Classical Literature
17
Classical Literature 1b: Ancient Drama The University of Edinburgh School of History and Classics 2007–2008, Semester 2
Transcript of Classical Literature
Classical Literature 1b:
Ancient Drama
The University of Edinburgh
School of History and Classics
2007–2008, Semester 2
2
Classical Literature 1b: Ancient Drama
Section I: General information
Course Name: Classical Literature 1B
Course Code: U02645
Course Organiser: Dr Simon Trépanier
Room 4.10, DHT, Tel.: 650–3589
email: [email protected]
Welcome to the Classics Department. We number fourteen teaching staff, assisted by various
Tutors and Honorary Fellows. A full list can be found in the sub-honours handbook. Your
Lecturers this term are:
Dr. Sandra Bingham
email: [email protected]
Dr. Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones
email: [email protected]
Dr. Simon Trépanier
email: [email protected]
Dr. Stephanie Winder
email: [email protected]
Dr. Michael Lurie
Tutorials in Classical Literature 1b will be given by:
Ms. Jane Atkinson
email: [email protected]
Ms. Katherine Liong
email: [email protected]
Dr. Kenneth Moore
email: [email protected]
Ms. Déborah Natanson
email: [email protected]
Brief Description of the Course
‘Classical Literature 1b’ is designed to present to students (whether or not they have any prior
acquaintance with the ancient world) the work of the major dramatic poets of ancient Greece
and Rome, in translation. The authors studied have been chosen both for their high intrinsic
quality and for their importance in shaping later European literature and art. The course,
therefore, while concentrating firmly on the ancient writers, is of benefit both to those whose
main interests lie in later European culture and to those pursuing a degree course which is
more orientated towards the Ancient World. In particular the course is an essential element for
those intending to take the Honours curriculum in Classical Studies. Students are introduced
to the methods and techniques of literary criticism which are applied by classical scholars to
the study of the ancient texts, and full advantage is taken of the opportunity for wider reading
and comparative study.
3
Participation and Contact
The course consists of both lectures and tutorials. Lectures are designed to introduce you to
the major themes to be covered in the course, while tutorials provide a forum for the
discussion of more specific issues. Preparation is required for tutorials: it is important that
all members of the class attend all tutorials and do the necessary preparation.
Teaching Arrangements
Lectures are held as detailed below on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays from 4.10 –
5.00pm in David Hume Tower lecture theatre B, George Square. In addition, four tutorials
will be held in weeks 3, 5, 7 and 9– the schedule details of tutor groups will be posted on the
Classical Literature 1 Noticeboard on the 4th
floor of DHT. Attendance at tutorials is
compulsory. If for sickness or other good reason, you cannot attend a tutorial, please let your
tutor know. Persistent absence without sufficient justification will be reported to the student’s
Director of Studies.
Coursework
Coursework should be handed in to the Classics Office (5.01/5.02): an essay submission sheet
should be completed for all pieces of work submitted, one half of which will be returned to
you as proof that the work has been handed in.
For late submissions, University regulations stipulate that 5% of the maximum obtainable
mark is to be deducted for each working day, up to a maximum of five days, after which a
mark of 0% is to be recorded. Thus, if an essay which is due in on a Friday and which is to be
marked out of 100% is handed in on the following Monday, it will be given a mark 5% less
than what it is worth; if it is handed in on the following Thursday, it will be given a mark 20%
less than what it is worth. These penalties will always be deducted unless an extension has
been agreed with the course organiser. This should normally be done in advance of the
submission date. We are generally sympathetic where extenuating personal or medical
circumstances are concerned, but only if we are given full and timely information about them:
your application to the course organiser for an extension should be supported by a letter from
your Student Support officer or Director of Studies and/or a medical certificate.
Any items of coursework which contribute to assessment and which are not submitted will
be given a mark of 0%.
It is your responsibility to ensure that your submitted assessed work is legible.
ASSESSMENT
The course is assessed by a combination of continuous assessment (based on written course
work) and examination.
There will be one assessed essay, one gobbet exercise and a 2-hour examination.
