Typeset by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk Printed and bound in Great Britain To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.
Contents List of Figures List of Contributors Acknowledgments Abbreviations
Introduction: Greek Tragedy and the New Materialisms Mario Telò and Melissa Mueller 1
viii x xi
Stone into Smoke: Metaphor and Materiality in Euripides’ Troades Victoria Wohl
Morbid Materialism: The Matter of the Corpse in Euripides’ Alcestis Karen Bassi
Orestes’ Urn in Word and Action Joshua Billings
Weapons as Friends and Foes in Sophocles’ Ajax and Euripides’ Heracles Erika L. Weiberg
The Familiar Mask A. C. Duncan
The Other Side of the Mirror: Reflection and Reversal in Euripides’ Hecuba Ava Shirazi
Memory Incarnate: Material Objects and Private Visions in Classical Athens, from Euripides’ Ion to the Gravesite Seth Estrin
The Boon and the Woe: Friendship and the Ethics of Aﬀect in Sophocles’ Philoctetes Mario Telò
Noses in the Orchestra: Bodies, Objects, and Aﬀect in Sophocles’ Ichneutae Anna Uhlig
7 8 9
10 Speaking Sights and Seen Sounds in Aeschylean Tragedy Naomi Weiss
11 Electra, Orestes, and the Sibling Hand
12 Materialisms Old and New Edith Hall
Notes Bibliography Index
219 269 293
Noses in the Orchestra Bodies, Objects, and Aﬀect in Sophocles’ Ichneutae Anna Uhlig
In the opening scene of Sophocles’ satyr drama Ichneutae (“The Trackers”),1 Apollo presents the satyrs’ patriarch, Silenus, with an attractive proposal. In a scenario familiar from the Homeric Hymn to Hermes, the god’s beloved cattle have been stolen. But unlike in the hymn, Apollo has decided to outsource the work of locating his herd and promises Silenus a golden crown and his freedom if he can secure their safe return. Silenus, in turn, hands oﬀ the dirty work to his sons, the half-human, half-equine satyrs who make their appearance in the orchestra soon after the god’s departure. A lacuna makes the satyrs’ entrance diﬃcult to reconstruct, but they seem eager to embark on the hunt, and to earn the enticing reward promised by the god. Soon Silenus is directing their search, instructing them to sniﬀ out the cattle like dogs, as if taking literally Apollo’s description of his own failed attempts to “dog-hunt” (κυνηγετῶ 21) for his lost herd. While the text here is also quite fragmentary, what remains of the speech preserves much of Silenus’s emphasis on the satyrs’ sense of smell as the means by which they will track down the cattle (91–99): φησίν τις; .[ ἔ.οικεν ἤδη κ[ ἄγ’ εἷ.α δὴ πᾶσ. . .[ ῥινηλατῶν ὀσμ[ αὔρας ἐάν πῃ πρ[ non plus 15 ll. ] διπλοῦς ὀκλάζω[ν . . . . . . . . . . . . .]ν. ὕποσμος ἐν χρῷ .[ non plus 15 ll. ] οὕτως ἔρευναν καὶ π[. . . . . . . . . . .]. ἅπαντα χρηστὰ κα[ὶ . . . . . . . . . .]λειν.
The Materialities of Greek Tragedy
Does someone say? . . . now it seems . . . Come, then (everyone?) . . . nose-tracking (by scent?) . . . if somehow the breeze . . . crouching down doubled . . . guided by smell, skin close to (the ground?) . . . thus the search and . . . everything good and . . .
