Narrative in Drama: The Art of the Euripidean Messenger-Speech 9004094067, 9789004094062

Table of contents :
NARRATIVE IN DRAMA: THE ART OF THE EURIPIDEAN MESSENGER-SPEECH
CONTENTS
Preface
1. The messenger-speech as a first-person narrative
1.1 Classification
'I' versus 'we'
'l'/'we' versus 'he'/'she'/'they'
The messenger as eyewitness
1.2 Restrictions
Restriction of place
Restriction of access
Restriction of understanding
Divine interventions
Temporary and permanent restriction of understanding
1.3 Getting round the restrictions
Getting round the restriction of place
Getting round the restriction of access
Getting round the restriction of understanding
1.4 Experiencing versus narrating focalization
how versus what
Experiencing focalization
Historic presents
Implicit anticipations (prolepses)
Narrating focalization
Dominant narrating focalization
1.5 Discrepant awareness
1.6 Conclusion. The messenger as 'I as witness'-narrator
2. The style of presentation
2.1 Scholars on objectivity
2.2 The messenger as character
2.3 The messenger as narrator
2.4 The messenger as focalizer
(i) Concluding evaluation
(ii) Interspersed criticism and engagement
(iii) Epithets
(iv) Comparisons
(v) Denomination
2.5 From presentation to reception
Signs of the 'you'
The messenger's own message
Reactions (1). The internal addressees
Reactions (2). The external addressees
2.6 Conclusion. The messenger and the "open perspective structure"
of Euripidean tragedy
3. Narrative in drama
3.1 Why messenger-speeches?
The messenger-speech and the structure of the play
Messenger-speeches with preparatory function
Messenger-speeches with concluding function
Messenger-speeches with transitional function
Conclusion
3.2 The messenger-speech as drama
Direct speech
3.3 The messenger-speech as narrative
(i) Gestures and miens
(ii) Tone, sound and silence
(iii) Scenery
(iv) Objects
(v) Mediation
3.4 Conclusion. Telling versus showing
Appendix A: An inventory of messenger-speeches in Euripides
Appendix B: The messenger as eyewitness
Appendix C: Historical presents in the messenger-speech
Appendix D: The internal addressees of the messenger-speech
Appendix E: Concluding evaluations
Appendix F: Comparisons
Appendix G: Signs of the 'you'
Appendix H: Direct and indirect speech
Bibliography
Index locorum
SUPPLEMENTS TO MNEMOSYNE

Citation preview

NARRATIVE IN DRAMA THE ART OF THE. EURIPIDEAN MESSENGER-SPEECH

MNEMOSYNE BIBLIOTH ECA CLASSICA BATAV A COLLEGERUNT A.D. LEEMAN· H.W. PLEKET · C.J. Rt.;IjGH BIBLIOTHECAE FASCICULOS EDENDOS Ct.;RAVIT C.J. RUIJGH, KLASSIEK SEMINARIUM, OUDE TURFMARKT 129, AMSTERDAM

SUPPLEMENTUM CENTESIM UM DECIMUM SEXTUM IRENE J.F. DEJONG

NARRATIV E IN DRAMA

NARRATIVE IN DRAMA THE ART OF THE EURIPIDEAN MESSENGER-SPEECH

BY

IRENE J.F. DE JONG

EJ. BRILL LEIDEN • NEW YORK • K0BENHAVN • KOLN 1991

The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Jong, IreneJ.F. de Narrative in drama : the art of the Euripidean messenger-speech / by lreneJ.F. de Jong. p. cm. - (Mnemosyne, bibliotheca classica Batava. Supplementum, ISSN 0169-8958 ; v. 116) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 9004094067 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Euripides-Characters-Messengers. 2. Euripides-Technique. 3. Messengers in literature. 4. Speech in literature. 5. Narration (Rhetoric) 6. Rhetoric, Ancient. I. Title. II. Series. P A3978.J64 1991 882'.01-dc20 91-19528 CIP

ISSN 0 169-8958 ISBN 90 04 09406 7

© Copyright 19 9 I by E.J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, micro.film, micro.fiche or a,ry other means without written permission from the publisher Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by E.J. Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid direct{y to Copyright Clearance Center, 2 7 Congress Street, SALEM MA 01970, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