Essay 30%
Gobbet exercise 10%
Examination 60%
4
LEARNING OUTCOMES
Over the course, students will:-
• enrich their appreciation of cornerstone texts of classical antiquity and later European
culture;
• develop an understanding of the most significant characteristics of ancient Greek and
Roman drama;
• meet and consider a range of literary approaches;
• further their ability to articulate and evaluate lines of critical enquiry by collecting,
synthesising and evaluating different kinds of data from a variety of sources, both primary
and secondary;
• compare different views and formulate independent and well-argued hypotheses
For information on course protocol, such as essay guidelines, plagiarism policy, and
marking schemes you should consult the Classics Sub-honours Handbook, which is
distributed at the beginning of the year. If you do not have a copy of this, you can
contact the Classics offices (DHT 5.01/5.02) or download a copy from the Classics
webpage:
http://www.shc.ed.ac.uk/classics/undergraduate/documents/Subhonourshandbook2007_2008_000.pdf
SECTION II: Detailed information on the course
TEACHING PROGRAMME
All lectures will take place in David |Hume Tower, Lecture Theatre B, George Square
4.10 – 5.00pm
LLJ = Dr Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, ST = Dr Simon Trépanier, SW = Dr Stephanie Winder; ML = Dr
Michael Lurie
Day Subject Lecturer
Week 1
Monday 7.01 Intro/Greek Theatre and Dramatic Festivals ST/ LLJ
Tuesday 8.01 Performing Greek Tragedy LLJ
Thursday 10.01 Aeschylus SB
Week 2
Monday 14.01 Aeschylus SB
Tuesday 15.01 Aeschylus SB
Thursday 17.01 Aeschylus SB
Week 3
Monday 21.01 Sophocles ML
Tuesday 22.01 Sophocles ML
Thursday 24.01 Sophocles ML
Tutorial 1: Theatricality in Aeschylus
5
Week 4
Monday 28.01 Sophocles ML
Tuesday 29.01 Sophocles ML
Thursday 31.01 Euripides SW
Week 5
Monday 4.02 Euripides SW
Tuesday 5.02 Euripides SW
Thursday 7.02 Euripides SW
Tutorial 2: The chorus in Sophocles and
Aeschylus
Week 6
Monday 11.02 Euripides SW
Tuesday 12.02 Old Comedy: Aristophanes ST
Thursday 14.02 Aristophanes ST
Week 7
Monday 18.02 Aristophanes ST
Tuesday 19.02 Aristophanes ST
Thursday 21.02 Aristophanes ST
Tutorial 3: Tragic heroes and heroines
Week 8
Monday 25.02 Responses to Tragedy 1: Plato and the Tragic ML
Tuesday 26.02 Responses to Tragedy 2: Aristotle’s Poetics ML
Thursday 28.02 Greek Drama on Modern Stage LLJ
Gobbet exercise due, Friday Feb. 29th
Week 9
Monday 3.03 New Comedy in Greece: Menander ST
Tuesday 4.03 New Comedy in Rome: Terence ST
Thursday 6.03 New Comedy in Rome: Terence ST
Tutorial 4: Old Comedy and Tragedy
Week 10
Monday 10.03 New Comedy in Rome: Terence ST
Tuesday 11.03 New Comedy in Rome: Terence ST
Thursday 13.03 Roman Tragedy: Seneca ML
Essay due, Friday, March 14th, 12 noon
Week 11
Monday 17.03 Seneca, Thyestes ML
Tuesday 18.03 Seneca, Thyestes ML
Thursday 20.03 Seneca, Thyestes ML
6
Prescribed Texts
It is essential that prescribed translations are used
1. Aeschylus, a) Agamemnon b) Libation Bearers c) Eumenides
The prescribed translation is: Aeschylus, The Oresteia transl. by R. Fagles (Penguin Classics
1977) ISBN: 01404443332
2. Sophocles, (a) Antigone & (b) Oedipus The King
The prescribed translation is: Sophocles, The Three Theban Plays, transl. by R. Fagles
(Penguin Classics 2000) ISBN: 0140444254
3. Euripides, (a) Helen (b) Bacchae
The prescribed translations are: 1) Euripides, Helen transl. by James Michie and Colin Leach
(Oxford University Press) ISBN 0195077105 and 2) Euripides, Bacchae & Other Plays,
transl. by J. Davie and R. Rutherford (Penguin Books 2006) ISBN 0140447261
4. Aristophanes, (a) Poet and the Women (b) Frogs
The prescribed translation is: Aristophanes, Frogs and other Plays, transl. by A. Sommerstein,
revised by S. Dutta (Penguin Classics 2007) ISBN: 0140449693
5. Terence (a) Phormio (b) The Brothers
The prescribed translation is: Terence, The Comedies transl. by B. Radice, (Penguin Classics
1965) ISBN 014044324
6. Seneca, Thyestes
Text will be available from the Classics Secretary, DHT 5.02
2. Tutorials
Tutorials will begin in Week 3. A notice with details of groups will be posted on the Classical
Literature notice board by week 2. Be prepared and bring your copy of the relevant text/s to
tutorials. There will be tutorials in weeks 3, 5, 7, and 9.
Tutorial 1 (Week 3):
“The critic of a work which is only fully realized in performance should always keep his
mind’s eye on the work in action. As s/he reads s/he must envisage how these lines would be
bodied forth in the theatre. S/He must ask how the performance adds to and interprets the
lines, and how the words put meaning into the action... Anyone who has read the Ag. Must
sense that walking over the red cloth has some special meaning...“
O. Taplin, (1977) The Stagecraft of Aeschylus, Oxford, p. 19
With this in mind, discuss the three versions of the death of Agammemnon in the play.
First, as prophesied by Cassandra ( lines 1073 ff), then as heard by the chorus (1343-72), and
finally, in Clytmnestra’s display of her victim’s bodies, where she acts as her own messenger,
(1382-6). How do they differ, what dramaturgical conventions do they exploit and what
effects do they achieve?
7
Tutorial 2 (Week 5): The chorus:
Aesch. Agamemnon: Parodos (lines 40–257), and the First Ode, to Zeus (lines 160–183) and
Soph. Antigone 582–630.
Read the choral odes carefully, analyze their structure, language, and content, paying particular
respect to the following questions:
– what prompts the reflections of the chorus in each case?
– how do the odes relate to the stage action which immediately follow them?
– what similarities of language and thought are there between the odes?
– what view is expressed of the role of the gods in human life?
– is their tone similar or different?
– what are the possible functions of the choral odes?
– how does this ode make audience feel, what does it make them think?
– are we to regard these odes as ‘authoritative’?
Tutorial 3 (Week 7):
Tragic heroes and heroines. TBA
Tutorial 4 (Week 9): Old Comedy and tragedy, a comparison.
First, read the article by Taplin, “Fifth-Century Tragedy and Comedy: A Synkrisis”. 5
Copies of it will be left in the Classics library reserve cupboard, but you can also find it in the
volume by E. Segal, ed. (1996) Oxford Readings in Aristophanes, Oxford pp. 9-28, available
in the main Library reserve section. Finally, the original version is also in JSTOR, Fifth-
Century Tragedy and Comedy: A Synkrisis The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 106.
