THE ARTIST AS CRITIC? SOME NOTES ON THE PORTRAYAL OF ATHENIAN WARMAKING IN THE PLAYS OF EURIPIDES By Charles Pry Summary: Whether making assembly speeches preliminary to military campaigns, or persecuting draft-dodgers in the law courts, or delivering the annual funeral oration over the war dead, the public speakers of fifth and fourth-century classical Athens revealed a people proud of their military achievements both recent, and those which had taken place in the twilight of their distant (and sometimes mythical) past. The importance of tragedy as a possible counterweight to this militaristic thinking cannot be overemphasised. But tragedies were performed at a state festival, and were preceded by a number of ceremonies which left the audience in little doubt about the military strength and glory of Athens and her martial values. This paper will examine the extant tragedies of Euripides in their socio-political context and the ways in which war is portrayed within them. It will show that his portrayal of war is complex and resistant to definitive categorisation. While freely showing the negative effects of war Euripides is nevertheless careful to avoid criticism of Athenian war-making, and the portrayal of Athe s o te po a e e ies ate ed to audie e p ejudi es. Most of his pla s lea e the audience at once saddened by the devastation of war and yet supportive of Athenian military campaigns. This has important consequences for Athenian thinking on matters of war. EURIPIDES AN ANTI -WAR POET? Against the backdrop of the Peloponnesian War, which saw the two Mediterranean superpowers, Athens and Sparta, vie for dominance in a long and destructive war, Euripides produced all but one of his extant plays. During his career Athens dominated the eastern Mediterranean 2 charles pry militarily and was a constant source of death and destruction. 1 Amongst the Greeks it had countless subject allies, whom it kept in line by force, it constantly waged wars, and spent more money on its armed forces than on all of its other public activities. It is perhaps unsurprising then that a as a ajo the e of Eu ipides t agedies. Of his su i i g plays it was central to nine and underlay six others. 2 There is a well-documented history of Euripides on the European stage from the about the time of the Restoration onwards, but it is his war plays, and in particular Trojan Women, which have dominated theatre repertoires from the turn of the last century until the present da . E e si e Gil e t Mu a s t a slatio of Trojan Women, in which Murray saw parallels with the suffering of Boer women and children at B itish ha ds du i g the Boe Wa , Eu ipides pla s ha e een staged and adapted for stage during times of conflict. The increasing focus on civilians by both the perpetrators and documenters of war has strengthened the relevance of a play like Trojan Women. And since the ti e of Gil e t Mu a s t a slatio this play has been used to bring attention to the plight of victims of war in the First and Second World Wars, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and the second Gulf War in Iraq. 3 The s hola l assess e t of Eu ipides a pla s has follo ed a similar trajectory. Euripides is viewed as a tragedian with a distaste for war and an insight into Athenian shortcomings.4 Scholars believed that Euripides used his Trojan War plays as a lens through which to view contemporary military and political action. 5 The Peloponnesian War loomed large in the later-fifth-century Athens and it is thought to have had a deep impact on Euripides, whose supposed hostility to war is e apsulated i We ste s oft uoted o se atio : What is lea is that Euripides hated war and particularly agg essi e a . 6 1 2 3 4 Pritchard 2010: 3-7 Mills 2010: 163; Vellacott 1975: 153. For a detailed look at modern adaptations see Goff 2009: 78-135. Storey 2008: 90-1; Vellacott 1975: passim; Ehrenberg 1951: 312; Croally 1994: 25254. 5 Storey 2006: 171. 6 Webster 1967: 28-29. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 the artist as critic? 3 TRAGEDY AND THEORY Developments in theoretical approaches to Greek tragedy have tended to reinforce this assessment of Euripides. Of particular interest are the works of Jean-Pie e Ve a t a d othe s of the Pa is s hool . I thei view tragedies must be read in light of the socio-political context attending their creation and performance. The context was for Vernant the ho izo ithout hi h the ea i g ould ot e e ge .7 Vernant scours the wider cultural context to find the values of Athenian society which tragedy is supposed to problematise. It was a Greek society distant in time and old-fashioned in identity which was presented in the myths and legends which formed the stories of tragedy. To take but one example, these stories focussed on monarchical systems whereas the society which watched the tragedies was democratic. Vernant focuses on the tension between the values of the inherited culture (mythe) and those of the new democratic order (actualité). 8 According to Vernant the tragic texts do not reflect the new social reality but call it into question.9 The main proponent of this view in Anglophone scholarship is Simon Goldhill. For him the context of tragedy is also of great importance, but there are differences separating his view from that of Vernant. For Goldhill the most important object of study for the contextual analysis of tragedy is the Great Dionysia, the premier tragic festival at which the tragedies were staged, and at which the tragedians competed for prizes. He emphasises especially the role of the pre-play ceremonies (a number of civic ceremonies which preceded the dramatic contests at the festival) in instantiating a value system that was questioned by the tragedies.10 In later works of scholarship this has come to be called the i te ogati e i te p etatio of t aged . 11 Tragedy is seen as questioning the dominant values and norms held by Athe ia itize s. These alues a d o s a e ofte alled i i ideolog .12 7 Vernant 1988: 21. 8 Vernant 1972; Saïd 1998: 284. 9 Vernant & Vidal-Naquet 1983: 33. 10 Goldhill 1990: 114-15. 11 Balot 2014: 286. 12 Pritchard 2013: 9. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 4 charles pry Other scholars believe that Greek tragedy was limited to the endorsement of civic ideology and rarely if ever transgressed into interrogation. They hold that tragedy validates the social order and promotes the cohesion of the community. 13 In doing so tragedy supported the prevailing power structures. Griffith describes how Athe ia t aged eates eassu a e a out the e e ise of de o ati po e .14 It is th ough the ths a d lege ds of Athe s past, the sa e stories which feature in other civic discourses like the funeral orations, that tragedy advocates the values of the Athenian democracy. Where Ve a t a d those of the i te ogati e ie of t aged see a lash of values, other scholars see a reconciliation of traditional aristocratic values with the democratic order. 15 But tragedy achieves an endorsement of civic ideology by methods other than the purely propagandistic. Tragedy is polyphonous and there is no clear authorial voice to be found in the text. Instead a number of competing voices are presented each with their own agenda, their own way of seeing things. And in Euripidean tragedy in particular a voice is given to the politically voiceless such as slaves and women. Some scholars believe tragedy harmonises these conflicting voi es: Athe ia theat i al pe fo a es and dramatic texts were closely bound up in the mediation of conflicting so ial alues. 16 T aged ould pla a egulato ole a d help p e e t a da ge ous etu of the ep essed . 17 Some scholars believe that tragedy had a still more active role. They hold that tragedy participated in the creation of civic ideology. A component of civic ideology that has its provenance in tragedy is the antithesis between Greek and barbarian. Part of the self-definition of the Athenian citizen involved compariso ith the othe . The ost fa ous othe as the a a ia . The disti tio e e ged afte the Persian wars and was developed considerably in the fifth century. 