CONTENTS Preface

vii

1. The messenger-speech as a first-person narrative . . . . 1.1 Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'I' versus 'we' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'l'/'we' versus 'he'/'she'/'they' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The messenger as eyewitness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Restriction of place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Restriction of access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Restriction of understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Divine interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Temporary and permanent restriction of understanding 1.3 Getting round the restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Getting round the restriction of place . . . . . . . . . . . . Getting round the restriction of access . . . . . . . . . . . . Getting round the restriction of understanding . . . . . . 1.4 Experiencing versus narrating focalization . . . . . . . . . how versus what . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experiencing focalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Historic presents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implicit anticipations (prolepses) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Narrating focalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dominant narrating focalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Discrepant awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Conclusion. The messenger as 'I as witness'-narrator .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 3 5 9 12 13 13 14 15 17 19 19 24 29 30 32 35 38 45 49 52 57 60

2. The style of presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Scholars on objectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 The messenger as character . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 The messenger as narrator . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 The messenger as focalizer . . . . . . . . . . (i) Concluding evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii) Interspersed criticism and engagement (iii) Epithets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

63 63 65 72 73 74 77 80

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

vi

CONTENTS

(iv) Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (v) Denomination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 From presentation to reception . . . . . . . . Signs of the 'you' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The messenger's own message . . . . . . . . Reactions (1). The internal addressees . . . Reactions (2). The external addressees . . . 2.6 Conclusion. The messenger and the "open of Euripidean tragedy . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

............. 87 ............. 94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 perspective structure" . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

3. Narrative in drama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Why messenger-speeches? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The messenger-speech and the structure of the play Messenger-speeches with preparatory function . . . . Messenger-speeches with concluding function . . . . Messenger-speeches with transitional function . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 The messenger-speech as drama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Direct speech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 The messenger-speech as narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . (i) Gestures and miens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii) Tone, sound and silence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (iii) Scenery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (iv) Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (v) Mediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Conclusion. Telling versus showing . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

117 117 120 122 123 128 130 131 131 139 140 144 148 160 163 172

A: An inventory of messenger-speeches in Euripides B: The messenger as eyewitness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C: Historical presents in the messenger-speech . . . . D: The internal addressees of the messenger-speech E: Concluding evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F: Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G: Signs of the 'you' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H: Direct and indirect speech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

179 183 185 189 191 193 195 199

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index locorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

203 209

Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PREFACE The messenger-speech forms a traditional element of Attic drama and there is no lack of scholarly research on this subject. We have three Latin dissertations dating from 1883 and 1910 (bis); 1 three more recent dissertations, which have, however, never been published; 2 studies dealing with particular aspects; 3 and some commentaries on the individual plays which contain general observations on messengerspeeches as well. 4 However, no single, up-to-date work of reference on the messenger-speech in Greek tragedy is available. This book, consisting of three self-contained studies, aims at filling this void, albeit with some restrictions. In the first place, I deal primarily with the Euripidean messenger-speech, although Aeschylean and Sophoclean messenger-speeches5 will be regularly adduced for comparison (in footnotes). In the second place, I concentrate on the messenger's continuous narrative, rather than on the messenger-scene as a whole, i.e. the combination of introductory dialogue and messenger-speech. Where necessary, however, the direct and remote context of the messengerspeech will be taken into consideration. It was in fact his role as narrator which originally attracted me to the figure of the tragic messenger. The first study concerns the form of the messenger-speech, which is that of a first-person narrative, and the consequences of this form. A first:.:person narrat~ is more restricted in his perception and understanding of the events he recounts than an omniscient narrator, and I will examine the use which Euripides makes of this restriction.

