Thesis (doctoral), Bayerische Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, 1992. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [262]-284) and index.

Thesis (doctoral)--Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references.

Με μια αρχική επεξεργασία του θέματος της παρούσας εργασίας έγινε φανερό πως χωρίζεται σε δύο χρονικές περιόδους. Η πρώτη περίοδος εκτείνεται από τα μέσα του 19ου αιώνα ως το τέλους του ίδιου αιώνα(εδώ εντοπίστηκαν τρία έργα) και η δεύτερη περίοδος από τα μέσα του 20ου αιώνα περίπου(1959) ως τις αρχές του 21ου αιώνα(2007) (εδώ εντοπίστηκαν δώδεκα έργα) καταγράφεται αποδεδειγμένα ως η πιο δημιουργική περίοδος, ακόμη και αν θέσουμε ως κριτήριο το πλήθος των έργων. Η πρόσληψη δομών και σημαινόντων της ευριπίδειας δραματικής ποίησης θα αναζητηθεί με βάση όσους από τους τύπους διακειμενικότητας του Gerard Genette μπορούν να ανιχνευτούν στα εξής νεοελληνικά δραματικά κείμενα: Μήδεια του Ιωάννη Ζαμπέλιου(1860)-M1, To Ψέμα του Ιάσονα του Δημήτρη Χριστοδούλου(1959)-M2, Μήδεια (η οφιοπλόκαμη ερινύα των πόθων) της Μαρίας Κέκκου (1990)-M4, Μήδεια του Μποστ (Χρύσανθος Βοσταντζόγλου ή Μποσταντζόγλου) (1993)-M6, Μήδεια του Βασίλη Γκουρογιάννη (1995)-M7, Μήδεια, του Βασίλη Ζιώγα(1995)-Μ8, Στον αστερισμό της Εκάτης-(Θεατρικά έργα και μονόπρακτα) του Κωνσταντίνου Μπούρα(1997) α. Η Μήδεια στην Αθήνα του Κωνσταντίνου Μπούρα (Μονόπρακτο) (1997)-Μ9 και β. Το τέλος της Μήδειας(Τραγωδία) του Κωνσταντίνου Μπούρα (1997)-Μ10, Μήδεια αυτοπυρπολούμενη του Ντίνου Ταξιάρχη(2006)-M11, Backstage (Παρασκήνιο) της Άννας Μαρίας Μαργαρίτη(2007)-M12, Η άλλη ΜΗΔΕΙΑ του Βασίλη Μπουντούρη (1990)-M5, Ποιος σκότωσε τα παιδιά της Μήδειας του Χάρη Λαμπίδη(1984)-M3. Αν ξεκινήσουμε από τον κανόνα της Kristeva πως κάθε κείμενο με βάση το φαινόμενο της διακειμενικότητας «είναι ένα μωσαϊκό από αναφορές σε άλλα κείμενα, μια απορρόφηση ενός άλλου κειμένου», κατόπιν μπορούμε να επεκταθούμε και στην κατά Riffaterre θέση, η οποία υπογραμμίζει την ανάγκη αναζήτησης ενός διακειμένου ώστε να ολοκληρωθεί η οποιαδήποτε λογοτεχνική προσέγγιση κάθε κειμένου. Τα επίπεδα πρόσληψης θα αναζητηθούν μέσα από τα στοιχεία(δομικές, νοηματικές και δραματικές μονάδες) που διοχετεύονται από τη Μήδεια του Ευριπίδη (Μ) στα διακείμενα (Μ1 έως Μ12) νεότερες Μήδειες ή και όχι υποχρεωτικά Μήδειες ως προς τον τίτλο. Κατόπιν θα εξεταστεί η αυτούσια (λογοκλοπή-plagiarism) μετάγγιση στα νέα έργα στοιχείων του (ΜΕ) ή η μεταλλαγμένη παρουσία τους καθώς και σε πιο βαθμό διατηρούνται ή αλλάζουν τα μυθολογικά μοτίβα, θέματα, πρόσωπα και ο δραματικός χώρος των δραματικών κειμένων με καταγωγή από την πλατφόρμα πάνω στην οποία κυριαρχικά τοποθετείται η Μήδεια του Ευριπίδη. / Initially as a treatment of the subject of the present work it became obvious that it is separated in two time periods. The first period is extended by the means of the 19th century until the end of same century (where located three plays) and the second period from the means of the 20th century roughly (1959) until the beginning of the 21st century (2007) (where twelve plays). Where located evidentig the most creative period, even if we place as criterion the number of plays. The engagement of structure and meaning of the Eurepides’ dramatic poetry it will be sought with based those on types of Gerard Genette’s intertextuality can be detected in the following Modern Greek dramatic texts: Medea by Ioannis Zambelios(1860)-M1, The Jason’s lie by Dimitris Christodoulou(1959)-M2, Medea (the shake of desnes) by Maria Kekkou (1990)-M4, Medea by Bost (Chrissanthos Vostantzoglou or Bostantzoglou)(1993)-M6, Medea by Basilis Gourogiannis(1995)-M7, Medea by Basilis Ziogas (1995)-Μ8, In Ekates’ constellation-(Plays and one act plays) by Konstadinos Bouras (1997) α. Medea in Athens by Konstantinos Bouras(one act play) (1997)M9 and b. Medea’s end (Tragedy) by Konstantinos Bouras (1997)-Μ10, Medea self-burned up dy Dinos Taxiarchis(2006)-M11, Backstage by Anna Maria Margariti (2007)-M12, The other Medea by Basilis Boudouris(1990)-M5, Who killed Medea’s children by Harry Labidi (1984)-M3. If we start with the rule of Kristeva that each text based on the phenomenon of intertextuality «it is a mosaic of reports in other texts, a absorption of another text », then we can extend oneself also in the Riffaterres’ place, which underlines the need of search of intertext so that is being completed the any literary approach of each text. The levels of engagement will be sought through the elements (structural, meaning and dramatic units) that are channeled by the Medea of Eurepides’(ΜΕ) in intertexts (from Μ1 to Μ12) modern plays named Medea or even no necessarilly Medea as for the title. Then it will be examined self-same (plagiarism) transfusion in his new work of elements (ΜΕ) or their mutant presence as well as in what degree they maintain or change the mythological patterns, subjects, persons and the dramatic space of dramatic texts with originate from the platform above in that sovereign it is placed the Medea of Eurepides.

