SOPHOCLES THE HONEYBEE: DRAMATIC CONTEXT AND INTERACTION by JENNIFER SARA STARKEY B.A., St. Olaf College, 2007 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Classics 2012 This thesis entitled: Sophocles the Honeybee: Dramatic Context and Interaction written by Jennifer Sara Starkey has been approved for the Department of Classics _____________________________________ John C. Gibert _____________________________________ Peter A. Hunt Date______________ The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we Find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards Of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. iii Starkey, Jennifer Sara (Ph.D., Classics) Sophocles the Honeybee: Dramatic Context and Interaction Thesis directed by Associate Professor John C. Gibert There have been very few large-scale studies of Sophocles’ poetic interactions with the other playwrights of the fifth century B.C. This project seeks to fill that gap by putting Sophocles in contact with both tragic and comic poets and offering new readings of his work from that angle. By examining Sophocles as an exploiter of other poets’ dramatic ideas and strategies, I hope to demonstrate his versatility and creativity; by viewing him as a source of inspiration for other dramatists, I aim to show his relevance and significance within his own time. The ancient Life of Sophocles claims that he was nicknamed melitta (“honeybee”) for his ability to glean the best elements from the work of other poets and integrate them effectively into his own plays. Taking this idea as my starting point, I explore the “immediate dramatic context” of each of Sophocles’ late tragedies (Electra, Philoctetes, and Oedipus at Colonus) to show how they draw extensively on specific plays of Aeschylus and Euripides. I also aim to complicate common views of dramatic intertextuality, which, in light of the competitions at the festivals, is often understood in terms of simple imitation or rejection; in particular, the relationship between Sophocles and Euripides has frequently been reduced to one of polemics and polarity. My interest is rather in a type of engagement that was basically collaborative and constructive, and I argue that Sophocles and Euripides, as a result of working closely with each other’s material iv over the course of several decades, were actually much more similar in terms of style and interest than is usually recognized. Finally, drawing on recent work on comic intertextuality, I argue that all fifth-century playwrights were essentially honeybees in their own right, eager to experiment with recent innovations and developments in the theater. Sophocles thus becomes the basis for a more general model of dramatic inspiration and composition in the late fifth century: in contrast to the view that tragedy was becoming exhausted or even dying out, the poets continued to find new ways to exploit, expand, and build on each other’s material. This project is dedicated to the memory of my grandmother, Kay Mathias, who passed away on the Ides of March, 2011. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My thanks go first and foremost to John Gibert, who supervised my research, diligently read countless drafts, and patiently offered criticism on everything from word choice to overall conception; our many wide-ranging discussions have been invaluable to me. I am also grateful for the new perspectives and depth of scholarship provided by my readers and examiners, Peter Hunt, Lauri Reitzammer, Peter Knox, and Philip Holt. I have received further encouragement and support from Gwen Compton-Engle, Beth Dusinberre, and Alan Sommerstein; Alan especially deserves my thanks for his hospitality at the University of Nottingham during the spring of 2012, when he took the time to read my entire project and discuss with me its strengths, weaknesses, and potentialities. My work that year was funded by a dissertation fellowship from the Center for Humanities and the Arts at the University of Colorado, which I am happy to acknowledge here. Finally, I offer my thanks to those who have had to live with me for the past several years and have enriched the time with good humor and thoughtful conversation on a variety of topics, especially Reina and Kris Callier, Michaela Börner, Myrci Konyak, and of course my parents, who have supported my interest in the Classics from the beginning. vii CONTENTS Abbreviations and References ............................................................................. viii 1 Introduction: Contextualizing Sophocles .....................................................1 The Scholarly Background: Comedy ...............................................3 The Scholarly Background: Tragedy ...............................................7 