(1986), pp. 163-174, but the Greek bits are not translated there, as they are in the versions
given above; still, you can make out his point without them.
Second, draw up a table of opposites summarizing the main contrasts between the two
genres. Third, illustrate each contrast with at least one reference per contrast taken from the
plays read so far. Be prepared to discuss your choices with your fellow students. Your aim is
to build up a representative sampling of how the two genres differ.
3. Gobbet Exercise (c. 600 words)
Passage 1: Euripides (Bacchae, from the parodos, lines 64-87)
CHORUS [chanting as they enter]:
From Asia’s land I come, forsaking sacred Tmolus, in my eagerness to perform my joyous
labours for the Roaring One, the toil that brings no toil, crying ‘Euvoe’ to the Lord of
Bacchants. Who is in the street? Who is in the street? Who is in the house? Let him make
way, let every man make himself wholly pure by keeping reverent silence. For I am about to
sing to Dionysus hymns ever honoured by custom.
[singing:] [Strophe:] Blessed is the man who has the good fortune to know the god’s
mysteries, who consecrates his life and makes his soul one with the throng, worshipping
8
Bacchus in the mountains with the holy purifications. Observing the rites of Cybele, the Great
Mother, he whirls his thyrsus on high as, garlanded with ivory, he serves Dionysus. On you
Bacchants, on you Bacchants! Bring home the Roaring one, god and son of god, Dionysus,
from the mountains of Phrygia to the spacious streets of Greece, bring the Roaring One!
Or
Passage 2: Aristophanes, (Women at the Thesmophoria, 52-65)
SERVANT:
[Agathon, his master] …is about to set down
the frame of a new drama, yes, with mighty
Crossbeams shall it be built, and with new arches
Of words shall it be erected. For look,
He rotates his verses upon the lathe
And fastens them together. For both maxim
And metaphor does he hammer out, yes,
In molten wax does he mould his creation.
He rolls it till it be round; he whittles it…
MNESILOCHUS: and fellates it!
SERVANT: What lout is lurking near our corniced wall?
MNESILOCHUS: One who’ll take you and your precious poet and probe your cornices with
his protuberance.
[The SERVANT now stops his chanting tone and speaks in his normal voice]
SERVANT: You must have been a wayward youth, old man.
EURIPIDES [to the SERVANT]: Listen, my friend, never mind about him. Could you call
Agathon for me? You must get him out here at all costs.
The gobbet Exercise must be handed in before the end of week 8 (Friday, Feb. 29th)
4. Essay (c. 2500 words)
The essay must be handed in by 12 noon on Friday 14th
March.
1. Aeschylus.
In the Agamemnon, much is revealed about the past. How does this affect how we understand
what happens in the play? Pay particular attention to how Aeschylus colors (or ‚spins’) the
events acted out by timely reference to past events. For contrast, you should also keep in mind
how Aeschylus’ account of the murder departs from Homer’s version of the myth in the
Odyssey, as with that of other poets between the two. For some help with sources, see J.
March, The Creative Poet, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplement 49,
London, 1987, pp. 81-118.
9
2. Sophocles
"Antigone is world literature's classic drama of resistance.” Discuss
3. Euripides
Does Euripides’ Bacchae take a conventionally pious stance towards the gods by glorifying
Dionysus or is it a damning attack on traditional attitudes?
4. Aristophanes: Dionysus loves Euripides as well!
It is common for readers of the play to think that because Aeschylus wins the contest, he is
Dionysus’ favourite, by far. In fact, when pressed to choose at the end of Frogs, Dionysus
says (line 1411-12): “You know, I like them both so much, I don’t know how to judge
between them.” Building your case from Frogs and Women at the Thesmophoriazusae, and
supporting them with further examples from the two Euripides plays studied, describe those
aspects of Euripides’ tragic art which Dionysus (and Aristophanes) do appreciate.
5. Terence.
In both plays, the question of paternal authority over the lives of their sons is explored.
Compare and contrast the outcomes of both plots. Specifically, how does paternal authority
fare in both plays? Is it confirmed, reversed, or both? And what does this tell us about Terence
and his models?
6. Seneca
"Seneca's Thystes is a concentrated study of the elemental moral terrors that threaten to disrupt
human existence" Discuss
NB! Essay guidelines can be found in the subhons. Handbook, as well as online:
http://www.shc.ed.ac.uk/classics/undergraduate/documents/Classicsessayguidelines.pdf
5. May Examination
This two hour examination will consist of three sections, each worth 33%
1. Gobbet on Greek tragedy (One from a choice of three)
2. Gobbet on Greek comedy (One from a choice of two)
3. Gobbet on Roman comedy and tragedy (One from a choice of two)
10
Bibliography
Warning: this bibliography is a compilation from a number of contributors and is not (yet)
organised wholly consistently. DO NOT RELY ON ITS FORMAT FOR YOUR
BIBLIOGRAPHY, but use the essay guidelines provided in the subhonours handbook.
