No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 July 2022
The Peleus of Euripides’ Andromache makes claims puzzlingly incongruous with his decrepit physical state; he threatens physical violence against the much younger Menelaus and denies his advanced age outright in conversation with Andromache. Peleus’ motivations for acting in such a way, Menelaus’ cause for acting as if these claims are true, and the literary or dramatic significance of these affairs, all pose problems which this article addresses, while also offering a first step towards a comprehensive methodology for understanding old age in Euripidean drama. It presents a unified view of old men across several plays, highlighting key patterns of their interaction with old age, and applies this broad perspective to a close analysis of Peleus’ portrayal in the Andromache. It argues that old men in the plays of Euripides can be viewed generally on either side of a dichotomy between giving effective counsel or participating effectively in physical conflict. Peleus subverts this dichotomy by denying the fact of his age throughout, an action which allows him to employ the skill in speaking gained by his old age as a dramatic substitute for direct physical confrontation and to occupy the social role of a younger man in the Greek household.
Many thanks to Helene Foley, Elizabeth Latham and CQ's reader as well as to the Editor for their encouragement and scrutiny.
1 Works cited repeatedly: Falkner, T.M., The Poetics of Old Age in Greek Epic, Lyric, and Tragedy (Norman, OK, 1995)Google Scholar; Sansone, D., Greek Drama and the Invention of Rhetoric (Chichester and Malden, MA, 20121)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wilson, E.R., Mocked with Death: Tragic Overliving from Sophocles to Milton (Baltimore, 2004)Google Scholar.
2 Falkner (n. 1), 172.
3 Seidensticker, B., ‘Comic elements in Euripides’ Bacchae’, AJPh 99 (1978), 303–20Google Scholar, at 309–10.
4 Dillon, M., ‘Tragic laughter’, CW 84 (1991), 345–55Google Scholar.
5 Falkner (n. 1), 178.
6 Falkner (n. 1), 28.
7 K. de Temmerman and E. van Emde Boas, ‘Character and characterization in ancient Greek literature: an introduction’, in id. (edd.), Characterization in Ancient Greek Literature (Leiden and Boston, 2018), 1–23, at 22.
8 Mentor is a guise for Athena to instruct Telemachus, but Telemachus does not explicitly recognize Mentor as Athena herself, as he does when she appears to him as Mentes (Od. 1.324–5). Rather, he recognizes the wisdom of the goddess and the answer to his prayer in the words of Mentor (2.260–6, 2.296–7). This acceptance is not a foregone conclusion, moreover, as it is also possible for a mortal character (for example Pentheus) to reject the counsel of a god and suffer the consequences.
9 Karamanou, I., Euripides, Danae and Dictys: Introduction, Text and Commentary (Munich, 2006), 119–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 131–2.
10 Among the works not discussed in depth here, Tyndareus chastizes Menelaus and Orestes in the Orestes and defends the latter with words but does not participate in the revenge plot against Menelaus. In the Iphigenia in Aulis, the old man counsels Agamemnon in the prologue (which parts of it are genuine or spurious is beyond the scope of my argument) and is next seen failing to prevent Menelaus from snatching away Agamemnon's letter. Menelaus interrupts the old man's efficacy by forcing a counsellor to enter the realm of physical competition.
11 Smyth, H.W., Greek Grammar (Cambridge, MA, 1956), §2083aGoogle Scholar. Schwyzer, E., Griechische Grammatik: auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns Griechischer Grammatik (Munich, 1950), 7.bGoogle Scholar.α identifies περ with καίπερ as the concessive-adversative particle, however only noting that καίπερ and not περ by itself has retained this strict sense. A. Rijksbaron, The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An Introduction (Amsterdam, 19942), §38 notes, supporting Smyth's opinion, that περ can also appear with ὡς in comparative constructions. This is probably so because concession and condition can be semantically adjacent: LSJ lists περ as broadly meaning ‘however much’ when it appears in tragedy or epic with ὤν, and the proper sense of ‘however much’ swings toward either condition or concession depending on context. It sometimes carries a sense of conditionality in both drama and epic, such as in Soph. Phil. 1068 μὴ πρόσλευσσε, γενναῖός περ ὤν ‘do not look at him, however noble you are’ or Hom. Il. 16.638–9 οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἔτι φράδμων περ ἀνὴρ Σαρπηδόνα δῖον | ἔγνω ‘nor could a man still recognize godly Sarpedon, however discerning he was’, in other words ‘even if he were (very) discerning’.
12 Sansone (n. 1), 154.
13 Sansone (n. 1), 194.
14 Wilson (n. 1).
15 Wilson (n. 1), 8.
16 Foley, H.P., Female Acts in Greek Tragedy (Princeton, NJ, 2001), 99Google Scholar argues that Molossus could, in the mythic context of the play, be a legitimate successor to Neoptolemus.
17 See Lee, K.H., ‘Euripides’ Andromache: observations on form and meaning’, Antichthon 9 (1975), 4–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar; R.M. Muich, ‘Pouring out tears: Andromache in Homer and Euripides’ (Diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2010); Mossman, J.M., ‘Waiting for Neoptolemus: the unity of Euripides’ Andromache’, G&R 43 (1996), 143–56Google Scholar; I.C. Storey, ‘Andromache’, in L. McClure (ed.), A Companion to Euripides (Chichester, 2016), 122–35; Kitto, H.D.F., Greek Tragedy (London, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Papadimitropoulos, L., ‘Marriage and strife in Euripides’ Andromache’, GRBS 46 (2006), 147–58Google Scholar.
18 Phillippo, S., ‘Family ties: significant patronymics in Euripides’ Andromache’, CQ 45 (1995), 355–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 355–6.