18 The plu al te a a ia s as a des iptio of the othe is documented 13 Saïd 1998: 282; Segal 1986: 47; Longo 1990: 14, 19. 14 Griffith 1995: 65. 15 Gregory 1991: 8, 185. 16 Ober & Strauss 1992: 238. 17 Saïd 1998: 283. 18 Hall 1989: 5 and 9. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 the artist as critic? 5 firstly in the Persae of Aeschylus.19 From there the polarity is drawn in the works of historians and tragedians. Cultural differences between Greek and barbarian are emphasised and these include differences in behaviour, religion and language.20 But the major difference in this polarisation between Greek and barbarian was politics. 21 Tragedians, historians and orators all praised the democratic Athenian ideal as against the tyranny which was thought to have tarnished barbarian society.22 The barbarian represents a point of comparison which was used to reinforce the positive view Athenians had of themselves. Froma Zeitlin argues that the city of Thebes as it was represented in tragedy performed a similar role. The conduct of this city was all that the Athenians decried. In tragedy the two systems of government represented by these two cities, oligarchy at Thebes and democracy at Athens, are often contrasted and their respective merits debated. 23 No other genre regularly compared the two systems so explicitly and the efo e t aged p o ided the Athe ia de os ith the ost fulso e a d o ga ised a ou t of ho the pe ei ed thei de o a . 24 T aged thus pa ti ipated i the o st u tio of the othe i Athe ia civic ideology. The Euripidean portrayal of war has elements affirming all three of these approaches to tragedy. His plays interrogate and affirm, and produce and reproduce the civic ideology on war, while being careful to afford the city of Athens a privileged position when it comes to portrayals of war-making. His plays highlight the cost of warfare but do not abandon faith in the Athens reflected in civic ideology. Modern adaptatio s of Eu ipides pla s ha e te ded to o e e phasise his criticism of war, while scholars who believe that tragedy merely endorses civic ideology have overlooked those instances where Euripides does criticise some norms of civic ideology. 19 Hall 1989: 10. 20 Croally 1994: 103. 21 Hall 1989: 13. 22 Hall 1989: 13. 23 See Aesch. Pers. 213; Supp. 365-401, 595-99, 942-48; Ag. 1346-53; and Eur. Supp. 399-462. 24 Pritchard 2013: 14. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 6 charles pry This paper will attempt to give a balanced appraisal of the portrayal of war in Euripidean tragedy. Through contextual analysis of the City Dionysia and Attic culture in general it will show how the Athenians came together for a period of entertainment and self-examination at the tragic festival, but in an environment of various stimuli to war-making which placed restrictions on that self-examination. By comparing Eu ipides a pla s ith the i i ituals that p e eded the d a ati contests at the City Dionysia, and the funeral orations which both exhibit civic ideology at its most laudatory, this paper will show just how far that self-examination with respect to war went. Then it can be seen in which plays war was critically examined and in which it was celebrated. THE GREAT DIONYSIA Under the patronage of Dionysus the public came together to watch contests in tragedy, comedy, and dithyramb. The Great Dionysia was the most important of these occasions and took place in the month of Elaphebolion or late March, when calm sees facilitated international travel to the festival. Over time the festival grew in prestige and popularity to become a major Panhellenic festival that was second only to the Olympics in popularity.25 The origins of the festival and details on its connection with the god Dionysus are highly contested topics. That the god was worshipped in the form of a mask, and his association with illusion, change, and transgression nevertheless corroborate his theatrical connection. 26 The contingent of visitors from abroad who took advantage of the calm seas, and who were typically drawn from the subject cities, limited the dramatic topics somewhat.27 Patently seditious plays would have lowered the standing of Athens before the international gaze. As such, the public official who bore responsibility for choosing which poets were to compete in the Dionysia for that year and which plays were to be staged, the eponymous archon, would have 25 Csapo & Slater 1994: 287. 26 Cartledge 1997: 8. 27 Ar. Ach. 502-7; Isocrates 8.82. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 the artist as critic? 7 been unlikely to permit any plays critical of Athens. 28 Notwithstanding the international presence at the festival, the majority of the audience was constituted by Athenian citizens.29 As the frame of tragedy is determined by its audience, tragedy is primarily concerned with the male citizen.30 Moreover, the Great Dionysia was a contest, and as the poets desired to win they were compelled to confirm the outlook of their predominantly Athenian audience.31 Tragedy necessarily has this connection with civic ideology because it was deeply embedded into civic life. Tragedy was a cultural event and involved a large proportion of the citizenry in its performance. The majority of the audience were citizens, the actors needed to be citizens32, the choregoi (wealthy men upon whom the state imposed a burden to finance the staging of the plays) needed to be citizens (at least for the City Dionysia)33, and the judges of the competition were required to be citizens. 34 And although there was no legal requirement that the tragic poets had to be citizens, they nearly always were.35 The very people who were involved in the running of the polis feature prominently in the tragic festival as performers and as spectators. There was a degree of political oversight for the festival as well. The high magistrate or eponymous archon selected which poets were to be allowed to compete in the premier dramatic festival for that year. 36 In the theatre the proedria or front-row seating was afforded to officials, 28 Csapo & Slater 1994: 105. 29 Ar. Ach. 504-8. 30 Hall 1997: 95. 31 Pritchard 2013: 16. 32 Pickard-Cambridge 1968: 93-95. 33 [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 56.3. 34 Isoc. 17.33-34; Plut. Cim. 8.7-9. 35 I deduce the absence of a legal requirement for tragic poets to be citizens on account of there being a number of non-citizen poets who entered the competitions in tragedy. The website http://www.theoi .com/Text/ListTragedians.html contains a list of the tragedians known to have competed in the 5th, 4th, and 3rd centuries BC. The majority were from Athens but a small number were from elsewhere. 36 Csapo & Slater 1994: 105; Schol. Aesch. In Ctes. 67. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 8 charles pry benefactors, and foreign dignitaries.37 And sections of the theatre could be reserved for the men on military service.38 TRAGIC STORYTELLING While the closeness of the tragic festivals to the political culture ensured that tragedy engaged with civic values and beliefs, the polis does not appear on stage and the characters are rarely Athenian citizens. The language of tragedy is allusive and symbolic. The cultural inheritance of fifth-century Athens was the myths and legends of archaic Greece, and particularly the works of Home . Eu ipides a pla s featu e stories about events and characters from the Trojan War, the civil war in The es, a d the plight of He a les hild e ho fled pe se utio u de Eurystheus. There was also a tendency for the poets to appropriate myths which lacked an Athenian connection, and to alter them slightly so that they would involve Athens in a positive way. The tragedies do not document life in Athens, for example outspoken female characters did not flout male authority outside of Euripidean tragedy: but these plays do engage with Athenian civic ideology. The thoughts, values, and beliefs of the Athenian citizen are thus viewed through the lens of the mythological and heroic stories. The use of the myths for the stories of tragedy was a part of the genre, and lent an epic grandeur to the tragic storytelling. But there was another reason why tragedians elected to set their plays in the distant mythological past. Overt historical reference was unpopular with Athenian audiences. When the early playwright Phrynichus staged his Capture of Miletus which documented the disastrous Athenian involvement in the Ionian Revolt of the Persian Wars, and other home troubles, the audience reportedly burst into tears and gave their unequivocal condemnation by imposing a heavy fine on the tragedian and a ban on any future production of the play. 39 Problematic themes 37 Ar. Ran. 297; Av. 793-96; Pax 887-908; Eq. 573-77, 702-4. 