Σκοπός αυτής της μελέτης είναι η αναζήτηση και καταγραφή των αρχαιολογικών ευρημάτων που σχετίζονται με το Μίμο. Βεβαίως, στόχος της εργασίας δεν είναι μόνο η απλή παρουσίαση των αρχαιολογικών ευρημάτων αλλά και η προσπάθεια να εξαχθούν, με βάση αυτά, ορισμένα συμπεράσματα για αυτό το είδος θεάτρου, για το οποίο ελάχιστα γνωρίζουμε. Για λόγους μεθοδολογικούς τα ευρήματα θα παρουσιαστούν-σχολιαστούν κατά χρονολογική σειρά και συγκεκριμένα θα ενταχθούν σε δύο ευρύτερες ενότητες, της ελληνιστικής και της ρωμαϊκής περιόδου από τις οποίες και προέρχονται. / The aim of this study is the search and recording of archaelogical discoveries that are related with Mime.

FundaÃÃo de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Cearà / Helena, filha de Zeus, esposa de Menelau e mais bela entre as mortais, desperta atenÃÃo a partir da complexidade observada em suas representaÃÃes na Literatura Antiga: sÃmbolo de beleza e de transgressÃo, Helena à uma figura ambÃgua, ora apresentada como motivo maior da Guerra de Troia, ora revelada como vÃtima das vontades divinas. Helena, enquanto personagem, revela-se uma fonte de criaÃÃo poÃtica, permitindo muitas apresentaÃÃes de sua figura nada simples, conforme podemos observar nas muitas Helenas de EurÃpides, tragediÃgrafo grego do sÃculo V a.C., autor de peÃas como Troianas. Nessa obra, a bela mulher à rejeitada e reprovada pelas mulheres de Troia, por ter causado a guerra, a morte de vÃrios herÃis e a desgraÃa de inÃmeras pessoas. Tanto a beleza fÃsica quanto a beleza das palavras de Helena, quando ela se apresenta no drama, mostram a forÃa persuasiva da personagem que se configura uma ameaÃa ao bom julgamento da verdade e da justiÃa. Jà em Helena, outra tragÃdia de EurÃpides, a inventividade do autor e a estrutura do drama permitem que a forÃa dos argumentos apresentados pela personagem â amparados por uma versÃo do mito em que a filha de Zeus à completamente inocente, fiel e virtuosa â seja, mais uma vez, observada. Vernant (2011) e BrandÃo (1985) afirmam que a inventividade prÃpria de EurÃpides, acerca da criaÃÃo de personagens e de suas falas dentro das tragÃdias, à efeito da influÃncia sofista e retÃrica de seu tempo, e Baliff (2001) assegura a relaÃÃo existente entre seduÃÃo, feminino e retÃrica, enquanto Mastronarde (2010) e Sansone (2012) chamam atenÃÃo para o desdobramento peculiar e especÃfico do gÃnero dramÃtico, que permite Ãs personagens o desenvolvimento de habilidades linguÃsticas e a sofisticaÃÃo argumentativa que situaria o drama como gÃnero de grande inovaÃÃo na Literatura Grega. Nesta dissertaÃÃo, portanto, objetivamos analisar as apresentaÃÃes de Helena, situadas entre a inventividade do drama e a potencialidade dos discursos, de acordo com a multiplicidade que a personagem suscita e que parece ser o prÃprio desdobramento da criaÃÃo poÃtica e da multifacetada linguagem.

