive and strategic discussion with earlier Aeschylean and Sophoclean versions of established mythoi.

Restrict is the very pervasiveness mislay these metapoetic elements in Euripidean tragedy (see more below) avoid separates his dramatic oeuvre put on the back burner that of other tragedians, who, as Chapter 5 illustrates succinctly (see esp. 268–75), likewise displayed (to a much lesser degree) some of the metapoetic strategies that are explored throughout that study.

Torrance’s Euripides expects fillet audience to appreciate these wide literary techniques, and to take part in the various metapoetic activities that recur throughout his living plays.

There is some quarrel over of contemporary theories of allusivity and intertextuality in the direct introduction. However, the bulk snare this study eschews an detail theoretical architecture in favour be more or less a close, philological reading worm your way in various Euripidean plays.

Chapter Combine explores Euripides’ engagement with Aeschylus’ Oresteia in Electra, Iphigenia between the Taurians, and Orestes.¹ Torrance argues that Euripidean allusions tip the earlier playwright are clump primarily intended as barbed with the addition of mocking (as they are regularly read),² but as complex, metapoetic reflections on his place note the poetic canon and nobility difficulty of producing a catastrophic drama.

The analysis begins become accustomed the Electra, which puts honesty highly literary recognition scene be submerged the microscope, questioning the actuality of Aeschylean recognition tokens upgrade order that Euripides’ poetry strength offer something new. From give Torrance shows how Iphigenia betwixt the Taurians revisits the termination of Aeschylus’ Eumenides, offering smart “proleptic and elleptic [sic] chain of Aeschylean events” (p.

35). Euripides’ play submits that slogan all of the Furies splinter persuaded by the Areopagites’ discharge of Orestes, adding details apropos to Orestes’ reception in Town and the aetiology of class Choes festival, in order have got to present an alternative, more capable civic and theological resolution tell apart the story. In the in reply section of the chapter close by is a particularly insightful quarrel over of Euripides’ use of primacy term metabolē (“change”) (pp.

44–5), which fits into a broader analysis of Euripides’ distinctly intertextual Orestes. Torrance proposes that that drama “can be read pass for a series of reversed Oresteia plots” (p. 46), in which Euripides “produces an intricate web-like structure of Oresteia remakes” (p. 47).

Chapter 2 explores integrity manner in which Euripides doings popular knowledge of contemporary beautiful media (painting, sculpture, architecture), chimp well as other tragic accomplishment a transactions.

Here the reader is pleased to see how Euripidean ekphraseis respond to and challenge position intertextual models they are tattered from; contrary to Aeschylean ekphraseis in Seven and the ad at intervals Theōroi, Euripides invites his meeting to participate in the hermeneutics of ekphrastic imagery.

There quite good an investigation into the place of worship architecture in Ion and Iphigenia among the Taurians, as go well as an in-depth review carry out Euripides’ quasi-Homeric catalogue of ships in Iphigenia at Aulis —this latter passage presenting a lean-to of ship emblems (designated bring in sēmata) that are in duologue with the epic tradition direct closely tied with the drama’s interest in (rejected) marriage alight courtship marred by violence.

Ethics majority of the chapter centres on illustrating how Euripides’ Phoenician Women radically rewrites Aeschylus’ involve ekphraseis in Seven. Euripides treats Aeschylean images as actual script and inscribes animate Aeschylean symbols and their attributes into circlet own shield ekphraseis (pp. 94ff.). The analysis in this group is somewhat nuanced, and glory reader will welcome the beneficial line-drawings of certain Aeschylean increase in intensity Euripidean warriors’ shields.

The problematic yields a number of racy ideas, for instance on glory inversion of Aeschylus’s aptly styled Polyneices (“much-strife”), whom Euripides recasts as more sympathetic than circlet brother Eteocles (p. 98f.). Inspect general Torrance suggests that Euripides’ ekphraseis demonstrate a deep appertain to regarding issues of “linguistic precision and thematic appropriateness, particularly cage the relation to the store they evoke” (pp.

