Lampas - Volume 50, Issue 1, 2017

In this paper I argue for a psychological reading of the Electra of Euripides. The negative qualifications of Clytaemnestra by the farmer, the chorus and the old man strengthen the conviction of Electra and Orestes that they have no choice but to kill their mother, so that in the first half of the play they only consider how to do it, not if they should do it. Their conviction is challenged when Clytaemnestra arrives on stage in the fourth episode and is allowed to defend herself, but only radically changes after they have committed the murder. Then they come, as it were, to their senses and the chorus too sees their actions in a different light. To shed light on the processes at play, I draw comparisons with such modern concepts as ‘peer pressure’ and ‘tunnel vision’ and discuss the jealousy Electra seems to feel for her mother, which fuels her anger. As a starting point, the introduction explains the democratic qualities of the genre of tragedy, in particular the way it asked the original audience to judge the characters on stage in the same way as they had to judge plaintiffs or the accused in the Athenian law courts.

The aim of this article is to show that modern linguistic approaches may be used in the analysis of characterization in Greek tragedy, specifically that of Euripides’ version of Electra in the eponymous play. I analyse several of Electra’s interactions with other characters in the play’s early scenes, applying insights from linguistic politeness theory and conversation analysis, in order to show that Electra’s linguistic ‘behaviour’ is driven by her situation and her preoccupations. Her interactions with the Peasant and the Chorus are marked by consistent affection from all sides, but also by a fundamental inability to communicate effectively. In her long stichomythia with Orestes, disruptions of the conversational structure mark brief flares in Electra’s language at moments where issues that particularly vex her are discussed.

This article examines the first stasimon of Euripides’ Electra, which contains a description of the shield of Achilles. After an introduction on the choral ode, the shield of Achilles is subjected to archaeological analysis. This analysis focuses on the question whether the decorative emblems on the shield are realistic or fantastic. The question is, in other words, whether this shield could appear on the archaic-classical battlefield. Important in this discussion is also to what extent the shield design is influenced by the description of Achilles’ shield in Iliad 18. The article ends with a literary interpretation of the shield emblems, relating for instance the images of Perseus and the Gorgon, the sun and stars, as well as the Sfinx and the Chimaera to the events in the plot.

Book 3 of Virgil’s Aeneid has always been evaluated quite negatively, and scholars have been surprised by the Homeric fantasy world that is presented. This article will present a metapoetical reading of Aeneid 3, explaining the striking nature of the book, which is interpreted as commenting on Virgil’s relationship with Homeric epic.

This article examines the Achaemenides episode in the third book of Virgil’s Aeneid (3.588-691). It explores the intratextual connections with the Sinon episode in the second book and especially Virgil’s highly creative ‘rewriting’ of the Cyclops episode in the Odyssey (9.106-566). Particular attention is paid to the ways in which the Virgilian text metapoetically signals its intertextual engagement with the Odyssey. An intermezzo scrutinizes Achaemenides’ speaking name, arguing that it alludes to verbal and visual representations of Parthian suppliants in Augustan discourse. The article concludes with an analysis of a Dutch poem, Achaemenides by Willem Jan Otten, in which the Aeneid’s creative response to the Odyssey is thematised and given new meaning.

The interpretation of Greek and Latin texts is one of the learning objectives of the Dutch secondary school curriculum in Greek and Latin languages and cultures. In this context, ‘interpretation’ entails both the skill to find meaning in Greek and Latin texts yourself and knowledge of existing interpretations. This article aims to combine these two aspects of interpretation when teaching Virgil’s Aeneid. I suggest that a narratological approach of space enables students to interpret the text themselves, while it subsequently enables their teachers to give insight into existing interpretations and academic discussions of the poem.