No description available.

No description available.

Euripides’ Phoenissae is a challenging work that is often overlooked by scholars of Greek drama. This study analyzes how the concept of autochthony occupies a central thematic concern of the play. On the one hand, autochthony unites humans to soil, political claims to myths, and present to past. On the other hand, autochthony was often invoked to exclude foreigners, women and exiles from political life at Athens. We observe a similar dichotomy in the Phoenissae. Autochthony unites the episode action–the story of the fraternal conflict—with the very different subject matter of the choral odes, which treat the founding myths of Thebes. By focalizing the lyric material through the perspective of marginalized female voices (Antigone and the chorus), Euripides is able to problematize the myths and rhetoric associated with autochthony. At the same time, Antigone’s departure with her father at the play’s close offers a transformation of autochthonous power into a positive religious entity. I suggest that a careful examination of the many facets of autochthony can inform our understanding of the Phoenissae with respect to dramatic structure, apparent Euripidean innovations, character motivation, stage direction and audience reception. / text

This study sets out to reveal the groundbreaking use of monody in the late plays of Euripides: in his hands, it is shaped into a potent and flexible instrument for representing emotion and establishing new narrative and thematic structures. Engaging with the current scholarly debate on music, affect, and characterization in Greek tragedy, I examine the role that monody plays in the musical design of four plays of Euripides, all produced in the last decade of his career: Ion, Iphigenia in Tauris, Phoenician Women, and Orestes. These plays are marked by the increased presence of actors’ song in proportion to choral song. The lyric voice of the individual takes on an unprecedented prominence with far-reaching implications for the structure and impact of each play. The monodies of Euripides are a true dramatic innovation: in addition to creating an effect of heightened emotion, monody is used to develop character and shape plot. In Ion, Iphigenia in Tauris, Phoenician Women, and Orestes, Euripides uncouples monody’s traditional and exclusive connection with lament. In contrast to the work of Aeschylus and Sophocles, where actors’ song is always connected with grief and pain, in these four plays monody conveys varied moods and states of mind. Monody expresses joy, hope, anxiety, bewilderment, accusation, and deliberation. Often, and simultaneously, it moves forward narrative exposition. The scope and dramatic function of monody grows and changes: passages of actors’ lyric become longer, more metrically complex, more detached from the other characters onstage, and more intensely focused on the internal experience of the singer. In the four plays under discussion we see a steadily increasing refinement and expansion of the form, a development that rests upon the changes in the style and function of contemporary music in the late fifth century. By 415 B.C., many formal features of tragedy had become highly conventionalized, and determined a set of expectations in the contemporary audience. Reacting against this tradition, Euripides successively redefines monody: each song takes over a traditional Bauform of tragedy, and builds upon it. The playwright uses the paired monodies of Ion to pose a conflict of ideas that might otherwise be conveyed through an agon. In Iphigenia in Tauris the heroine’s crisis and its resolution are presented in lyrics, rather than as a deliberative rhesis. In Phoenician Women, Antigone, Jocasta, and Oedipus replace the Chorus in lamenting the fall of the royal house. Finally, the Phrygian slave in Orestes sings a monody explicitly marked as a messenger speech that inverts the conventions of the form to raise questions about objectivity and truth in a disordered world. In examining these four plays, I hope to show some of the various potentials of this new Euripidean music as a major structural element in tragic drama, insofar as it can heighten emphasis, allow for the development of emotional states both subtle and extreme, reveal and deepen character, and mirror thematic movements. Euripides establishes monody as a dramatic form of considerable versatility and power. The poetry is charged with increased affect and expressivity; at the same time it articulates a new self-consciousness about the reciprocal capacities of form and content to shape one another. Here we may discern the shift of sensibility in Euripides’ late work, which proceeds pari passu with an apparent loosening of structural demands, or what one with equal justice might recognize as an increase in degrees of freedom. As the playwright repeatedly reconfigures the relationship between form and content, the range of what can happen onstage, of what can be said and sung, expands.

Habilitation - Universität, Zürich, 2004/05. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 380-412) and indexes.