Thesis (M.A.)--Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2003. / Bibliography: leaves145-148.

The first section of this thesis was developed from two major papers I had written during my coursework for the degree. The first, entitled “Orientalism and Dionysos: a look at translations of Euripides’ Bakkhai,” was written for Edwin Genzler’s Translation and Postcolonial Theory class in the spring of 2002. The second, “Postcolonial Greek: Hellenism and Identity in the Early Roman Empire,” was written for Maria Tymozcko’s Translation Theory and Practice class in the spring of 2007. Together, they argue that Greek literature is postcolonial in that it was used by the Roman Empire to certain ends, which resulted in its interpretation being influenced and changed by means of that Roman power and legacy throughout Western Europe, and that Euripides’ Bakkhai in particular was misinterpreted for centuries as a result of that influence. The second section of my thesis is a translator’s note, which discusses the particular theory behind my translation strategy, as well as the choices I made concerning spelling, lines missing from the manuscript, et cetera. The third section of the thesis is the translation itself, on which I began in the fall of 2002 and finished this past summer. The final section of this thesis is a commentary on the play itself. I have focused on the concepts of sophrosune (safemindedness) and paideia (education) around which to weave my analysis. The central idea is that the play serves as a lesson to the audience that sophrosune is part of Dionysos’ sphere, and to deny the life-affirming nature of his ritual is to court danger—the danger of rigidity and oppression. The death of Pentheus, after he rejects this education despite Dionysos’ best efforts to dissuade him, is merely an object lesson, not the repudiation of Dionysos’ worship and the Greek gods as a whole that previous generations have held it to be.

Thesis advisor: Robert C. Bartlett / This dissertation seeks to understand Aristophanes’ critique of philosophic wisdom in three of his comedies: Clouds (423 BC), Women at the Thesmophoria (411 BC) and Frogs (405 BC). Written over the politically turbulent period of the Peloponnesian war (434-404 BC), these comedies navigate a generational conflict between conservative defenders of Athens’s customs, laws and gods and the younger generation influenced by the atheistic teachings of the sophists. This dissertation seeks to contribute to our understanding of Aristophanes’ critique by comparing his presentation of Socrates with that of Euripides, a tragedian who ingenuously fuses poetry with the new sophistic teaching. The first chapter considers Aristophanes’ representation of Socrates in Clouds as the sophist par excellence who replaces the gods of the city with natural causes, and respect for the city’s laws with rhetoric. Although the comedy looks like a conservative defense of traditional morality against the corrupting effects of philosophic novelty, the grounds of Aristophanes’ attack on Socrates are anything but clear. As Aristophanes’ depiction of the Clouds (strange airy deities worshipped by poets and sophists alike) shows, Socrates’ destruction at the end of the play occurs not because what Socrates teaches is false, but because his political isolation blinds him to the city’s demands and makes him vulnerable to persecution. Socrates’ failure in Clouds establishes the basis for considering Euripides’ (partially) successful confrontation with the city in Women at the Thesmophoria. The second chapter assesses the extent to which this hybrid of tragedian and sophist can be harmonized with the needs of the city without compromising his own integrity as a poet whose power lies in his psychologically accurate depictions of human nature. Aristophanes thus points to the superiority of Euripides the poet over Socrates the philosopher, at the same time as he exposes Euripides’ limitations. In Frogs, Aristophanes raises the stakes by pitting Euripides against another giant of tragedy, Aeschylus, in the Thunderdome of Hades with the god of the theatre, Dionysus, as judge. The comedy thus compares the two greatest poetic representatives of the generational conflict between conservative and sophist, old and new, common good and individual good, deciding at the last second in favor of Aeschylus. The chapter argues that Euripides fails because he cannot provide a sufficient political defense of his tragedy at the moment in which Athens faces imminent destruction at the hands of the Spartans. The conclusion reflects on Aristophanes’ implicit claim to teach justice and the good through comedy’s capacity to mediate between the demands of the city, on the one hand, and the insights on human nature afforded by philosophy, on the other. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2022. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Political Science.