*=particularly recommended
most of the articles are available on university computers via
http://www.lib.ed.ac.uk/resources/collections/serials/ejintro.shtml
Abbreviations
AJP =American Journal of Philology
CJ = Classical Journal
CP = Classical Philology
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
PCPS = Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society
TAPhA = Transactions of the American Philological Association
I. Greek Tragedy
1.1. Useful introductions and companions
*B. Knox & P. Easterling (edd.), The Cambridge History of Classical Literature, vol. 1: Greek
Literature (Cambridge 1985) 258–338
*B. Zimmermann, Greek Tragedy (London 1991)
A. H. Sommerstein, Greek Drama and Dramatists (London/New York 2002)
P.E. Easterling (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy (Cambridge 1997)
*J. Gregory (ed.), A Companion to Greek Tragedy (Blackwell 2005)
R. Bushnell (ed.), A Companion to Tragedy (Blackwell 2005) M. McDonald & M. Walton (edd.), Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Theatre
(Cambridge 2007)
1.2. Important aspects of tragedy
1.2.1. Context and Performance
*E. Csapo & W. Slater, The Context of Ancient Drama (Ann Arbor 1995)
A.W. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens (2nd ed., Oxford 1968)
O. Taplin, Greek Tragedy in Action (London 1987)
O. Taplin, Pots and Plays: Interactions between Tragedy and Greek Vase-painting of the Fourth
Century BC (Getty Publications 2007; on order with EUL)
D. Wiles, Greek Theatre Performance: an introduction (Cambridge 2000)
1.2.2. The ‘social function’ debate
S. Goldhill, Reading Greek Tragedy (Cambridge 1986)
*J. Griffin, ‘The social function of Greek tragedy’, CQ 48 (1998) 39–61
S. Goldhill, ‘Civic ideology and the problem of difference: the politics of Aeschylean tragedy,
once again’, JHS 120 (2000) 34–56
P.J. Rhodes, ‘Nothing to do with democracy: Athenian drama and the polis’, JHS 123 (2003)
104–119
11
M. Heath, ‘The ‘social function’ of tragedy: clarifications and questions’, in: D. Cairns/V.
Liapis (edd.), Dionysalexandros. Essays on Aeschylus and his fellow tragedians on honour of
A. F. Gravie (Swansea 2006) 253–282
1.2.3. Theology, ethics, religion
*W. Burkert, Greek Religion (Oxford 1985)
*E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley/Los Angeles 1951)
*D. L. Cairns, Aidos: The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek
Literature (Oxford 1993), esp. chs. 3–5
*S. Halliwell, ‘Human Limits and the Religion of Greek Tragedy’, Literature and Theology 4
(1990) 169–180
J. Mikalson, Honor Thy Gods: Popular Religion in Greek Tragedy (North Carolina 1991), to be
used with caution
*R. Parker, ‘Gods Cruel and Kind: Tragic and Civic Theology’, in C. Pelling (ed.), Greek
Tragedy and the Historian (Oxford 1997) 143–160
S. Scullion, ‘"Nothing to do with Dionysos": Tragedy Misconceived as Ritual’, CQ 52 (2002)
102–137
C. Sourvinou-Inwood, Tragedy and Athenian Religion (Lanham 2003)
J-P. Vernant & P. Vidal-Naquet, Myth and Tragedy in Ancient Greece (New York 1990)
J. Winkler & F. I. Zeitlin (edd.), Nothing to do with Dionysos? (Princeton 1990)
1.2.4. Some other studies and collections of essays
R. Buxton, Persuasion in Greek Tragedy (Cambridge 1982)
H. Foley, Female Acts in Greek Tragedy (Princeton 2001)
B. Goward, Telling Tragedy: Narrative Technique in Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides
(Duckworth 1999)
E. Hall, The Theatrical Cast of Athens: Interactions between Ancient Greek Drama and Society
(Oxford 2006)
R. Lattimore, Story Patterns in Greek Tragedy (Ann Arbor 1964)
E. Segal (ed.), Oxford Readings in Greek Tragedy (Oxford 1983)
M. S. Silk (ed.) Tragedy and the Tragic (Oxford 1996)
W. B. Stanford, Greek Tragedy and the Emotions (London 1983)
C. Pelling (ed.), Greek Tragedy and the Historian (Oxford 1997)
2. Aeschylus
2.1. General
M. Gagarin, Aeschylean Drama (California 1976) A. F. Garvie, ‘Aeschylus’ Simple Plots’, in R. D. Dawe et al. (edd.), Dionysiaca: Nine Studies
in Greek Poetry (Cambridge 1978) 63–86
M. Ewans, Aeschylus, Suppliants and Other Dramas (London 1996)
M. Lloyd (ed.), Oxford Readings in Aeschylus (Oxford 2007) T. G. Rosenmeyer, The Art of Aeschylus (Berkeley 1982)
A. H. Sommerstein, Aeschylean Tragedy (Bari 1996)
O. Taplin, The Stagecraft of Aeschylus (Oxford 1977)
M. L. West, ‘The formal structure of Aeschylean tragedy’, in his Studies in Aeschylus (Stuttgart
1990) 3–25 R. P. Winnington-Ingram, Studies in Aeschylus (Cambridge 1983)
2.2. Oresteia
12
2.2.1. Books
A. Lebeck, The Oresteia: A Study in Language and Structure (Washington D.C. 1971)
D. Conacher, Aeschylus' Oresteia: A Literary Commentary (Toronto 1987)
S. Goldhill, The Oresteia (Cambridge 1992)
B. Goward, Aeschylus: Agamemnon (Duckworth 2005)
F. Macintosh et al. (edd.), Agamemnon in Performance (Oxford 2005)
2.2.2. Articles
*E. R. Dodds, ‘Morals and Politics in the Oresteia’, PCPS N.S. 6 (1960) 19–31; repr. in his
