De Gruyter (2017) h/b 381pp £90.99 (ISBN 9783110534023)
Alexandros (better known as Paris) is a fragmentary play, and a few words to put this new commentary in context may be helpful. It is the first play in a trilogy of which the other members are Palamedes (even more fragmentary) and Trojan Women. Produced in 415 BC, it came second to a trilogy by the virtually unknown Xenocles, a result which (if we can believe Aelian) caused surprise and amusement in Athens. The most accessible texts for the two fragmentary play are probably those provided in vols. vii and viii of the Loeb Euripides by C. Collard and M.J. Cropp (2008), though these two scholars, with J. Gibert, had also produced their Volume II of Euripides: Selected Fragmentary Plays in 2004.
The discovery of the Strasbourg papyrus (of probably ca. 250 BC) in 1922 greatly improved our knowledge of Alexandros, and fully justifies this admirable commentary. After an excellent Introduction, K. offers the texts of the Testimonia and Fragments, in both cases with full apparatus criticus, and translations; this is followed by the Commentary on both of the foregoing. There are colour plates of the papyrus and of a relevant Etruscan bronze mirror-back relief, an index of Passages Discussed, and a bibliography of some 50 pages, to which your reviewer would have added only R.W. Carden’s edition of the Papyrus Fragments of Sophocles (1974).
This play itself deal with the early life of Paris, concerning which, indeed, as K. fully sets out, we also gain information from ps-Apollodorus, the Alexander of Ennius, all of whose fragments are given in an appendix, Pindar, Lycophron, Cicero’s De Divinatione, Hyginus, Virgil, and even Sophocles’s lost play of the same name (Varro comments, not very helpfully, on the names, and K., while admitting that the name Paris is of obscure origin, gives us some paretymologies, perhaps more familiarly known as the lucus a non lucendo).
For the plot of this play, a papyrus (P. Oxy 3650, 1974) fortunately includes most of a ‘narrative’, as opposed to ‘learned’, hypothesis. In briefest outline, following a dream sent to Hecabe, the baby Paris is exposed to die; rescued by a herdsman, he grows to be a successful (and arrogant) young man, who excels in the games (annual or one-off? K. favours the former) given in his—deceased—honour. He incurs the anger of his brother Deiphobos, who plots, with Hecabe, to kill him. The timely arrival of the herdsman who reared him leads to an anagnorisis, and Paris’s life is saved—with the ultimate well-known calamitous results. K. justly points out that in certain respects, Alexandros bears a resemblance to the plots of Helen and Iphigeneia in Tauris, in that the protagonist is saved from death at the last minute, while she also easily parallels the infant’s exposure and rescue. Of course there is much more—Cassandra plays an important role—sed haec hactenus.
The Introduction covers the foregoing: the Legend, the Legend in Greek Tragedy, the Dramatis Personae (eight are identified), Plot-Structure, Staging, the Trojan Trilogy, the Text (we now have approximately 240 whole or partial lines of the play, of which the papyrus accounts for 190) and Reception (Ennius etc., and modern attempts to create a play suitable for performance). Any papyrus, but especially one of a play, attracts scholars like wasps round a jam-pot, and Alexandros is no different. The result of necessity is that K.’s commentary refers generously to the work of others, but she is perfectly willing to state and justify her own views. In the commentary on the Testimonia, except of course for the papyrus of the hypothesis, she feels able to ignore any minor matters of textual criticism, even accepting without comment a bold emendation in Aelian by Casaubon. This seems perfectly justifiable, whereas in the hypothesis she proposes and justifies an improvement at lines 2-4. It is a different matter when we come to the papyrus of the play itself, where important choices have to be made.
