Under the umbrella of ‘metapoetry’ – encompassing ‘all instances of poetic self-reflexivity’ (p. 3) creating another level of meaning not necessitated by the fictional plot – T. explores how Euripides’ plays encourage spectators to reflect on drama as a poetic construct thematically connected with ‘social, theological, or political’ issues (p. 3). T.’s concept of metapoetry is firmly grounded in philology: there is much close and detailed textual analysis to support her arguments concerning Euripides’ reappropriation of rare words, expressions and imagery from Homer, Aeschylus and Sophocles. But as T. notes, lyric poetry is regrettably excluded (its absence is keenly felt in discussions of Euripidean song), and there is no direct engagement with theoretical matters (e.g. Kristeva's aim with ‘intertextuality’ as combining history and structuralism, p. 5). Although T.’s context is further restricted to matters of composition rather than performance, this is a nuanced and carefully crafted analysis of the relationship between Euripidean poetry and his literary sources.
The first chapter, ‘Euripides and the Oresteia’, draws upon T.’s essay in AJP (2011) and tackles Euripides’ engagement with Aeschylus in Electra, IT and Orestes. T. analyses metapoetic markers in Euripides and how they reveal the constraints of poetic composition, thus shifting the focus away from questions of parody. The tokens of identity in Electra are shown to be not naturalistic but necessary to the poetic construct. In IT references to the Areopagus trial are stripped of their Aeschylean aetiological significance and reframed with a ‘more probable’ aition of symbolic bloodletting in Euripides; T. sensibly views these Euripidean aetiologies as alluding to cult practice but constructed with a ‘particular literary agenda in mind’ (p. 38). With Orestes T. sees a ‘series of reversed Oresteia plots’ (p. 46): Euripides both rivals his predecessor and signals the ‘inescapability from certain creative constraints’ (p. 47). Euripides’ abstraction of Aeschylus’ imagery (e.g. illusion vs physicality of the Furies) serves to destabilise the ‘concrete resolution’ found in the Oresteia, while drawing attention to the ‘new’ version through the language of vision and spectacle.
Chapter 2, ‘Intertexual Ekphrasis’, provides a thorough study of literary descriptions of works of art (e.g. temple architecture, ships, shields) that are designed to solicit audience engagement with issues of interpretation. T. notes that characters in Aeschylus tend to interpret ecphrastic images (there are none in extant Sophocles), but Euripides’ intertexual ecphraseis typically evoke past models without defining the meaning, thus encouraging audience interpretation. In both Ion and IT Euripides is concerned less with the ‘realism’ of temple architecture and more with the dynamic interplay of ecphrastic description and dramatic themes; in IT his reuse of ‘obscure’ Aeschylean language reveals a more ‘appropriate’ application while signalling the rewriting of the Oresteia. Achilles’ arms in the first stasimon of Electra and the catalogue of ships in IA reflect Euripides’ engagement with Homer and Aeschylus, while elaborating the themes of marriage and violence The bulk of the chapter examines Euripides’ response in Phoenician Women to Aeschylus’ Seven in terms of the effectiveness and appropriateness of warriors’ symbols. What is symbolic in Aeschylean ecphraseis comes to life in Euripides’ warriors; thus the description of Polyneices’ shield emblem in Aeschylus is recast in Antigone's description of Polyneices the warrior in Euripides; but Euripides also transfers the description of warriors’ shields in Aeschylus to the description of different warriors. At the same time, Aeschylean warriors are fodder for shield descriptions in Euripides. T.’s close textual analysis in this chapter is excellent, and the sample illustrations of individual warriors’ shields are helpful. In general, T. finds that Euripides’ ecphraseis are more preoccupied with ‘linguistic correctness and thematic appropriateness’ (p. 65; cf. 129) between formal and thematic levels of the text. But more attention to specific historical conditions for Homer, Aeschylus and Euripides would, I think, uncover the complexity and contestation of culture and politics lurking behind invocations of ‘appropriateness’.