The Ancient Concept of Progress (Oxford 1973) 45–63 and M. Lloyd (ed.), Oxford
Readings in Aeschylus (Oxford 2007) 245–264
*A. Lesky, ‘Decision and Responsibility in Aeschylus’, JHS 86 (1966) 78–86
K. J. Dover, ‘Some Neglected Aspects of Agamemnon’s Dilemma’, JHS 93 (1973) 58–69;
repr. in his Greek and the Greeks (Blackwell 1987) 135–50
B. Vickers, Towards Greek Tragedy (Longman 1973) ch. 7.
*C. W. Macleod, ‘Politics and the Oresteia’, JHS 102 (1982) 124–144; repr. in his Collected
Essays (Oxford 1983) 20–40 and in M. Lloyd (ed.), Oxford Readings in Aeschylus
(Oxford 2007) 265–301
A. M. Bowie, ‘Religion and Politics in Aeschylus’ Oresteia’, CQ 43 (1993) 10–31; repr. in M.
Lloyd (ed.), Oxford Readings in Aeschylus (Oxford 2007) 323–358
P. Wilson & O. Taplin, ‘The “Aetiology” of Tragedy in the Oresteia’, PCPS 39 (1993) 169–
180
A. Henrichs, ‘Anonymity and Polarity: Unknown Gods and Nameless Altars at the
Areopagos’, ICS 19 (1994) 27–58
K. A. Morgan, ‘Apollo’s Favorites’, GRBS 35 (1994) 121–43
M. Griffith, ‘Brilliant Dynasts: Power and Politics in the Oresteia’, Cl. Ant. 14 (1995) 62–129
R. Seaford, ‘Historicizing Tragic Ambivalence: The Vote of Athena’, in B. Goff (ed.),
History, Tragedy, Theory (Texas 1995) 202–21
J. Heath, ‘Disentangling the Beast: Humans and Other Animals in Aeschylus’ Oresteia’, JHS
119 (1999) 17–48
3. Sophocles
3.1. Helpful Introductions
*R. Buxton, Sophocles [Greece and Rome New Surveys 16], 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1995)
*A. F. Garvie, The Plays of Sophocles (Bristol 2005)
*R. Scodel, ‘Sophoclean Tragedy’, in J. Gregory (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Greek
Tragedy (Oxford 2005) 233–250
3.2. Books (mostly with chapters on individuals plays), collections of essays, articles
*B. M. W. Knox, Oedipus at Thebes (New Haven 1957)
*E. R. Dodds, ‘On misunderstanding Oedipus Rex’ (originally in G&R 1966), repr. in his The
Ancient Concept of Progress (Oxford 1973) and in E. Segal (ed.) Oxford Readings in Greek
Tragedy (Oxford 1983)
G. M. Kirkwood, A study of Sophoclean drama (New York/London 2
1971)
P. Easterling, “Character in Sophocles” G & R 24 (1977) 121–129, repr. in E. Segal (ed.),
Oxford Readings in Greek Tragedy (Oxford 1983) 138–145
*K. Reinhardt, Sophocles (Oxford 1979)
*R. P. Winnington-Ingram, Sophocles: an Interpretation (Cambridge 1980)
R. W. B. Burton, The Chorus in Sophocles’ Tragedies (Oxford 1980)
J.-P. Vernant, ‘Ambiguity and reversal: on the enigmatic structure of the Oedipus Rex’, in
Vernant and P. Vidal-Naquet, Myth and Tragedy in Ancient Greece (tr. J. Lloyd, Brighton
1980, reissued in larger format New York 1988), 113ff; this essay is reprinted in Segal (ed.)
Oxford Readings
13
C. P. Segal, Tragedy and Civilization: A Study of Sophocles (Cambridge, Ma., 1981)
O. Taplin, ‘Sophocles in his theatre’, Sophocle (Fondation Hardt Entretiens 29, Geneva 1983)
155ff.
*G. Steiner, Antigones (Oxford, 1984)
M.W. Blundell, Helping Friends and Harming Enemies (Cambridge 1989)
C. Sourvinou-Inwood “Assumptions and the creation of Meaning: reading Sophocles’ Antigone”
JHS 109 (1989) 134-48
*S. Halliwell, ‘Human Limits and the Religion of Greek Tragedy’, Literature and Theology 4
(1990) 169–180
*J. Griffin (ed.), Sophocles Revisited (Oxford 1999)
M. Neuburg, ‘How like a woman: Antigone’s “inconsistency”’ CQ 40 (1990) 54-76
*R. Parker, ‘Through a glass darkly: Sophocles and the divine’, in J. Griffin (ed.) Sophocles
Revisited (Oxford 2000) 11-30
M. Griffith, Sophocles’ Antigone (Cambridge 1999), [Greek edition of the play, but the English
Introduction is useful, pp. 1–66]
F. Budelmann, The Language of Sophocles. Communality, communication and involvement
(Cambridge 2000)
J. Wilkins & M. Macleod, Sophocles’ Antigone and Oedipus the King: A Companion to the