Fischl, Henning and Rassow. See also the paper (from 1899) by Bassi. Erdmann, Keller and Stanley-Porter. 3 Barlow 1971 (scenery), Bremer 1976 (function), Di Gregorio (origin), Hourmouziades (scenery), Joerden (function of offstage area vs. onstage area), Ludwig (structure), Pathmanathan (function), Rijksbaron 1976a (beginning), Strohm (introductory dialogue). 4 I think in particular of Collard on Supp. and Kannicht on He/. 5 Mainly A. Pers. 302-514, Th. 375-652, A. 636-80; S. Aj. 748-812, Ant. 407-40, 1192-1243, OT 1237-85, Tr. 749-812, 899-946, El. 680-763, OC 1586-1666. For my corpus of Euripidean messenger-speeches, see Appendix A. 1

2

viii

PREFACE

The second study deals with the messenger's style of presentation, which scholars have described as objective and det~~cl. In so doing they have underrated the role of the messenger l{sfocalizer: '· "the one who sees". 6 The spectators do not see the eventstlieinselves but only see them through his eyes. This offers Euripides the opportunity to manipulate the presentation of events. Central to the third study is the confrontation between narrative and drama, examined both syntagmatically (what is the place of the messenger's narrative in the dramatic context?) and paradigmatically (what are the differences between narrative and drama, and how does Euripides handle the narrativity of the messenger-speech?). My analyses will take as their point of departure the messenger and his internal point of view. Needless to say, sentences like "the messenger uses technique x to reach effect y" or "the messenger chooses word x to convey meaning y" are in fact forms of shorthand, which in full would run: "Euripides makes the messenger use ... " and "Euripides makes the messenger choose ... ". From time to time I will depart from this shortened formulation in order to consider each level of communication separately: the internal one (between messenger and chorus or chorus and one or more characters) and the external one (between Euripides and spectators and readers). 7 My aim is to increase our insight into the narrative techniques of the Euripidean messenger-speech, and the ways in which Euripides exploits these techniques. Thus description will go hand in hand with interpretation, the former providing the necessary background to the latter. In the end, I hope to convince the reader that Grube's assessment of the

6 According to Genette and Bal, we can in a narrative text distinguish between character (the one who causes or experiences the events), focalizer (the one who perceives, orders and interprets the events) and narrator (the one who verbalizes the focalized events): see De Jong 1987a: 31-40. The word 'focus' in 'focalization' should not be associated with the idea of 'emphasis', but with that of a lens through which events are refracted. 7 For the two levels of communication, internal and external, see Pfister 3-4.

PREFACE

ix

Euripidean messenger-speeches as brilliant but self-explanatory, 8 though meant to be complimentary, in fact wrongs them. The Greek text used is that of Diggle (Oxford 1981, 1984) and Murray (Oxford 1913). For the purposes of this study literal translations were needed, which ruled out those of Lattimore a.o. and Vellacott (Penguin). I found the translations provided by the recent Aris & Phillips series of Euripides' plays best suited to my aims, and I have therefore used them in so far as they are available (D.J. Conacher for Ale., M.J. Cropp for El., E.J. Craik for Ph., M.L. West for Or.). For Ba. I use the translation of G.S. Kirk. The remaining translations are mine. Secondary literature is referred to by author, or, in the case of more than one publication, by author and year of publication. I am indebted to J.M. Bremer, Mrs. A.M. van Erp Taalman Kip, Mrs. E.J. Reijgwart, A. Rijksbaron, and especially C. Collard, for their comments and suggestions. The correction of the English text has been entrusted to Mrs. B.A. Fasting. Research for this study was made possible by a fellowship from the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

8 E.g. on p. 162 ("his speech [of the messenger in Med.], which is one of the finest in Greek drama, ... needs little commentary"); 191 ("his speech [of the messenger in Hipp.], which is excellent, needs no comment"); 417 ("his speech [of the first messenger in Ba.], magnificent as it is, need not detain us"), etcetera.

CHAPTER ONE

THE MESSENGER-SPEECH AS A FIRST-PERSON NARRATIVE In this chapter I will first show why Euripidean messenger-speeches may be classified as first-person narratives, and define as precisely as possible the position of the messenger as first-person narrator (l.l). I will then tum to one of the main characteristics of first-person narration: restriction, as opposed to omniscience. This comprises restriction of place (a first-person narrator can only be in one place at a time), access (he has no access to other characters' minds), and understanding (he may have only a partial or even a false understanding of what is happening around him). Section 1.2 discusses passages in which these restrictions are adhered to or even exploited by Euripides, while section 1.3 deals with passages in which they are evaded or even violated. A first-person narrator can choose to narrate the events exactly as he experienced and understood them at the time they took place, i.e. according to his experiencing focalization ("erlebendes lch"), or to narrate according to his narrating focalization ("erzahlendes lch"), which means that he makes use of his ex eventu knowledge. In section 1.4 I will show that experiencing focalization is the rule in the corpus of Euripidean messenger-speeches. There are only a few - quite effective - exceptions, in which a messenger narrates according to his narrating focalization. In section 1.5 I tum my attention from the messenger to the other characters involved in the events reported, and to his internal and external addressees; I examine their foreknowledge and understanding, which may differ from his. I .I Classification The Euripidean messenger-speech or &yyEA.1 101 Pficrtc; is a long, continuous speech in which a messenger reports events that have taken