The thesis argues for a reading of Euripides’ Andromache that focuses on the statuses of the characters – their roles within the oikos – and their instability. The scholarship on this play focuses on its differences from other surviving plays and, based on an ancient hypothesis calling it a “second-rate play,” it has acquired a negative reputation. The goal of the thesis is not to defend the work and salvage its reputation but to provide a reading which responds to some of the criticism and offers a new analysis. The chapters are divided according to the gender of the characters with the first one examining the male characters, Neoptolemus, Menelaus, Peleus, and Orestes and the next two focusing on Andromache, including her child, and Hermione separately. The exploration of these characters is connected to their own relationship to Neoptolemus’ oikos. It is the actions of men that define the statuses of the female characters in this play and Euripides depicts the men’s roles as less questionable. Because the statuses of Andromache and Hermione are the most unstable a full chapter is required for both. The analysis of the characters is based on their interactions with other characters within the play and at times includes an exploration of how the characters relate to the works of other tragedians and political works in fifth century BCE Athens. By reading the play with this specific focus, the actions of the characters suggest a distinctive portrayal by Euripides which can correlate with social issues in Athens at the time of the play’s production (c.428-425 BCE). A new reading of this play explains its unique composition and adds another way Euripides may have been influenced by Athenian politics and his interpretation of a problem in the relationship between the polis and the oikos. / Thesis / Master of Arts (MA) / The thesis analyzes the statuses of the characters in the play Andromache, written by the Athenian Euripides in the fifth century BCE. Euripides’ Andromache has been considered one of his weaker plays, with scholars calling the lack of both a central character and a coherent and logical plot as the play’s weaknesses. However, with an examination of the characters’ statuses, the plot becomes clearer and the play comments on the problems of defining citizenship and status which Athens was experiencing during Euripides’ life. All the characters in this play fill the roles of positions connected to the Greek oikos (house). By analyzing Euripides’ characterization of these characters regarding their relation to the oikos, it is possible that this play serves as a commentary on issues of citizenship at Athens of both females and bastard children in the second half of the fifth century BCE. This analysis may also answer some of the play’s so-called problems.

[pt] Se ainda hoje permanece a dúvida a respeito da possibilidade de se encontrar, na filosofia grega, um conceito que possa corresponder ao conceito latino de vontade, ninguém parece questionar o fato de que foram os gregos os primeiros filósofos a tentar compreender o fenômeno que hoje chamamos de fraqueza da vontade – e que eles chamavam simplesmente akrasia. Embora o primeiro filósofo que tenha empregado tal termo ao discutir o problema tenha sido Aristóteles (EN VII.1), a primeira discussão filosófica acerca da akrasia pode ser encontrada no Protágoras de Platão. Lá, o fenômeno que é discutido recebe o nome de ser vencido pelos prazeres. Como sabemos, Sócrates nega que tal fenômeno seja possível e afirma o famoso paradoxo Socrático segundo o qual ninguém erra voluntariamente. Nosso trabalho tem por objetivo principal traçar uma comparação entre o problema da akrasia nas filosofias de Platão e de Aristóteles, para que possamos compreender melhor algo que até hoje é motivo de grandes controversas, a saber, em que media Aristóteles se afasta da explicação socrática da akrasía e em que sentido ele a aceita. Para tal, procuramos esclarecer não somente as diferenças notáveis entre os dois autores no que diz respeito à descrição da akrasia mas também à maneira como cada um dos autores concebem o ato voluntário. Além disso, dedicamos nossa introdução à discussão de duas peças de Eurípides, Hipólito e Medéia, com o objetivo de iluminar isso que poderíamos chamar, talvez, de raízes pré-filosóficas do problema. / [en] Although to this day some doubt remains about whether we can find, in Greek philosophy, a concept that corresponds to the latin notion of the will, nobody seems to question the fact that the greek philosophers were the first to try to understand the phenomenon which today we call weakness of the will – and that they called akrasia. Although the first philosopher employed this term when discussing the problem was Aristotle (EN VII.1), the first philosophical discussion about akrasia is to be found in Plato’s Protagoras. In this dialogue, the phenomenon that is discussed is called being defeated by pleasures. As we know, Socrates denies that such a thing is even possible and affirms his famous paradox according to which nobody errs willingly. This works main goal is to compare the problem of akrasia in Plato and Aristotle, so that we can better understand something which is still a matter of great dissent: how much of the Socratic explanation of the phenomenon is accepted by Aristotle and how much of it is discarded? In order to answer this question, Ive tried to highlight the differences that separate the authors in what concerns both their description of akrasia and the way they conceive the voluntary act. Ive also dedicated the introduction of the work to a discussion about two plays of Euripides, Hyppolitus and Medea, with the objective of shedding some light in what we might perhaps call the pre-philosophical roots of the problem.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Open University. BLDSC no. DX210353.

