19 1693403 6 REFERENCE ONLY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON THESIS Degree P V\0 Year ''LCjO^T Name of Author C O P Y R IG H T This is a thesis accepted for a Higher Degree of the University of London. It is an unpublished typescript and the copyright is held by the author. All persons consulting the thesis must read and abide by the Copyright Declaration below. COPYRIGHT DECLARATION I recognise that the copyright of the above-described thesis rests with the author and that no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author. LOANS Theses may not be lent to individuals, but the Senate House Library may lend a copy to approved libraries within the United Kingdom, for consultation solely on the premises of those libraries. Application should be made to: Inter-Library Loans, Senate House Library, Senate House, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HU. REPRODUCTION University of London theses may not be reproduced without explicit written permission from the Senate House Library. Enquiries should be addressed to the Theses Section of the Library. Regulations concerning reproduction vary according to the date of acceptance of the thesis and are listed below as guidelines. A. Before 1962. Permission granted only upon the prior written consent of the author. (The Senate House Library will provide addresses where possible). B. 1962- 1974. In many cases the author has agreed to permit copying upon completion of a Copyright Declaration. C. 1975 - 1988. Most theses may be copied upon completion of a Copyright Declaration. D. 1989 onwards. Most theses may be copied. This thesis comes within category D. This copy has been deposited in the Library of This copy has been deposited in the Senate House Library, Senate House, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HU. C:\Documents and Settings\lproctor\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\Copyright - thesis (2).doc University College London Department of Greek and Latin A COMMENTARY ON EURIPIDES’ DANAE AND DICTYS A thesis submitted to the University of London for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Ioanna Karamanou January 2005 UMI Number: U592926 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U592926 Published by ProQuest LLC 2013. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 THESIS ABSTRACT Euripides’ Danae and Dictys belong to the Danae-myth, treating the earlier and subsequent phase of the legend, respectively. As far as the evidence allows, a cautious reconstruction of the plot of each play is attempted, based on interrogation of the fragmentary material and the testimonia. In this effort, Euripidean scene-construction, parallel thematic and structural patterns, parallel rhetoric and general rules of tragic practice are also taken into account as evidence for the dramatist’s usage. As regards the generic affiliations of each play, the Danae may be paralleled to Euripides’ Alope, Melanippe the Wise and Auge, all of which treated the clash of a royal daughter with her paternal oikos, due to the disclosure of her illicit motherhood resulting in most cases from her union with a god. The evidence for the Dictys indicates that it was probably built upon a central altar-scene (cf. E. Heraclidae, Andromache, Suppliant Women, Heracles, Helen ) and that it had the features of a nostos-play, following the ‘retum- rescue-revenge’ pattern (cf. the first part of the Heracles ). The reception of both plays and their position in the transmission of Euripides are also explored, on the basis of the available evidence. This is the first commentary on Euripides’ Danae and Dictys; a detailed commentary on language, style, themes and values, aiming also to shed light on various aspects of Euripidean technique (e.g. his rhetoric, imagery, as well as staging directions, where possible). The exploration of issues raised by the fragmentary material seeks to complement our knowledge of Euripides’ drama, as derived from surviving plays, which represent only a portion of the whole Euripidean oeuvre. Where appropriate, textual and philological matters are discussed, as well as questions of authenticity, such as a Danae ‘hypothesis’ and ‘prologue’ (the spurious fr. 1132 Kn.) transmitted in Euripides’ manuscript P (Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 287, f 147v-148r). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am hugely indebted to my supervisor, Professor Chris Carey, for his careful guidance and very constructive criticism. I have been extremely fortunate to receive his unstinted interest in and support of my research, not only as regards the present thesis, but in terms of particular publications as well. I owe very much also to my supervisor during the first year of my PhD research, Professor Richard Janko, for encouraging me to deal with this topic and subjecting the first drafts of my work to his robust criticism. I am deeply grateful to Mr Alan Griffiths, who read most of this thesis as my subsidiary supervisor, offering stimulating ideas and much advice, and Professor Cornelia Roemer for initiating me to the exciting field of Papyrology and for offering much help with the papyrus-ffagments of this dissertation. I also benefited greatly from the expertise of Professors Eric Handley and Axel Seeberg in iconographic evidence and of Professor Egert PShlmann in staging. Deep thanks are due to Professor Richard Kannicht for so generously sending me the valuable proofs of his text of the Danae and Dictys a year before the publication of TrGF V. At this point, I need to express my gratitude to Professor Pat Easterling for her scholarly advice and unfailing encouragement throughout my graduate studies, ever since my first tentative steps in the field of research of tragic fragments during my MPhil at Cambridge. I owe a great debt to late Professor Herman van Looy for so kindly encouraging me to work and publish on Euripidean fragments and for making this possible with the four volumes of his full-scale Bude edition in co-operation with Professor F. Jouan. Special thanks are due to the A. S. Onassis and O. Stathatou Foundations for successively funding my research. Finally, the debt to my family cannot be adequately expressed in words. Both my parents have unconditionally offered their affectionate, academic and material support throughout my studies and my mother, in particular, should be credited with inspiring me love for tragedy and fragments. My husband, Emmanuel, has patiently stood by me all the way from the very beginning, offering constant encouragement, great help, understanding, inspiration and moral support. ABBREVIATIONS The abbreviations of the names of Greek and Latin authors and their works follow those in LSJ 9 and Lewis & Short respectively. Abbreviations of journals are cited after L ’ Annee Philologique. The editions of the Euripidean fragments by Professors Kannicht and Jouan & van Looy are abbreviated as Kn. and J.-v.L. respectively. To my Parents TABLE OF CONTENTS General Introduction ___________________________________________________ 1 (i) The Danae and Dictys and their Place in the Transmission of Euripides ________________________________________________ 2 (ii) Exploring the Evidence: The Sources and ‘Reconstruction’ 5 Euripides’ Danae ______________________________________________________ 8 1. The Myth in Literature and Art ______________________________ 8 2. The Date of the Play ______________________________________ 21 3. Dramatis Personae and Setting _____________________________ 22 4. The Structure of the Play __________________________________ 24 5. Reception of the Danae ____________________________________32 Text: Testimonia ____________________________________________ 34 Fragmenta ___________________________________________ 37 Commentary _______________________________________________ 44 Euripides’ Dictys____________________________________________________ 120 1. The Myth in Literature and Art ____________________________ 120 2. The Date of the Play _____________________________________ 129 3. Dramatis Personae ______________________________________ 130 4. The Structure of the Play __________________________________ 132 5. The Setting of the Play ___________________________________ 137 6. Reception of the Dictys_________________________________ 139 Text: Testimonia ___________________________________________ 140 Fragmenta ___________________________________________ 143 Commentary ______________________________________________ 149 Appendix: Euripides and Danae’s Legend in Late Antiquity: The Spurious fr. 1132 Kn. ____________________________________ 226 Text _____________________________________________________ 226 1. Diagnosis of Spuriousness ________________________________ 228 2. The Sources of the 6Danae-i ragment’________________________ 232 3. Imitation of Euripides: a. Style______________________ b. Dramatic Technique __________ Conclusion ______________________ Bibliography _________________________________ Plates Plate I: Vas. Apul. (Princeton Art Museum 1989. 40) Plate II a: PSIXLI 1286, frr. A and B Plate II b: PSIXll 1286, fr. B GENERAL INTRODUCTION