Over 140 pages, K. seeks to establish the order of the fragments, thereby creating a coherent narrative for the play—even if lacunae remain, such as where Cassandra’s ravings find their place—and I noted a dozen or so places where K. accepts another’s suggestion or propounds a textual suggestion of her own, while rigorously examining (and not infrequently dismissing on papyrological or other grounds) the many proposals of earlier scholars, especially Kannicht (TrGF V, 2004). Thus, at fragment 18a, K. accepts, and argues the case with great care for reading, with Collard and Cropp, the difficilior lectio φθόνῶι rather than the papyrus’s φόβῶι.
Ιt is, however, generally inappropriate to look at individual instances in this notice: rather, consider K.’s approach to a difficult problem at fragments 8-12. It appears that a trial-debate before Priam is to take place, with Alexandros as the defendant (and K. reminds us that similar debates will take place in the other two plays of the trilogy). But who is the prosecutor, and what the issue at stake? K. argues that the previously favoured candidates, Deiphobos and Hecabe, are needed for a later debate, and that the issue is whether Alexandros should be permitted—given his arrogance towards his fellow-herdsmen—to take part in the games given in his honour: of course, Alexandros is still unaware of his identity. K. argues that, since we know of a (secondary) chorus of herdsmen, the prosecutor will be the leader of the herdsmen, and that the judge, Priam, will give permission for Alexandros to take part: his success will lead to the later trial involving his brother Deiphobos. All this is worked out in exemplary detail by K. over five pages (pp.182-186), in which other possibilities are considered and discarded. Of course, we are dealing with fragments, and nothing is certain: but plausibility has been attained. In this way, K. builds up a framework for the play as a whole.
Her stated task was to ‘shed light on aspects of Euripidean style, ideology and dramatic technique, such as rhetoric, stagecraft, imagery, key thematic and structural patterns’: K. has made the best of sadly scanty material to achieve her goals, within the limits of what is possible; and the views of other scholars are, at all times, given ample coverage. The author is to be warmly congratulated on producing what will surely take its place as the book on which all future work on this play will be based.
As always with de Gruyter, production values are impeccable.
Colin Leach
EURIPIDES ALEXANDROS: Introduction, Text and Commentary
De Gruyter (2017) h/b 381pp £90.99 (ISBN 9783110534023)
Alexandros (better known as Paris) is a fragmentary play, and a few words to put this new commentary in context may be helpful. It is the first play in a trilogy of which the other members are Palamedes (even more fragmentary) and Trojan Women. Produced in 415 BC, it came second to a trilogy by the virtually unknown Xenocles, a result which (if we can believe Aelian) caused surprise and amusement in Athens. The most accessible texts for the two fragmentary play are probably those provided in vols. vii and viii of the Loeb Euripides by C. Collard and M.J. Cropp (2008), though these two scholars, with J. Gibert, had also produced their Volume II of Euripides: Selected Fragmentary Plays in 2004.
The discovery of the Strasbourg papyrus (of probably ca. 250 BC) in 1922 greatly improved our knowledge of Alexandros, and fully justifies this admirable commentary. After an excellent Introduction, K. offers the texts of the Testimonia and Fragments, in both cases with full apparatus criticus, and translations; this is followed by the Commentary on both of the foregoing. There are colour plates of the papyrus and of a relevant Etruscan bronze mirror-back relief, an index of Passages Discussed, and a bibliography of some 50 pages, to which your reviewer would have added only R.W. Carden’s edition of the Papyrus Fragments of Sophocles (1974).
This play itself deal with the early life of Paris, concerning which, indeed, as K. fully sets out, we also gain information from ps-Apollodorus, the Alexander of Ennius, all of whose fragments are given in an appendix, Pindar, Lycophron, Cicero’s De Divinatione, Hyginus, Virgil, and even Sophocles’s lost play of the same name (Varro comments, not very helpfully, on the names, and K., while admitting that the name Paris is of obscure origin, gives us some paretymologies, perhaps more familiarly known as the lucus a non lucendo).
