Cassiodorus

Halporn, James W.; Vessey, Mark

doi:10.3828/978-0-85323-998-7

Cited by 116 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…He argues that in serious drama parody is hard to introduce, that 'either some preceding stage business or interruptions by other actors must serve to suggest to the audience the presence of parody'. 59 'Nothing in this scene or what precedes it would prepare the audience for' parody or ridicule of Aeschylus. 60 But even Davies, who rejects parody as operative in the passage, joins other scholars 61 in writing 'that the Old Man in particular and this portion of the Electra in general have comic affinities seems clear'.…”

Section: Parodymentioning

confidence: 99%

Making the stronger argument the weaker: Euripides, Electra 518–44

Gallagher

2003

The Class. Q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the past two centuries there has been much controversy over the merit of the scene in Euripides' Electra in which the Old Man and Electra argue over whether he has seen signs of Orestes at the tomb of Agamemnon. When Schlegel wrote that the passage's parody of the recognition scene in Choephori is 'most foreign to genuine poetry', 2 he set the stage for an attack on its authenticity. First, Mau argued that it was unlikely that Euripides would have interrupted an otherwise skilfully composed scene with a parody which Mau claimed to be criticizing Aeschylus; he therefore pronounced 518-44 an interpolation. 3 Wilamowitz replied that Euripides, in criticizing Aeschylus, was simply behaving like his caricature in Aristophanes' Frogs. 4 Yet the idea that Euripides had ridiculed his illustrious predecessor kept troubling critics, so Fraenkel resurrected the issue with his theory that the passage is the work of a fourth-century interpolator responding to lines of text in the recognition scene of Choephori, which he speculates to have been written by yet another interpolator. 5 Fraenkel's argument has sparked an ongoing debate between defenders of the passage and those who would excise it. 6 Yet, the challenge to the authenticity of the passage rests entirely on aesthetic grounds or perceptions of logical incoherence and inconsistency. 7 There is no ancient or manuscript evidence to support the challenge, which is therefore dubious. Defenders, however, have failed to answer the arguments of the critics adequately. I intend to challenge both sides with an interpretation of the

show abstract

Section: Parodymentioning

confidence: 99%