Sophocles Μέλιττα.........................................................................10 2 Sophocles Θεοφιλής? Fragmentation and Agnosticism in Electra ...........................................20 Aeschylus’ Choephoroi: Convergence ..........................................26 Sophocles’ Electra: Fragmentation................................................38 Conclusion: “Matricide and Good Spirits”? ..................................73 3 Sophocles Ποιητής and the Art of Dramatic Composition ........................82 Helen: Costume, Deception, and the Dramatic Illusion ................93 Philoctetes: The Ethics of Role-playing ......................................102 Orestes: The Chaos of Performance ............................................127 Conclusion: Tragedy and Absurdity ............................................147 4 Sophocles Ἠθοποιός and Euripides’ Theban Plays .................................156 The Heroism of Antigone ............................................................162 The Return of Polyneices .............................................................181 Oedipus, Power, and Pollution.....................................................199 Conclusion: Distorted Reflections ...............................................210 5 Sophocles Κωμῳδούμενος .......................................................................215 Level 1: Collision of Registers ....................................................220 Level 2: Appropriation and Conversion ......................................237 Level 3: Integration ......................................................................251 Conclusion: A Glance at Aristophanes and Euripides .................275 6 General Conclusion: Sophocles Θεατρικός .............................................287 Bibliography ........................................................................................................293 viii ABBREVIATIONS AND REFERENCES IG F.H. Gaertringen et al., eds. Inscriptiones Graecae.2 1924-. Berlin. LSJ H.G. Liddell and R. Scott. 1940. A Greek-English Lexicon.9 Rev. H. Stuart- Jones. Suppl. 1968, 1996. Oxford. D-K H. Diels and W. Kranz, eds. 1952. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker.6 3 vols. Berlin. DFA Pickard-Cambridge, A.W. 1968. The Dramatic Festivals of Athens.2 Rev. J. Gould & D.M. Lewis. Oxford. TrGF B. Snell, R. Kannicht, and S. Radt, eds. 1971-2009. Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. 5 vols. Göttingen. PCG R. Kassel and C. Austin, eds. 1983-. Poetae Comici Graeci. 8 vols. Berlin. CCG C. Collard, M.J. Cropp, and J. Gibert. 2006. Euripides: Selected Fragmentary Plays II. Warminster. SFT A.H. Sommerstein, D. Fitzpatrick, and T.H. Talboy. 2006. Sophocles: Selected Fragmentary Plays I. Oxford: Oxbow Books. ST A.H. Sommerstein, and T.H. Talboy. 2012. Sophocles: Selected Fragmentary Plays II. Oxford: Oxbow Books. AC Acta Classica AevAnt Aevum Antiquum AJP American Journal of Philology AncSoc Ancient Society BICS Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies C&M Classica et Mediaevalia CA Classical Antiquity CB Classical Bulletin CJ Classical Journal CML Classical and Modern Literature CP Classical Philology CPCP California Publications in Classical Philology ix CQ Classical Quarterly CR Classical Review CW Classical World G&R Greece and Rome GRBS Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology ICS Illinois Classical Studies JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies LCM Liverpool Classical Monthly MD Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici MH Museum Helveticum PCPS Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society P&L Philosophy and Literature RhM Rheinisches Museum SCI Scripta Classica Israelica TAPA Transactions of the American Philological Association WJA Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft WS Wiener Studien YCS Yale Classical Studies Throughout this study, translations and quotations of the ancient texts are regularly drawn from the following editions (which are cited in footnotes by the editor’s name alone): J. Diggle, ed. 1981-94. Euripidis Fabulae. Oxford Classical Text. 3 vols. Oxford. J. Henderson, ed. 1998. Aristophanes. Loeb Classical Library. 4 vols. Cambridge, Mass. R.C. Jebb, ed. 2004. Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments. 7 vols. Reprint. London. D. Kovacs, ed. 1994-2002. Euripides. Loeb Classical Library. 8 vols. Cambridge, Mass. H. Lloyd-Jones, ed. 1994-6. Sophocles. Loeb Classical Library. 3 vols. Cambridge, Mass. H. Lloyd-Jones and N.G. Wilson, eds. 1990. Sophoclis Fabulae. Oxford Classical Text. Oxford. D.L. Page, ed. 1962. Poetae Melici Graeci. Oxford. D.L. Page, ed. 1972. Aeschyli Septem Quae Supersunt Tragoedias. Oxford