38 Schol. Av. 794. 39 Hdt. 6.2.1. While the Persai of Aeschylus (staged ca. 472 BC) was a tragedy based on recent history and which met with success, it can be distinguished from Capture of classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 the artist as critic? 9 were rendered more palatable through the use of the stories from the distant past of mythical heroes, while the tolerance of anachronism gave a contemporary realism to the stories. TRAGEDIANS AS TEACHERS Co ple e ti g t aged s i te a tio ith i i ideolog is the elief, both ancient and modern, that poets educate their audience. 40 It is A istopha es Frogs which is largely responsible for what is termed the didactic function of tragedy. Most scholars whether they hold that tragedy adopts ideology in a questioning, or in a celebratory fashion, are of the view that tragedians educated their audience. 41 These adherents to the didactic function of tragedy are making a statement about authorial intention towards, and audience expectation of, tragedy. In A istopha es Frogs the character of Dionysus travels to the underworld to choose either Aeschylus or Euripides to return with him to the city above. In a famous passage the character Euripides asks Dionysus what use he i te ds fo the i i g poet a d Dio sus eplies: to sa e the it of ou se . 42 In the play the agon or contest between Euripides and Aeschylus is the primary evidence of tragic didacticism. Euripides claims to have taught people how to think, to use reason, and how to make distinctions.43 He boasts about teaching men to ask questions and to manage their households better. 44 This supports scholars who believe tragedy is interrogative. Miletus in its positive connection with Athens. Its geographical setting is also more distant than that of Capture of Miletus, the Persai being set in the Persian capital. Aes h lus t aged fo uses o the Pe sia defeat at the ha ds of the Athe ia s i the battle of Salamis. As a consequence it gratifies, and does not grate at, Athenian pride. 40 Blundell 1989: 1-25; Buxton 1982: 1; Euben 1986: 23; Havelock 1963: 47-49; Kolb 1979: 505-7; Lain Entralgo 1970: 206-15; Schlesinger 1963: 47; Walcot 1976; Woodbury 1986: 247-49. 41 Cf. Heath 1987. 42 Ar. Ran. 1300-11. 43 Ar. Ran. 971-75. 44 Ar. Ran. 976-79. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 10 charles pry The character of Aeschylus on the other hand is more patriotic. Like Eu ipides, he elie es that t agedia s tea h: Bo s ha e tea he s, ou g e ha e poets. 45 But for Aeschylus, the tragedian teaches respect for hierarchy and magistrates and inspires patriotism and martial courage.46 A istopha es Aes h lus appea s to suppo t the ie that tragedy glorifies Athens and its war-making. It is interesting that these two characters should represent the two main opposing scholarly approaches to tragedy. While Dionysus chooses Aeschylus to return with him to the mortal realm, we are not so constrained. Whether it is Aes h lus o Eu ipides tea hi g st le hi h is fa ou ed, the poi t is that tragedy could be didactic. It is potentially hazardous to rely on comedy for serious comment on tragedy, but as Croally points out, in order for the comedy to work, there must be a degree of cultural consensus. 47 Other ancient testimonia supplement the claims to tragic didacticism in the Frogs. Plato equates a lack of training in poetry with a lack of education, and the Homeric works were part of the curriculum in Athens.48 Ho e s hold o the Athe ia i agi atio as st o g a d they often turned to him for advice. In addition to these examples there is the ase of De osthe es ho fou d K eo s o ds i Antigone useful and noble.49 While in Against Leokrates Lycurgus praises Euripides for providing an example of heroic sacrifice and patriotism in his Erechtheus.50 This shows that the audience were expected to find models of normative behaviour in the characters of the tragedies. THE PRE-PLAY CEREMONIES The preliminary ceremonies to the tragic contest gave no hint of the t agi dida ti is o t aged s e plo atio of i i ideolog a ti ipated by the audience. These pre-play ceremonies at the City Dionysia were 45 Ar. Ran. 1054-5. 46 Ar. Ran. 1019-20; 1026-28; 1071-72. 47 Croally 1994: 21. 48 Pritchard 2013: 53-56. 49 Dem. 19.246-48. 50 Lyc. 1.100. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 the artist as critic? 11 very one-sided in their presentation of the city of Athens. The audience did not just watch contests between tragedians at the City Dionysia, an idealised Athens was also on show. The name of the festival betrayed its religious origins and in the processions which opened the festival it paid tribute to those origins. However, much of the religious aspect was eclipsed by the political aspect. Two days into the festival the dramatic contests got underway. But just before they did a number of ceremonies took place before the audience. These ceremonies are very important, because they celebrated the military strength and glory of Athens. Following a ritual purification of the theatre, 51 the city generals, who were ten in number, offered libations. 52 That it was not the priests but the most important elected officials participating in this way is a strong indication of the civic nature of the festival. After the libations, representatives from the subject cities of the Athenian empire brought in the tribute which was then displayed in the orchestra. 53 This display of loyalty testified to Athe s hege o i the Delia League hi h the time of the Peloponnesian War had become the Athenian Empire. Next came the proclamation of crowns to outstanding citizens or foreigners who had benefited Athens by their actions. 54 Demosthenes thought the reasons for the proclamations were to encourage the audience to do service to the city and to stress the gratitude of the giver not that of the receiver.55 When the proclamations were finished there was one final ceremony to get through before the contest began. In this ceremony the orphans of war dead upon becoming adults were paraded in front of the audience. They were each of them decked out in a gleaming new suit of armour and given seats of honour in the theatre. 56 Before the age of majority the orphans had been educated at the expense of the state. The etu of the de t as a ti ipated: The he ald p o lai ed hat the city had done for the boys and what as men they would do for the 51 Suda s.v καθάρσιον. 52 Plut. Vit. Cim. 8.7-9. 53 Isoc. 8.82. 54 Aeschin. 3.41-43. Some scholars believe this ritual may have only taken place in the fourth century, see Wilson 2009. 55 Dem. 18.120. 56 Aeschin. 3.154; Isoc. 8.82. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 12 charles pry it . 