View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Kent Academic Repository University of Kent at Canterbury ARISTOPHANES AND EURIPIDES: A PALIMPSESTUOUS RELATIONSHIP Supervisors Dr. Anne Alwis Dr. Arthur Keaveney Professor Ray Laurence THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF Ph.D. GINA MAY Department of Classics & Archaeology 2012 τίς δὲ σύ κομψός τις ἔροιτο θεατής ὑπολεττολόγος γνωμιώκτης εὐριπιδαριστοφανίξων. Cratinus, fr. 342 i ABSTRACT The Palimpsest Aristophanes allows Euripides to interrupt constantly. In Athenian comedy of the fifth century they are on stage together, both literally and figuratively. Despite Aristophanes’ comedies having a meaning of their own, Euripides’ lines are so clearly visible underneath them that they can only be described as the verbal equivalent of a palimpsest. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a palimpsest as a manuscript or piece of writing on which later writing has superimposed or effaced earlier writing, or something reused or altered but still bearing visible traces of its earlier form.1 It is clear that a palimpsest is the product of layering that results in something as new, whilst still bearing traces of the original. Dillon describes the palimpsest as “...an involuted phenomenon where otherwise unrelated texts are involved and entangled, intricately interwoven, interrupting and inhabiting each other”. 2 Aristophanes takes texts, particularly those of Euripides, which may otherwise have been unrelated, and weaves them together to form something new. I will show that in a number of cases Aristophanes offers scenes that have already been performed in Euripides’ plays but lays his own plot over the tragedian’s, whilst at the same time drawing the audiences’ attention to the original. The nature of this borrowing overwrites Kristeva’s theory of ‘intertextuality’ and provides a new and more apposite name for the permutation of texts in which the geno-text corresponds to infinite possibilities of palimpsestuous textuality (and the pheno-text to a singular text, which contains echoes of what it could have been). 1 OED, (2010:685) 2 Dillon (2007:4) ii The plurality of Euripides’ texts, whilst engendering those of Aristophanes, constantly interrupts them. Through the consideration of ancient and modern literary theory and by a close analysis of Aristophanes’ and Euripides’ plays, this thesis sets out to offer a new reading of the relationship between these two poets. It shows that they were engaged in a dialogue of reciprocal influence that came to a head at the end of the Peloponnesian War. iii Acknowledgements My thanks are due, first of all, to my supervisor Dr. Anne Alwis who unleashed the beast that became this thesis by setting me an essay in the third year of my undergraduate studies: “‘For all his criticisms, Aristophanes respects and admires Euripides.’ Discuss.” Three years later, I am honoured to present to her, a somewhat fuller answer than I did then. My gratitude to her is beyond measure. She has inspired and encouraged, provoked and instructed me throughout my undergraduate and postgraduate studies. Her patience and support has never wavered even during the weeks before and after she brought a brand new baby scholar into the world. For giving me the gift of this question, I will be eternally grateful. Particular thanks are also due to my colleague Dr. Paul March-Russell, who gave me the ‘palimpsest’; to Trish Barton-Ancliffe and Jim Hastings for encouragement and proofreading; to Ruth Auger for endless cups of coffee and chocolate brownies and to Lynne Bennett for secret lunchtime chips. The Euripidou family of Limassol have provided me with love, support and tzatziki at the beach for as long as I can remember. So for Julie and Andreas, I kept it in the family! I would also like to thank my students at the University of Kent and the Open University whose enthusiasm and searching questions have taught me as much as I hope I have taught them. I am particularly grateful to the students and staff from across the University of Kent who supported my idea to produce the Thesmophoriazusae at the Gulbenkian Theatre in March 2012. Their insight into the characters, costume and set design, combined with impromptu ad-libs, brought the text to life in a way none of us could ever have imagined. The memory of time spent in rehearsals laughing until we could not breathe will stay with me always. Unreserved love and appreciation goes to my mother, my husband, my children and my grandchildren who loved, cuddled, supported and encouraged me throughout the writing of this thesis and its many black moments. My final and greatest debt is to my late father who taught me life’s most precious lesson: “Never give up the conviction that if you open all the doors - one of them will be the ‘Door into Summer’”. I did it for you