Poulheria Kyriakou – författare

The book studies the past of the characters in Aeschylus and Sophocles, a neglected but crucial topic. The characters’ beliefs, values, and emotions bear on their view of the past. This view reinforces their beliefs and their conception of themselves and others as agents of free will and members of a family and/or community. The study reveals that, although the characters’ idea of the past is fixed, the impact of the past is not. The characters consider, review, and construct narratives of it, as they seek to mould a future they perceive as morally just for themselves and others.

A major, defining polarity in Euripidean drama, wisdom and folly, has never so far been the subject of a book-length study. The volume aims at filling this gap. Virtually all Euripidean characters, from gods to slaves, are subject to some aspect of folly and claim at least some measure of wisdom. The playwright’s sophisticated handling of the tradition and the pervasive ambiguity in his work add extra layers of complexity. Wisdom and folly become inextricably intertwined, as gods pursue their agendas and mortal characters struggle to control their destiny, deal with their troubles, confront their past, and chart their future. Their amoral or immoral behavior and various limitations often affect also their families and communities. Leading international scholars discuss wisdom and folly from various thematic angles and theoretical perspectives. A final section deals with the polarity’s reception in vase-painting and literature. The result is a wealth of fresh insights into moral, social and historical issues. The volume is of interest to students and scholars of classical drama and its reception, of philosophy, and of rhetoric

A major, defining polarity in Euripidean drama, wisdom and folly, has never so far been the subject of a book-length study. The volume aims at filling this gap. Virtually all Euripidean characters, from gods to slaves, are subject to some aspect of folly and claim at least some measure of wisdom. The playwright’s sophisticated handling of the tradition and the pervasive ambiguity in his work add extra layers of complexity. Wisdom and folly become inextricably intertwined, as gods pursue their agendas and mortal characters struggle to control their destiny, deal with their troubles, confront their past, and chart their future. Their amoral or immoral behavior and various limitations often affect also their families and communities. Leading international scholars discuss wisdom and folly from various thematic angles and theoretical perspectives. A final section deals with the polarity’s reception in vase-painting and literature. The result is a wealth of fresh insights into moral, social and historical issues. The volume is of interest to students and scholars of classical drama and its reception, of philosophy, and of rhetoric

Hellenistic poets opted and were very likely expected to deal meaningfully, and perhaps competitively, with the tradition they inherited. They also needed to secure the goodwill of actual or potential patrons. Apollonius, the author of a novel heroic epic, eschews references to literary polemics and patronage. Callimachus often adopts a polemical stance against some colleagues in order to suggest his poetic excellence. Theocritus chooses a third way, which has not been investigated adequately. He avoids antagonism but ironizes the theme of poetic excellence and distances himself from the tradition of competitive success. He does not cast his narrators as superior to predecessors and contemporaries but stresses the advantages and merits of colleagues. This rejection of conceit is connected with a major strand in Theocritean poetry: the power of word, including song, to provide assistance to characters in distress is a major open issue. Language is versatile and potent but not all-powerful. Song gives pleasure but is not a panacea while instruction and advice are never helpful and may even prove harmful. Most genuine pieces are ambiguous and open-ended so that the aspirations of characters are not presented as doomed to failure.

Hellenistic poets opted and were very likely expected to deal meaningfully, and perhaps competitively, with the tradition they inherited. They also needed to secure the goodwill of actual or potential patrons. Apollonius, the author of a novel heroic epic, eschews references to literary polemics and patronage. Callimachus often adopts a polemical stance against some colleagues in order to suggest his poetic excellence. Theocritus chooses a third way, which has not been investigated adequately. He avoids antagonism but ironizes the theme of poetic excellence and distances himself from the tradition of competitive success. He does not cast his narrators as superior to predecessors and contemporaries but stresses the advantages and merits of colleagues. This rejection of conceit is connected with a major strand in Theocritean poetry: the power of word, including song, to provide assistance to characters in distress is a major open issue. Language is versatile and potent but not all-powerful. Song gives pleasure but is not a panacea while instruction and advice are never helpful and may even prove harmful. Most genuine pieces are ambiguous and open-ended so that the aspirations of characters are not presented as doomed to failure.

This work is the first major commentary on Euripides'' Iphigenia in Tauris to appear in English in more than 65 years. It offers detailed analysis of a fascinating play that scholars so far had considered mainly as a source of information about Athenian cult and viewed as a romantic adventure story with happy end. Apart from including sober assessments of textual, linguistic and metrical problems, the commentary sheds new light on the play’s treatment of myth, its intricate structure, presentation of character, and place in Euripides’ work. In particular it offers fresh insights into the play’s relationship to the literary tradition, especially its treatment of the crimes of the Pelopids, and its presentation of the complex, ambiguous relationship of humans and gods as well as that of Greeks and barbarians. Unlike most other tragedies, Iphigenia in Tauris does not feature any villain and avoids concentrating on past crimes and their corrosive influence on the characters’ present. The Taurians are not portrayed simply as savage and slow barbarians and Iphigenia, the most intelligent character, fails to transcend her limitations. Religion and cult in both myth and contemporary Athens are a mixture of traditional and invented elements and the play as a whole turns out to be an intriguing and unique experiment in Euripides’ career.