Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T03:35:46.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Problem of the Rhesvs1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

G. C. Richards
Affiliation:
Oriel College, Oxford

Extract

Dr. Leaf's article in the Journal of Hellenic Studies has recalled our attention to the venerable problem of the Rhesus. I hasten to give my adhesion to his main contention (in which he was partly anticipated by W. Christ) that the play is a pièce d'occasion justifying or sanctifying the foundation of the city of Amphipolis. But, as he remarks, seeing that the oracle ordering the removal of the bones of Theseus from Skyros to Athens preceded the actual removal by some years, so this play may be intended to prepare for the actual removal of the bones of Rhesus from Troy by Hagnon, and may be prior to it by several years. For this official theft—doubtless arranged beforehand—we have only the authority of Polyainos' Strategemata, but it is a story which seems likely in itself, and goes far to explain the previously obscure lament of the Muse at the end of the play. My object is to examine the play afresh and see whether anything prevents our believing that it was written and exhibited somewhere near 440 B.C., in which case of course it is almost certainly the work of Euripides and not far from his Cyclops in date.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1916

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 192 note 2 The ingenious suggestion has been made to, that the play was written by Euphorion, son of Aeschylus, and only by a misreading of the first syllable of the name attributed to Euripides. This seems risky, as the Didascaliac have not yet been convicted of error, but it removes all difficulties.

page 195 note 1 That 19 out of the 42 dactyls in the third foot are formed by πολέμιος or πόλεμος is a point lot considered by . MrHarrison, in his interesting paper (C.Q., 07, 1914)Google Scholar . The Ajax has 25 dactyls in the third foot.

page 196 note 1 The revision for acting purposes may have cut out some of the astronomical passages to which the author of the Argument appears to allude. The prologue quoted by Dicaearchus may have been Euripidean; but if so, why was it dropped?