The satyrs must, Silenus insists, “track with their noses” (ῥινηλατῶν), and it is likely that the next word, which begins with ὀσμ[, also has something to do with smell.2 Somewhat more speculatively, the reference to breezes (αὔρας) in the following line may refer to smells carried by the wind. And then, to drive home the point, Silenus declares that the satyrs will be ὕποσμος (97), a rare word, found here for the first time, meaning something like “subject to, ruled by smell.”3 This passage, and the subsequent focus in the play on the satyrs’ sight and then hearing, might seem to invite consideration of sensory perception, but I believe that Sophocles’ interest in the satyrs’ senses, and their smelling noses in particular, can equally well be explored under the rubric of aﬀect. Indeed, sensory perception, and scent in particular, has been at the heart of many studies of aﬀect, since, as Teresa Brennan observes, it “is critical in how we ‘feel the atmosphere.’”4 And while one might generally associate aﬀect with what we call “emotion,” many branches of aﬀect theory function with a somewhat broader definition that, as Seigworth and Gregg state, “marks a body’s belonging to a world of encounters.”5 It is in this spirit that my own thinking about aﬀect has developed, as a way of gaining better purchase on how the fantastic bodies of satyrs are created through their interactions with (other) objects in the theater. In the Ichneutae passage just examined, Silenus’s interest in the satyrs’ sense of smell is also unmistakably an interest in their bodies. In order to be “ruled by smell,” Silenus instructs his sons to crouch down, doubling over their bodies (διπλοῦς ὀκλάζων), and to move “skin close” (ἐν χρῷ) to better follow the scent of the cattle along the ground. The latter phrase, used elsewhere by Sophocles of shaving,6 highlights the satyrs’ own fleshy form by identifying their skin (χρώς) as (one of) the means by which the scent will be encountered. The somatic component encourages a pointedly physical understanding of the satyrs’ resemblance to a pack of hunting dogs. Silenus’s instructions might otherwise have remained a compelling verbal metaphor and no more, as is the case when the Chorus of Aeschylus’s Agamemnon describe Cassandra finding the scent of past bloodshed like a dog,7 or when Athena praises Odysseus for sniﬃng out Ajax’s tracks in Sophocles’ Ajax.8 In Ichneutae, by contrast, the satyrs’ physical adjustment, adopting the downward facing posture of hunting dogs, parlays the
Noses in the Orchestra
verbal metaphor into a visual/corporeal one. The satyrs are, in a sense, transformed into dogs before the audience’s eyes.9 The physical metamorphosis of the satyrs is put on prominent display in a mimetic dance celebrating the Chorus’s new canine physiques.10 The dance is vividly described by their father who emphasizes the novelty of the satyrs’ physical posture. “What is it, this new manner of bending over towards the ground to dog-hunt?” Silenus asks, “What is this act of yours?” (τίν’ αὖ, / πρόσπαιον ὧδε κεκλιμ[ένος] κυνηγετεῖν / πρὸς γῇ; τίς ὑμῶν ὁ τρόπος; 124–26). In addition to noting their “dog-hunting” posture, Silenus compares the satyrs to hedgehogs (127) and farting monkeys (128). Even as they insinuate a degree of bathetic inelegance that may or may not have been an accurate description of the dance, the comments re-enforce the bestial nature of the satyrs’ appearance, and ensure that attention remains firmly fixed on the form of their newly transformed bodies.11 The dance turns the satyrs’ bodies into a conspicuous spectacle for both Silenus and the audience alike and invites us to contemplate the unaccustomed forms that their transformation has brought about. The hunting dance described in Pindar’s famous hyporcheme, in which the singer instructs an unidentified dancer to “imitate” a horse or dog with his twirling foot (fr. 107ab. 1–3), not to mention vase iconography, reminds us that the mimetic animal dancing of the Ichneutae Chorus was neither unprecedented, despite Silenus’s repeated protestations of novelty, nor limited to the realm of satyr drama.12 But the physicality of the dance, its celebration of the bodies’ altered appearance, and Silenus’s insistence that the Chorus have transformed themselves in a way that he has never seen before, asks us to think about how theatrical bodies—and satyrs bodies in particular—can be remade through interaction with the world around them.
1. Fashioning bodies Before following the transformed bodies of the Ichneutae Chorus any further, it will be helpful to consider what one means by the term body. I pursue this question with respect to two distinct, but related objects, a general definition of the body, and a more circumscribed description of the unique bodies of satyrs as they appeared in dramatic competition at the fifth-century Great Dionysia. My approach to the first, more broadly conceived category of body is grounded in the work of Bruno Latour, who calls for a new language of bodies that reflects the aﬀective relationships that constitute our lived experience.
The Materialities of Greek Tragedy
