Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T10:40:39.218Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Toward a reconstruction of Iphigenia Aulidensis*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2012

David Kovacs
Affiliation:
University of Virginia

Abstract

Iphigenia Aulidensis was produced after the poet's death, probably in 405 BC. The aim of this paper is to recover the text of this production, which I call FP for First Performance. Probably Euripides left behind an incomplete draft, which was finished by Euripides Minor, the poet's son or nephew. The text we have contains, as Page showed in 1934, material added for a fourth-century revival and other still later interpolations. Diggle's edition tries to separate original Euripides from all later hands on the basis of style. But if we want to recover the amalgam that was FP we need to be attentive to the plot that is implied by the most clearly genuine portions: we can't confine ourselves to what appears to be Euripidean since more than one hand contributed to FP.

A discovery about the plot gives us some objective basis for reconstructing FP. Our transmitted text contains two different conceptions of Calchas' prophecy, only one of which belonged to FP. Several passages scattered throughout the play imply that it was public, made to the entire army, but other passages say that it was private, restricted to Agamemnon's inner circle, with the army left in the dark. The secret prophecy motif, I argue, is the work of a fourth-century producer, whom I call the Reviser. Its purpose was to introduce into the play scenes where Greek soldiers, ignorant of the real reason for Iphigenia's coming to Aulis, might make naive comments or ask questions that are highly ironic in view of the actual situation, this being an emotional effect he found congenial. We find two such passages in places that are under grave suspicion: the entrance of Clytaemestra, where there is a chorus of Argives who felicitate Iphigenia on her wonderful prospects, and the first messenger, who reports naive questions from the soldiery. Both these passages have linguistic and dramaturgical features that make it virtually certain that neither Euripides nor Euripides Minor wrote them. Working from these we can detect the Reviser's hand at other places in the play and reconstruct its original lineaments. One satisfying result is that the business of baby Orestes, played by a doll, can be shown to be the work of the Reviser. The play ended with Iphigenia's departure for the altar, and there was no substitution of a stag. Like Menoeceus, Macaria and their kin, Iphigenia pays for the victory of her country with her blood, and there is no happy ending.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 2003

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.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Monographs and Articles

Bain, D. (1977) ‘The prologues of EuripidesIphigenia in Aulis', CQ 27, 1026Google Scholar
Battezzato, L. (2000) ‘The Thracian camp and the fourth actor at Rhesus 565-601’, CQ 50, 367–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawe, R.D. (2001) ‘On interpolations in the two Oedipus plays of Sophocles’, RhM 144, 121Google Scholar
Diggle, J. (1971) Review of Mellert-Hoffmann, G., Untersuchungen zur ‘Iphigenie in Aulis’ des Euripides, CR 21, 180Google Scholar
Diggle, J. (1994) Euripidea (Oxford)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erbse, H. (1984) Studien zum Prolog der euripideischen Tragödie (Berlin)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraenkel, E. (1955) ‘Ein Motiv aus Euripides in einer Szene der Neuen Komödie’, in Studi in onore di U.E. Paoli (Florence) 293304Google Scholar
Gernet, L. (1909) ‘ΑΥΘΕΝΤΗΣ’, REG 22, 1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halleran, M.R. (1985) Stagecraft in Euripides (London)Google Scholar
Harry, J.E. (1914) ‘The bright Aldebaran’, CR 28, 190–1Google Scholar
Housman, A.E. (1914) ‘ACTHP CEIPIOC in Eur. I.A. 6-7’, CR 28, 267 (= J. Diggle and F.R.D. Goodyear (eds), Classical Papers of A.E. Housman (Cambridge 1972) 2.886)Google Scholar
Hunter, R.L. (1983) Eubulus: The Fragments edited with Commentary (Cambridge)Google Scholar
Jackson, J. (1955) Marginalia Scaenica (Oxford)Google Scholar
Knox, B.M.W. (1972) ‘Euripides' Iphigenia in Aulide 1-163 (in that order)’, YCS 22, 239–61Google Scholar
Kovacs, D. (1990) ‘“De Cephisophonte verna, ut perhibent, Euripidis”’, ZPE 84, 1518Google Scholar
Kovacs, D. (2003) Euripidea Tertia (Leiden)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mastronarde, D.J. (1979) Contact and Discontinuity: Some Conventions of Speech and Action on the Greek Tragic Stage (Berkeley)Google Scholar
Mellert-Hoffmann, G. (1969) Untersuchungen zur ‘Iphigenie in Aulis' des Euripides (Heidelberg)Google Scholar
Michelakis, P. (2002) Achilles in Greek Tragedy (Cambridge)Google Scholar
Müller, C.W. (1996) ‘Die Thebanische Trilogie des Sophokles und ihre Aufführung im Jahre 401. Zur Frühgeschichte der antiken Sophoklesrezeption und der Überlieferung des Textes’, RhM 139, 193224Google Scholar
Page, D. (1934) Actors' Interpolations in Greek Tragedy (Oxford)Google Scholar
Ritchie, W. (1978) ‘Euripides, Iphigenia at Aulis 919-974’, in Dawe, R.D., Diggle, J. and Easterling, P.E. (eds), Dionysiaca: Nine Studies in Greek Poetry … presented to Sir Denys Page on his Seventieth Birthday (Cambridge) 179203Google Scholar
Taplin, O. (1977) The Stagecraft of Aeschylus (Oxford)Google Scholar
West, M.L. (1981) ‘Tragica V’, BICS 28, 6178Google Scholar
West, M.L. (1982) Greek Metre (Oxford)Google Scholar
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1919) ‘Lesefrüchte CLIV’, Hermes 54, 51–4 (= Kleine Schriften 4.289-92)Google Scholar
Willink, C. (1971) ‘The prologue of Iphigenia at Aulis’, CQ 21, 343–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucker, F. (1962) ‘ΑΥΘΕΝΤΗΣ und Ableitungen’, SB Leipzig 107.4Google Scholar