The Reception of Epic kleos in Greek Tragedy Dissertation Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University Agapi Stefanidou, MA Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2014 Dissertation Committee: Tom Hawkins, Advisor Benjamin Acosta-Hughes Fritz Graf Copyright by Agapi Stefanidou 2014 Abstract In this dissertation I examine how Greek tragedy received the epic concept of kleos. Although kleos in epic and epinician poetry has a specific social and ideological function, its usage in Attic drama exhibits its incompatibility with the pragmatic environment of a polis and reflects the difficulties such a value provokes when measured in circumstances similar to those of fifth century Athens, namely within a democracy where no one is allowed to enjoy a rarefied status and where familial and city law is part of the audience’s quotidian court experience. Although the word kleos is encountered in the plays of all three great tragedians, I argue that we can observe a different approach between the usages of Aeschylus and Sophocles on the one hand and Euripides on the other. The concept of kleos occurs many more times in Euripides’ tragic corpus and in the majority it is claimed by female characters. However, since in epic and epinician poetry kleos is normally connected with men, namely bravery, warrior prowess, physical abilities and admirable achievements either on the battlefield or at athletic Games, I chose to base my argument on male tragic characters. My first study case is Orestes, who is presented in the Odyssey as an exemplum of kleos and who is is connected with a kleos discourse in the relevant plays of all three tragedians. The other two characters that I take as my study cases are Ajax and Heracles in the homonymous plays of Sophocles and Euripides, because both of them are extraordinary heroes of the past whose exploits and manliness became exemplary in the literary tradition. ii After a close examination of the connection of Orestes with kleos in Aeschylus’ Choephori, Sophocles’ Electra and Euripides’ Orestes I argue that although Orestes was inherited by the Homeric tradition as a highly positive example and although within the tragic plays it is apparent that his city’s community and his sister Electra expect him to take revenge for his father’s murder and ensure a similar level of kleos as that of Agamemnon, he never reaches any kleos; on the contrary he becomes notorious because of committing the matricide. Aeschylus and Sophocles present Orestes’ programmatic statements before his deed as interwoven and defined by kleos. In the Choephori his approach to kleos is almost political and relates his role as the son of the former royal authority with the Argive kleos of Troy. Aeschylus annihilates any glorious reputation that Orestes could have won through his victorious revenge by showing his madness as the immediate consequence of his deed. Sophocles in his Electra also proves Orestes’ kleos as futile by reversing in his narrative the standard prerequisites of epic kleos: Kleos is connected with Orestes’ personal advantage, with Electra’s imaginary claim on andreia, with the fake aggelia, with Electra’s constant lament. Euripides advances the approach of his predecessors; he dis-connects Orestes’ revenge from kleos and presents kleos merely as a literary remnant open to new possibilities and conditions of usage. It is a poetic device that allows new innovative developments in the mythical plots. This conclusion is also applied in the case of Heracles; although Ajax finds it impossible to compromise his view of himself according to his former epic kleos with the new circumstances that his madness created, Heracles is characterized by Euripides in the homonymous play in such a way that his former extraordinary kleos finds its way into the democratic Athens. iii Dedication In memory of my father Theodoros and for my mother Eleni iv Acknowledgments It is a pleasure to acknowledge the debts I have incurred during the writing of my dissertation. Tom Hawkins, my main advisor, whose insightful comments and clear instructions taught me how to clarify my arguments, be suspicious against superficial argumentation and directed me to innovative ideas. He was always extremely helpful despite the difficulty that I was writing in Greece away from the University. Benjamin Acosta-Hughes and Fritz Graf, who as members of my committee and chairs of the department were always helpful when I needed them; their influential scholarly work was of major importance for the formation of my ideas as a student of Classics. Anthony Kaldellis, whose bright thinking and expertice on many fields of Greek literature has strongly influenced my view of Classics and who helped me enormously