Rather than rely on the traditional post-enlightenment model of bodies and subjects, Latour argues that we must learn to account for what he calls a “multiverse of articulated propositions.”13 The multiverse is comprised of the vast array of aﬀective experiences that, when recognized (or, as Latour puts it, articulated),14 contribute to the construction of what we otherwise call a body. The body, he explains, is “an interface that becomes more and more describable as it learns to be aﬀected by more and more elements. [. . .] There is no sense in defining the body directly, but only in rendering the body sensitive to what these other elements are.”15 The body, in other words, cannot be considered as a singularity. It only exists as a product of aﬀective engagement. For Latour, the aﬀective construction of the body is an ongoing process which is never fully completed.16 Moreover—and this point is of particular importance for my thinking about satyrs—the ongoing construction of a body is a collaborative project that makes use of tools and instruments which are integrated into that body by means of aﬀective engagement. Latour thus rejects the customary boundaries that distinguish between inside and outside, self and other. The “external” objects that give shape to a body, by honing or teaching its sensory capacities, become a part of that body, no diﬀerent than the muscles and sinews that have been taught to walk, run, and dance.17 The illustrative example that Latour oﬀers to describe his rather unconventional definition of the body pertains, coincidentally, to how people train their sense of smell for work in perfume houses, namely by honing their olfactory sensitivity through the use of a smelling kit containing particularly extreme examples of various types of scent.18 This smelling kit, which trains the body to be what in the trade they metonymically call a “nose,” should, Latour argues, be treated as “coextensive with the body.”19 The kit is, in other words, as much and as authentically a part of this newly fashioned smelling body—the professional “nose”—as the flesh and blood agent who does the smelling. One might also consider the way that tools hone the muscles of other types of professionals while becoming veritable extensions of their bodies: chefs and their knives, dancers and their shoes, astronomers and their telescopes. For those of us who spend much of our lives with books, such a radical notion of the body finds expression in the way that our own perceptions are honed by powerful aﬀective engagements with the texts that we study, so much so that these external objects can indeed be incorporated into our corporeal form (above and beyond our hunched backs and myopic vision). Latour’s observations are compelling in their own right, but I am drawn to his theoretical framework here because it serves as an exceptionally powerful tool for thinking about satyrs, and those of Sophocles’ Ichneutae in particular,
Noses in the Orchestra
for whom it is the aﬀective engagement of their noses, trained to the ground by the scent of Apollo’s lost cattle, that reshapes and thus extends the boundaries of the body. But the smells that the satyrs are tracking are not the first external forces to be amalgamated into the composite bodies of the hybrid Chorus. Before the dramatic action has even begun, the human choreuts must be transformed into satyrs. They must take on, by means of theatrical costume, the somatic attributes—shaggy beard and equine ears, equine tail and jovially erect phallus— that define the mythical creatures. This basic fact is true of all figures who appear in mimetic guise, whether in the theater or elsewhere, but I believe that there are certain attributes of theatrical satyrs that make this point particularly salient for the questions I am exploring here. There are two “external objects” that help to construct the bodies of the satyr Chorus in the theater of Dionysus. In the upper register, there is a distinctive mask adorned with the satyrs’ characteristic facial features.20 In the lower position, a perizôma, a specialized type of shorts made of fur or leather that allows the human choreut to acquire the satyrs’ equine tail and erect phallus. Whereas the theatrical mask has enjoyed the lion’s share of scholarly attention,21 I believe that the all-too-often neglected perizôma holds the key to understanding the satyrs’ dramatic form.22 Reveling in anything coarse and crude, satyr drama is always eager to draw attention to the nether regions, even when it comes to theorizing about costume. We have a good sense of what the perizôma looked like through the striking frequency with which it is depicted in fifth-century vase painting. In contrast to the mask, the perizôma is represented in these images as a costume on the body. Since vase painters almost invariably depict worn masks as “melting,” the object blending seamlessly with the body of its wearer, it can, with rare exceptions, only be identified when not in use.23 The perizôma, however, is only seen when worn. It retains its marked status as costume even when performing its mimetic function. The disparity is beautifully illustrated by a famous bell crater attributed to the Tarporley painter which, although somewhat removed from the context of fifth-century Athens, nevertheless exemplifies its iconographic idioms (Fig. 9.1).24 The three choreuts on the vase, represented just before or after a performance, all wear the distinctive perizôma of the dramatic satyr. Two of the figures hold their masks, which are easily identified as such, but the mask of the third, which is worn, has melted and become indistinguishable from the body of the choreut.25 When one examines the lower register, however, the perizômata worn by all three choreuts are clearly demarcated as costume and the craftsmanship behind the garments is emphasized by conspicuously rendered details. If the popularity
The Materialities of Greek Tragedy
Fig. 9.1 Three choreuts in satyr costume. Apulian red figure bell krater attributed to the Tarporley painter (c. 410–380 BCE). NM47.5, Nicholson Museum, the University of Sydney.