For the plot of this play, a papyrus (P. Oxy 3650, 1974) fortunately includes most of a ‘narrative’, as opposed to ‘learned’, hypothesis. In briefest outline, following a dream sent to Hecabe, the baby Paris is exposed to die; rescued by a herdsman, he grows to be a successful (and arrogant) young man, who excels in the games (annual or one-off? K. favours the former) given in his—deceased—honour. He incurs the anger of his brother Deiphobos, who plots, with Hecabe, to kill him. The timely arrival of the herdsman who reared him leads to an anagnorisis, and Paris’s life is saved—with the ultimate well-known calamitous results. K. justly points out that in certain respects, Alexandros bears a resemblance to the plots of Helen and Iphigeneia in Tauris, in that the protagonist is saved from death at the last minute, while she also easily parallels the infant’s exposure and rescue. Of course there is much more—Cassandra plays an important role—sed haec hactenus.
The Introduction covers the foregoing: the Legend, the Legend in Greek Tragedy, the Dramatis Personae (eight are identified), Plot-Structure, Staging, the Trojan Trilogy, the Text (we now have approximately 240 whole or partial lines of the play, of which the papyrus accounts for 190) and Reception (Ennius etc., and modern attempts to create a play suitable for performance). Any papyrus, but especially one of a play, attracts scholars like wasps round a jam-pot, and Alexandros is no different. The result of necessity is that K.’s commentary refers generously to the work of others, but she is perfectly willing to state and justify her own views. In the commentary on the Testimonia, except of course for the papyrus of the hypothesis, she feels able to ignore any minor matters of textual criticism, even accepting without comment a bold emendation in Aelian by Casaubon. This seems perfectly justifiable, whereas in the hypothesis she proposes and justifies an improvement at lines 2-4. It is a different matter when we come to the papyrus of the play itself, where important choices have to be made.
Over 140 pages, K. seeks to establish the order of the fragments, thereby creating a coherent narrative for the play—even if lacunae remain, such as where Cassandra’s ravings find their place—and I noted a dozen or so places where K. accepts another’s suggestion or propounds a textual suggestion of her own, while rigorously examining (and not infrequently dismissing on papyrological or other grounds) the many proposals of earlier scholars, especially Kannicht (TrGF V, 2004). Thus, at fragment 18a, K. accepts, and argues the case with great care for reading, with Collard and Cropp, the difficilior lectio φθόνῶι rather than the papyrus’s φόβῶι.
Ιt is, however, generally inappropriate to look at individual instances in this notice: rather, consider K.’s approach to a difficult problem at fragments 8-12. It appears that a trial-debate before Priam is to take place, with Alexandros as the defendant (and K. reminds us that similar debates will take place in the other two plays of the trilogy). But who is the prosecutor, and what the issue at stake? K. argues that the previously favoured candidates, Deiphobos and Hecabe, are needed for a later debate, and that the issue is whether Alexandros should be permitted—given his arrogance towards his fellow-herdsmen—to take part in the games given in his honour: of course, Alexandros is still unaware of his identity. K. argues that, since we know of a (secondary) chorus of herdsmen, the prosecutor will be the leader of the herdsmen, and that the judge, Priam, will give permission for Alexandros to take part: his success will lead to the later trial involving his brother Deiphobos. All this is worked out in exemplary detail by K. over five pages (pp.182-186), in which other possibilities are considered and discarded. Of course, we are dealing with fragments, and nothing is certain: but plausibility has been attained. In this way, K. builds up a framework for the play as a whole.
Her stated task was to ‘shed light on aspects of Euripidean style, ideology and dramatic technique, such as rhetoric, stagecraft, imagery, key thematic and structural patterns’: K. has made the best of sadly scanty material to achieve her goals, within the limits of what is possible; and the views of other scholars are, at all times, given ample coverage. The author is to be warmly congratulated on producing what will surely take its place as the book on which all future work on this play will be based.
As always with de Gruyter, production values are impeccable.
Colin Leach