Penguin Translation, new edn. (Bristol 2000)
C. P. Segal, Oedipus Tyrannus: Tragic Heroism and the Limits of Knowledge, 2nd edn. (Oxford
2001)
R. Buxton, 'Tragedy and Greek Myth', in: in: R. Woodard (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Greek
Mythology (Cambridge 2008) 166–189 [on order from EUL]
4. Euripides
4.1. General
W. G. Arnott, “Euripides and the Unexpected”, Greece & Rome 20 (1973) 49–64
S. Barlow, The Imagery of Euripides (London 1971)
E.M. Blaiklock, The Male Characters of Euripides: A Study in Realism (Wellington 1952)
P. Burian, (ed.) Directions in Euripidean criticism (Duke UP 1985)
C. Collard, Euripides, Greece & Rome New Surveys in the Classics 14 (Oxford 1981)
*D. Conacher, Euripidean drama (Toronto 1967)
D. Conacher, Euripides and the Sophists (London 1998)
M. Cropp, & K. Lee, (edd.) Euripides and Tragic Theatre in the Late Fifth Century (Champaign
2000)
F. Dunn, Tragedy's end: closure and innovation in Euripidean drama (Oxford 1996)
G.M.A. Grube, The Drama of Euripides (London 1941)
A. Henrichs, “Drama and Dromena: Bloodshed, Violence, and Sacrificial Metaphor in
Euripides”, HSCP 100 ( 2000) 173–188
I. de Jong, Narrative in Drama: the Art of the Euripidean Messenger Speech (Leiden 1991)
M. Lloyd, The Agon in Euripides (Oxford 1992)
*J. Mossman (ed.), Oxford Readings in Euripides (Oxford 2003)
E. Segal (ed.), Euripides, a collection of critical essays (Prentice Hall 1968)
4.2. Bacchae
Arthur, M. “The Choral Odes of the Bacchai of Euripides”, YCS 22 (1972) 145–79
Barrett, J. “Pentheus and the Spectator in Euripides’ Bacchae”, AJP 119 (1998) 337–60
Carpenter, T.H. & C. A. Faraone (edd.), Masks of Dionysus (Ithaca 1993)
Dodds, E. R. `Euripides the irrationalist', CR 43 (1929) 97–104
Foley, H. “The Masque of Dionysus” TAPhA 110 (1980) 107–133
Gregory J., “Some aspects of seeing in Euripides' Bacchae”, G&R 32 (1985), 23–31
14
Grube, G.M.A. ‘Dionysus in the Bacchae’, TAPA 66 (1935) 37–54
Kalke, C. “The Making of a Thyrsus: The Transformation of Pentheus in Euripides' Bacchae”
AJP 106 (1985) 409–426
Lefkowitz, M. “’Impiety’ and ‘atheism’ in Euripides' dramas”, Classical Quarterly 39 (1989)
70–82
Mastronarde, D.J. “The Optimistic Rationalist in Euripides: Theseus, Jocasta, Teiresias” in
Greek Tragedy and its Legacy: Essays presented to Desmond Conacher Calgary 1986, 201–
21
Mead, L.M., “Euripides and the Puritan Movement: A Study of the Bacchae”, Greece and Rome
10 (1940) 22–8
Musurillo, H. ‘Euripides and Dionysiac Piety’, TAPA 97 (1966) 299–309
Oranje, H. Euripides' Bacchae: the play and its audience (Leiden 1984)
R. Parker, ‘Gods cruel and kind: tragic and civic theology’, in C. Pelling (ed.), Greek Tragedy
and the Historian (Oxford 1997) 143–60
P. Roth, “Teiresias as Mantis and Intellectual in Euripides' Bacchae”, TAPhA 114 (1984) 59–
69
Scott, W.C. “Two Suns over Thebes: Imagery and Stage Effects in the Bacchae”, TAPhA 105
(1975) 333–346
Seaford R. “Dionysiac Drama & the Dionysiac Mysteries”, CQ 21 (1987) 252–75
Segal, C. Dionysiac poetics and Euripides' Bacchae (Princeton 1982)
Seidensticker, B. “Sacrificial Ritual in the Bacchae” in G.W.Bowersock et al. (edd.) Arktouros
(Berlin 1979) 181–90
Seidensticker, B. “Comic Elements in Euripides' Bacchae”, AJP 99 (1978) 303–320
Winnington-Ingram, R. P., Euripides and Dionysus, an Interpretation of the Bacchae
(Cambridge 1948)
4.3. Helen
Arnott, W. G. "Euripides' Newfangled 'Helen'", Antichthon 24 (1990) 1–18
Burnett, A. Catastrophe survived (Oxford 1971)
Foley, H., “Anodos Dramas: Euripides' Alcestis and Helen”, in her Female Acts in Greek
Tragedy (Princeton 2001)
Holmberg, I. E. "Euripides' Helen: Most Noble & Most Chaste", AJP 116.1 (1995) 19–42
Juffras, D. M. "Helen and other Victims in Euripides' Helen", Hermes 121.1 (1993) 45ff.