of the perizôma as a subject for vase painters attests to the outsized role of this particular costume in the theatrical imagination of fifth-century Athenians, its explicit representation as a costume in use suggests that this general fascination was due, in no small part, to its ability to stimulate thinking about how crafted objects transform bodies. Such an inference is given further support by the form of the perizôma itself, the material epitome of somatic hybridity. Satyrs themselves are hybrid figures. They are, most obviously, a combination of man and beast, but satyrs combine disparate, even oppositional elements in many other ways as well; as François Lissarrague has so elegantly explored, insofar as they are the paradigmatic internal other of the Athenian imagination, their very being comes to represent the union of seemingly antithetical qualities.26 The perizôma reflects this essential
Noses in the Orchestra
hybridity in its combination of human and equine anatomy—the upright penis in the front perfectly balanced by the dangling tail in the back. But it also, when worn, draws attention to the more complex hybrid body constructed through the combination of the human flesh of the choreut and the leather—the flesh of a dead animal simulating human flesh—of the perizôma. This hybrid nudity constitutes the essential definition of the perizôma in vase iconography, where the presence of the costume is signaled by the line that simultaneously separates and joins the body of the choreut and the new, artificial body created by the perizôma. It is useful here think of the hybrid nudity of the perizôma in contrast with the so-called stage nakedness so familiar from comedy. In comedy, nakedness is represented by a full-body suit that covers the actor’s entire body, with the exception of hands and feet.27 Even “nude” limbs are covered by fabric, which is always conspicuously marked as costume in the vase representations.28 By contrast, the perizôma combines with the exposed limbs of the choreut to represent a truly composite body; part mimetic, part “real”; part covered, part exposed; part animal, part human; part dead, part living. The perizôma is both the symbol of the coordinated function of choreut and costume and the means by which it is achieved. It embodies the fusion of human actor and object out of which the basic bodies of theatrical satyrs are formed. Because satyr drama is defined by the presence of a Chorus of satyrs, the two elements of the basic costume, mask and perizôma, represent essential components of the genre, transforming the Chorus members, who will have portrayed any range of figures in the preceding three tragedies, into the expected and reliable satyrs of the fourth play. But my generalized picture of the basic construction of the satyr body is incomplete, since it does not reflect the vast range (or multiverse, to use Latour’s term) of additional objects that are employed within individual plays. As Rebecca Lämmle has explored, satyr drama engages in a “serial poetics” in which each new theatrical iteration represents a blend of familiar attributes cast in compelling new light.29 In many plays the use of supplementary dress and other objects, items which we may call “secondary costumes”, helps to diﬀerentiate the satyrs, adapting them to the particular mythical narrative into which they have been inserted.30 Be they the torches of Aeschylus’s Prometheus Pyrkaeus, the goat skins of Euripides’ Cyclops, or the hammers of Sophocles’ Pandora, these secondary costumes function as further extensions of the satyrs’ bodies, transforming them from their accustomed status as rustic attendants of Dionysus into the new roles, and bodies, that they inhabit only for the duration of any given performance.
The Materialities of Greek Tragedy
Through their hybrid status as bodies shaped by perizômata, and through their penchant for honing their form by further incorporating the additional “external objects” of secondary costumes, satyrs, more than any other creatures of the fifth-century Athenian theater, embody Latour’s composite form. Their very bodies are the products of aﬀect, physically created through engagement with the materials that surround them.
