Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-j4x9h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T02:18:21.732Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. The Extant Work

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2016

Get access

Extract

Euripides’ dramatic career lasted from 455 B.C. to his death, aged 70 or so, in 406. Early on, he gained official performances at the Great Dionysiac Festival about every five years, it seems; in mid-career, every two or three; at the end, almost every year–but he won first prize on only 4 out of 22 occasions, the first in 441, the last, posthumously, in 406 (for the known details, see the ‘Table’ below). Twenty-two performances give a total of 66 tragedies, and that many were indeed known in text or at least title (together with some spurious works) to the Alexandrian scholars who edited Euripides in the third century B.C. Antiquity itself, however, lacked sure information about the corresponding 22 satyric or pro-satyric dramas, let alone their texts; and we know only 8 or 9 titles.

From this oeuvre some 16 tragedies survive complete, but all from the second part of the career, the earliest Medea of 431; and we have Alcestis, substituted for the satyr-play in the production of 438 but largely tragic in manner; and the late, purely satyric Cyclops. In our dependence on later plays for assessing Euripides in the round, we seem to be as disadvantaged as for Aeschylus (7 tragedies out of some 70, and from the last third of his career) and for Sophocles (7 out of some 90, and from the latter two-thirds).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
New Surveys in the Classics , Volume 14: Euripides , 1981 , pp. 1 - 4
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

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

Notes

1. ‘Biography’: best review of evidence, modern literature: Lesky (1972), pp. 275-80; cf. Webster (1967), pp. 12-30, esp. 20 ff.

2. For E.’s contemporary reception see Wycherley, R.E., ‘Aristophanes and E.’, G & R 15 (1946), 98–107 Google Scholar; Stevens, P.T., ‘E. and the Athenians’, JHS 76 (1956), 87–94 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; V. Martin, in Entretiens, pp. 245-83; Rau, pp. 19-97 and bibl.; Ussher, R.G., Aristophanes (Oxford, 1979), pp. 17 Google Scholar f., 20 f.

3. Titles, productions, and dates - certain, likely, and suggested - are most helpfully presented by Webster (1967), pp. 1-9, 31-2,116-17,163-5,238, pages which rather conceal earlier scholars’ immense work, esp. Wilamowitz, U.von, Analecta Euripidea (Berlin, 1875), pp. 131-93Google Scholar; Zielinski, T., Tragodumenon (Cracow, 1925), pp. 134–240 Google Scholar (on his metrical criteria of date see Webster, T.B.L., WS 79 (1966), 112-20Google Scholar and Dale, ed. Helen, pp. xxiv-viii); Ceadel, E.B., CQ 35 (1941), 66–89 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Galiano, M. Fernandez, ‘Estado actual de los problemas de cronologia euripidea’, EClas 11 (1967), 321-54Google Scholar.

4. For E.’s satyr-plays see Conacher, pp. 317-26; Lesky (1972), pp. 499-504; Ussher ed. Cyclops, pp. 171-93, (bibl.) 221-7. I do not discuss Cyclops, dated to 412 B.C. by Ussher, pp. 193-204.

5. Larger pieces: Alexandras (415 B.C.), Antiope (c. 410), Erechtheus (422), Hypsipyle (c. 410), Phaethon (after 420) - but also Telephus (438).

6. All papyri: Pack, R., The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Greco-Roman Egypt (Ann Arbor, 1965 2)Google Scholar; Stoessl, F., RE Suppl.-Bd.XI (1968), 658-70Google Scholar; Donovan, B.E., Euripides-Papyri I: Texts from Oxyrhynchus (Toronto, 1969)Google Scholar; Webster, T.B.L., Greek Tragedy (Oxford, 1971), pp. 28–30 Google Scholar; cf. my Appendix (iii).

7. Evaluated by Webster (1967), pp. 9 ff. Papyri with alphabetized Euripidean ‘play-summaries’ are noteworthy, esp. POxy 2455 edited, with others found by 1967, by Austin, C., Nova Fragmenta Euripidea (Berlin, 1968), pp. 88–103 Google Scholar; cf. Zuntz (1963), pp. 129-46.

8. Séchan, L., Etudes sur la tragédie grecque dans ses rapports avec la céramique (Paris, 1926)Google Scholar; Webster (1967), pp. 10 f., (lost plays) 297-307 and Monuments illustrating Tragedy and Satyr-play, 2nd. ed., BICS Suppl. 20 (1967) (3rd. ed. promised by J. R. Green); Trendall, A.D., Webster, T.B.L., Illustrations of Greek Drama (London, 1971)Google Scholar.

9. ‘Nachleben’: for a basic bibliography see the Appendix (viii).

10. Similar but fuller ‘Tables’ in Webster (1967), pp. 3-5 and Stoessl (n. 6 above).

11. This section is necessarily merest outline. For the whole, complex picture, and a good review of work on its problems, see Lesky (1972), pp. 280-86 (his (1967) treatment, pp. 209-12 is outdated) and, since then, esp. Matthiessen, K., Studien zur Textüberlieferung der Hekabe des E. (Heidelberg, 1974)Google Scholar (bibl.). The best things in English are Barren, ed. Hippolytos, pp. 45-90 and Zuntz (1965), esp. pp. 249-88.

12. Suspect in antiquity itself, but still thought by some to be genuine and an early work, esp. Ritchie, W., The Authenticity of the Rhesus of E. (Cambridge, 1964)Google Scholar (bibl.). Most likely it is a C. 4 B.C. confection, passed off as E.’s play: Fraenkel, E., Gnomon 37 (1965), 228-41Google Scholar; Webster (1968), p. 122; Kitto, H.D.F., ‘The Rhesus and related matters’, YCS 25 (1977), 317-50Google Scholar.

13. Such papyri therefore have special interest and value: on e.g. the now famous POxy 2336 (Hel. 630-74) see esp. Zuntz (1965), pp. 217-48 and Young, D.C.C., GRBS 15 (1974), 39–56 Google Scholar, and for PHib 11.179 (HF 137-43, 146-60) see Kannicht, R., ZPE 21 (1976), 117-33Google Scholar.

14. Interpolation is worst in Pho. and IA. Page, D.L., Actors’ Interpolations in Greek Tragedy (Oxford, 1934)Google Scholar (esp. on IA) and Reeve, M.D., ‘Interpolation in Greek Tragedy’, I, GRBS 13 (1972), 247-65Google Scholar; II, 451-74; III, 14 (1973), 145-71 (bibl.) take suspicion often too far. For Pho. see esp. Fraenkel, E., Zu den Phoinissen des E. (München, 1963)Google Scholar; Reeve, II; Hasiam, M.W., GRBS 16 (1975), 149-74Google Scholar and CQ 26 (1976), 4-10; Mastronarde, D.J., Phoenix 32 (1978), 105-28CrossRefGoogle Scholar (important methodologically). For possible major loss in Hcld, see Lesky, A., YCS 25 (1977), 227-38Google Scholar (bibl.); for the disputed prologues in IA see (corrupted) Willink, C.W., CQ 21 (1971), 343-64CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Bain, D., CQ 27 (1977), 10–26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; (sound) Knox, B.M.W., YCS 22 (1972), 239-61Google Scholar.

15. The room still for conjecture is demonstrated by Jackson, J., Marginalia Scaenica (Oxford, 1955)Google Scholar; Diggle, J., PCPhS 15 (1969), 30–59 Google Scholar and many subsequent papers; Stinton, T.C.W., JHS 97 (1977), 137-54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16. OCT Vol. I, 1902, xi. For editions and commentaries see the Appendix (iii, v).