A commentary on Rhesus 1-526, with an introduction
<p>This thesis is in two parts. The introduction begins with an examination of the myths of Rhesus and Dolon which are independent of <em>Iliad</em> 10. It concludes that the author knew of these and adapted parts of them. The section on authenticity summarises those features of &l...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Published: |
1995
|
| _version_ | 1797066021276745728 |
|---|---|
| author | Klve, G |
| author_facet | Klve, G |
| author_sort | Klve, G |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | <p>This thesis is in two parts. The introduction begins with an examination of the myths of Rhesus and Dolon which are independent of <em>Iliad</em> 10. It concludes that the author knew of these and adapted parts of them. The section on authenticity summarises those features of <em>Rh</em>. which have been regarded by scholars as incompatible with Euripidean authorship, as well as some evidence which has previously been ignored. It concludes that a combination of unusual features in <em>Rh</em>. point away from the play being an early work of E.</p> <p>In particular, these are: a limited use of colloquialism; the absence of περί and the scarcity of άπό; the lameness of many of the repetitions; intertextual allusions to other tragic texts; enjambement between strophe and antistrophe at 350-351; the presence of two sets of separated strophes and antistrophes; the delivery of a lyric monody by the <em>deus ex machina</em>; a preference for shorter periods in anapaests than E.; the absence of a dramatic exposition; the unannounced symmetrical entries at 264; physical contact between actor and chorus at 681; the appearance of two <em>dei ex machina</em>; the realistic role of the chorus and the absence of any intellectual or emotional dimension. I believe that <em>Rh</em>. was written after the death of E. , but have found no evidence to suggest who wrote it. The introduction concludes with a brief survey of the textual sources.</p> <p>The commentary is based on J. Diggle's text (1994), although some other readings or conjectures have been preferred. New conjectures have been introduced at 4-5 and 247. It is the first commentary written on lines 1-526 since that of W.H. Porter (1929<sub>2</sub>) and follows the standard format except that the lyric schemata are examined in the introduction. The anapaestic opening is defended and a άπ. λεγ. is reported for the first time at 353 (ύδρειδης).</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T21:36:29Z |
| format | Thesis |
| id | oxford-uuid:46710edf-4848-4b46-bd71-f66e78ea4808 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T21:36:29Z |
| publishDate | 1995 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:46710edf-4848-4b46-bd71-f66e78ea48082022-03-26T15:13:44ZA commentary on Rhesus 1-526, with an introductionThesishttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_db06uuid:46710edf-4848-4b46-bd71-f66e78ea4808Polonsky Theses Digitisation Project1995Klve, G<p>This thesis is in two parts. The introduction begins with an examination of the myths of Rhesus and Dolon which are independent of <em>Iliad</em> 10. It concludes that the author knew of these and adapted parts of them. The section on authenticity summarises those features of <em>Rh</em>. which have been regarded by scholars as incompatible with Euripidean authorship, as well as some evidence which has previously been ignored. It concludes that a combination of unusual features in <em>Rh</em>. point away from the play being an early work of E.</p> <p>In particular, these are: a limited use of colloquialism; the absence of περί and the scarcity of άπό; the lameness of many of the repetitions; intertextual allusions to other tragic texts; enjambement between strophe and antistrophe at 350-351; the presence of two sets of separated strophes and antistrophes; the delivery of a lyric monody by the <em>deus ex machina</em>; a preference for shorter periods in anapaests than E.; the absence of a dramatic exposition; the unannounced symmetrical entries at 264; physical contact between actor and chorus at 681; the appearance of two <em>dei ex machina</em>; the realistic role of the chorus and the absence of any intellectual or emotional dimension. I believe that <em>Rh</em>. was written after the death of E. , but have found no evidence to suggest who wrote it. The introduction concludes with a brief survey of the textual sources.</p> <p>The commentary is based on J. Diggle's text (1994), although some other readings or conjectures have been preferred. New conjectures have been introduced at 4-5 and 247. It is the first commentary written on lines 1-526 since that of W.H. Porter (1929<sub>2</sub>) and follows the standard format except that the lyric schemata are examined in the introduction. The anapaestic opening is defended and a άπ. λεγ. is reported for the first time at 353 (ύδρειδης).</p> |
| spellingShingle | Klve, G A commentary on Rhesus 1-526, with an introduction |
| title | A commentary on Rhesus 1-526, with an introduction |
| title_full | A commentary on Rhesus 1-526, with an introduction |
| title_fullStr | A commentary on Rhesus 1-526, with an introduction |
| title_full_unstemmed | A commentary on Rhesus 1-526, with an introduction |
| title_short | A commentary on Rhesus 1-526, with an introduction |
| title_sort | commentary on rhesus 1 526 with an introduction |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT klveg acommentaryonrhesus1526withanintroduction AT klveg commentaryonrhesus1526withanintroduction |