aristophanes and euripides

260 Pages·2015·1.51 MB·English

by  Gina May

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. It fails to take into account the complexity of form
Aristophanes demonstrates. Hence, in Chapter Two, I reconsider the concept of

1 “And what, Socrates, is the food of the soul? Surely, I said, knowledge is the food of the soul.” Plato,
Protagoras 313c

1
‘intertextuality’ and offer new classifications that I believe are more pertinent to
fifth-century texts. These are: Variation, Polygenic, Specific, Fundamental,
Gradation, Visuality, Repetition and Genre Diversity. I also consider theories of
semiotics and semantics, showing that these ideas were anticipated by the ancients
who, untroubled by political or academic ambition, wrote in a more precise and less
pretentious fashion. Chapter Two ends with an analysis of when and where
Aristophanes places the lines he borrows from the tragedians. This reveals that
Aristophanes’ use of Euripides’ lines is more prolific than those of other poets and
that the signifiers Aristophanes attaches to them are more demonstrably prominent.
Appendices 1-7 document the lines Aristophanes borrowed from the three major
tragedians and gives each one a category in accordance with the new definitions of
intertextuality offered in the Chapter.
Chapter Three considers the term ‘parody’ and challenges its meaning in
relation to Aristophanic texts. Ancient and modern definitions are examined before
applying them to a range of passages. Particular consideration is given to why
Aristophanes chooses to re-use specific lines, actions, costumes or topoi from
Euripides’ texts and how they function in their new role. Aristophanes’ stage
management of myth and exploitation of the social charter is also examined to show
how Aristophanes blends these elements together to stimulate the poetic memory of
the audience in order to communicate his political, social or personal messages.2
Having considered where and how Aristophanes places borrowed lines,
Chapter Four considers: ‘Why?’ Here, the question of audience competence is
raised. The structure of the texts reveal that Aristophanes was constantly in control,
moulding the audiences’ perception and reception of his lines in order to retain

2 I define the social charter as a belief system which authorised and validated social norms and institutions. In
this context, its basis is in myth and religion and is reflected in the theatre from its beginnings as a form of
religious custom.
2