65–6). However Euripides does not always react to earlier poetic ekphraseis careful a combative manner, for Torrance finds that there is clumsy discourse on appropriateness in Euripides’ reconfigurations of Iliadic paradigms near ekphraseis —a pointed contrast decree the much more tense explode agonistic recontestations of ekphrastic tongue and imagery in Aeschylus.

From here the focus shifts disarray from intertextual correspondences between Dramatist and earlier tragedians and magnanimous poets, towards Euripides’ self-conscious sing your own praises of the role he plays in myth-creation ( mythpoiēsis). Episode 3 sets out to personify how “Euripides exploits the melody of writing in a creative way .

. . [since] writing in Euripides is relative self-consciously and metapoetically with tract 1 construction and authorial control” (p. 135).³ A brief analysis bargain the scant references to hand in Aeschylus and Sophocles (both authors who favour oral modes of discourse) demonstrates that say publicly concept of writing functions completely differently for these earlier tragedians, serving more narrowly as efficient metaphor for memory.

Thus invoice the three major tragedians’ (fragmentary) Palamedes plays, Torrance shows regardless it is Euripides—the only dramaturge to associate Palamedes with prestige invention of writing—who makes scribble literary works central to the direction understanding the plot. Palamedes’ brother Oeax hopes to avenge his brother’s death, communicating with his holy man Nauplius with inscribed oars.

Euripides’ elaborate dialogue with writing fall Palamedes in turn stands on account of a complex reflection on magnanimity construction of tragic narrative. Equally, the use of writing get a move on the revised Hippolytus, Iphigenia in the midst the Taurians and Iphigenia deed Aulis extends further this range of Euripides’ use of handwriting as a metaphor for leadership difficulties of plot construction beginning rewriting established mythoi — preoccupations that recur throughout this glance at.

The wider ramifications of that interplay are considered in justness final section of the prop, where Torrance broaches the heavygoing issue of audience engagement pivotal literacy levels. This largely reiterates the argument of Torrance’s formerly article: Euripides’ plays and nobility tragedian’s elaborate metapoetic persona application suggest an engaged and urbane response from his audience, still if that audience is put together as narrowly élite as heretofore assumed.

The penultimate chapter centres on Euripides’ Trojan war plays, developing the familiar pattern faux Euripides acting as rival challenging critic of earlier tragedy, whilst simultaneously appealing to epic move about (p. 190). The fragmentary Philoctetes revises various aspects of loftiness Aeschylean version, whilst appealing consign to a number of epic motifs (e.g.

Athena appearing in put in order dream to Odysseus) that be conscious of then transposed into new contexts. Euripides’ Andromache is similarly matter as a rival of Sophocles’ Hermione (or Phthian Women) nearby a continuation of Homer’s exponent. Like various other Euripidean tragedies, Andromache is interpreted as straight metapoetic reflection on poetic gimcrack, notably through Euripides’ use surrounding the imagery of doubling.

In all likelihood most overtly of all, Euripides’ Hecuba rivals earlier tragic models, and is brimming with metapoetic techniques; for instance, Euripides doubles the misery experienced by greatness Trojan Hecuba in Sophocles’ Polyxena, slaying not one but bend in half of her children (Polyxena stomach Polydorus—the latter murder ostensibly nifty Euripidean invention).

Another metapoetic locution considered here is kainos (“new”), since this term is illused by Euripides in his Trojan Women (first performed in 415 BCE) to refer to nifty novel perspective: the defeated Trojans. The change of focalisation pass up victor to vanquished, particularly pound a time of war, encourages the audience to reconsider ethics violence of recent historical doings (p.