Papi, D. G. “Victors and Sufferers in Euripides' Helen”, AJP 108 (1987) 27–40
*Pippin, A. N. “Euripides' Helen: A Comedy of Ideas”, CP 55 (1960) 151–163
Podlecki. A. J. “The Basic Seriousness of Euripides' Helen”, TAPhA 101 (1970) 401–18
Segal, C. “The Two Worlds of Euripides' Helen”, TAPhA 102 (1971) 553–614
Willink, C.W. "The Reunion Duo in Euripides' Helen", CQ 39 (1989) 45–69
Willink, C.W. "The Parodos of Euripides' Helen (164–90)", CQ 40 (1990) 77–99
Willis, C. “Conceptions of Language and Reality in Euripides' Helen”, ERAS 5
http://arts.monash.edu.au/eras/edition_5/willisarticle.htm
Wolff, C., “On Euripides' Helen”, HSCP 77 (1973) 61–84
Wright, M. Euripides' Escape-Tragedies: A Study of Helen, Andromeda, and Iphigenia among
the Taurians (Oxford 2005)
5. Old Comedy: Aristophanes
5.1. General
A. M. Bowie, Aristophanes: Myth, Ritual and Comedy (Cambridge 1993)
C. Carey, ‘Comic Ridicule and Democracy’ in R. Osborne and S. Hornblower, (eds.) Ritual,
Finance and Politics: Athenian Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis (Oxford,
1994) 69-83
15
P. Cartledge, Aristophanes and his Theatre of the Absurd (Bristol, 1990)
K. J. Dover, Aristophanic Comedy (London 1976)
C. W. Dearden, The Stage of Aristophanes (London 1976)
E. Hall & A. Wrigley (edd.), Aristophanes in Performance, 421 BC to AD 2007: Peace, Birds,
and Frogs (Oxford 2007) [on order with EUL]
S. Halliwell, ‘The uses of laughter in Greek culture’, CQ 41 (1991) 279–296
E.W. Handley, ‘Comedy’, in Cambridge History of Classical Literature, vol 1. Greek Literature
(Cambridge 1985) 355–98
R.M. Harriot, Aristophanes Poet and Dramatist (London 1986)
D. Harvey, & J. Wilkins (edd.), The Rivals of Aristophanes (Swansea, 2000)
J. Henderson, “Comic Hero versus Political Elite”, in A.H. Sommerstein et al. (edd.) Tragedy,
Comedy and the Polis (Bari 1993) 307–319. [The volume is missing from the library: a
photocopy will be placed in the Classics Library, 5th
floor, DHT]
*D. M. MacDowell, Aristophanes and Athens (Oxford 1995) [This is perhaps the best single
introduction to each play, with bibliography to 1995]
D.S. Olson ‘Names and Naming in Aristophanic Comedy’ CQ 42 (1992) 304-19
M. Revermann, Comic Business. Theatricality, Dramatic Technique, and Performance Contexts
of Aristophanic Comedy (Oxford 2006)
R. M. Rosen, Old Comedy and the iambographic tradition (Atlanta, Ga. 1988) E. Segal (ed.), Oxford Readings in Aristophanes (Oxford 1996)
C. H. Whitman, Aristophanes and the Comic Hero (Cambridge, Mass. 1964)
5.2. The Poet and the Women
*C. Austin and S. D. Olson, Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusae (Oxford, 2004) [Greek edition
and learned commentary on play; good introduction and the commentary is worth consulting
on specific passages]
W.G. Arnott, ‘Euripides’ Newfangled Helen’, Antichthon 24 (1990) 1–18
H. Hansen, ‘Aristophanes’, Thesmophoriazusae: theme, structure, production”, Philologus 120
(1976), 165–85
E. Stehle, ‘The Body and its Representations in Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae: Where does
the Costume End?’ AJP 123 (2002) 369-406
L. K. Taaffe, Aristophanes and Women (London, 1993), esp. ch.3, pp.74–102 on this play
A. Tzanetou, ‘Something to Do with Demeter: Ritual and Performance in Aristophanes’ Women
at the Thesmophoria’ AJP 123 (2002) 329-67
F.I. Zeitlin, ‘Travesties of Gender and Genre in Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae’ in Playing
the Other: Gender and Society in Classical Greek Literature (London and Chicago, 1996)
375-416
5.3. Frogs
R. H. Allison, ‘Amphibian ambiguities: Aristophanes and his Frogs’, G&R 30 (1983) 8–20
W.G. Arnott, ‘A Lesson from the Frogs’ G&R 38 (1991) 18-22
E.K. Borthwick, ‘New Interpretations of Ar., Frogs 1249-1328” Phoenix 48 (1994) 21-41
K.J. Dover, Aristophanes, Frogs (Oxford, 1993) [Greek edition with commentary; useful intro.
and comment on specific passages)
D. Konstan, Greek Comedy and Ideology (Oxford, 1995), see ch. 4 [not in EUL; see NLS]
D. J. Littlefield (ed.), Twentieth Century Interpretations of the Frogs (Englewood Cliffs, N J
1968)
C.P. Segal, ‘The Character and cults of Dionysus and the unity of the Frogs’ Harvard Studies in
Classical Philology 65 (1961) 207-242
W.B. Stanford, Aristophanes, Frogs (2nd
ed. London, 1963) [Greek edition with commentary]
R.E. Wycherly, ‘Aristophanes and Euripides’, G&R 15 (1946) 98–107
16
6. Ancient Responses to Tragedy
6.1. General
*Classical Literary Criticism, ed. with intr. & notes by D. A. Russel & M. Winterbottom
(Oxford World's Classics, Oxford 1989) [collection of some principal texts in translation]
G. A. Kennedy (ed.), The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism (Cambridge 1989)
A. Laird (ed.), Oxford Readings in Ancient Literary Criticism (Oxford 2006) [a collection of
important articles with extensive bibliography]
*S. Halliwell, ‘Learning from Suffering: Ancient Responses to Tragedy’, J. Gregory (ed.), A