and because of you. Gina May – August 2012 iv Table of Contents ABSTRACT ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv TABLE OF CONTENTS v CHAPTER ONE Introduction 1 CHAPTER TWO Literary Borrowing: Plagiarism and Intertextuality 2.1 Introduction 6 2.2 Notions of Literary Borrowing in the Ancient World 8 2.3 Literary Theft in Ptolemaic Egypt 11 2.4 Authorial Respect and Referencing in the Roman World 14 2.5 Translatio studii and Renovatio during the French Renaissance 19 2.6 Saussure and the Relational Theory of Texts 21 2.7 Kristeva, Barthes and the Pheno-Text 23 2.8 Genette and Transtextuality 28 2.9 Against Intertextuality 29 2.10 Visual Vocabulary 31 2.11 Verbal Vocabulary 33 2.12 Aristophanes and the Tragedians 36 2.13 Aristophanes and Aeschylus 36 2.14 Aristophanes and Sophocles 41 2.15 Conclusions – Aristophanes, Sophocles and Aeschylus 43 2.16 Aristophanes and Euripides 44 2.17 Conclusions 48 CHAPTER THREE Old for New: The Peritectic Transformation of Texts 3.1 Introduction 51 3.2 Tragedy Versus Comedy as a Source of Parody 52 3.3 Ancient Perspectives on Parody 54 3.4 ‘Modern’ Parody 59 3.5 Material Imitation 67 3.6 Contemporary Attitudes to Borrowing in the Fifth Century 70 3.7 Audience Recognition of Plot and the re-use of topoi 78 v 3.8 Recognition/reception of parody in Frogs 81 3.9 Aristophanes’ Qualitative Selection of Texts 86 3.10 Conclusions 90 CHAPTER FOUR Mind Games: Aristophanes and the Recognition of Audience Competence 4.1 Introduction 93 4.2 Education and Competence 96 4.3 Manipulating Audience Response 99 4.4 Authorial Expectation and Audience Reaction 105 4.5 Self-conscious Reflection and a Test of Competence 106 4.6 Moulding the Audience 109 4.7 Shaping the Words to Fit 113 4.8 Joining the Dots and Drawing out the Audience 116 4.9 Conclusions 126 CHAPTER FIVE Mythic Novelty: Theatrical Manipulation in the Thesmophoriazusae and Frogs 5.1 Introduction 129 5.2 Euripides Warns Athens Against Alcibiades – 416BC 135 5.3 Euripides Condemns Alcibiades – 415BC 137 5.4 Euripides Vacillates – 414BC 138 5.5 An Outright Plea for Forgiveness – 412BC 139 5.6 A Response to Euripides in the Thesmophoriazusae 146 5.7 Part Three – Theatrical Innovation in Frogs 155 5.8 Euripides’ Andromeda as a topos 157 5.9 The End of an Era. Aristophanes and the Final Throes of Comedy 162 5.10 Conclusions 164 CHAPTER SIX Aristophanes and Euripides - A Synkrisis? 6.1 Introduction 167 6.2 Genre Theory 172 6.3 Aristotle on Comedy 174 6.4 Horace, Hermogenes, Pollux and Donatus on Comedy & Tragedy 179 6.5 The Divine Comedy 180 6.6 Prototypical & Family Resemblance Approaches to Genre Theory 182 6.7 Audience and Allusion 184 vi 6.8 Women in Comedy and Tragedy 186 6.9 Catharsis 187 6.10 Tragedy’s Authorial Voice and Audience Address 188 6.11 Euripides and the Comedic Technique 191 6.12 Euripidean Parodies 195 6.13 Euripides’ Reaction to Aristophanes’ parodia 199 6.14 Changing Styles of the Poets 206 6.15 Conclusions 208 CHAPTER SEVEN Conclusions – Moving Forward, Looking Back 210 BIBLIOGRAPHY 213 APPENDICES Appendix 1 - Aristophanes and Aeschylus (excl. Frogs) 231 Appendix 2 - Aristophanes and Aeschylus in Frogs. 235 Appendix 3 - Aristophanes and Sophocles. 237 Appendix 4 - Aristophanes and Euripides 240 Appendix 5- Euripides in Acharnians 243 Appendix 6 - Euripides in the Thesmophoriazusae 244 Appendix 7 - Euripides in Frogs 247 Appendix 8 – Euripides’ political plays 250 vii Chapter One Introduction τρέφεται δέ, ὦ Σώκρατες, ψυχὴ τίνι; μαθήμασιν δήπου, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ.1 The relationship between Aristophanes’ and Euripides’ texts has claimed the attention of many scholars and students but to date there has been no systematic deconstruction of the particular literary techniques involved. This thesis sets out to explore and catalogue the way in which Aristophanes made use of Euripides’ words and how the tragedian responded in kind. My investigation has led to the discovery of a dialogue played out through the lines, plots and staging of the poets’ plays, which ultimately led to a blurring of genres. The poets commented upon and criticised each other’s literary techniques, political allegiances and social attitudes. From behind the words of one poet comes the echo of the other. Behind the actors of one performance, moved the ghosts of another. The game was finally over in 405BC when Euripides died. Athens was falling and Aristophanes lost the will to carry on. In Aristophanes’ final two plays, Euripides’ silence is deafening. This thesis sets out, first of all, to interrogate ancient and modern literary theories and question their application to Aristophanic texts. The term ‘intertextuality’ is most popularly used when discussing tragic intrusion into Aristophanes’ plays but, as my investigation will reveal, this description is too wide and, therefore, inaccurate.