Gilchrist, 'Euripides, Andromache', Bryn Mawr Classical Review 9508
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9508-gilchrist-euripides
@@@@95.8.2, Lloyd, ed., Euripides: Andromache
Michael Lloyd (ed.), Euripides, Andromache. Warminster: Aris and
Phillips 1994. Pp. xxviii, 178. Pbk ISBN 0-85668-623-9
(cloth)/0-85668-624-7 (limp).
Reviewed by Katie Gilchrist -- Worcester College, Oxford
katie.gilchrist@worc.ox.ac.uk
This book is part of the Aris and Phillips series of editions of
Euripides' plays. The aims of the series are set out in the Foreword by
the General Editor, Christopher Collard: the commentary is concerned
primarily with "analysing structure and development, ... annotating and
appreciating poetic style, ... explaining ideas", rather than with
linguistic comment.
The 20-page "General Introduction to the Series" by Shirley A.
Barlow gives a concise overview of Greek drama, with special reference to
Euripides. Barlow considers briefly the various component parts of Greek
tragedy, and the relation of tragedy both to "past myth" and the
contemporary world of the poet. This treatment is, of necessity, rather
superficial, but it does manage to bring in an impressive range of issues
for its length. The constraints of length, however, do result in
statements which are rather simplistic with regard to the complicated
issues which are raised by tragedy; for example, Barlow assumes
throughout her discussion of messenger speeches that these are
straightforwardly objective (on p.xx I assume "imperial witness" is a
misprint for "impartial"), and does not explicitly consider de Jong's
arguments (mentioned in a footnote) for the focalisation of their
narrative.[[1]] The good general bibliography (revised for this volume)
provides a solid basis for both scholars and students for further work
both on Greek tragedy generally, and, in particular, on Euripides.
After the general introduction comes Lloyd's introduction to the
Andromache. Here he brings out the themes which will be
considered of particular importance in the commentary as a whole (though
one is glad to see that he does not labour to find all the lurid features
mentioned in the hyperbolic "blurb" on the back cover). L. accurately
identifies the Andromache as a "nostos play", with the striking and
ironic twist of the hero's return as a corpse. L. himself says that
Neoptolemus is not the "hero" of the play, in the sense of the
protagonist, but his return does provide its focus. In L.'s view, the
unity of the play arises from the way in which the action is determined
by the fears and expectations of the other characters concerning the
prospect of Neoptolemus' return. Thus Andromache starts as a suppliant,
whose rescue could be affected by the return of Neoptolemus; after the
failure of her plot, Hermione's despair is caused by the thought of his
response to her actions; the last part of the play shows Peleus' reaction
to Neoptolemus' eventual arrival home. This three part structure, which
has been regarded as a symptom of disunity, is seen by L. as providing "a
fruitful source of parallels and contrasts". Given that the affinities
of this play with other plays containing suppliant scenes is perhaps more
widely acknowledged than its status as a nostos play, it is somewhat
surprising that, although suppliancy is discussed extensively in the
commentary, the position of the Andromache as a "suppliant play"
is not discussed in the introduction. L.'s classification of this play
as a nostos play, however, is an important point which is too rarely
acknowledged.
One theme on which L. picks up in both the introduction and the
commentary is the way the Andromache shows famous mythological
characters acting characteristically, but in a new context--for example
Orestes (p.144 ll. 802-1008) "re-enacts his definitive myth ... :
surreptious arrival, reunion with a female relative, murder with the aid
of Apollo" (cf. p.6 in the introduction). There are, however, places in
the commentary where more could be made of such parallels, for example
p.161 ll. 1205-7 where L. does not exploit the parallel between Peleus's
position as shown here, bereft of his grandson, and the picture painted
by Achilles in Iliad 24 of Peleus bereft of his son, a picture
evoked for Achilles by Priam, who is in front of him--Priam, father of
Andromache's first husband. Given the stated aim of this series to
examine themes and structures, it is perhaps disappointing that such
points are not brought out in the commentary, to give a fuller
illustration of points made in the introduction.
