Review: Apollo, Artemis and Euripides

Author(s): J. M. Mossman
Review by: J. M. Mossman
Source: The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 43, No. 1 (1993), pp. 16-17
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/710621
Accessed: 15-05-2015 17:30 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.133.8.114 on Fri, 15 May 2015 17:30:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CLASSICAL

16

APOLLO,

ARTEMIS

REVIEW

AND

EURIPIDES

KARELISA V. HARTIGAN: Ambiguity and Self-Deception: the Apollo

and Artemis Plays of Euripides. (Studien zur klassischen Philologie,
50.) Pp. 211; 1 frontispiece. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1991. Paper,
DM 22.
This book sets
out to study the themes of ambiguity and self-deception in the plays
in
which the action is motivated by Apollo and Artemis. It consists of
Euripides
of
a series of readings with a short introduction and conclusion. This
structure hints at
the book's main defect: the readings are not sufficiently connected. The
contention
that 'Euripides'
use of the stories of Apollo and Artemis is distinctive, and his
emphasis on these two Olympians is unique' (Preface, p. 7) is never
really
demonstrated,and the inclusion of a reading of
which rightly lays stress
Hippolytus
onthe similarities between Artemis and Aphrodite seems conflict with it. A
fuller
to
discussion of what is meant by 'ambiguity' in this context would also have been
helpfulin coalescing the individual chapters: the brief remarks in the introduction
andconclusion are not really sufficientto help the reader see where the book is
going.
Similarly,all forms of self-deception seem to be classed as just that, without any
distinctionmade between the results
of different forms of self-delusion. This is an
opportunitymissed in Hartigan's discussion of
Iphigeneiaat Aulis,where Iphigeneia's
deathis seen as attended, even motivated, by her
self-delusion that she dies for the
gloryof Greece (pp. 17, 157, 180). This is a possible view, and it is also possible that
Agamemnonhas deceived himself into thinking that she must die (though H. is too
dismissiveof the influence of the army at p. 174 n. 43), but surely there is an important
moraldistinction between Agamemnon's
self-delusion and Iphigeneia's in this case
andH. leaves that unexplored.
Thatsaid,
the individual readings contain many useful points, some connected with
thebook's main theme and others more tangential to it. H. writes
especially
on Ion(perhaps the play which suits her angle best),
interestingly
in Tauris
Iphigeneia
(thoughthesection on the chorus in this chapter is not well-integrated), and Orestes,
andthere are good things all the way through
the book. I do have a number of
misgivingsabout some of her interpretations, though. I think she is much too harsh
onApollo
forgiving his gift to Admetus in Alcestis (this is an attempt to link this play
more
closely to the book's central theme which fails): this fairy-tale detail is a datum
ofthe play and we
are not encouraged in the text to pass judgement on Apollo for
givingthe gift, though we are invited to view the consequences of Admetus'
acceptanceof it. But H. is too harsh on Admetus, too, and undervalues the
importanceof his hospitality: her remark on Admetus' invitation to Heracles
('Admetus'cold denial of Alcestis' identity is shocking', p. 27) is unreasonably
and her hostile view of Admetus runs into trouble when it confronts the
uncharitable,
play's
ending.
There
is a similar difficulty in
where she remarks (p. 37):
her reading of Hippolytus,
'Aphrodite
works through
to
destroy
Artemis' power over the
Hippolytus,
Phaedra
hero
drives the heroine to suicide.' The first part
of this is obviously true, but the
second
is a distortion: Artemis is
not trying to destroy Phaedra. Hippolytus lashes out
her because of the sort person he is, which also happens make him a
at
devotee
to
of
of
Artemis, but that is a very different process from Aphrodite's deliberate tinkering
with
Phaedra's emotions for a stated end. H. also overestimates Artemis' contribution
? OxfordUniversityPress 1993

This content downloaded from 130.133.8.114 on Fri, 15 May 2015 17:30:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CLASSICAL

17

REVIEW

to the finalscene(p. 66 n. 83): Hippolytusdoes notforgivehis father'onlyin response

to Artemis'command',he has alreadyexpressedpity for him at 1405.Again, these
are attemptsto integratethe chaptermorecloselywith the otherplayswhicharenot
favouredby the text. It was not this kind of false connectionthat was needed,but a
cleareroverallstrategy.
The book is quitewell-produced(thoughthereare a few misprints),and thereis a
very useful bibliographyand index. Althoughit is not an unqualifiedsuccess,this
book has an interestingcontributionto make to Euripideanstudies.
J. M. MO SS MAN

Trinity College, Dublin

PCG II
R. KASSEL, C. AUSTIN (edd.): Poetae Comici Graeci (PCG), Vol. II:
Agathenor - Aristonymus. Pp. xxxiv + 581. Berlin and New York: de
Gruyter, 1991. DM 348.
Forty-twomore poets, and all of them alphas.(I missedone of the best of the lot,
Anonymus,but we arepromisedAdespotabeforetoo long.) The tatteredremainsof
MiddleComedyfigurelargehere- Anaxandrides,Antiphaneset Alexis(whereK.-A.
have had access to the fruits of GeoffreyArnott'sextendedlabours)- and though
PCGis actuallyonly half way through,muchmore than half the body of fragments
has now beencovered.The fivevolumescurrentlyavailable(for DM 1492)makeup,
of course,one of the wondersof modernpublishing;they have rightlybeen praised
lavishlyby manyreviewers,includingmyself(cf. JHS 104[1984],224-5, CR38 [1988],
14-15), and everyonewill now know what to expect.Theywill not be disappointed.
It will be many yearsbeforewe can say whetherPCGhas actuallyalteredour view
of Greek comedy in significantways; but it will be very many years before this
particularjob will need doing again.
In reviewingthe firstvolumeto appearI had this to say: 'The explanatorynotes
('non iustuscommentariussed adnotationesexegeticae')are briefand alwaysto the
point. In this style of edition therewill inevitablybe many placeswhereindividual
readerswill feel that brevityhas been carriedtoo far, but K.-A. are aimingat an
audiencewith a full range of scholarlytools within easy reach and, in the vast
majorityof cases, they provideall the assistancewhich such an audiencerequires.'
I think that this has remainedlargelytrue for the subsequentvolumes,but further
reflectionboth aboutthe volumesthemselvesand, moreimportantly,how and where
they will be used has givenme some pausefor thought.On the problemof what to
commenton, K.-A.'s judgementis normallygood, thoughpoliticalhistory,whichis
mucheasierto handlein this format,does far betterthansocialhistory;just whatare
all those fragmentsabout fish-sellersabout?The style of their commentarydoes,
however,deservea moment'sattention.In an age of verywidespreadinterestin the
ancientworld,but of diminishinglibraryresources,the commentatormustthinkvery
hardabout bibliographicalreferencesso that his or her notes do not becomemore a
sourceof frustrationthanof help.We should,wherepossible,seekto makeourwork
useful and broadlyaccessible,ratherthan erect barriers.This is a difficulttrap to
escape (expertusdico), and there is more than one way of getting caught. It is a
particularperilin PCGwhereso muchof the secondaryliteraturewhichmustbe cited
consistsof now obscurecollectionsof emendations,and editorialcommentis already
? Oxford University Press 1993

This content downloaded from 130.133.8.114 on Fri, 15 May 2015 17:30:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions