Review.Ambiguità e SD in Euripide

8/9/2019 Review.Ambiguità e SD in Euripide

1/3

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

Review: Apollo, Artemis and EuripidesAuthor(s): J. M. MossmanReview by: J. M. MossmanSource: The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 43, No. 1 (1993), pp. 16-17Published by: on behalf ofCambridge University Press The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/710621Accessed: 15-05-2015 17:30 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 130.133.8.114 on Fri, 15 May 2015 17:30:12 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/710621http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/710621http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/


2/3

16

THE

CLASSICAL

REVIEW

APOLLO,

ARTEMIS

AND

EURIPIDES

KARELISA

V.

HARTIGAN: Ambiguity and Self-Deception: the Apollo

and

Artemis

Plays

of

Euripides.

(Studien

zur

klassischen

Philologie,

50.)

Pp.

211;

1

frontispiece.

Frankfurt:

Peter

Lang,

1991.

Paper,

DM

22.

This

book

sets

out

to

study

the

themes

of

ambiguity

and

self-deception

in

the

plays

of

Euripides

in

which

the

action

is

motivated

by

Apollo

and

Artemis.

It

consists

of

a

series

of

readings

with

a

short

introduction

and

conclusion.

This

structure

hints

at

the

book s

main

defect:

the

readings

are

not

sufficiently

connected.

The

contention

that

Euripides

use

of

the

stories

of

Apollo

and

Artemis

is

distinctive,

and

his

emphasis

on

these

two Olympians is unique (Preface, p. 7) is never really

demonstrated,

and

the

inclusion

of

a

reading

of

Hippolytus

which

rightly

lays

stress

on

the

similarities

between

Artemis

and

Aphrodite

seems

to

conflict

with

it.

A

fuller

discussion

of

what

is

meant

by

ambiguity

in

this

context

would

also

have

been

helpful

n

coalescing

the

individual

chapters:

the

brief

remarks

in

the

introduction

and

onclusion

are

not

really

sufficient

to

help

the

reader

see

where

the

book

is

going.

Similarly,

all

forms

of

self-deception

seem

to

be

classed

as

just

that,

without

any

distinction

made

between

the

results

of

different

forms

of

self-delusion.

This

is

an

opportunity

missed

in

Hartigan s

discussion

of

Iphigeneia

t

Aulis,

where

Iphigeneia s

death

s

seen

as

attended,

even

motivated,

by

her

self-delusion

that

she

dies

for

the

glory f Greece (pp. 17, 157, 180). This is a possible view, and it is also possible that

Agamemnonhas

deceived

himself

into

thinking

that

she

must

die

(though

H.

is

too

dismissive

f

the

influence

of

the

army

at

p.

174

n.

43),

but

surely

there

is

an

important

moral

distinction

between

Agamemnon s

self-delusion

and

Iphigeneia s

in

this

case

and

H.

leaves

that

unexplored.

That

aid,

the

individual

readings

contain

many

useful

points,

some

connected

with

the

book s

main

theme

and

others

more

tangential

to

it.

H.

writes

especially

interestingly

n

Ion

perhaps

the

play

which

suits

her

angle

best),

Iphigeneia

n

Tauris

(though

the

section

on

the

chorus

in

this

chapter

is

not

well-integrated),

and

Orestes,

and

here

are

good

things

all

the

way

through

the

book.

I

do

have

a

number

of

misgivingsbout some of her interpretations, though. I think she is much tooharsh

on

pollo

for

giving

his

gift

to

Admetus

in

Alcestis

(this

is

an

attempt

to

link

this

play

more

losely

to

the

book s

central

theme

which

fails):

this

fairy-tale

detail

is

a

datum

of

he

play

and

we

are

not

encouraged

in

the

text

to

pass

judgement

on

Apollo

for

giving

he

gift,

though

we

are

invited

to

view

the

consequences

of

Admetus

acceptance

of

it.

But

H.

is

too

harsh

on

Admetus,

too,

and

undervalues

the

importance

f

his

hospitality:

her

remark

on

Admetus

invitation

to

Heracles

( Admetus

old

denial

of

Alcestis

identity

is

shocking ,

p.

27)

is

unreasonably

uncharitable,

nd

her

hostile

view

of

Admetus

runs

into

trouble

when

it

confronts the

play s

nding.

Theres a similardifficultyin her reading of

Hippolytus,

here she remarks(p. 37):

Aphrodite orks

through

Phaedra

to

destroy

Hippolytus,

Artemis

power

over

the

hero

rives

the

heroine

to

suicide.

The

first

part

of

this

is

obviously true,

but

the

second

s

a

distortion:

Artemis

is

not

trying

to

destroy

Phaedra.

Hippolytus

lashes

out

at

er

because

of

the

sort

of

person

he

is,

which

also

happens

to

make

him

a

devotee

of

rtemis,

but

that

is

a

very

different

process

from

Aphrodite s

deliberate

tinkering

with

Phaedra s

emotions

for

a

stated

end.

H.

also

overestimates

Artemis

contribution

?

Oxford

University

Press 1993


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/3

177

HE CLASSICAL REVIEWHE CLASSICAL REVIEW

to

the finalscene

p.

66n.

83):Hippolytus

doesnot

forgive

his father

only

in

response

to Artemis

command ,

he has

alreadyexpressedpity

for

him

at 1405.

Again,

these

are

attempts

o

integrate

he

chapter

more

closely

with the other

plays

whichare

not

favouredby the text.It was not thiskind of falseconnection hatwasneeded,but a

cleareroverall

strategy.

The book

is

quitewell-produced

though

hereare a few

misprints),

nd there s a

very

useful

bibliography

nd

index.

Although

t is not an

unqualified

uccess,

this

book has an

interesting

ontributiono make to

Euripidean

tudies.

Trinity

College,

Dublin

J. M. MO SS

MAN

PCG

II

R.

KASSEL,

C.

AUSTIN

(edd.):

Poetae

Comici Graeci

(PCG),

Vol. II:

Agathenor

-

Aristonymus.

Pp.

xxxiv

+

581. Berlin and New York:

de

Gruyter,

1991. DM 348.

Forty-two

more

poets,

and all of them

alphas.

(I

missed one

of the best of the

lot,

Anonymus,

but we are

promised

Adespota

before oo

long.)

The tattered emainsof

Middle

Comedy igure

arge

here

Anaxandrides,

ntiphanes

t Alexis

where

K.-A.

have had accessto the fruits of

Geoffrey

Arnott sextended

abours)

and

though

PCG s

actuallyonly

half

way through,

muchmore than

half the

body

of

fragments

has now beencovered.The fivevolumescurrently vailable forDM 1492)makeup,

of

course,

one of

the wondersof modern

publishing; hey

have

rightly

been

praised

lavishly

by many

reviewers,

ncludingmyself cf.

JHS

104

1984],

24-5,

CR38

[1988],

14-15),

and

everyone

will now know

what to

expect.They

will

not be

disappointed.

It will be

many years

before

we

can

say

whetherPCG has

actually

altered

our view

of Greek

comedy

in

significant

ways;

but it will be

verymany years

before this

particular

ob

will need

doing again.

In

reviewing

he first volumeto

appear

I

had

this to

say:

The

explanatory

otes

(

non iustus

commentariused adnotationes

xegeticae )

are

briefand

always

o the

point.

In

this

style

of edition there will

inevitably

be

many places

where ndividual

readerswill feel that brevityhas been carried oo far, but K.-A. are aimingat an

audiencewith a full

range

of

scholarly

tools within

easy

reach

and,

in

the vast

majority

of

cases,

they provide

all

the

assistance

which such an

audience

requires.

I thinkthat this has remained

argely

rue for the

subsequent

olumes,

but further

reflection oth aboutthevolumes hemselves

nd,

more

mportantly,

ow and

where

they

willbe used has

given

me some

pause

for

thought.

On the

problem

of what to

comment

on,

K.-A. s

judgement

s

normallygood, thoughpoliticalhistory,

which

s

mucheasier o handle n this

format,

does farbetter han social

history; ust

what are

all those

fragments

about fish-sellers bout?The

style

of their

commentary

does,

however,

deservea moment s

attention. n an

age

of

very

widespread

nterest

n

the

ancientworld,but of diminishingibrary esources,he commentatormustthinkvery

hardabout

bibliographical

eferences o that his or her notes do not become

more a

sourceof frustration han of

help.

