The Interrelation between Rhesus and its Genuine Poet: A Problematic Case of Reception? Anastasia-Stavroula Valtadorou Abstract: Rhesus, a tragedy mainly attributed to Euripides, had critics already in antiquity: as the second Ὑπόθεσις of the play makes evident, its alleged poor quality caused some ancient scholars to express doubts about its authenticity. The authorship of Rhesus is still under debate. For instance, Vayos Liapis often claims that the surviving Rhesus is a play written in the fourth century BCE by an actor named Neoptolemos (Liapis 2009; 2012). Unsurprisingly, these claims about inauthenticity are again interwoven with the alleged poor poetic value of the play. This connection generally estab- lished between Euripides and works of high aesthetic value raises some intriguing questions: is the reception of a text influenced by our convictions about what is classical? Is there an actual connec- tion between an object and its meaning, or are we the ones that form the meaning based on our own beliefs? The authorship of Rhesus: An enquiry that reader that the playwright in question by no keeps resurfacing means imitates his epic model uncondition- Undeniably, there are plenty of reasons for ally.2 Rather, he picks up these events and a modern scholar to study in depth the freshly re-tells them from the standpoint of Greek tragedy Rhesus. To begin with, this the Trojans, instead of following his prede- specific drama is the only surviving tragedy cessor’s choice and concentrating his atten- which refers to events that were first re- tion on the Greek side. counted in the Iliad.1 More specifically, the However intriguing the aforementioned dramatist of Rhesus discusses the reconnais- relationship between the Rhesus and Iliad sance mission carried out by the Achaeans may have been for classicists,3 the actual Diomedes and Odysseus in the Trojan camp and their slaughter of the Trojan intruder 2 This could not always be taken for granted, giv- Dolon during this nocturnal espionage, epi- en that this drama has not enjoyed the undisput- sodes that we encounter for the first time in ed favor of all its readers, a fact already stressed the tenth rhapsody of the Iliad. Neverthe- by Bates 1916, 11. Fantuzzi 2006, 135 correctly underlines that scholarly opinion has recently less, it is more than obvious to the modern taken a remarkable turn: “The idea that the Rh. is ‘nothing else than an Iliadis carmen diductum in actus’, as the tragedy was authoritatively de- 1 See Allen – Munro 1920. Of course, there is the scribed one century ago, would no longer find exception of the satyr-play Cyclops. Cf. Fries many supporters among modern scholars”. 2014, 8. For other, no longer extant tragedies 3 The intertextual play between Rh. and Il. has which could be called ‘Trojan’ or ‘Iliadic’ due to been thoroughly discussed by many scholars. their content, see Fantuzzi 2006, 135–148. For example, see Barrett 2002; Bond 1996; Fan- 160 Valtadorou, The Interrelation between Rhesus and its Genuine Poet identification of the dramatist used to hold complexity points to Euripides as much more scholarly interest. As a brief its actual author.9 survey makes plain,4 there are numerous As the above lines show, the authorship of examples of well-known classical scholars Rhesus was in dispute even in antiquity, de- who lived in the first quarter of the twenti- spite the fact that the ancient writer of the eth century and wrote various studies trying Ὑπόθεσις clearly rejected all these accusa- to give an adequate answer to one question tions of inauthenticity. All the same, it is alone: who is the genuine author of this crucial to keep something particular in mind: Greek drama? It is telling that the answer to those (ancient grammarians or classicists of this question has not always been the same, the last century) who considered the play to given that some asserted that Rhesus was a be inauthentic, namely non-Euripidean, were genuine play of Euripides,5 one of the three led to this conclusion through convictions tragedians unanimously recognized as clas- based either on its allegedly poor quality,10 a sical,6 while others made a case against that characteristic certainly unworthy of the great claim.7 Undoubtedly, the main reason be- Athenian tragedian, or on its problematically hind this controversy can be found in the uncertain nature. Contrariwise, those who first lines of the second ancient Ὑπόθεσις discerned the quality of Rhesus were some- of the play: how persuaded that Euripides was its ‘real’, τοῦτο τὸ δρᾶμα ἔνιοι νόθον one and only writer. For instance, in his arti- ὑπενόησαν, Εὐριπίδου δὲ μὴ cle entitled “The Problem of Rhesus,” pub- εἶναι∙ τὸν γὰρ Σοφόκλειον lished in 1916, Richards asserted that as re- μᾶλλον ὑποφαίνειν χαρακτῆρα. gards