57 The orphans were not the only ones to be reminded of their civic duties. The ceremony was also a strong reminder to the audience of its obligation to fight for the city. These rituals combined to show the strength and nobility of Athens, to encourage patriotism, and to reveal the it s g a ious ess i o e di g her benefactors. This gave the City Dionysia a strong political and military flavour and helped to politicise the tragic discourse which followed. ORATION FOR THE WAR DEAD The civic ideology on display in these pre-contest ceremonies was in many ways a reiteration of the annual funeral oration. This was a very i po ta t e e t i the Athe ia s i i ale da a d as u ial i defining their civic identity. In Athens a high value was placed on service i the it s ilita a paig s. The it e ui ed all those citizens who could afford armour and weapons to serve as hoplites. 58 At times it even conscripted subhoplites for military service. The annual funeral oration glorified death in battle and emphasised the military history and achievements of the Athenia s. The itize s ho died i Athe s ilita campaigns were buried in a common tomb. An upright column or stele was implanted at the tomb on which was inscribed a laudatory epigram and the names of the war dead ordered by tribe. 59 Thucydides tells us that the remains of the dead were placed in a tent first, into which people came and made their offerings.60 Then the funeral procession began and the remains were placed in coffins, one for each tribe, and an empty bier was used for the soldiers and sailors whose bodies could not be found. Anyone could follow the coffins as they were conveyed to the public burial ground and the female relatives came to make their laments for the dead. After this the remains were interred. 61 After the procession there was the annual public ceremony on behalf of the dead. 57 Goldhill 1990: 106. 58 Christ 2008: 45. 59 Raaflaub 2001: 320. 60 Thuc. 2.32. 61 Thuc. 2.34 classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 the artist as critic? 13 He e a a hose the it fo his i telle tual gifts a d fo his ge e al eputatio ga e the fu e al o atio . 62 By means of the oration the city paid tribute to the men who died for its preservation and perpetuation; not just those whose bones had recently been laid to rest, but all who had died in battle previously. The oration was also a time to praise the virtues of the polis. Pericles, o e of the ost fa ous e to ha e deli e ed the o atio , said: I shall say nothing about the warlike deeds by which we acquired our power or the battles in which we or our fathers gallantly resisted our enemies, Greek or foreign. 63 I stead he fo ussed o the fa to s a d st u tu es that ade a tial a o plish e t a d i pe ial g eat ess possi le. 64 Pe i les att i utes Athe s p estigious positio i the o ld, a d he courage, to the fact that she has spent more time and labour in warfare than any other state.65 He also dis usses Athe s a al sup e a . 66 It was a source of pride that even if Athens should eventually give ground, it still ruled over more Greeks that did any other Greek state. 67 Croally states that the funeral oratio pla ed the i di idual u de the sig of olle ti e glo . 68 This subordination of the individual to the state we see in the funeral procession also. The remains are heaped together according to tribe and not buried individually thus effacing identity. Moreover the casualty lists bore no trace of the patronymic and demotic names which would have distinguished one citizen from another. 69 In projecting this image of the Athenians and their city the funeral orations drew on the same body of mythology as traged . L sias oration, composed sometime between 395 and 387 BC, and honouring those who were killed in assisting the Corinthians in the Corinthian War, recounts three mythical campaigns in detail. These are: where the Athenians defeat the Amazon invasion of Greece,70 where the 62 Thuc. 2.34 63 Thuc. 2.36.1-4. 64 Raaflaub 2001: 321. 65 Thuc. 2.61.1-4. 66 Thuc. 2.62.2-3. 67 Thuc. 2.64.3. 68 Croally 1994: 50. 69 Croally 1994: 49. 70 Lys. 2.4-2.6. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 14 charles pry Athe ia s e o e the odies of the Se e Agai st The es at the A gi es e uest71, and where the Athenians defend the children of Heracles (the Heracleidai), receiving them as suppliants when they fled Eu stheus, thei fathe s itter enemy.72 There is a consistent portrayal of Athe s i L sias fu e al o atio as a ou ageous it , defia t i the face of threats, and ready to give succour to the weak without any expectation of reciprocity. Lysias also mentions the historical campaigns against Persia, in particular Marathon and Salamis, these two being p i a il Athe ia e gage e ts. L sias fu e al o atio like othe s claimed that the Athenians fought alone against the Persians.73 This was a lot like the alterations made by the tragedians to myths in order to present Athens in a more favourable light. 74 At the end of his oration Lysias celebrates those who were being buried and who had died recently in battle for Athens. For Lysias, such men did not surrender their affairs to chance but hose the est of fates .75 Their bravery left behind an undying memory which counts them among the immortals. 76 The funeral orations elaborate on the Athenian character, and not just those who died in battle. The Athenians as a whole are described as noble men who surpassed all other Greeks in arêtê.77 The orations make favourable generalisations about decades of Athenian warmaking.78 The funeral oration praises the Athenians, their history, and their institutions. The speeches at the public funeral built up an idealised image of Athenians through the relation of the mythical and historical campaigns in which the Athenians had participated and in which they were unfailingly successful.79 War was an opportunity for the Athenians to prove themselves and they valued war above any other secular activity. The funeral orations reveal to scholars how the leading Athenian speakers thought they ought to see themselves and their city 71 Lys. 2.7-2.10. 72 Lys. 2.11-2.16. 73 Lys. 2.20; Dem. 60.10; Pl. Menex. 240c. 74 Yoshitake 2010: 362. 75 Lys. 2.77. 76 Lys. 2.81. 77 Dem. 60.6, 17-18, 21-23; Lys 2.27, 52, 70; Pl. Menex. 245e-246a. 78 Dem. 60.11 79 Loraux 1986: 134. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 the artist as critic? 15 with respect to war. In the orations for the war dead Athens is consistently victorious, participates in only just campaigns, protects the vulnerable, and upholds Hellenic and divine laws. PORTRAYAL OF WAR OUTSIDE OF THE FUN ERAL ORATION The enthusiastic attitude towards war was found in other public discourses as well. In the law courts there were prosecutions for draft evasion as litigants sought to rouse pubic ire by the attribution of ἀ ρά εια or draft-dodging.80 The draft-dodger was disparaged in o ed too, fo e a ple i A istopha es Wasps a juror without a stinger is one who has not been to war. 81 This deficieny of the male not yet tested in battle often manifests itself as a charge of effeminacy in public discussion. The comic poet Eupolis wrote a play called ἀ ρά ευ οι o the d aft-dodge s hi h la poo ed d aft-evaders as being women.82 War made a man a man and determined his social status. 83 The poor man proved his usefulness by his military service. An examination of the socio-political context to tragedy shows a strong adherence to militarism in Athenian society. While Pericles in Thucydides states that an unnecessary war is the greatest of follies, comments such as these are rare, however, and do not criticise war so much as ce tai t pes of a . As C o le states the e is a st o ge , more orthodox stream of thought in which war, despite its a k o ledged ost, as holehea tedl a d a l e a ed . 84 Unlike modern democracies there was no sustained critique of war. 85 And citizens in Athens were loath to heed any public speaker who criticised war,86 and did not like to acknowledge losses on the battlefield.87 80 Ibid. 81 Ar. Vesp. 1114-21. 82 Christ 2008: 48. 83 Crowley 2010: 88. 84 Crowley 2010: 89. 85 Hunt 2010: 268; Pritchard 2013: 189. 86 Aeschin. 2.74-75; Dem. 19.16. 87 Hunt 2010: 250; Pritchard 2010: 40-1, 43; Pritchard 2013: 189. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 16 charles pry War dominated public business in classical Athens. It was a compulsory item on the agenda of the main assembly meeting of each prytany.88 A detailed knowledge of the armed forces was sought by most politicians and military campaigns took place in two out of every three years and Athens never enjoyed more than ten years of peace. 89 In addition to time and effort a great deal of money was invested in conducting war. Between 500 and 2000 talents of both public and private money was spent every year during the Peloponnesian War. 90 Even in peace time more money was spent on the maintenance of the navy and cavalry than on the public festivals or the democracy in general.91 Eu ipides pla s, hi h at ti es e p ess the futitlit a d destructiveness of war for family and city, then, are an important counterweight to a culture that viewed war as a legitimate way to settle disputes. While Athenian warmaking may not be indicted, the critical e e ast o e a i ge e al akes Eu ipides pla s a i po ta t sou e when compared with other public discourses on war. WAR IN EURIPIDES’ TROJAN PLAYS The po t a al of a i so e of Eu ipides pla s represents a departure from the portrayal in the funeral orations and in the pre-play ceremonies. When the plays set in the aftermath of the Trojan War are o side ed, a auses ele tless suffe i g. Eu ipides Trojan Women highlights the cost of warfare for victor and vanquished alike, and calls into question the claim made in the funeral orations that war brings benefits. After war has razed the city of Troy the Greek fleet sits at port awaiting the favourable wind that will send the fleet home and the soldiers to their wives and children.92 But their return journey is to be plagued by disaster. Athena, a former supporter of the Greeks, is 88 [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 43.4; Ar. Ach. 19-37; Pritchard 2013: 190. 89 Pritchard 2013: 190. 90 Pritchard 2012: 39-45; Pritchard 2013: 190. 91 Pritchard 2012: 58; Pritchard 2013: 191. 92 Eur. Tro. 15-22. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 the artist as critic? 17 angered by their desecration of her temples, and the unpunished rape of Cassandra perpetrated by the Greek Ajax.93 It is these two acts of hubris more than any other which have aroused her spiteful passion. Athena agrees to collaborate with Poseidon, here a supporter of the Trojans, who will make turbulent the briny Aegean Sea and fill the beaches of Mykonos and the Delian reefs with the bodies of many dead.94 The Greeks of the play (in which was included a small contingent of Athenians) have not upheld panhellenic law like they do in the funeral orations. And if the fortunes of the Greek victors in the play can change so abruptly, this raises doubts about the value of victory. This represents another derogation from the overwhelmingly favourable presentation of war in the funeral orations. Throughout Trojan Women the consequences of war are seen from a female perspective. The audience is initiated into a new mode of seeing as the dominant male ideology is tested through the witnessing of conventional feminine experiences. The play focuses on Hecuba, her daughter, Cassandra, and daughter-in-law, Andromache. Hecuba is present throughout the play, from the opening prologue to the closing moments when the walls of Troy crash around her. She is grief-stricken and in the tattered rags of new-found slavery but for the most part she bears her suffering with grim determination. When her grandson Astyanax is murdered however, whatever scant hope had flickered in her heart is extinguished. In scene after scene the women of Troy suffer greatly as war inverts the natural order so that mothers and grandmothers bury sons and grandsons instead of the other way round. Ast a a , A d o a he s ou g so , is th o to his death f o the it walls, thus ending the Trojan dynasty. The lines spoken by Hecuba over the o s oke a d lifeless od a e so e of the ost o i g to e found in any play.95 And the comments by Andromache are full of maternal outrage. She admonishes the Greeks for their decision to kill Ast a a , a e e hild: O ou G eeks, dis o e e s of a a i uelt , 93 Eur. Tro. 69-71. 94 Eur. Tro. 89-91. 95 Eur. Tro. 1156-1206. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 18 charles pry h do ou kill this o ho is espo si le fo othi g? 96 War has brought out the worst in the warriors. The actions of the Greeks in the pla do ot e ide e thei a ete a d a ill i g the i to s o benefit. The hollowness of victory as a theme for the play is nowhere expressed more convincingly than in the first episode. This section of the pla o tai s Cassa d a s spee h. It follo s o f o a s e e he e Cassandra, dressed in a gown and brandishing a torch, performs a mock marriage ceremony in honour of her concubinage to Agamemnon.97 She ought to be betrothed to no other than Apollo, for whom she acts as prophetess, but the destruction of Troy has reduced her to slave status. According to the mythical tradition, she always spoke the truth but was never believed.98 The characters around might have ignored her ramblings but the audience, aware of her veracity, could not look away. Cassandra points out that the Trojan War was unjustifiable from the point of view of the Greeks because it was not a war in defence of their homeland. By explaining that the Greeks died away from their home and their loved ones and lay buried in a foreign land she reveals that the cost of victory was extremely high. She attributes blame for this war of agg essio o o e o a Hele a d o ks the G eeks fo fighti g o behalf of such a valueless woman.99 Cassa d a s spee h is hea ith i o a d alls i to uestio so e of the claims made about war in the funeral orations. She says that the Trojans achieved the greatest glory because they died on behalf of their country and in its defence. 100 She imports heroic terminology to praise he othe He to as the ost a e a fo his ha i g died i attle. And she boldly suggests that the Trojans should even be thankful for the coming of the Greeks otherwise they never would have had the chance to be tested in battle and thereby prove their greatness. 101 At face value Cassandra appears to support the ethos of the funeral orations 96 Eur. Tro. 764-65. All translations in this paper are taken from Kovacs 1995, 1998 and 1999. 97 Eur. Tro. 308-41. 98 Goff 2009: 50. 99 Eur. Tro. 365-85. 100 Eur. Troa. 387-88. 101 Eur. Tro. 396-99. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 the artist as critic? 19 which sees glory achieved through battle. But her impoverished claims fail to convince. The city of Troy has been destroyed, its inhabitants cut down or sold into slavery. Cassandra herself has been allocated like a piece of war booty to Agamemnon, and will be taken from her home to a strange land. The glory earned from death in battle can bring little comfort to a civilisation that is gone. Her ironic claims about glory in death wryly mock the favourable portrayal of war which obtains in the funeral orations. War only destroys, and death in its wake is just another sorrow heaped upon sorrow. The closeness of Trojan Women thematically and temporally to the siege of Melos where Athens conquered the neutral island polis and killed its male inhabitants while enslaving the women and children has not gone unnoticed.102 But the allegory has been notoriously difficult to defend. The time between the attack on Melos and the production of the play left little time for Euripides to have written, rehearsed, and staged a play by early 415 BC, when Trojan Women first appeared at the Great Dionysia.103 Moreover, it could just as easily have elicited memories of the Spartan march against Argos in 418-17 BC. Having failed to take Argos the Spartans took Hysiai instead, captured its male inhabitants and killed them.104 Trojan Women also won second prize at the festival which would have been an unlikely outcome for a play attacking Athenian military action. 