We

should,

where

possible,

eek to makeour work

useful and

broadly

accessible,

ratherthan erect barriers.This is a difficult

rap

to

escape (expertus

dico),

and there is more than one

way

of

gettingcaught.

It is a

particular eril

n PCGwhere omuchof the

secondary

iteraturewhichmustbe

cited

consistsof now obscure

ollectionsof

emendations,

nd editorial omment s

already

to

the finalscene

p.

66n.

83):Hippolytus

doesnot

forgive

his father

only

in

response

to Artemis

command ,

he has

alreadyexpressedpity

for

him

at 1405.

Again,

these

are

attempts

o

integrate

he

chapter

more

closely

with the other

plays

whichare

not

favouredby the text.It was not thiskind of falseconnection hatwasneeded,but a

cleareroverall

strategy.

The book

is

quitewell-produced

though

hereare a few

misprints),

nd there s a

very

useful

bibliography

nd

index.

Although

t is not an

unqualified

uccess,

this

book has an

interesting

ontributiono make to

Euripidean

tudies.

Trinity

College,

Dublin

J. M. MO SS

MAN

PCG

II

R.

KASSEL,

C.

AUSTIN

(edd.):

Poetae

Comici Graeci

(PCG),

Vol. II:

Agathenor

-

Aristonymus.

Pp.

xxxiv

+

581. Berlin and New York:

de

Gruyter,

1991. DM 348.

Forty-two

more

poets,

and all of them

alphas.

(I

missed one

of the best of the

lot,

Anonymus,

but we are

promised

Adespota

before oo

long.)

The tattered emainsof

Middle

Comedy igure

arge

here

Anaxandrides,

ntiphanes

t Alexis

where

K.-A.

have had accessto the fruits of

Geoffrey

Arnott sextended

abours)

and

though

PCG s

actuallyonly

half

way through,

muchmore than

half the

body

of

fragments

has now beencovered.The fivevolumescurrently vailable forDM 1492)makeup,

of

course,

one of

the wondersof modern

publishing; hey

have

rightly

been

praised

lavishly

by many

reviewers,

ncludingmyself cf.

JHS

104

1984],

24-5,

CR38

[1988],

14-15),

and

everyone

will now know

what to

expect.They

will

not be

disappointed.

It will be

many years

before

we

can

say

whetherPCG has

actually

altered

our view

of Greek

comedy

in

significant

ways;

but it will be

verymany years

before this

particular

ob

will need

doing again.

In

reviewing

he first volumeto

appear

I

had

this to

say:

The

explanatory

otes

(

non iustus

commentariused adnotationes

xegeticae )

are

briefand

always

o the

point.

In

this

style

of edition there will

inevitably

be

many places

where ndividual

readerswill feel that brevityhas been carried oo far, but K.-A. are aimingat an

audiencewith a full

range

of

scholarly

tools within

easy

reach

and,

in

the vast

majority

of

cases,

they provide

all

the

assistance

which such an

audience

requires.

I thinkthat this has remained

argely

rue for the

subsequent

olumes,

but further

reflection oth aboutthevolumes hemselves

nd,

more

mportantly,

ow and

where

they

willbe used has

given

me some

pause

for

thought.

On the

problem

of what to

comment

on,

K.-A. s

judgement

s

normallygood, thoughpoliticalhistory,

which

s

mucheasier o handle n this

format,

does farbetter han social

history; ust

what are

all those

fragments

about fish-sellers bout?The

style

of their

commentary

does,

however,

deservea moment s

attention. n an

age

of

very

widespread

nterest

n

the

ancientworld,but of diminishingibrary esources,he commentatormustthinkvery

hardabout

bibliographical

eferences o that his or her notes do not become

more a

sourceof frustration han of

help.

We

should,

where

possible,

eek to makeour work

useful and

broadly

accessible,

ratherthan erect barriers.This is a difficult

rap

to

escape (expertus

dico),

and there is more than one

way

of

gettingcaught.

It is a

particular eril

n PCGwhere omuchof the

secondary

iteraturewhichmustbe

cited

consistsof now obscure

ollectionsof

emendations,

nd editorial omment s

already

?

Oxford

University

Press

1993

Oxford

University

Press

1993

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Review.Ambiguità e SD in Euripide

Documents

Transcript of Review.Ambiguità e SD in Euripide