its aesthetic quality Rhesus is even ἐν μέντοι ταῖς διδασκαλίαις ὡς better than the undoubtedly Euripidean Cy- γνήσιον ἀναγέγραπται, καὶ ἡ clops and must, thus, be regarded as genu- περὶ τὰ μετάρσια δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ ine.11 According to his interpretation, there- πολυπραγμοσύνη τὸν Εὐριπίδην fore, the play’s poetic value must be intrinsi- ὁμολογεῖ.8 cally interwoven with its originality. There are those who suggested Nonetheless, it is striking that the Euripidean that this drama is not a genuine (?) authorship of this tragedy did not trouble play of Euripides because its char- only a few meticulous individuals in the past; acter is rather Sophoclean; this be- on the contrary, this issue is still heavily de- ing said, in the didaskaliae it is bated even today. One significant recent ex- registered as authentic, and its ample is that of William Ritchie, who com- mitted himself to proving the Euripidean character of Rhesus in a lengthy and informa- tuzzi 2005; Fantuzzi 2011; Fenik 1964; Murray tive monograph entitled The Authenticity of 1913; Strohm 1959. 12 4 See, for instance, Bates 1916, 11; Pearson 1921; the Rhesus of Euripides. However, Ritchie Platt 1919, 154; Richards 1916, 196. 5 Bates 1916, 11; Richards 1916, 196. 6 Nowadays Euripides is considered to be a classi- 9 The translation of the Greek text is mine. cal playwright, although this was not always the 10 See Platt 1919, 153–154. case. See below p. 6. 11 Richards 1916. 7 Pearson 1921, 60–61; Platt 1919, 154. 12 See Ritchie 1964. It is rather interesting that the 8 Diggle 1994. One of the most recent and illumi- publication of this book did not go unnoticed. nating comments on the four Hypotheses of Rh. One year later the devastating review of is that of Liapis 2012, 55–69. Fraenkel 1965 followed; since then only a few Distant Worlds Journal 1 (2016) 161 is not an exception. Almost every modern Yet we should not overlook that Liapis is critic of Rhesus takes advantage of the op- surprisingly in full agreement with his pre- portunity to express his or her own opinion decessors when he establishes an insoluble as far as the genuineness of the play is con- but inconspicuous bond between the identity cerned.13 of the playwright of Rhesus and his authorial incompetency. More specifically, the per- Noteworthy is the case of Vayos Liapis, ceived lack of poetic originality in this play which we will discuss in detail. Liapis is a enables this particular scholar to suggest that well-established scholar of Greek drama, its playwright is an actor/author who (unlike who has written many articles about the trag- Euripides, it is implied) is characterized ver- edy in question.14 What is the most impres- batim by ‘sheer incompetence.’19 Thus, it is sive aspect of his scholarly work, though, is evident that for Liapis intemperate literary his persistence to prove, if possible, that Rhe- imitation and unsuitable verbosity can never sus is a play that was actually written by a be consistent with the unanimously accepted famous actor named Neoptolemos,15 and was Euripidean quality.20 originally produced in the fourth century BCE,16 most probably within the context of a To conclude, this short and rather summary Macedonian performance.17 His views are introduction has shown that the ancient respectable in their own right, for he strives Ὑπόθεσις of this play has triggered an ever- to prove his case by pointing to the (more or lasting debate as far as its authorship is con- less discernible) inclination of the playwright cerned. What is more, I have noted that there of Rhesus towards literary imitation. Indeed, is a firm interrelation between the reception in one of his most recent and extensive ef- of Rhesus and the identity of its genuine poet. forts, Liapis manages to highlight the large Interestingly enough, everyone who claims number of allusions of this ‘overzealous imi- that Rhesus is not an excellent piece of trage- tator’, who, he claims, both frequently and dy is convinced of its non-Euripidean ori- consciously alludes to many of the classical gins.21 At the same time, those who advocate Attic dramas.18 the Euripidean authorship of this drama are 19 Liapis 2012, xlvi. scholars have dared to think of Rh. as a genuine- 20 We should keep in mind that Rh. is not praised ly Euripidean play. wholeheartedly as a tragedy of classical merit 13 See Burnett 1985, 50–51; Fantuzzi 2006, 146; even by the advocators of its Euripidean author- Fantuzzi 2011, 40; Fries 2010, 351; Steadman ship. A representative is Anne Pippin Burnett 1945, 7; Xantakis-Karamanos 1980, 18. 27. 268. 1985, who believes that Rh. is a parody-play that 14 See, e.g., Liapis 2009; Liapis 2011; Liapis 2012; has to be attributed to the young and playful Eu- Liapis 2014.