‘Undoubtedly Euripides wanted to be quoted’ (52). So runs the core thesis of this stimulating book, which seeks to explain the frequency with which Euripides was quoted by later authors and the abundance of gnomic maxims in his tragedies (29). For Wright, Euripides lived in a world where an ‘anthologizing mentality’ already dominated reading practices; Euripides was aware of this fact and purposefully made portions of his plays stand out as readily excerptible ‘quotations’ to ensure that they would be quoted by others. In so doing, he actively shaped his own reception and secured his position as a ‘canonical’ author (21).
Central to this argument is an appreciation of the inherent ‘doubleness’ of quotations (3): their ability to be read both in and out of context, either as part of a complete work or as an autonomous self-standing text detached from its original author and setting. Wright demonstrates this in Chapter 1 through a close reading of Stheneboea F661 and its afterlife. He tracks the increasing autonomy of Euripides’ line through fifth- and fourth-century comedy, Aristotle and Plutarch, while also introducing core principles of the book, including the distinction between linear/sequential reading and ‘eclectic’/non-linear reading practices, alongside G.S. Morson’s concept of ‘quotationality’ (the qualities that make an utterance sound like a quotation).
Chapter 2 offers a helpful catalogue of the formal features that Euripides used to make his verses particularly quotable. Their ‘quotationality’ derives not just from aspects of language, style and content, but also from their relative positioning and deployment within a play. Some of these features are rarely found in Aeschylus or Sophocles, but plentifully attested in Euripides, demonstrating the latter’s unparalleled attentiveness to his verses’ quotability (e.g. 36, 40). At times, Euripides even offers serial strings of maxims that can be excerpted as a block, ‘ready-made anthologies of quotations in miniature’ (50; e.g. Erechtheus F362).
Subsequent chapters explore further features of ‘quotation culture’ both in Euripides’ day and in his later reception. Chapter 3 interrogates the sources of Euripidean quotations, asking whether quoters had first-hand knowledge of the original play, or simply relied on intermediate sources such as anthologies and rhetorical handbooks. The question often proves unanswerable, but Wright explores both ‘minimalist’ and ‘maximalist’ approaches to the issue and ultimately leans towards a sobering minimalism: in most cases, there is little secure evidence of quoters knowing more of a text beyond the immediate quotation at hand. He suggests that our experience today of reading ‘mutilated, ruined, incomplete’ fragments in Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta might not be so different from that of most ancient readers: they, too, largely encountered these plays in isolated, quotable snapshots (72).
Chapters 4 to 7 reinforce this point by surveying the variety of ways and contexts in which Euripidean tragedy was quoted across the ages. Wright proceeds from the comic stage (Chapter 4), through the classroom (Chapter 5), symposium and law court (Chapter 6) to poetic biographies and ‘everyday life’ (Chapter 7), ranging in the process from the fifth century BCE (Aristophanes) to the second/third century CE (e.g. Clement of Alexandria). His brisk, wide-ranging case studies defy neat summation, but recurrent concerns include the prevalence of selective reading; Euripides’ acquisition of authoritative ‘classic’ status; the varying (in)visibility of Euripidean quotations in their new context (i.e. how explicitly they are signposted); the transformations and distortions of Euripides’ words (through interactive rewriting or creative reinterpretation); and the lingering uncertainties over ancient quoters’ direct knowledge of the original plays. Particularly notable are the number of ancient authors who emerge from Wright’s analysis as self-aware theorists of quotation, variously commenting on, parodying or critiquing citational practice (e.g. comic poets, Attic orators and the biographer Satyrus).
In sum, this book is a valuable contribution to an important topic. It touches on many central concerns of contemporary scholarship, including fragmentation, the ancient reception of classical texts and the literary (even bookish) awareness of pre-Hellenistic authors. It is structured by content more than argument, so key points sometimes emerge in a slightly piecemeal and recursive manner. A final conclusion to the whole book would have helped tie everything together. This would also have provided an opportunity to map out further avenues of research that Wright’s analysis gestures towards. For example, his claim for Euripidean distinctiveness invites additional comparative work on Sophocles and Aeschylus, especially if all tragedy can be conceived of as ‘a collage of quotations or a dialogue composed of multiple fragments’ (27). What ultimately sets Euripides apart? It would also be fruitful to compare Euripides’ purposeful pursuit of quotationality with that of other ancient authors from different genres (e.g. Hesiod in the Works and Days, mentioned in passing on 17). And there may be more scope, too, for unpacking the differences in how Euripidean quotations function in written vs oral form (the two are sometimes said to work in basically the same manner: 11, 31, 41). Yet all of this only shows how productive Wright’s work is, not just in its own right, but also as a springboard for further thought and enquiry. This book offers a veritable ‘treasure-trove of wisdom’ (51), akin to that found in Euripides’ plays themselves (κειμήλια, F362.4).
