Search

The defence of Athens by king Erechtheus against an invasion led by Eumolpus, son of Poseidon and commander of a Thracian army, was the theme of Euripides’ Erechtheus, staged around 420 BC and preserved only in fragments. In this paper, I suggest that there were two versions of the invasion myth, and that in Erechtheus Euripides made use of both. The poet retains the central idea of the original myth, namely that the city’s salvation was due to a female figure. In the myth it was the altruistic suicide of the parthenos Aglaurus, in the tragedy the decision of queen Praxithea to sacrifice her own daughter. From the more recent version of the myth Euripides draws the combination of the conflict between mortals with one between gods (Poseidon challenges Athena as the patron goddess of the Athenians; Eumolpus’ attack is motivated by his intention to replace Athena with Poseidon). From the recent version of the myth Euripides also takes the motif of the three dead daughters: the suicide of a parthenos, present in the original myth, is extended to the two girls not immolated by Praxithea, and Aglaurus’ heroic motivation is transformed into a sentimental one (the two girls want to follow their dead sister). The heroine Aglaurus serves Euripides as a model for his Praxithea (as saviour of the homeland and as the first priestess, instituted by Athena herself) and for the suicidal sisters. Staged after the first decade of the Peloponnesian War, therefore, Euripides’ Erechtheusthematises the fact that war – any war – involves everyone, even women, even girls. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author analyzes the Euripidean tragedy Ion. In this article an attempt was made to explain some important elements, such as the date, when the play could have been staged, and political situation of Athens in that time. Essential question were mythical innovations in this tragedy. The author looks for sources of these innovations and their influence on propaganda meaning of Ion. Regarding the problem of date, when the tragedy was staged, there were additionally made some methodological remarks. Very helpful in that chapter were auxiliary sources, such as another literary sources and epigraphical sources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Both Aeschylus in the Oresteia and Euripides in Ion, in their creation of Apollo figures, make use of images of caves, including references to the actual Acropolis caves, one of which was an Apolline sanctuary. This article focuses on the significance of these references for the fifth-century spectators of the plays. The references to caves are seen here as part of a dialogue between the tragic world and cult reality. In this dialogue tragedy's spectators are active participants as they bring to their experience of the play their knowledge of cults/cult sites, such as the caves, which are an aspect of their everyday reality. The tragedian draws on a shared knowledge of the associations of these cults/cult sites in the creation of dramatic meaning. The cave images shift from associating Apollo with the outside and the uncivilised in Aeschylus to suggesting a new and central civic role for the god at Athens in Euripides. This is seen in relation to the apparent increased interest in Apolline cult, and the more authoritative role for the god, in late fifth-century Athens. Close analysis of these tragic references to cult sites, therefore, adds to our understanding of how tragedians use gods and how these gods are experienced by the fifth-century audiences for whom the plays were produced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]