2. Satyrs, cattle, and other things And yet, as we have already seen, the satyrs of Sophocles’ Ichneutae do not transform themselves by means of secondary costumes. Their transition from “normal” band of satyrs to the hunting dogs of Apollo is unusual in two respects. Firstly, it is eﬀected entirely through the “basic” bodies of the Chorus, the hybrid construct of human choreut and primary costume (mask and perizôma). Secondly, and perhaps more radically, the satyrs’ transformation takes place in the orchestra, during the course of the play, in front of the audience rather than before the drama begins (backstage, as it were).31 The exposure of the satyrs’ metamorphosis, made all the more conspicuous by their elaborate mimetic dance, situates the malleability of the satyrs’ bodies at the heart of the dramatic action. The foregrounding of the satyrs’ sensory experience, through scent above all, frames their transformation as something that happens through aﬀective interaction with the external world (all the more so when we recall how many ancient theories of sense perception entail the physical interaction of sense organ and sensory particle).32 Within the structure of Ichneutae, it is the task of the transformed satyr-dogs, now the “trackers” of the play’s title, to seek out the sensory object that has trained their noses in this canine fashion.33 For the spectator, whose gaze has been directed to the performative construction of the satyrs’ new form—and who has, to use Latour’s terminology, articulated the aﬀective engagement that has given their bodies new shape—the hunt takes on a deeper significance. It is a search for the “kit” that is now a part of the “noses” in the orchestra. The unseen cattle, whose bodies have joined together with the satyrs by means of scent, can be understood as a kind of metaphorical secondary costume, an added element that adapts their bodies to the circumstances of this dramatic iteration.34 Like the tracks of Apollo’s cattle, the trail that I follow toward the unseen costume-bodies of Ichneutae leads backwards, beginning near the end of our extant fragments with Cyllene’s response to the re-fashioned satyrs as they near
Noses in the Orchestra
the conclusion of their search. As they approach the nymph’s mountainside dwelling, the satyrs once again perform a raucously mimetic dance, leaping about the orchestra like the hunting dogs they have become, urged on by Silenus’s “dogdriving whistle” (κυν. ο. ρ.τικὸ. ν σύριγμα 173). The play’s emphasis on aﬀect has shifted from smell to sound,35 and Cyllene reprises the “dog-hunting” language of the earlier scenes, but now with regards to the satyrs’ vocal expressions (231– 32).36 More importantly for my present purposes, the speech contains the play’s most pointed discussion of costume, and is thus a particularly acute provocation to further contemplate the construction of the Chorus’s bodies (221–32): θῆρες, τί. [τό]νδε χλοερὸν ὑλώδη πάγον ἔν�[θ]ηρο�ν ὡρμήθητε σὺν πολλῇ βοῇ; τίς ἥδε τέχνη; τίς μετάστασις πόνων, οὓς πρόσθεν εἶχες δεσπότῃ χάριν φέρων, ὕ..ι �νος αἰεὶ νεβρίνῃ καθημμέν[ο]ς δορᾷ χερ[ο]ῖ ν� τ�ε� θ�ύ�ρ�σ�[ο]ν� εὐπαλῆ φέρων ὄπισθεν εὐίαζες ἀμφὶ τὸν θεὸν σὺν ἐγγόνοις νύμφαισι καἰπόλων ὄχλῳ; νῦν δ’ ἀγνοῶ τὸ χρῆμα· ποῖ στροφαὶ νέα�ι� μανιῶν στρέφουσι; θαῦμα γὰρ κατέκλ�[υ]ο�ν ὁμοῦ πρέπον κέλευμά πως κυ�ν�η�γετ[ῶ]ν ἐγγὺς μολόντων θηρὸς εὐναί[ου] τ�ρο�[.]ης,
Beasts! Why do you attack this verdant wooded hill, home of wild things, with such shouts? What is this skill? What is this change from the labors which you used to complete on behalf of your master, always (drunk?), clad in fawn skins and carrying the thyrsoi easily in your hands, shouting “euai” behind the god with your kindred nymphs and throng of goatherds? But this (τὸ χρῆμα) now I do not recognize. Where are these new twists of mania turning you? I was astonished to hear a shout just like that of dog-hunters closing in on a beast in its lair . . .