The text is that of Diggle's 1984 Oxford Classical Text with
abridged apparatus criticus; for a fuller discussion of textual
and linguistic points, the reader is referred to the commentary of P.T.
Stevens.[[2]] Although L.'s commentary is keyed to the translation, and
is not designed to be linguistic, L. does make good reference to the
Greek, particularly to bring out points obscured by the translation, such
as the use of the same word in two places with differing meanings (or at
least differing translations), or explaining the literal meaning where
the translation has opted for a more idiomatic phrase or has translated
the idea rather than the exact words (e.g. p.150, l.931, p.130 ll.459-6
noting the sigmatism). There are places, however, where discussion of
the Greek would have illuminated points of poetic style; for example at
p.162 l.1236, where the difference between the Homeric epithet and the
Euripidean term is not noted (TAXU/S not W)KU/S used for "swift").
Similarly, the note on l.1115 needs a cross reference to l.447, where the
parallel between the term used of Orestes, "stitcher of crafty plans",
and the cognate verb used at Aesch. Cho. 221 is given, as is a
cross reference to l.1115. The reference to Orestes as the son of
Clytaemnestra seems rather marked at l.1115 where he is about to be
involved in another murder; this could have usefully been noted.
The translation aims to be "both accurate and idiomatic";
certainly it does keep closely to the Greek, and is reasonably
idiomatic. Here L. has the advantage of being able to explain departures
from literal translation in the commentary. For example, L. translates
the start of the second choral ode (ll.274-8):
The son of Zeus and Maia did indeed, it seems, begin great woes when he
came to Ida's glen, bringing the beautiful trio of goddesses...
The commentary translates "beautiful trio of goddesses" as literally "the
beautifully-yoked three-horse team of deities". For comparison,
Vellacott's Penguin translation produces this:
That day was the beginning of great sorrows,
When Hermes, son of Zeus and Maia,
Came to the shady slope of Mount Ida,
And like a charioteer leading his team
Led the three lovely goddesses...
Nims, in the Grene/Lattimore Chicago series gives:
That was the breeding of bitter affliction, when Hermes,
Son of Zeus, Maia's son,
Came to Ida, to the glade
Conducting heaven's lovely team
Of three divine fillies ....
L.'s prose translation does seem here to be flattening the poetic style.
Paradoxically, L.'s concern for literal translation sometimes creates in
his prose a poetic feel which is slightly out of place. For example, at
the start of the messenger's speech (ll.1085-8):
When we came to the famous sanctuary of Phoebus, we occupied three bright
circuits of the sun with gazing at the sights. This evidently aroused
suspicion.
Although this is both accurate and clear, there is, to my mind, a slight
jarring between the rather poetic periphrasis for "three days" and the
very prosaic "this evidently aroused suspicion". Nims translates this
passage:
When we arrived in Apollo's famous territory
We spent three entire days, from dawn to dark,
Filling our eyes with all there was to see.
This aroused suspicion, apparently.
This reads more easily, but is less literal; however, L. could have
resorted to the placing of a more literal translation in the commentary,
as in the example above. A more prosaic translation of the first
sentence is probably closer in tone to the original; for a discussion of
the vocabulary used here see Stevens ad loc.
In conclusion, L.'s edition of the Andromache is a book
which would well suit use among advanced secondary school students and
some undergraduates, particularly those whose grasp of the language is
weaker, as the translation is close enough to the Greek to be a useful
aid to comprehension. Overall I did find this book slightly
disappointing on detail: even though it does not attempt to replace
Stevens for discussion of the textual and linguistic issues, there is
more that could be said on the topics with which it does deal.
Nevertheless, L. has some useful and interesting insights into this play,
and a good index on themes and characters helps pull together information
from the introduction and commentary.
NOTES
[[1]] I.J.F. de Jong, Narrative in Drama. The Art of the Euripidean
Messenger Speech (Leiden 1991).
[[2]] P.T. Stevens Euripides. Andromache (Oxford 1971)