Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T23:45:24.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two Novelties in Euripides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2017

Richard E. Doyle
Richard E. Doyle*
Affiliation:
Fordham University
Get access

Extract

The two novelties to be discussed in this article are the Euripidean association of ἄτη and μοĩϱα at Medea 976–988 and at Electra 1301–1307. Briefly stated, these two novelties, or new concepts, are as follows: first, in Medea 976–988, for the first time in extant Greek literature, μοĩϱα is associated with ἄτη not in the latter's subjective meaning of ‘blindness,’ ‘infatuation,’ or ‘folly,’ but rather in its objective meaning of ‘ruin,’ ‘calamity,’ or ‘disaster’; secondly, an entirely new meaning for ἄτη is introduced at Electra 1301–1307, inasmuch as in this passage ἄτη means μοĩϱα, ‘fate’ or ‘destiny,’ again for the first time in extant Greek literature.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Traditio , Volume 32 , Issue S1: ΠAPAΔOΣIΣ: Studies in Memory of Edwin A. Quain , 1976, pp. 1 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 A shorter version of this article was read at the Sixth International Congress of Classical Studies in Madrid in September 1974.Google Scholar

2 Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 72 (1967) 108.Google Scholar

3 I cover this material in my forthcoming book, Ατη its Use and Meaning: A Study of the Greek Poetic Tradition from Homer to Euripides.Google Scholar

4 The text employed is Leaf, W., The Iliad (London 1886).Google Scholar

5 Dodds, E. R., The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley 1963), 6–8, and Bremer, J., Hamartia (Amsterdam 1969) 107–109.Google Scholar

6 These are Iliad 2.111; 6.356; 8.237; 9.18, 504, 505, 512; 19.136, and 270.Google Scholar

7 Thus, Aphrodite is mentioned in connection with ατη at Iliad 24.28 and Odyssey 4.261; Apollo appears at Iliad 16.805, and θεὸς at Odyssey 23.223.Google Scholar

8 Dawe (note 2, supra) 109.Google Scholar

9 In this regard, see the excellent remarks of Barrett, W. S., Euripides Hippolytus (Oxford 1964), commenting on line 241.Google Scholar

10 The pertinent passages are: φϱήν, Iliad 6.356, 16.805, 19.126, 129, 136; θυμὸς, Iliad 19.270, Odyssey 21.302, 23.223; νοὸς, Iliad 9.115 and 10.391.Google Scholar

11 The text is that of E. Diehl, Anthologia Lyrica Graeca 3 (Leipzig 1950) 1.2.Google Scholar

12 The text is that of E. Diehl, Anthologia Lyrica Graeca 3 (Leipzig 1949) 1.1.Google Scholar

13 The text is the Oxford Classical Text edited by A. C. Dawson.Google Scholar

14 Thus Brunck, Hermann, Campbell, Jebb, Dain, and Mazon in their editions ad loc. Also Webster, T. B. L., An Introduction to Sophocles (London 1936) 131, and Bremer, , Hamartia 151–152.Google Scholar

15 Kamerbeek, J. C., ‘Sophoclea, IV,’ Mnemosyne 10 (1957) 123.Google Scholar

16 Ibid. Italics added.Google Scholar

17 The text is the Oxford Classical Text edited by Gilbert Murray.Google Scholar

18 This point is worth bearing in mind apropos of the Conacher–Kitto debate over Medea as a ‘more individually tragic heroine’ (Conacher) or as a ‘tragic victim’ (Kitto). For appropriate arguments and references, see Conacher, D. J., Euripidean Drama (Toronto 1967) 183–184, 187, and 194–195. For a slightly different focus, cf. H. Rohdich, Die Euripideische Tragödie (Heidelberg 1968) 44–55.Google Scholar

19 The text is the Oxford Classical Text edited by Gilbert Murray. The only significant textual question in this passage involves line 1301 where the following variants occur:Google Scholar

  1. —

    — μοΐϱά τ’ ἧγ’ ᾗ τὸ Murray and Denniston (ε'ίς τὸ Tucker)

  2. —

    — μοίϱας ήγείτο L P

  3. —

    — μοΐϱαν ήγεν τὸ Seidler and Nauck

For a detailed discussion of the text here, see Stoessl, F., ‘Die Elektra des Euripides,’ Rheinisches Museum 99 (1956) 83–85, and Denniston, J., Euripides Electra (Oxford 1939) ad loc.Google Scholar

20 This agrees with the interpretation given by R. P. Winnington-Ingram in his article ‘Euripides, Electra 1292–1307,’ Classical Review 51 (1937) 51–52, quoted approvingly by Denniston, op. cit. 209. The same viewpoint is reflected in Conacher's remarks, op. cit. 210: ‘At v. 1302, Apollo is again rebuked for his advice and at vv. 1301, 1305–7, it is further suggested that “fate” and the ancestral doom, i.e., from Tantalus, Pelops, and Atreus, share this responsibility with Apollo.’Google Scholar

21 Cf. Denniston, op. cit., ad. loc.Google Scholar