The interrogation of Meletus in the Apology at 24c4–28al is not infrequently seen as a typical case of all that is intellectually and artistically dissatisfying in Plato's practice of the genre of philosophical dialogue: not only are we presented with a philosopher who makes some claim to being committed to setting a particularly stringent standard for honesty in argumentation making sophistical arguments, but we are presented also with a cardboard interlocutor who is forced by the hand of Plato to acquiesce (...) to those arguments in a fashion that is completely dissatisfying to the reader. The best anyone seems to do to save Plato from these charges of artistic incompetence and intellectual dishonesty is to appeal to such a level of historical accuracy for the text that the stupidity of Meletus' responses can be attributed to the stupidity of Meletus himself, or to point out features of the political and legal situation that might prevent Meletus from answering the questions by drawing on his true motivation—which is presumably more coherent. Taylor says of this passage: The humour of the situation is that the prosecutor cannot venture to say what he means by either of his charges without betraying the fact that, owing to the ‘amnesty’, the matters complained of are outside of the competency of the court… Hence, when Meletus is pressed to explain what he means, he has to take refuge in puerile nonsense. (shrink)

J’essaie d’explorer la vision religieuse d’Euripide en le considérant comme un penseur en même temps qu’un artiste, ou mieux, comme un auteur qui soulève en artiste des questions essentielles sur le sens de l’existence humaine par rapport à celle des dieux, non pas tellement en mettant dans la bouche de ses personnages certaines doxai, mais plutôt en les faisant parler et agir d’une certaine façon dans une situation dramatique particulière. En me détachant aussi bien des savants qui ont vu dans (...) Euripide un défenseur de la tradition religieuse, que de ceux qui ont tendance à déconstruire ses figures des dieux dans un jeu de projections de la psychologie humaine, je soutiens qu’Euripide a mis en question dès le début la consistance des croyances traditionnelles, avec une inquiétude grandissante qui a abouti, sinon à une négation de l’existence des dieux, du moins à une attitude exaspérée de doute sur leur rôle dans l’existence humaine : ce qui est suffisant pour qu’il puisse être compté parmi les auteurs que Platon accuse d’impiété dans le livre X des Lois. (shrink)

In the authoritative new collection of the Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta , a five-trimeter passage appears as No. 624 in the second volume which contains the ‘Fragmenta adespota’. Whereas Nauck placed the lines among the ‘Fragmenta dubia et spuria’ of Euripides , Kannicht and Snell separate them totally from the Euripidean fragments and associate them with various pseudepigraphical pieces of tragic poetry which are commonly thought to have originated in the ‘workshop of a Jewish forger’. The purpose of my article is (...) to challenge this decision and to show that TrGF 2.624 may well be genuine poetry by Euripides if we restore the lines to their probable original form. An attempt to reconstruct the original context of the fragment will also be added. (shrink)

In the authoritative new collection of theTragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta(TrGF), a five-trimeter passage appears as No. 624 in the second volume which contains the ‘Fragmenta adespota’. Whereas Nauck placed the lines among the ‘Fragmenta dubia et spuria’ of Euripides (Eur. fr. 1131), Kannicht and Snell separate them totally from the Euripidean fragments and associate them with various pseudepigraphical pieces of tragic poetry which are commonly thought to have originated in the ‘workshop of a Jewish forger’. The purpose of my article is (...) to challenge this decision and to show thatTrGF2.624 may well be genuine poetry by Euripides if we restore the lines to their probable original form. An attempt to reconstruct the original context of the fragment will also be added. (shrink)

Eurípides se distingue entre los autores de tragedia por la habilidad con que transforma los estereotipos mitológicos en seres con una identidad personal concreta. Son distintas las estrategias a las que recurre con este fin. Una de ellas consiste en presentarlos a través de otros mostrando a la vez su actuación y sus condicionantes psicológicos; otro recurso que utiliza es dejar entrever el???? de los personajes en los discursos que pronuncian, así como sus capacidades retóricas. Una tercera técnica es la (...) de crear enfrentamientos entre dos parejas de personajes de las que uno es un dios y otro un mortal. En todas estas técnicas, que maneja con gran pericia retórica, hay siempre una idea que subyace y que sirve de filtro y de fondo de discusión. En el caso de Alcestis, la piedra de toque del???? es el?????, la ley o costumbre y la interpretación que de ella hacen los protagonistas. (shrink)

The interrogation of Meletus in the Apology at 24c4–28al is not infrequently seen as a typical case of all that is intellectually and artistically dissatisfying in Plato's practice of the genre of philosophical dialogue: not only are we presented with a philosopher who makes some claim to being committed to setting a particularly stringent standard for honesty in argumentation making sophistical arguments, but we are presented also with a cardboard interlocutor who is forced by the hand of Plato to acquiesce (...) to those arguments in a fashion that is completely dissatisfying to the reader. The best anyone seems to do to save Plato from these charges of artistic incompetence and intellectual dishonesty is to appeal to such a level of historical accuracy for the text that the stupidity of Meletus' responses can be attributed to the stupidity of Meletus himself, or to point out features of the political and legal situation that might prevent Meletus from answering the questions by drawing on his true motivation—which is presumably more coherent. Taylor says of this passage:The humour of the situation is that the prosecutor cannot venture to say what he means by either of his charges without betraying the fact that, owing to the ‘amnesty’, the matters complained of are outside of the competency of the court… Hence, when Meletus is pressed to explain what he means, he has to take refuge in puerile nonsense. (shrink)

No consensus has been reached about the reconstruction of Euripides' fragmentary tragedyBellerophon, but two suggestions have not received the serious attention they deserve. The first is that Stheneboea is a character in the play, and the second that Euripides does not depict Bellerophon as an atheist or an impious hero. In this paper, I shall reconsider both of these suggestions. In fact, the addition of Stheneboea to thedramatis personaeallows us to correct the second problem, as I shall propose that Stheneboea, (...) not Bellerophon, speaks the infamous atheistic fragment. (shrink)