105 Outside of tragedy there is further evidence of a lack of sympathy for the suffering of the islanders from Melos. Sometime after the siege of Melos the remaining residents were struck by famine a d this situatio is ade light of i A istopha es Birds.106 The success of such a joke depended on the events at Melos bearing little weight on the Athenian conscience. In another Trojan War play, Hecuba, a s o se ue es fo o e are similarly bleak. At its egi i g o e ts He u a s depth of g ief is at its limit but more is yet to come. She learns that her youngest daughter Polyxena will be sacrificed at the tomb of Achilles as an 102 103 104 105 106 Goff 2009: 27-35; Raaflaub 2001: 334-41; Vellacott 1975: 166-67. Van Erp Taalman Kip 1987: 415. Hall 2014. Aelian 2.8. Ar. Av. 185-86. This play was staged in 414 BC, two years after the Melian siege. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 20 charles pry offering to the departed hero. 107 When the time for this arrives, Polyxena is a model of female virtue and bravery and even manages to fall to the ground in a seemly fashion after her throat has been cut. 108 The corruption of war cannot touch her. Throughout the play most of the women hold their decorum in spite of Greek aggression which does credit to the departed Polyxena. The sacrifice of Polyxena, as wrenching as it is, is a preparation for the horrific story of the murder of her last surviving son, Polydorus. This is the second story in Hecuba and bears no connection to the other, save that they both concern Hecuba, and combine to enrich the theme of her sorrow.109 Pol do us as He u a s ou gest so ho had ee smuggled to Thrace, along with some gold, where he was to be raised by Pol esto the Th a ia ki g, P ia s guest f iend.110 After Troy fell, Pol esto killed his ou g ha ge a d stole Pol do us gold. Polymestor threw his body into the sea where he now lies, unwept and unburied, and carried to and fro by the waves.111 These events are related at the opening of the play by the ghost of Polydorus. Hecuba is consumed by sadness when she discovers that Polydorus is dead. 112 She then doggedly pursues her revenge, and her thoughts are turned to that purpose alone. Hecuba seeks help in order to fulfil her goal and goes as a supplicant to Agamemnon for this purpose. 113 Initially reluctant, Agamemnon later relents and agrees to provide her with assistance but only in an unofficial capacity.114 He allows her to send a maidservant to Polymestor seeking an audience with him and his sons. 115 When Polymestor arrives Hecuba questions him about the fate of her son and Polymestor denies that her son is dead.116 Satisfied that he has been lying she responds with some lies of her own and entices him into a tent 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 Eur. Hec. 98-152. Eur. Hec. 521-82, 432-37. Kovacs 1995: 393. Eur. Hec. 5-15. Eur. Hec. 24-31. Eur. Hec. 681-86. Eur. Hec. 749-53. Eur. Hec. 861-3. Eur. Hec. 888-94, 898. Eur. Hec. 986-89. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 the artist as critic? 21 with promises of the gold to be found therein. When the Thracian king and his sons enter the tent, Hecuba with the help of the other captive women kill his sons and gouge out his eyes. 117 This act of revenge and its aftermath show the full extent to which war corrupts. After Hecuba has dealt with Pol esto the latte s screams draw the attention of Agamemnon. He enters the tent and asks what all the commotion is about. 118 At this point something of a legal trial begins between Hecuba and Polymestor with Agamemnon as judge.119 Polymestor attempts to defend his action by cloaking an act which was done for greed with one that was done on behalf of his Greek allies. Nevertheless judgment is eventually entered for Hecuba: the impiety of killing a guest-friend cannot be countenanced.120 Unlike a normal Athenian trial the punishment has taken place before the verdict. War has perverted the natural course of justice. Following the trial Polymestor utters a number of prophecies as he is dragged offstage. One of these is that Hecuba will be transformed into a dog and leap to her death from the masthead of a ship, forever lending her name to a promontory in the Chersonese – C osse a o Hou d s G a e – a mark for sailors to steer by. 121 The corrupting influence of war is now fully realised. It has led to the sacrifice of Polyxena where normal religious practice never involved human sacrifice; through the ruination of Troy it has provided an opportunity for Polymestor to kill a guestfriend and to benefit financially from this impious act; and it has so ruined Hecuba that she single-mindedly pursues her revenge and having achieved it, will change into a dog and leap to her death, thus making manifest the destruction of her humanity. Although war is critically examined in these plays Athenian warmaking is not indicted. The G eeks of the plays are mostly Spartans and Argives, while Athenians by tradition had little glory from the Trojan War, and so are not implicated in the atrocities committed during it. Moreover, the barbarian Trojans are portrayed with Greek virtues such 117 118 119 120 121 Eur. Hec. 1035-37. Eur. Hec. 1127. Eur. Hec. 1129-31. Eur. Hec. 1240-51. Eur. Hec. 1261-73; Kovacs 1995: 364. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 22 charles pry that – as Edith Hall has stated – they imperceptibly become surrogate Athenians.122 And blame is attributed to the Spartan Helen. These plays ade it easie , ot ha de , to justif a agai st Athe s e e : Spa ta. Finally, in so far as Athens is mentioned directly, the chorus of captive Trojan women express a preference to be taken to Athens than a he e else, a d a e ada a t that the ot e o e ed to the hi l of the Eu otas, hated a ode of Hele i.e. ot to Spa ta. 123 The sympathetic portrayal of Trojans described by Edith Hall is to be found in the Andromache also, with a correspondingly negative po t a al of the G eeks. The G eeks i this pla a e Spa ta , a d the audience members who were presently at war with the Spartans would have sympathised ith the a a ia T oja s. The latte e o i g surrogate Athenians. The play is set in the aftermath of the Trojan War, in Thetideion, which is part of Thessaly where one of the characters, Neoptole us, li es. As ith a of Eu ipides t agedies the back story is explained at the beginning. Neoptolemus, son of Achilles, has returned home with Andromache who had been given to him by the Greeks as a prize of honour. 124 She has had a son by him called Molossus in the mythical tradition but who has no name in the play. 125 Neoptolemus also took a wife, the Spartan Hermione, daughter to Helen and Menelaus. In the play Hermione sends for her father and the two plot to murder Andromache and Molossus.126 They intend to use the absence of Neoptolemus, who has gone to Delphi to make amends to Apollo for a prior insult, to effect their plan. 127 The subplot involves Orestes and his lust for his cousin Hermione. He plans to ambush and murder Neoptolemus at Delphi and claim Hermione for himself. The actions of the Spartans, Hermione and Menelaus, engender only outrage and there are many passages which are patent denunciations of the Spartan character. Line 445 for example is virulently anti-Spartan. Here Andromache says: 122 123 124 125 126 127 Hall 1984: 214. Eur. Tro. 213-15; Hec. 444. Eur. Andr. 1-15. Kovacs 1995: 268. Eur. Andr. 32-42. Eur. Andr. 49-55. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 the artist as critic? 23 Dwellers in Sparta, most hateful of mortals in the eyes of all mankind, treacherous plotters, masters of the lie, weavers of deadly wiles whose thoughts are always devious, nothing that is sound, but all that is twisted, how unjust is the prosperity you enjoy in Greece. What crime is not to be found in your midst?128 Peleus, grandfather to Neoptolemus and disrupter of the plot to murder Andromache and her son, disparages Spartan females and impugns them for a lack of chastity. 