The third chapter, ‘Writing and Self-Conscious Mythopoiêsis’, is a revised version of T.’s essay in CCJ (2010). For T., writing and the thematisation of text in Euripides form part of the larger metapoetic reflections on poetic composition and are connected with authorial control. T.’s consideration of the Palamedes plays by the three tragedians highlights how the invention of writing in Euripides is connected with plot development and narrative resolution: writing is ‘implicitly reflective of the art of tragic scriptwriting’ (p. 146). T. then turns to the extant Hippolytus and discusses the role of Phaedra's letter, here acting as a ‘new script’ (p. 148), in the crafting of the revised plot. In IT Iphigenia's inability to write (p. 154) is linked to ‘human inability to control mythos’ (p. 157) and thus plot construction. In IA the letter writing campaign of Agamemnon and his bid to create a new mythos (i.e. without the sacrifice of Iphigenia) highlight the difficulties of rewriting established mythology. The inscribed oath in Suppliants embodies both political (between Athena and Argos) and poetic (in terms of plot) resolution, while the inscription's accessibility evokes the ‘same kind of egalitarian accessibility claimed by Theseus for written laws [cf. Supp. 433–4]’ (p. 174). In contrast to T.’s earlier version in CCJ with its arguments for an elite, sophisticated audience on the basis of Euripides’ attention to writing, here T. draws upon recent work on literacy and audience composition to argue for a more diffuse social reception. But there none the less remains a residual adherence to an audience more sophisticated and elite than the evidence allows.
Chapter 4 examines the Trojan war plays. T. discusses how Euripides’ fragmentary Philoctetes develops Aeschlyean aspects, rendering them more plausible, while recycling epic motifs. With Andromache T. argues for a specific rivalry with Sophocles’ Hermione or Phthian Women and a replaying of the Iliadic Andromache: the probable Euripidean innovation with Hermione and Andromache living under one roof enables a critique of Sophocles and a continuation of epic models. In Trojan Women an emphasis on newness (kainos) refers not to the plot but the perspective of Trojan victims and encouraging ‘self-reflection in an Athenian audience’ (p. 236) in light of recent historical events (e.g. the sack of Melos). Similarly, the overt metapoetic markers in Euripides’ Cyclops render this play more of an interpretative game for spectators (presumed again to be Athenians), who are encouraged to experience the hermeneutic process as a collective and to reflect on risky naval expeditions (e.g. Sicily). What I most missed here was a consideration of the different social relations in archaic vs classical Greece (cf. p. 263) and their relation to poetic production.
The final chapter, ‘Tragedy, Comedy, and Euripides’, productively extends T.’s analysis to other poets and genres. Tragedians were familiar with metapoetic techniques (e.g. intertextuality, audience address, metatheatre) but, unlike Euripides, Sophocles (e.g. El.) appeals to the authority of Aeschylus. In general, Euripides treats Homer as an authority (except in Cyclops), while Aeschylus and Sophocles are subject to critical attention. The pervasiveness of metapoetry in Euripides is more akin to Old Comedy (hence the traditional notion of Euripides’ ‘comic’ tone), but as in other tragic poets metapoetry is employed implicitly in Euripides. T. may over-emphasise the solemnity of tragedy (cf. Euripides’ ‘kings in rags’) and runs the risk of eliminating humour in tragedy (cf. p. 284 on E. Tro. 1050), but the reassessment of metapoetry in Euripides and comedy is helpful.
So why so much metapoetry in Euripides? T. suggests the poet's ‘anxiety of posteriority’ (e.g. p. 297) and that metapoetry serves as a pleasurable hermeneutic challenge to audiences (p. 301). Competition at dramatic festivals (cf. pp. 61, 130) could also be integrated into T.’s analysis, thus opening up the discussion more to the sociology of performance (e.g. actors, audiences). The relevance of poetic traditions may be inescapable, but Helen does ‘reinvent traditional events’ (p. 164), and Agathon's Antheus with its invented characters and plot was apparently pleasurable (Arist. Po. 1451b21). Venturing off the reservation was, it seems, also an option in tragedy.
