THE “PACKED-FULL” DRAMA IN LATE EURIPIDES: PHOENISSAE
Ann N. Michelini
A basic characteristic of Euripidean drama is multiplicity or variegation, a characteristic that in fact is also basic to the original form of tragedy, an art-form that in combining lyric and spoken verse genres, creates an accompanying contrast between choral and individual performance. As many critics have also pointed out, this pluriform quality is also charac- teristic of tragedy in another way, in its ability to present differing points of view, ideologies, perspectives, and personas, and in its tendency to cri- tique or problematize traditional form and language.1 So, when Euripides developed his plays in this direction, he was, perhaps intuitively, follow- ing or exaggerating tendencies traditional to tragedy as an art-form. In moving toward an increasingly variegated dramatic style, however, Euripides was to an extent working against tendencies toward a more nat- uralistic mimesis of human interaction. It is well known that dialogue in Euripidean plays becomes increasingly formalist, an example of Euripi- des’ archaism (Michelini : –). The continual pointed allusions to tradition in Euripidean drama are the necessary complement or theme onwhichthetechniqueofvariationbuilds.Bothtraitsarestrikinglyexag- gerated in some of his later plays. Phoenissae is a profoundly derivative and profoundly innovative drama that evokes a mythic saga well known to us from other tragedies by Sophocles, Aeschylus, and even Euripides himself.2 I have argued that, in this play, as in two other late plays, Orestes and Iphigeneia at Aulis, Euripidean versatility moves in a new direction (: ). In contrast to the remarkable Bacchae, which returns to tragedy’s traditional concentration on a few protagonists and an active chorus, these plays are elaborate, complex, and—as the rather uncomplimentary
1 See Segal : : Tragedy “incorporates the art forms of lyric celebration for enactments of pain and suffering.” Cf. Grethlein on the “pluriform” tragic treatments of civic themes from the funeral oration, : –; and Mastronarde : . 2 See Foley : –. Amiech : –, –, discusses various strands of influence, allusion, reworking, and parody in the play; see also Müller-Goldingen : –. ann n. michelini hypothesis to Phoenissae puts it, “packed full,” παραπληρωματικ ν.3 Their design evokes the expansiveness of epic in marked contrast to the usual intense concentration of tragic plays on few events and personages, and limited time-spans. In Phoenissae all the protagonists have familiar parts to play in the well-known saga of Thebes; but it is surprising to find all three (or, given the incest, two-and-a-half) generations active in the same play. As the play begins, Oedipus and Jocasta are both alive and in Thebes; and both their warring sons Eteocles and Polyneices will soon be on stage together. Jocasta’s brother Creon is prominent, and his son Menoeceus makes an important appearance. And then there is young Antigone, who appears at the beginning as a naive innocent and ends in a more familiar role, as the hot-headed opponent of Creon. None of these seven characters is a mere supernumerary: each has a well-defined tragic fate to encounter. It is Euripides’ bold plan to unite these seven tragic experiences into one and to produce a play that will prove their interrelation and bind them into a single, vertiginous time, the crucial day on which all Thebes’ long history culminates in an agonizing military and familial crisis.4 The development of Creon is emblematic, for this figure ties the play together and also exemplifies its technique of variegation. Creon is on stage a great deal of the time, interacting with Eteocles, with Tiresias (for the famous Theban prophet also makes an appearance), with his own son, and finally with Antigone and Oedipus. As Creon meets different actors in the saga, his role moves back and forth between traditional outlines and less familiar ones. In his first scene, the apparent focus is on Eteocles, the ruling king of Thebes, whose amoral worship of power (turannis) hasbeendisplayedinthepreviousscene.Inthiscontext,Creonwill appear to be functioning as a mere convenient interlocutor, a bland and reasonable foil for the headstrong tragic protagonist, somewhat as he does in Oedipus the King.5 Eteocles, in an almost parodic exaggeration of
3 See Hyp. C in the Oxford edition of Diggle, Amiech : pg. . The commentator goes on to complain of Antigone’s teichoscopia, Polyneices’ scene, and Oedipus’ appear- ance as pointless and unnecessary. On other negative judgments in antiquity, see Müller- Goldingen : –, Amiech , . See also her comment, , on the “esthétique de profusion” of this play, and Burian : . 4 Jocasta begins with an address to the sun and the unfortunate day in which it shone on Cadmus’ founding of the city (–); Arthur : and Luschnig : comment on the parallel. For defense of the first two lines, see Amiech : –. 5 Cf. Luschnig: , , on Creon as “regent, professional king . . . His very pro- fessionalism, moderation, and competence in his scene with Eteocles rob him of tragic stature.”