The play between absent and present costumes is neatly encapsulated in Cyllene’s address to the satyrs-dogs. Like Silenus observing their earlier mimetic dance, Cyllene comments on the satyrs’ odd and unaccustomed behavior, noting the new skill (τέχνη 223) that their bodies display.37 But in contrast to Silenus, Cyllene makes a pointed observation about costuming when she questions the absence of the satyrs’ typical paraphernalia: the fawn skins and thyrsoi of their Dionysian identity, items that could be called their standard bacchic secondary costume. Cyllene’s words conjure the image of the satyr Chorus in another guise,
The Materialities of Greek Tragedy
clad in the accoutrements of Dionysiac celebration. But the bodies before her in the theater hold nothing in their hands (χερ[ο]ῖ�ν) and are covered not by the skins of deer (νεβρίνῃ [. . .] δορᾷ) but by their own naked hides, the hybrid construct of choreut and perizôma. Cyllene’s projection of an absent secondary costume calls attention to the unorthodox way in which the Chorus has been transformed. The new features of their bodies are apparent from the satyrs’ deportment, and their bowed posture, which raises the equine tails of the perizôma into the air, emphasizes the bestial features already present in their hybrid form. But the source of this change—a diﬀerent sort of absent costume— remains unseen. Amidst the suggestive language of Cyllene’s speech, the use of the term χρῆμα is particularly intriguing. As Cyllene contemplates the satyrs’ unfamiliar appearance, she proclaims her baﬄement at their new form: νῦν δ᾽ἀγνοῶ τὸ χρῆμα, which I have translated (or perhaps avoided translating) as “but this now I do not recognize.” It is diﬃcult to know exactly how to construe the usage here. The term χρῆμα has a wide range of meanings stemming from the root sense of “something that is needed.” It can denote inanimate objects, most often money, as well as the more abstract sense of “aﬀairs.”38 Cyllene’s use of the word here seems to refer, at least superficially, to the behavior of the satyrs (looking forward to the στροφαὶ νέα�ι� of the line’s end); that is, to the general disposition of the Chorus— their appearance, dancing and singing—in a variation of the “aﬀair” sense of the word. But following so closely on the heels of a discussion of the satyrs’ familiar, but absent, accoutrements, it is hard not to hear a further sense of physical object, possessions—or even of, as English theater idiom so appropriately dubs them, stage properties, props. One can readily hear both registers in Cyllene’s broadly phrased exclamation, since they are, in fact, two sides of the same coin, as the nymph herself has made clear. She cannot understand what the satyrs are doing and, or perhaps because, she does not see their customary possessions. Sophocles’ use of the term χρῆμα elsewhere in the play further complicates our understanding of Cyllene’s unusual turn of phrase.39 In the opening exchange between Apollo and Silenus, a tightly paired twofold usage raises the question of whether, and how, animals can be considered χρήματα. Apollo is the first to make use of the word, speaking of τὸ χρῆμα as he encourages Silenus to take up the task of retrieving his cattle (44). Gaps in the papyrus make the precise reference of word diﬃcult to determine, but it seems clear that he is speaking either of his cattle or of the reward (μισθός) that he will oﬀer for their return.40 Silenus repeats the term almost immediately in his response to the god, expressing his eagerness to “dog-hunt the thing”: ἄν πως τὸ χρῆμα τοῦτό σοι
Noses in the Orchestra
κυνηγ�[έ]σω (50). Silenus thus quite clearly applies the term to Apollo’s cattle, the object of the hunt. His language either echoes Apollo’s earlier phrasing or, perhaps more intriguingly, reframes the god’s economic discourse by equating the wages of Apollo’s hired hands to the monetary value of his lost animals.41 Whatever the specific nuances of this first, double usage of the term, the exchange situates the bodies of living creatures within the discourse of χρήματα. Like the reward that Apollo oﬀers, the cattle at the heart of the play are, in a certain sense, objects. But so, too, are the satyrs themselves. Apollo and Silenus’s blending of animate and inanimate objects colors the implications of Cyllene’s speech to the satyrs, whom she addresses as θῆρες (“beasts”)—the first word she utters on stage. By foregrounding the satyrs’ own bestial status, Cyllene calls attention to the blurry boundary between the satyrs and the object of their hunt.42 The nymph twice describes the satyrs’ unusual (canine) hunting sounds as if they were targeting beasts (ἔν�[θ]ηρο�ν 222; θηρὸς 232), echoing the vocative θῆρες with which she begins her address. The domesticated cattle are not, properly speaking, θῆρες, which refers specifically to wild creatures, but they are, at least according to Silenus, χρήματα, the term which Cyllene applies to the Chorus’ new bodies. The somatic analogy between the Chorus and the object of their hunt is thus twofold, the bodies of both are simultaneously animal and object. The blending of animate and inanimate bodies in Ichneutae finds its most explicit and decisive expression in the form of the lyre—the object that the satyrs find in place of the cattle they have been searching for. Like the Chorus themselves, the lyre is an old body given new form. A tortoise transformed into a musical instrument, the lyre is a once-living animal fully assimilated to the realm of objecthood but still capable of finding voice by joining with the bodies of others—with the musician, who plucks the strings with his fingers, but also with those who hear and, like the satyrs, are “carved” or “shaped” (δι[α]χαράσσεται 261) by its sound. Like the cattle, the lyre is an unseen force working upon the satyrs’ bodies, entering and shaping them through their ears.43 The satyrs struggle to understand how the voice they have heard can come, as Cyllene asserts, from something dead (299–300): Χo. Κυ.
Chorus But how can I believe that this voice bellows from something dead? Cyllene Believe it. For now that it is dead, it has a voice, but when alive the beast was mute.
The Materialities of Greek Tragedy
Cyllene’s retort, an adaptation of Hermes’ own language from the Homeric hymn,44 classifies the tortoise as a θήρ, yet another animal in the play’s everexpanding bestiary.45 The satyrs, still unable to fully comprehend the nymph’s meaning, pick up on the term and launch into a catalogue of bestial forms that the instrument might take: a cat or a panther (303); a weasel or a crab (305); a dung beetle (307).46 The satyrs’ humorous comparisons recall their father’s earlier mockery of their own canine dance, and, as then, the ludic buﬀoonery masks the sharper point that the very definition of the body is at stake in this play. Cyllene launches into a more schematic description of the lyre, detailing the components—pegs, knots, holes, and skin (δέρμα 314)—of Hermes’ new “possession” (κτέανον 313) and the satyrs finally come to embrace the instrument’s “-plucked voice” (οψάλακτός� τις ὀμφὴ 329).47 The object now interacts with their bodies in a diﬀerent way, not “carving” them in fear but “lengthening their smooth knobs in pleasure” (τὸ� λεῖον φαλακρὸν ἡδονῇ πιτνάς 367).48 As the satyrs are more strongly joined with the lyre, their aﬀective experience shifts to the sexual excitement that so often characterizes their encounters with anything new. And it is now, when its composite nature has come fully into view, that the satyrs declare the lyre too to be a χρῆμα (372–76): οὐ γάρ με ταῦτα πείσεις, πως τὸ χρῆμ’ οὗτος εἰργασμένος ῥινοκόλλητον ἄλλων ἔκ�α�ρ�ψεν βοῶν που δοράς [γ’ ἢ] ’πὸ τῶν Λοξίου. ·
You will not persuade me that whoever fashioned the thing (τὸ χρῆμ’) of glued hide, dried the skins of any cows other than those of Loxias.