129 He finds their behaviour in going about in the company of young men while scantily dressed particularly distasteful.130 As fo the Spa ta ale, Peleus states that: If ou Spartans were not renowned for war and battle, you may be sure that in other respects ou a e o o e s supe io . 131 The portrayal of Spartans i Eu ipides Andromache ade it easie to justif a agai st Athe s contemporary enemy: Sparta. The play would have confirmed the world view of many of the audience members. WHEN ATHENS GOES TO WA R – EURIPIDES’ SUPPLIANT PLAYS As we move on to other surviving plays of Euripides the portrayal of war shifts in a more positive direction. In the Suppliant Women Euripides encourages a deeper appreciation of the necessity of going to war and the Athenian values which constitute that necessity. In this play Ad astus, ki g of A gos, appeals i itiall to Aeth a, Theseus the ki g of Athens) mother. 132 The character of Aethra represents Athenian pity. Adrastus in his appeal is seeking Athenian aid to uphold panhellenic law a d usto i g a ti g u ial to the A gi e se e ho t ied to take the city of Thebes. Aethra convinces her son that there is no glory in caution and that it comes with action. 133 Theseus acquiesces and reminds the audience that action follows deliberation conducted in a free and frank 128 129 130 131 132 133 Eur. Andr. 445-50. Eur. Andr. 594-96. Eur. Andr. 597-600. Eur. Andr. 724-26. Eur. Supp. 42-46. Eur. Supp. 301-31. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 24 charles pry environment in Athens.134 The play dramatises the Athenian claim that theirs was a deliberative form of courage. The behaviour of Athens in this play is not the rashness and meddlesomeness described by her enemies but is instead careful and considered. War here is a necessary means to an end. Eu ipides a pla s ofte pa de to audie e tastes. I Suppliant Women the audie e s lo e of attle s e es is i dulged as the he ald gives an extensive and action-packed narration of the battle. Sophie Mills makes the point that this section of the play is far longer than need be to satisfy audience desire for spectacle, much like the modern appetite for action sequences in film. 135 In this action sequence the Athenians show commendable restraint. The battle turns in their favour but Theseus stops before entering the city and says that he has not come to sack the city but to ask for the dead. 136 Theseus is a wise and talented warrior but not a warmonger. He has the peculiar combination of talents ascribed to the Athenians by the epitaphios logos or funeral oration. As for the city, Athens suffers no casualties and Argos is in their debt.137 War has brought benefits to the Athens of the play just as it does for the Athens of the funeral orations. A othe of Eu ipides pla s – Children of Heracles – takes a similarly favourable view of Athenian military action and one that has affinities with the funeral orations. Here it is associated with the fundamental Greek value of protecting suppliants. It is a strongly patriotic play, naturally enough for one that was staged not long after the Spartan invasion of Attica at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War. 138 Like Suppliant Women he e Athe s o te po a e e The es eha es inappropriately, a similar role is performed by Argos. In Children of Heracles the king of Argos, Eurystheus, seeks to kill the children of Heracles who have fled to Marathon in Attica. They have taken refuge at the altar as suppliants along with Iolaus (Heracles ki s a a d Al e e He a les othe . All the othe ities the hild e had 134 135 136 137 138 Eur. Supp. 346-58. Mills 2010: 181. Eur. Supp. 724. Eur. Supp. 1169-75; Mills 2010: 175. Kovacs 1995: 6. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 the artist as critic? 25 t a elled to ha e su u ed to Eu stheus th eats, a d Athe s is seemingly their last hope for survival.139 This sto of Athe s defe e of He a les hild e as a f e ue t subject of the funeral oration. The play though details the troubled path to their survival which involves considerable sacrifice. In the play Demophon, son to Theseus, is initially content to assist the children as suppliants after the chorus of men of Marathon remind him that it is always the desire of this land to side with justice and to help the weak. But when he hears from an oracle that unless a high-born maiden is sacrificed the outcome of any war fought against Argos would be disastrous, he is unwilling to help. He will not sacrifice a daughter of Athens. It is too high a price. 140 Iolaus forgives hi his elu ta e a d help o es i the fo of o e of He a les daughte s, k o i the pla si pl as aide ut to t aditio as Macaria. In a noble gesture she consents to be sacrificed that her brothers and sisters might live. After this act of self-sacrifice, Iolaus prays to the gods who answer him by restoring his youth and strength, and in the ensuing battle Athens is victorious. In the wake of the battle Alcmene demands that the captured Eurystheus be executed but Demophon refuses. The Athenians do not execute prisoners of war. 141 This play favourably portrays Athens. While some of the thanks must go to the noble maiden Macaria for the success of the Athenian campaign against Argos, her role is very limited. The differences which sepa ate Eu ipides use of the sto of He a les hild e f o use ade in the funeral oration do not detract from an otherwise positive rendering of Athenian warmaking. Moreover the battle scenes, as narrated by a messenger like those in Suppliant Women, are extensive and favourable to the Athenian soldier. Whether fighting to protect the burial rites of fallen soldiers or to grant asylum to the defenceless Athens has the same measure of success she has in the campaigns detailed in the funeral orations. When Athenian orators wanted to glo if the it of Athe s the ould ofte tu to the sto of Athe s defence of the helpless children of Heracles. The story as it is told in Eu ipides pla pe fo s the sa e fu tio . 139 Eur. Heraclid. 31-37. 140 Eur. Heraclid. 400-24. 141 Eur. Heraclid. 967. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 26 charles pry CONCLUSION War was an important theme for Euripides. He wrote for an audience whose lives were dominated by war and whose concept of arêtê or ou age depe ded o a . S a t oppo tu ities e e p ese t fo iti al reflection on war in a society in which militarism was dominant and a of Athe s i i dis ou ses, like the fu e al o atio s ie ed a a d Athe s ole i it fa ou a l . T agedy on the other hand had a li ited f eedo to e a i e a a d Athe s elatio ship ith a critically. By setting their plays in the distant past tragedians could avoid upsetting the audience by dredging up recent controversies. This provided a safe environment for the poets to explore the negative effects of war. But war was not always portrayed negatively in tragedy. The canonical myths and stories which catalogue Athenian triumphs are used i the fu e al o atio s a d so e of Eu ipides t agedies. Whe e this is the case there are strong affinities between these two civic discourses concerning the portrayal of war. The overall picture is of a poet who both pans and praises war. While Euripides assails the audience with descriptions of the many horrors that war brings to a city and its people, he is not want to criticise Athenian war-making. In additio , the po t a al of Spa ta s, Athe s o te po a e e th oughout the o igi al stagi g of all of Eu ipides su i i g pla s, ade the war against them easier to justify. It is t ue that Eu ipides a pla s do speak to us. Modern stage and film adaptations are very good at highlighting the parallels with wars in our own time. His plays are great works of art and have a timeless appeal. But when examined in their socio-politi al o te t the gulf et ee the pla s o igi al audie e a d a ode audie e ould ot e ide , a d the pla s ea i gs to thei o igi al audie e e e diffe e t. E a i i g Eu ipides pla s side side with other civic discourses gets scholars as close as they can to the original meaning and the likely impact of these plays on the Athenian audience. BIBLIOGRAPHY classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 the artist as critic? 27 Balot, R.K. 2014. Courage in the Democratic Polis: Ideology and Critique in Classical Athens. New York. Barlow, S. 1986. Euripides’ Troja Wo e . Oxford. Blundell, M.W. 1989. Helping Friends and Harming Enemies: A Study in Sophocles and Greek Ethics, Cambridge. Burrian, P. 2011. Athe ia T aged as De o ati Dis ou se in D.M. Carter (ed.) Why Athens? New York, 95-118. Buxton, R. 1982. Persuasion in Greek Tragedy. Cambridge. Carter, D.M. 2007. The Politics of Greek Tragedy. Exeter. Cartledge. P. 1997. Deep Pla s: Theat e as P o ess i G eek Ci i Life in P.E. Easterling (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy. Cambridge, 3-35. Christ, M.R. 2006. The Bad Citizen in Classical Athens. Cambridge. Conacher, D.J. 1967. Euripidean Drama: Myth, Theme, and Structure. Toronto. Croally, N.T. 1994. Euripidean Polemic. Cambridge. Crowley, J. 2012. The Psychology of the Athenian Hoplite: The Culture of Combat in Classical Athens. Cambridge. Csapo, E. & W.J. Slater 1994. The Context of Ancient Drama. Michigan. Dover, K. 2001. Who is to la e? in D. Stuttard & T. Sasha (eds.) Essays on Trojan Women. London. Due, C. 2006. The Captive Wo a ’s La e t i Greek Tragedy. Austin. Ehrenberg, V. 1951. The People of Aristophanes (rev. edn.; first edn. pub. 1943). Oxford. Euben, J. (ed.) 1986. Greek Tragedy and Political Theory. Berkeley. Fisher, H.A.L. (ed.) 1936. Essays in Honour of Gilbert Murray. London. Ferguson, J. 1972. A Companion to Greek Tragedy. Austin. Foley, H.P. 1985. Ritual Irony: Poetry and Sacrifice in Euripides. Ithaca. Goff, B. 2009. Euripides: Trojan Women. London. Goldhill, S. 1986. Reading Greek Tragedy. Cambridge. Goldhill, S. 1990. The G eat Dio sia in J. Winkler & F. Zeitlin (eds.) Nothing to do with Dionysos? Princeton, 97-129. Gregory, J. 1991. Euripides and the Instruction of the Athenians. Ann Arbor. Griffith, M. 1995. B illia t Dynasts ClAnt 14, 62-129. Grube, G.M.A. 1973. The Drama of Euripides (first ed. 1941). London. Haigh, A. 1907. The Attic Theatre,. Oxford. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 28 charles pry Hall, E. 1989. Inventing the Barbarian. Oxford. Hall. E. 1997. The So iolog of Athe ia T aged i P.E. Easte li g (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy. Cambridge, 93-126. Havelock, E. 1963. Preface to Plato. Oxford. Hazel 2001. Wo e s voices, Women s ha ds in D. Stuttard & T. Sasha (eds.) Essays on Trojan Women. London. Heath, M. 1987. The Poetics of Greek Tragedy. London. Hunt, P. 2010a. Athe ia Milita is a d ‘e ou se to Wa i D.M. Pritchard (ed.) War, Democracy and Culture in Classical Athens. Cambridge, 163-83. Hunt, P. 2010b. War, Peace, and Allia ce i De osthe es’ Athe s. Cambridge. Kolb, F. 1979. Polis u d Theater i G. See k (ed.) Das griechische Drama. Darmstadt, 504-45. Kovacs, D. 1987. The Heroic Muse: Studies in the Hippolytus and Hecuba of Euripides. Baltimore. Kovacs, D. 1995. Euripides: Children of Heracles, Hippolytus, Andromache, and Hecuba. Cambridge, MA. Kovacs, D. 1998. Euripides: Suppliant Women, Electra, and Heracles. Cambridge, MA. Kovacs, D. 1999. Euripides: Trojan Women; Iphigenia Among the Taurians; Ion. London. Lain Entralgo, P. 1970. The Therapy of the World in Classical Antiquity, (trans. L. Rather and J. Sharp). Yale. Lee, K.H. 1976. Euripides: Troades. Basingstoke. Longo, O. 1990. The Theat e of the Polis , i J. Wi kle & F. Zeitlin (eds.) Nothing to do with Dionysos? Princeton, 12-19. Loraux, N. 1986. The Invention of Athens: The Funeral Oration in the Classical City (trans. A. Sheridan). Cambridge. Michelini, A.N. 1987. Euripides and the Tragic Tradition. Wisconsin. Mills, S. 1997. Theseus, Tragedy, and the Athenian Empire. Oxford. Mills, S. 2010. Eu ipides a d the Li its of T agi I st u tio in D.M. Pritchard (ed.) War, Democracy and Culture in Classical Athens. Cambridge, 163-83. Ober, J. & B. Strauss 1990. D a a, Politi al ‘heto i , a d the Discourse of Athe ia De o a in J. Winkler & F. Zeitlin (eds.) Nothing to do with Dionysos? New Jersey, 237-70. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 the artist as critic? 29 O Co o -Visser, E.A.M.E. 1987. Aspects of Human Sacrifice in the Tragedies of Euripides. Amsterdam. Poole, W. 1994. Eu ipides a d Spa ta in A. Powell & S. Hodkinson (eds.) The Shadow of Sparta. London, 1-33. Pickard-Cambridge, A. 1968. The Dramatic Festivals of Athens. Oxford. Pritchard, D. 2013. Sport, Democracy and War in Classical Athens. Cambridge. Pritchard, D.M. (ed.) 2010. War, Democracy and Culture in Classical Athens. Cambridge. Raaflaub, K.A. 2001. Fathe of All, Dest o e of All: Wa i Late FifthCentury Athe ia Dis ou se a d Ideolog in D.R. McCann & B.S. Strauss (eds.) War and Democracy: A Comparative Study of the Korean War and the Peloponnesian War. Armonk, NY, 307-56. Raeburn, D. 2001. Trojan Women: A A ie t Musi D a a? i D. Stuttard & T. Sasha (eds.) Essays on Trojan Women. London, 103-23. Redfield, J. 1990. D a a a d Co u it in J. Winkler & F. Zeitlin (eds.) Nothing to do with Dionysos? New Jersey, 97-129. Rehm, R. 1992. Greek Tragic Theatre., New York. Said, S. 1998. T aged a d Politi s in D. Boedeker & K.A Raaflaub (eds.) Democracy, Empire, and the Arts in Fifth-Century Athens. Cambridge, MA, 275-95. Schlesinger, A. 1963. The Boundaries of Dionysus. Cambridge, MA. Scodel, R. 1980. The Trojan Trilogy of Euripides. Göttingen. Segal, C. 1981. Tragedy and Civilisation: An Interpretation of Sophocles. Cambridge Segal, C. 1986. G eek T aged a d So iety: A St u tu alist Pe spe ti e in P.J. Euben (ed.) Greek Tragedy and Political Theory. Berkeley, 4375. Segal, E. 1968. Euripides: Collection of Critical Essays. New Jersey. Smith, J. & A. Toynbee (eds.) 1960. Gilbert Murray: An Unfinished Autobiography. London. Stanford, W.B. 1983. Greek Tragedy and the Emotions: An Introductory Study. London. Storey, I.C. 2006. Comedy, Euripides and the War(s) i J. Da idso , F. Muecke & P. Wilson (eds.) Greek Drama III: Essays in Honour of Kevin Lee. London, 171-86. Storey, I.C. 2008. Euripides: Suppliant Women., London. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017 30 charles pry Thomson, G. 1941. Aeschylus and Athens. London. Thorndike, Dame. S. 1936. Gilbert Murray and Some Actors i H.A.L. Fisher (ed.) Essays in Honour of Gilbert Murray. London, 69-77. Todd, S.C. 2007. A Commentary on Lysias, Speeches 1-11. Oxford. Tzanetou, A. 2011. Suppli atio and Empire in Athenian Tragedy i D.M. Carter (ed.) Why Athens? New York, 305-324. Van Erp Taalman Kip, A.M. 1987. Eu ipides a d Melos Mnemosyne 40, 414-19. Vellacott, P. 1975. Iro ic Dra a: A Study of Euripides’ Method a d Meaning. Cambridge. Vernant, J.P. 1972. Te sio s et a iguities dans la tragedie grecque i J.P. Vernant & P. Vidal-Naquet (eds.) Mythe et tragédie en Grèce ancienne. Paris, 18-40 (English = Vernant & Vidal-Naquet 1988: 2948). Vernant J.P & P. Vidal-Naquet 1988. Myth and Tragedy in Ancient Greece (trans. J. Lloyd). New York. Vinh, G. 2011. Athe s i Eu ipides Supplia ts: Ritual, Politics, and Theatre i D.M. Ca te (ed.) Why Athens? New York, 325-344. Walcot, P. 1976. Greek Drama in its Theatrical and Social Context. Cardiff. Webster, T.B.L. 1967. The Tragedies of Euripides. London. Woodbury, L. 1986. The Judg e t of Dio sus: Books, Taste, a d Teaching in the Frogs i M. C opp, E. Fantham & S. Scully (eds.) Greek Tragedy and its Legacy: Essays Presented to D.J. Conacher. Calgary, 241-57. Yoshitake, S. 2010. The Logi of P aise i the Athe ia Fu e al O atio in D.M. Pritchard (ed.) War, Democracy and Culture in Classical Athens, Cambridge, 359-77. Zeitlin, F.I. 1990. The es: Theat e of Self and Society in Athenian Drama in J. Winkler & F. Zeitlin (eds.) Nothing to do with Dionysos? Princeton, 130-67. classica et mediaevalia 66 · 2017