Reassessing the Nonconformist Charges against Euripides: A Study of Selected Plays of Euripides and Aristophanes’ Frogs
Loading...
Date
2016-06
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University Of Ghana
Abstract
Ancient Greek tragedy came to Euripides with its general conditions fixed in a manner which he could not attempt to alter. There is a governing diction, tone and propriety which define the genre and sustains its elevation; three actors in a play, a chorus, and subject-matter that must be taken from the heroic legends and myths. Wounds and death were not supposed to be presented on stage. These are some of the basic conventions of ancient Greek play. But it is widely held against the background of the criticisms of Euripides‘ drama that his plays generally represent a sharp departure from the existing traditions, customs, and theatrical conventions of the tragic genre. To Aristophanes in particular, and some modern scholars such as August W. Schlegel, Friedrich Schlegel, Ann Norris Michelini, Paul Decharme, Stahlin Schmid and Ebener Dietrich, Euripides is an immoral dramatist, a misogynist, an anti-traditionalist, impious, a lover of rhetoric, a sophist, a systematic thinker and a skeptical dramatist whose plays show nonconformist attitudes and views towards the traditional religion, morality and the mythological stories of the tragic genre.
However, some other commentators like Adele Robert, Donald Mastronarde, Helen Foley, Desmond Conacher, David Kovacs, and G. M. A. Grube are of the view that Euripides is an innovative, realistic, and creative dramatist, whose drama should not be misinterpreted from our modern perspectives. Thus, there appears to be lack of consensus among ancient and modern scholars about the interpretations of Euripides‘ plays. The problem I identify is that some of the arguments from both sides about the interpretations of Euripides‘ drama are either incorrect or misconstrued. Therefore, the questions that this dissertation attempts to address are: what are the aspects of Euripides‘ writings that give rise to the criticism that he is a nonconformist? What are the interpretations that are favored by scholars who charge Euripides with nonconformism? What are the interpretations of Euripides‘ plays that are preferred by scholars who argue that he is an innovative and creative dramatist? In what ways are the allegations against Euripides in Aristophanes‘ Frogs justified? Which interpretations of Euripides‘ works would be more representative of his perspective of Greek society?
My main focus of investigation in my attempt to address the questions noted above, will be on Aristophanes‘ Frogs in which the comic poet criticises and stigmatizes Euripides in various ways, and the Hippolytus and Hecuba of Euripides which commentators and critics consider as among the plays which are reflective of the attitudes and thoughts of Euripides. By and large, my fundamental objective here is to reassess the charges against Euripides; and by way of methodology, I hope to argue, where necessary, and critique and comment on not only the views of scholars about the works of Euripides but also the communicative intentions of the playwright with particular reference to his two plays in focus.
Description
Thesis (MPhil.)
Keywords
Euripides, Plays, Myths, Drama, Ghana