The author's Habilitationsschrift--Universität Kiel, 1969. / Includes indexes. Includes bibliographical references (p. [169]-171).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego, 1999. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 199-205).

O presente trabalho tem como objeto de estudo a tragédia Electra de Eurípides no que concerne à atualização que o poeta faz do episódio em sua versão dramática do mito de Orestes. Para tal, divide-se em duas partes, sendo que a primeira compreende o estudo propriamente dito e a segunda traz uma tradução integral do poema dramático seguindo os moldes de uma tradução acadêmica para fins de estudo. O estudo apresenta três capítulos que abordam a questão da atualização sob diferentes perspectivas. O primeiro trata da história do mito desde Homero até sua chegada à poesia dramática e apresenta um estudo comparativo das três versões trágicas que têm o mito por matéria, a saber, a Oresteia de Ésquilo e as Electras de Sófocles e Eurípides. A partir do segundo capítulo, o foco é dado à Electra euripidiana. Parte-se, então, de uma análise pontual de algumas das personagens e do coro com vistas a um estudo dirigido às inovações do enredo. A encenação da tragédia é, por fim, matéria de estudo do terceiro capítulo, ainda sob o ponto de vista da atualização. De uma forma geral, o estudo tem por objetivo uma reflexão sobre os modelos visados por Eurípides, sobre as adaptações que esses sofreram e, finalmente, sobre a recusa de alguns paradigmas. / This thesis focuses on the tragedy Electra by Euripides taking a more specific look at the way the poet updates this episode in his dramatic version of the myth of Orestes. The thesis is divided in two parts. The first contains the study itself and the second offers an integral translation of the dramatic poem according to the standards of academic translations intended for study. The study encompasses three chapters that address the issue of updating from different perspectives. The first concerns the story of the myth from Homer to its appearance in dramatic poetry and presents a comparative study of the three tragic versions of the myth, namely Aeschylus Oresteia and the Electras of Sophocles and Euripides. From the second chapter on, the focus is on Euripides Electra. This chapter resorts to a detailed analysis of some of the characters and the chorus in order to study the innovations in the plot. Finally, the third chapter discusses the staging of the tragedy, once again from the point of view of the updating. Overall, the study intends to reflect on the models used by Euripides, as well as the adaptations that these models have gone through and, finally, the refusal of some paradigms.

O objetivo deste trabalho é analisar como se dá a ligação entre poesia e política nAs Rãs, de Aristófanes. O poeta estrutura a peça de modo que esses dois temas estão presentes o tempo todo, pois, desde o início, Dioniso está em busca de um bom poeta, para que ele salve a cidade. Assim, ao longo da peça, Aristófanes associa Eurípides à nova geração de políticos, demagogos cuja cidadania é muitas das vezes contestada e que são retratados como bajuladores e corruptores do povo. Esses, por sua vez, são contrapostos a Alcibíades, único dentre os políticos da nova geração citados na peça que tem origem aristocrata e é justamente o escolhido por Ésquilo para governar a cidade, tragediógrafo que ganha a competição no Hades e recebe o prêmio de voltar à vida e a missão de salvar Atenas. / This work aims to analyse the connection between poetry and politics in Aristophanes Frogs. In The Frogs, the poet structures the play in such a way that both themes are present at all times. An example of this is found in the beginning of the play when Dionysus, looking for a good poet that can save the city, journeys to Hades to bring Euripides back from the dead. Throughout the play, Aristophanes associates Euripides with a new generation of politicians, demagogues who have their citizenship questioned many times and are portrayed as flatterers and corrupters of people. These politicians are set against Alcibiades, a politician of a new generation that comes from an aristocratic background and is the one chosen by Aeschylus to lead the city. Aeschylus, on his turn, is the tragedian who wins the competition in Hades and is granted the prize to go back to life and receives the mission to save Athens.