Eros, Euripides and a re-evaluation of Greek sexuality with particular reference to Alcestis, Andromache, Andromeda, Antigone and Helen

Accounts of love and marriage in Euripidean tragedy have formed a consensus that eros never has positive effects, but leads only to misfortune (Greek eros means sexual longing and thus differs from the English ‘love’, which connotes affection). This, for example, is the view of Thumiger (2013) in ‘Mad Eros and Eroticized Madness in Greek Tragedy’ or Sanders (2013) in ‘Sexual Jealousy and Eros in Euripides’ Medea’. These views go back to Seaford (‘The Tragic Wedding’, 1987) and give the impression that love is presented in the majority of Attic tragedies as a condition for trauma, an amplification of trauma or a trauma in itself. Therefore, the treatment of eros in tragedy has been one-sided and partial. This construction of Greek sexuality has begun to be challenged, albeit from the perspective of homoerotic relations (Davidson 2008), and the time is ripe for a re-evaluation of male-female eros in Greek tragedy, taking into account not only the totality of the evidence from tragedy, but also that of other genres (such as comedy) and other media (such as vase-painting). I argue for a more complex picture of eros in Greek tragedy, and in Euripides in particular, where it is possible to observe both positive and negative constructions. I focus on three complete and two fragmentary plays (Alcestis, Andromache and Helen; Antigone and Andromeda). These five tragedies present marital love in a much more positive light than other, more frequently discussed Euripidean plays, where erotic love has devastating effects on characters’ lives (e.g. Medea). After a chapter outlining the social and theoretical context of Euripidean tragedy, these plays form the backbone of four chapters (one for the fragmentary plays). In order to situate Euripides’ plays in their contexts and to present a fuller understanding of Greek tragedy as a genre, I pursue an on-going dialogue with other tragic poets, other genres and other types of evidence for Athenian attitudes; I discuss the representation of marital eros in comedy (e.g. Lysistrata) and vase-paintings associated with wedding ceremonies. The conclusion draws together the complex nature of Euripidean marriage and tragic marriage in general, and the implications for our understanding of later fifth-century Athenian culture. I apply a multi-layered method based on the findings of literary criticism and anthropology. I explore the ways in which Euripides treats the myths he has inherited from his tradition and why he chooses to depict eros both in a negative and positive way. In parallel, I delve into the anthropological aspects of eros and its relation to Euripidean marriage, as they reflect Athenian society. Do the dramas in question reflect or contradict our picture of the Greeks’ approach towards marital love, as has been formed by Vernant, Sourvinou and Seaford’s studies on the Athenian law, myth and ritual? Through the interplay of these literary-critical and anthropological approaches, it will be possible to establish a much more sophisticated understanding of Euripides, Greek tragedy and the culture in which it was performed

A commentary on the fragments of fourth-century tragedy

Except for the pseudo-Euripidean Rhesus, fourth-century tragedy has almost entirely been lost to the ravages of time, known only through the quotation of a few isolated lines by later writers or preservation on some sand-worn scraps of papyrus. The poor survival of fourth-century tragedy has inevitably led to suggestions of low quality. Recent scholarship, however, has begun to revise these conclusions, recognising a remarkable inventiveness prevalent in the surviving fragments. This thesis aims to continue the rehabilitation of fourth-century tragedy and takes the form of a commentary on the fragments of Astydamas II, Carcinus II, Chaeremon, and Theodectas, the ‘leading lights’ of this period whose verses comprise over half of what remains. In the introduction, I focus on fourth-century tragedy in general and all its surviving fragments, even those not treated in the commentary. I begin by exploring the internationalisation of this genre and its spread to the Greek-speaking West and East. I then consider the prevalent themes and stylistic features of the fragments and examine fourth-century reaction to fourth-century tragedy, particularly in comedy, oratory, and philosophy. I also discuss fourth-century satyr drama and some of its best surviving examples, including Python’s Agen. In the commentary, I provide a biography for each poet and explore their reception and that of their work. I then discuss each of their plays in turn, reconstructing plots where possible and providing information about other treatments of a myth in fifth- and fourth-century drama. Finally, I analyse each fragment, focusing on any textual issues, their literary, stylistic, and dramaturgical qualities, and on their relationship within the dramatic tradition and Greco-Roman literature. Through analysing the fragments in the form of a commentary, I hope to show that far from representing a ‘terminal decline’ as Edna Hooker once lamented, they instead display many remarkable qualities which make them worthy of study in their own right