2

CHAPTER ONE

place off-stage.' The content of this speech is a narrative, more particularly a first-person narrative, as may be illustrated by the messenger-speech in Hipp.:

.!11:!filS. µEv aKtfiEt: 1547) tears. We had our suspicions, but said nothing, in accordance with your command (1549-53). Everything else was carried aboard lightly, but the bull to be sacrificed did not want to go on board. And Helen's husband ('EAEV'fl~ 1t6at~: 1559) shouted ... Finally, when everything was ready, Helen sat down in the middle of the deck, the supposedly dead Menelaus (o ... ouJCe't' rov Myo1a1 MEVEAEro~: 1572) next to her. Rower sat next to rower, keeping swords hidden under their clothes (uq>' Ei'.µaat ~tpovo~ o' amcr-tia~ OUlC ecmv ouoev XPTJCHµrotEpov ~potot~) by telling the story according to his narrating focalization. His lavish display of ex eventu knowledge confirms the validity of his suspicions at the time. We see that the three exceptions to the rule of experiencing focalization in Euripidean messenger-speeches, Andr., IT (2) and He/. (2)), are effective exceptions. The messengers reveal quite early on the intrigues of which they and their masters are the victims, with the express purpose of indicting another (Andr.) or exculpating themselves (IT (2) and He/. (2)). Thus far the present chapter has dealt with the messenger's understanding and foreknowledge. He is, however, not the only one who is relevant in this respect; there are also the other participants in the action, as well as his internal and external adressees, whose understanding and foreknowledge may differ from his.

I will return to this shifting of responsibility in Ch. 2, p. 104. For this concept of the 'story within a story' or 'play within a play', see De Jong 1985 and Aelion. 150 Kannicht 69-71 discusses the analogy between "Theoklymenoshandlung" and "Eidolonversion des Helenastoffes", but does not include the messenger-speech in his analysis. 148 149

MESSENGER-SPEECH AS FIRST-PERSON NARRATIVE 57

1.5 Discrepant awareness

The term discrepant awareness is borrowed from Pfister, who defines it as follows: discrepant awareness refers to two different relationships. First, there are the differences in levels of awareness of the various dramatic figures, and, secondly, there are those between the fictional figures and the audience. (50)151

In the case of the Euripidean messenger-speech - and again I will concentrate mainly on the mechanema messenger-speeches - the messenger's external audience is always aware of that intrigue, because they have overheard how it was planned or announced onstage, as in El. 598-639, for example. These plans or announcements may be more specific (e.g. Med.) or less specific (e.g. Andr.), 152 but even in the former case there are enough details which remain to be filled in later by the messenger's report. As regards the messenger's internal audience, consisting of the chorus or chorus and one of the protagonists (see Appendix D), the situation is as follows. The chorus is always aware of the intrigue since they, like the external audience, hear it planned or announced onstage. The inevitable and permanent presence of the chorus on stage may even make it necessary for some plotters to solicit their co-operation, i.e. their silence (Med. 822-3 and IT 1056-74). Of the protagonist-addressees, some are aware of the intrigue (Medea in Med., Electra in El.), while others are not (Peleus in Andr., Thoas in IT (2), Theoclymenus in He/. (2)).

Finally, there are the other participants in the action. Of these, the intriguers are obviously aware of their own intrigue, and the victims unaware. Observe that three of the six victims die while they are still unaware of the intrigue which has brought about their downfall:

151 In Chapter 2 we will see that not only the cognitive but also the emotional position of messenger and participants on the one hand, and addressees on the other, may differ. 152 For a more detailed discussion of the anticipations of messenger-speeches, see pp. 123-7.

58

CHAPTER ONE TtVO