The tortoise’s body has found its paradoxically immortal voice in death by joining her hollowed shell together with the dried skins of Apollo’s cattle. The satyrs’ hunt for Apollo’s cattle has led them to an entirely diﬀerent kind of body.49 The lyre’s skin (δοράς), formed of the χρῆμα after which the satyrs have been · searching, stands as a correlate to the fawn skins of the satyrs’ unworn secondary costume, its variegated appearance (302) mimicking the proverbially dappled patterning of young deer.50 Indeed, as Tim Power has observed, the lyre itself is a common accessory (what I have been calling a secondary costume) of satyrs in vase painting.51 At the same time, the lyre’s hybrid construction, formed of the bodies of tortoise and cattle, also mirrors the costumes that the choreuts do have on, the perizôma which amalgamates their bodies with the tanned skins of
Noses in the Orchestra
chattel. In this final marked use of the term χρῆμα, Sophocles invites us to consider the composite nature of the play’s (and the genre’s) satyr Chorus, creatures whose basic bodies are formed through the new anatomy of their hybrid costumes and then further transformed for each new play, often through the application of secondary costuming. Rather than literally employ such secondary costumes, Sophocles’ Ichneutae calls attention to their absence, and in so doing allows us to reconsider the ways in which the satyrs’ bodies are joined with other objects that serve this same role. The parallels between the satyr Chorus and the lyre that they inadvertently discover on their search for Apollo’s cattle, a body into which those cattle have themselves been incorporated, is already anticipated somewhat earlier in the play when Silenus rebukes his sons for their cowardice. The fearful behavior that they exhibit, a result of the frightening new sounds that meet their ears, is itself already a manifestation of their aﬀective engagement with the lyre,52 a transformation that mirrors in the aural sphere their earlier mutation into dogs by means of their noses. Silenus’s indignant response oﬀers an account of the ways in which the satyrs’ bodies are themselves objects of craft, and are reformed in concert with the objects around them (145–60): τί μοι ψ[ό]φον; φοβ[. . .]. κα[.] δειμαίνετε μάλθης ἄναγνα σώ[μα]τ�’ ἐκμεμαγμένα κάκιστα θηρῶν ὀνθ�[. .]ν [π]ά�σῃ σκιᾷ φόβον βλέποντες, πάν[τα] δειματούμενοι, ἄνευρα κἀκ�όμιστα κἀν�ε[λε]ύθερα διακονοῦντες, σώ�ματ’ εἰ[σ]ιδ[ε]ῖ�ν� μόνον κα�[ὶ γ]λ�ῶ�σσα κα[ὶ] φ�άλητες. εἰ δέ που δέῃ, π�ι�σ�τ�οὶ λόγοισιν ὄντες ἔργα φεύγετε, τοιοῦ�[δ]ε πατρός, ὦ κάκιστα θηρίων, οὗ πόλλ’ ἐφ’ ἥβης μνήματ’ ἀνδρείας ὕπο κ[ε]ῖται παρ’ οἴκοις νυμφικοῖς ἠσκημένα, οὐκ εἰς φυγὴν κλίνοντος, οὐ δειλ[ο]υμένου, οὐδὲ ψόφοισι τῶν ὀρειτρόφων βοτῶν [π]τήσσοντος, ἀλλ’ α[ἰχ]μαῖσιν ἐξει[ρ]γασμένου [ἃ] νῦν ὑφ’ ὑμῶν λάμ[πρ’ ἀ]π�ορρυπαίνεται [ψ]όφῳ νεώρει κόλακ[ι] ποιμένων π[ο]θέν.
What noise (sc., do you hear)? . . . you are afraid, filthy bodies molded of wax, most vile of beasts . . . you see a fright in every shadow, you are scared of everything. You behave like you have no sinews—filthy, slavish. You are mere bodies to see: mouth and phalluses. If anything is needed, you are faithful in
The Materialities of Greek Tragedy
your words, but flee from action. Most vile of beasts! Yet born from such a father, one who set up many memorials to his bravery in his youth, fashioning them in the homes of nymphs. A father who did not turn to flight, who was not frightened, nor cowered in fear at the sounds of livestock in the mountains, but who made use of spears whose luster you now befoul because of the new gentle sound of shepherds somewhere.
Silenus lards his abuse with mention of the satyrs’ bestial character (κάκιστα θηρῶν, ὦ κάκιστα θηρίων), highlighting one of the features that aligns them with the other animal/objects that they will encounter. But the passage is, above all, a description of, and meditation on, the satyrs’ own bodies as constructed, hybrid forms. I will highlight just two points from this amazing passage. Firstly, when Silenus accuses his sons of being “filthy bodies, molded of wax” he may, as most modern critics have concluded, be referring to their cowardly “softness,” but he is also pointing to the fact that their bodies are, indeed, fabricated and, in the case of the mask, quite literally molded out of workman’s materials.53 As Andreas Antonopoulos has recently argued, the mention of bodies of wax “makes allusion to contemporary plastic art” and the wax eﬃgies that were then popular in Athens and elsewhere.54 This sense of the Chorus as artistic creations is echoed in Silenus’s subsequent, and, I would argue, parallel, insult, that the satyrs are mere bodies (σώ�ματ’ . . . μόνον 150), where the specification κα�[ὶ γ]λ�ῶ�σσα κα[ὶ] φ�άλητες (151) points to the two elements of the basic satyr costume—the mask and perizôma—which the Chorus are indeed wearing.55 My second point is that in drawing a contrast between himself and his sons, Silenus presents yet another picture of absent secondary costume, namely the spears that he claims to have employed in his youthful exploits, which the satyrs are now tarnishing through their cowardly performance. Silenus’s military identity is, in this description, a matter of external objects. Not only the spears, but also the memorials (the mnêmata) which he, in a particularly odd bit of phrasing, fashioned in the houses of nymphs—almost as though creating them through sexual congress. Where the tortoise will engender the sexual response of the satyrs only after becoming a composite χρῆμα, Silenus’s sexual adventures produce oﬀspring (the satyrs themselves?) that are already objects. Silenus may not employ the term χρῆμα in his speech, but his rebuke to his sons exhibits the same complex blending of animate and inanimate bodies that Sophocles associates elsewhere in Ichneutae with that term. His passionate diatribe gives clear expression to the play’s larger contention that such a binary cannot be sustained (any more than one can sustain the binary between human
Noses in the Orchestra
and beast when one looks at the satyrs) and paints a picture of bodies that are conglomerates of animate and inanimate, hybrid accumulations, like the theatrical satyrs constructed of the perizôma worn atop human limbs.