Companion to Greek Tragedy (Blackwell 2006) 394–412
6.2. Plato, Republic
S. Halliwell, ‘Plato’s Repudiation of the Tragic’, in: M. S. Silk (ed.), Tragedy and the Tragic.
Greek Theatre and Beyond (Oxford 1996; 21998) 332–349; repr. in his The Aesthetics of
Mimesis. Ancient Texts and Moderns Problems (Princeton 2002)
P. Murray (ed.), Plato on Poetry: Ion, Republic 376e–398b9, Republic 595–608b10 (Cambridge
1996) [Greek text with commentary, useful introduction]
6.3. Aristotle, Poetics
The Poetics of Aristotle, transl. and comm. by S. Halliwell (Chapel Hill 1987)
Aristotle Poetics, transl. by M. Heath (Penguin Classics 1996)
G. F. Else, Aristotle’s Poetics. The Argument (Leiden 1957)
*S. Halliwell, Aristotle’s Poetics (Chapel Hill 1986; Chicago 21998)
W. Stinton, ‘Hamartia in Aristotle and Greek Tragedy’, CQ (N.S.) 25 (1975) 221–54; repr. in
his Collected Papers on Greek Tragedy (Oxford 1990) 143–185
*D. Feeney, ‘Criticism ancient and modern’, in: D. Innes et al. (edd.), Ethics and Rhetoric
(Oxford 1995) 301–312
7. New Comedy in Greece and Rome
7.1. General
W.G. Arnott, Menander, Plautus, Terence [G&R New Surveys] (Oxford, 1975)
F.H. Sandbach, The Comic Theatre of Greece and Rome (London, 1977)
*R.L. Hunter, The New Comedy of Greece and Rome (Cambridge, 1985)
Brown, P. ‘On Menander, Plautus and Terence’ in J. Boardman and J. Griffin eds. Oxford
History of the Classical World (Oxford, 1986) 438-53
E. Segal (ed.), Oxford Readings in Menander, Plautus, and Terence (Oxford 2002)
7.2. Menander
E. Csapo, ‘From Aristophanes to Menander? Genre Transformation in Greek Comedy”, in: M.
Depew/D. Obbink (edd.), Matrices of Genre. Authors, Cannons, and Society. Center for
Hellenic Studies Colloquia 4�(Cambridge MA and London 2000) 115–133
D. Wiles, The Masks of Menander (Cambridge, 1991)
*N. Zagagi, The Comedy of Menander (Duckworth, 1994)
7.3. Plautus and Terence
G. Norwood, The Art of Terence (Toronto, 1923)
G.E. Duckworth, The Nature of Roman Comedy (Princeton, 1952; repr. Bristol, 1994)
W. Beare, The Roman Stage [3rd ed.] (London 1964)
17
*W.G. Arnott “Phormio Parasitus” Greece and Rome 17 (1970) 32-57
E. Fantham, “Hautontimorumenos and Adelphoe: A study of Fatherhood in Terence and
Menander” Latomus 30.3-4 (1971) 970-998
R.H. Martin, Terence, Adelphoe (Cambridge 1976) [Latin ed.; useful intro. and commentary]
A.S. Gratwick, in Cambridge History of Classical Literature II: Latin Literature, ed. E. J.
Kenney (Cambridge 1982) 93–127
*J.N. Grant “The ending of Terence’s Adelphoe and the Menandrian original” AJP (1975) 42-60
D. Konstan, Roman Comedy (Ithaca 1983)
N. Slater, Plautus in Performance (Princeton 1985)
S.M. Goldberg, Understanding Terence (Princeton 1986)
E. Segal, Roman Laughter: The Comedy of Plautus [2nd ed.] (Oxford, 1987)
W.S. Anderson, Barbarian Play: Plautus’ Roman Comedy (Toronto 1993)
T.J. Moore, The Theater of Plautus (Austin 1998)
A.S. Gratwick Terence, The Brothers (1st ed. 1987; 2
nd ed., Warminster, 1999)
N.J. Lowe, The Classical Plot and the Invention of Western Narrative (Cambridge 2000)
M. Leigh, Comedy and the Rise of Rome (Oxford 2004)
C.W. Marshall, The Stagecraft and Performance of Roman Comedy (Cambridge 2006)
8. Roman Tragedy: Seneca
8.1. Seneca
M.T. Griffin, Seneca, a Philosopher in Politics (Oxford 1976; repr. 2003)
K. Volk & G. D. Williams (edd.), Seeing Seneca Whole. Perspectives on Philosophy, Poetry
and Politics (Leiden: Brill, 2006)
8.3. Tragic Seneca
M. Billerbeck (ed.), Sénèque le tragique (Vandœuvres, Genève 2004)
A.J. Boyle, Tragic Seneca. An Essay in the Theatrical Tradition (London 1997)
A.J. Boyle, Roman Tragedy (London and New York 2006)
G. Braden, Renaissance Tragedy and the Senecan Tradition. Anger’s Privilege (New Haven
1985)
C.J. Herington, ‘Senecan Tragedy’ Arion 5 (1966) 422–71 (repr. in Essays on Classical
Literature, ed. N. Rudd, Heffer 1972)
G.O. Hutchinson, Latin Literature from Seneca to Juvenal (Oxford 1993)
N.T. Pratt, Seneca’s Drama (Chapel Hill 1983)
T.J. Rosenmeyer, Senecan Drama and Stoic Cosmology (Berkeley 1989)
R. Tarrant, ‘Senecan Drama and its Antecedents’, HSCP 82 (1978) 213–263
R. Tarrant, ‘Greek and Roman in Seneca’s Tragedies’, HSCP 97 (1995) 215–230
8.3. Thyestes
P. J. Davies, Seneca: Thyestes (Duckworth 2003)
H. Hine, ‘The structure of Seneca’s Thyestes’, Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar 3
(Liverpool 1981) 259–275
R. G. M. Nisbet, ‘The Dating of Seneca’s Tragedies, with Special Reference to Thyestes’,
Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 6 (1990) 95–114
J. P. Poe, ‘An Analysis of Seneca's Thyestes’, TAPA 100 (1969) 355–376
A. Schiesaro, ‘Seneca’s Thyestes and the morality of tragic furor’, in: J. Elsner & J. Masters
(edd.), Reflections of Nero. Culture, History and Representation (London 1994) 196–210
A. Schiesaro, The Passions in Play: Thyestes and the Dynamics of Senecan Drama (Cambridge
2003)