to adapt to the environmemt of the American University. I feel grateful to all the professors of the Department of Greek and Latin at the Ohio State University and especially to William Batstone, Carolina Lopez-Ruiz and Julia Nelson-Hawkins. I deeply want to thank Poulcheria Kyriakou and Theocritos Kouremenos for their wholehearted support from the beginning of my decision to continue my studies at the USA. Their help, instructions and friendship during the years it took me to complete this project were extremely valuable. Besides, the very theme of my research began at a seminar of Poulcheria whose eagerness to read the dissertation and offer me judicious comments was moving. I would also like to thank several professors and colleagues of mine at the Department of Classics of the Aristoteleion v University of Thessaloniki and especially Vasilis Fyntikoglou, Theodoros Papangelis, Antonios Regakos, and Sotiris Stathis. My husband Apostolos Kaliakoudas has shown himself the most generous friend and helper. His fervent support and vigilant care to ensure me time for studying by taking care of the children and the household as well as his constant encouragement to proceed with my project allowed me to reach the end. My deepest gratitude I owe to my parents, Theodoros and Eleni, who were always supportive of any decisions, desires and dreams of mine. They unconditionally helped me to make real whatever I wished in my studies and life in general. Although my father did not live to see the end of this project I at least fully acknowledge his total devotion to his daughter’s endeavors and I dedicate this dissertation to his memory and to my mother, who has always been an inspiration to me. vi Vita 2000: graduated from High School Katerini Greece. 2004: B.A. in Classical Philology, Aristoteleion University of Thessaloniki. 2008: M.A. in Ancient Greek Philology, Aristoteleion University of Thessaloniki. 2006-2009: Graduate Teaching Associate, department of Greek and Latin, The Ohio State University. Fields of Study Major Field: Greek and Latin. vii Table of contents: Abstract………………………………………………………………………….........ii Dedication …………………………………………………………………................iv Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………v Vita……………………………………………………………………………...........vii Table of contents…………………………………………………………………….viii Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………1 Chapter 2: Orestes and the burden of making kleos………………………………….35 a) Choephoroi: Kleos at the showcase of the community……………………………46 b) Lamenting the necessity of kleos………………………………………………….67 c) The destruction of kleos through the long awaited action…………………............73 Chapter 3: Sophocles’ Electra: Kleos at the realm of the unreal……………………..97 a) Orestes’ prologue kleos............................................................................................97 b) Electra and kleos…………………………………………………………………109 c) Electra’s claim on heroic kleos…………………………………………………..119 d) Real kleos within the fake tale and fake kleos within the real play……………...133 e) Kleos-less end……………………………………………………………………141 Chapter 4: Eupides’ Orestes: What is kleos doing here?...........................................147 a) No past, only mad kleos for Orestes……………………………………………..154 b) Pylades, the bringer of kleos……………………………………………………..167 c) The “uncrowned” kleos…………………………………………………………..182 Chapter 5: Ajax and Heracles: poetic kleos against divine wrath……………..........192 a) Ajax: Phatis against Kleos………………………………………………………..193 b) Heracles: Athenian Democracy compromises poetic kleos……………………..207 viii Conclusion……………………………………………………………………..........222 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………...230 ix Chapter 1: Introduction Language has a unique quality to be reborn and renewed in a highly conservative process; by conservative I do not mean that it remains unchanged but that it strives to resist the change that the network of external forces (artistic, political, cultural, technological, philosophical) imposes. At the end it follows its fate but it acquires at the same time a new depth. The world of words is always connected with the historical and social milieu, the civic discourse but, nevertheless, extends its life a bit longer since, on the one hand, it depends on the historical and social changes but, on the other, it tries to keep the world in the order in which it has been expressed in the past time. The clash between the latter effort and the needs of the new conditions and morals begets linguistic coinages but more often re-evaluates existing systems of diction in the field of semantics. Kleos and specifically poetic kleos participates in this process of constant re- evaluation not only due to the different sociopolitical frames of