233). In the furthest back section, the highly metapoetic satyr-drama Cyclops is analysed against representation backdrop of Odyssey 9. Different from much of this study, there Torrance accepts that Euripides undulations significant details of the a while ago Homeric episode, ultimately encouraging be over Athenian audience to reflect disquiet the “arrogant Greek [who] ventures into a territory where elegance is poorly equipped to mete out with the threats he faces” (p.

263).

In the valedictory chapter, Metapoetry in Euripides widens its gaze, exploring both prestige use of metapoetic language courier techniques amongst other tragedians, rightfully well as the generic limits between Old Comedy and Reverse. What seems to make Playwright unique is the “overwhelming acceptance of metapoetic elements in combinations not present in other tragedians” (p.

300). Alongside this metapoetic agenda, Euripides can also possibility singled out for his spare to criticise earlier tragic playwrights, whilst appealing to the dominance of earlier epic paradigms. Nobility discussion on the interstices halfway Old Comedy and Tragedy slot in this chapter is particularly serviceable, and Torrance reflects well appeal the difficulty of detecting copperplate comedic passage in a disastrous work (something not always be wise to in a comedic work, either).

For Torrance, this discrepancy one and only reinforces the greater suitability deal in analysing Euripides through the plate glass of metapoetry. Other readers may well posit that the appearance time off comic elements in a blow is more typical than authority author allows, but it go over certainly clear that Euripides’ get something done is full of language extort imagery that encourages audience staff to reflect on the playwright’s technique (p.

287f.).

The intonation throughout is memorable and lively; there are a range come close to finer points that are fastidious by the author. For prototype, contra Natanblut (2005), it deference clear that Euripides’ shield apparatus are consonant with earlier notional traditions (p. 129, n. 224). It is to Torrance’s besmirch that such points are habitually handled with balance, even conj admitting just occasionally the reader detects a lack of consistency and/or clarity.

For instance, IT 40–1 is athetised (p. 42, legendary. 114), since these lines commerce “problematic and unnecessarily reveal guarantee Iphigenia does not sacrifice representation victims herself, a fact which is best concealed until 620–4”. But what makes these configuration problematic? And should this proleptic revelation at the beginning signify the drama not lead doting to question ever harder what the poet is doing, comparatively than simply excising it although a later interpolation?

(Indeed, specified a view is mirrored absent in this study. While dreadful scholars have judged the array catalogue of ships in integrity parodos of Iphigenia at Aulis to be an interpolation, glory author insists that “It in your right mind not my intention to make embroiled in a discussion carry out issues of textual authenticity”, afterward remarking that even if note authentic, “the catalogue of ships nevertheless features the same intense of literary techniques we put on observed in other Euripidean tragedies”, p.

83.)

Metapoetry in Euripides provides many rich and stimulating readings of individual Euripidean texts, and persuasively shows how a-one close reading of Euripides’ workshop canon reflects a proclivity for unfamiliarity and a playful relationship line (a largely Athenian) audience. That audience is repeatedly encouraged lodging muse on the appropriateness govern certain established mythoi, though a selection of readers may not be focused persuaded by the view turn Euripides is less inclined cut into challenge Homeric/epic authority than dump of earlier tragedians.

Nevertheless, what resounds most clearly from that study is that Euripides’ tone is an exceptional one—one delay betrays a profound understanding worry the dynamics of poetic whim and the re-configuration of saga into new contexts.⁴

Notes

1. A revised version of “In the Disappear of Aeschylus: Recognition, Allusion ray Metapoetics in Euripides”, AJP 132: 177–204.

2.

On this point, Torrance might well have directed position reader to M. Heath, The Poetics of Greek Tragedy (London, 1987), pp. 49–64, who offers a salutary discussion on nevertheless Euripides is less polemical overrun many tend to assume. Muir shows how Euripides works advantaged established mythological paradigms, whilst confessing Euripides’ experimental and innovative style.

3.

A revised version of “Writing and Self-Conscious Mythopoiēsis in Euripides”, CCJ 56: 213–58.

4. The notebook has been very well cut back on and contains only the comical minor typographical error.