Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-sp94z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-25T01:46:01.365Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Euripides' Telephus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Malcolm Heath
Malcolm Heath
Affiliation:
University of St Andrews
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Whom did Telephus defend in Telephus? We know that he defended himself; fr. 710 proves that. It is widely, and I believe rightly, held that he defended the Trojans also; but this has been denied by some scholars, most recently by David Sansone in an article on the date of Herodotus' publication. In the first part of this paper I shall comment on Sansone' arguments and offer a defence of the conventional view; I shall then make some rather speculative suggestions concerning the reconstruction of the play.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , December 1987 , pp. 272 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1987

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 Sansone, D., ‘The date of Herodotus' publication’, ICS 10 (1985), 1–9,Google Scholar a reply to Fornara, C. W., JHS 91 (1971), 25–34 (I should stress that I am not concerned here to adjudicate the question about Herodotus).CrossRefGoogle ScholarThe defence of Troy is rejected also by Rau, P., Paratragodia (Zetemata 45, Munich, 1967), 22–3.Google Scholar

2 Fornara (n. 1), 28; cf. Starkie on Ach. 524ff., Rostagni, , RFIC 5 (1927), 323–7.Google Scholar

3 That the source is not extant is no objection; the idea might have circulated orally.

4 It should be stressed, in view of Rau (n. 1), 22 n. 11, that this argument is designed not merely to maximise the resemblance between Aristophanes’ parody and the original, but to strengthen the motivation of the parody - to explain why it was that Aristophanes thought of parodying that play in that situation. Cf. Handley, E. W. and Rea, J., The Telephus of Euripides (BICS Supplement 5, London, 1956), 24: ‘The hypothetical tragedy has only to account for what Aristophanes does with it, not to be like him.’Google Scholar

5 Rau (n. 1), 23, followed (apparently) by Sansone (n. 1), 4. Strohm, H., Gnomon 32 (1960), 605, doubts the quarrel altogether; that seems excessively cautious.Google Scholar

6 Jouan, F., Euripide et les Legendes des Chants Cypriens (Paris, 1966), 232–3.Google Scholar

7 Jouan refers also to fr. 715, but that does not require Odysseus’ presence (Handley and Rea [n. 4], 34); one might even argue that alfivXos is a sufficiently uncomplimentary term to imply his absence.

8 Handley and Rea (n. 4), 34 (but the idea is entertained again on p. 36); Webster, T. B. L., The Tragedies of Euripides (London, 1967), 45–6, takes this view.Google Scholar

9 The problem of motivating Agamemnon' change of mind is noted by Rau (n. 1), 22. Of course, this problem would not arise if Agamemnon were worried only by the lack of a guide - a possibility which cannot be excluded; but it is reasonable to assume that the discouraging reverse in Mysia played a part. (I do not believe, as some critics have supposed, that the sacrifice of Iphigeneia was an issue in this play; there is no positive evidence, and it seems too grave a matter to be treated incidentally.) The arrangement of the scene adopted by Handley and Rea (n. 4), 34, placing the anapaestic fragments of the quarrel after Telephus’ intervention, leaves Agamemnon' change of mind unexplained.

10 Handley and Rea (n. 4), 23–5.

11 In favour of the Messenger: Handley and Rea (n. 4), 36–7; Webster (n. 8), 46–7; Gould, J., JHS 93 (1973), 101–3 - who oddly takes no account of Aristophanes as evidence (I agree that the vases prove nothing).CrossRefGoogle ScholarContra Rau (n.l), 25, Jouan (n. 6), 236–7, Taplin, O., The Stagecraft of Aeschylus (Oxford, 1977), 35 n. 2.Google Scholar

12 Handley and Rea (n. 4), 30–1.

13 Jouan (n. 6), 229, Handley and Rea (n. 4), 31 (cautious); there is no reason to suppose that those scenes are parodies of Telephus-Clouds 133 ff. suggests, rather, a comic stereotype.

14 Jouan (n. 6), 229–30 supposes that he does.

15 A point made by Ditifeci, M. T., Prometheus 10 (1984), 211–13, who concludes that Clytaemnestra must make the suggestion at a later stage in the action.Google Scholar

16 It is widely held that Clytaemnestra is motivated by hostility to Agamemnon because of the (actual or contemplated) sacrifice of Iphigeneia: Rau (n. 1), 20 (giving fr. 727 to Clytaemnestra), Jouan (n. 6), 230 (who, however, gives fr. 727 to Telephus in the abduction scene, p. 239), Ditifeci (n. 15), 213; but I am doubtful about this - see n. 9 above. (If we could be sure of the construction of fr. 699, it might be decisive; but Naiick' repunctuation is very plausible.)

17 For the fragments and papyri see Austin, C., Nova Fragmenta Euripidea (Berlin, 1968), 66–82 (but Nauck-Snell is still necessary for the context in sources; for convenience I use Nauck numbers except where indicated);Google Scholar I do not believe that the Rylands papyrus (fr. 148 Austin) is from our play (see Jouan [n. 6], 240–1). I think that the fragments of the Latin tragedians (most conveniently available in Handley and Rea, whose numeration I follow) should be treated with greater reserve than is usual: where they reproduce what we know from other sources they contribute nothing; where they do not we can never be sure that Euripides is the source - we must reckon with contamination and adaptation (see Handley and Rea [n. 4], 25–7, Jouan [n. 6], 224).

18 This, or Argive elders, seems most likely; not, in view of Achilles' opening words in Episode IV, other Greek leaders (see Handley and Rea [n. 4], 32, Rau [n. lj, 21).

19 Handley and Rea (n. 4), 32, with an eye on Accius fr. II and inc. fr. XVIII.

20 In Acharnians Dicaeopolis' audience is divided in its response; but this is, I suspect, dictated by the plot of the comedy, which now leaves Telephus behind. In Thesmophoriazusae, which continues to exploit the tragedy, the relative' audience is uniformly hostile.

21 Interpretation of these fragments after Handley and Rea (n. 4), 35–6. Strohm (n. 5), 604 and Rau (n. 1), 24 doubt the search for a spy; the papyrus, with Aristophanes, seems to me sufficient evidence.

22 See Handley and Rea (n. 4), 37–8. Handley assumes that Odysseus must be present for this discussion; one might imagine Clytaemnestra being sent inside with instructions to summon Odysseus, Agamemnon feeling the need of his acumen. But I do not think this is necessary. Handley' inference is based on Hyginus’ evidence that Odysseus explained Telephus' oracle; but Hyginus places that in a dialogue with Achilles after agreement has been reached over the guidance to Troy - i.e., in the next episode. (It is not clear to me why Handley thinks that the solution of the oracle concerning Telephus’ leadership comes after the arrival of Achilles in Hyginus.)

23 See Handley and Rea (n. 4), 39.

24 Four is the norm in Sophocles and Euripides; see Griffith, M., The Authenticity of the Prometheus Bound (Cambridge, 1977), 127–8.Google Scholar

25 An argument, perhaps, in favour of their being soldiers rather than elders (see n. 18 above).