Conclusion If, as Latour asserts, the body is a composite, accumulative creation born of aﬀective engagements that hone and refine the capacity to live in the world, the dramatic world of Sophocles’ Ichneutae gives an ever-evolving shape to the hybrid bodies of its satyr Chorus through their interactions with other similarly hybrid forms, other χρήματα that challenge the distinction between living body and inanimate artifact. Through their aﬀective engagement with these “external objects,” the satyrs incorporate new elements into their own bodies, new skins to create ever more complex forms of composite nudity. The hunt that began with their noses, and then eyes and ears, extends to encompass the entirety of the theater. The process of forming a body is, as Latour observes, one without end. Thus, it is perhaps fitting that Ichneutae survives to us only as a fragment, a play without an end. We have no final form to consider, no happy conclusion to the satyrs’ hunt. We are free to imagine them in the never-ending process of giving shape to their bodies, of honing and extending themselves through the other objects that they meet.
Notes to pages 151–156
84 85 86 87
Seigworth and Gregg 2010, 3. On this point see Uhlig’s chapter. EN 1170b6–7. Griﬀero 2014, 4. Harman (2005, 95) uses “black box” and “black hole” as interchangeable images of the material object: see the Introduction. 88 This is a concern of contemporary novelists: see, for example, Morrison 1992, 3. I owe this reference to Dorothy Hale.
Chapter 9 1 Fr. 314 Radt. 2 Hunt proposed the supplement ὀσμ[αῖσι (“by scents”). 3 As is common, the singular is used throughout the passage to refer to the satyr collective. 4 Brennan 2004, 9; see also Introduction. 5 Seigworth and Gregg 2010, 2. 6 Aj. 786; see Finglass 2011, 368. 7 1093–94 ἔοικεν εὔρις ἡ ξένη κυνὸς δίκην / εἶναι, ματεύει δ’ ὧν ἀνευρήσει φόνον (“It seems that the stranger is keen-scented, like a dog, and is searching for the blood of those she will discover”). The scent of blood is later picked up by the Erinyes, who are also compared to hunting dogs, in the trilogy’s final play (Eu. 246–47). On dogs in the trilogy, see Heath 1999 and Wilson 2006. 8 7–8 εὖ δέ σ’ ἐκφέρει / κυνὸς Λακαίνης ὥς τις εὔρινος βάσις (“Your step leads you well, like that of a keen-scented Lacanian dog”). The divergence of the Ichneutae Chorus’s dance from the behavior described in this passage, as well as at A. Eu. 244–58, is discussed by Zagagi (1999, 190–91). 9 There is no evidence to support the claim of Walton (1935) that the Chorus wore canine masks and costumes. See Ussher 1974, 133–34; Maltese 1982, 25; and Zagagi 1999, 189. 10 Seidensticker (2003, 110–17) discusses the importance, and possible forms, of dance in satyr drama. 11 Griﬃth (2013, 266) notes how the satyrs’ “ ‘mimetic’ habit [. . .] quite often leads to reference being made to the Chorus’s bodily gestures and movements and/or to the instrumentation and character of the musical accompaniment, that is, in general to the performative qualities of their self-presentation.” 12 See the judicious discussion of Naerebout (1997, esp. 108–9); see also Steinhart 2007. Griﬃth (2013, 269) nevertheless emphasizes the satyrs’ “visually novel choreographic adventure” at lines 124–220. 13 Latour 2004, 214.
258 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Notes to pages 156–161
Latour 2004, 209–13. Latour 2004, 206. Latour 2004, 210–11. On a similar conception of the body in Philoctetes, see Introduction and Telò’s chapter. Latour 2004, 206–7. Latour 2004, 207. On the satyrs’ mask, see Duncan’s chapter. The most important study remains Frontisi-Ducroux 1995. See also Calame 1986; Halliwell 1993; Wiles 2007; Meineck 2011; and Duncan’s chapter in this volume. Kossatz-Deissmann 1982 is the only dedicated study of the dramatic perizôma. On the use of the shorts, without phallus and equine tail in athletic competitions, see Bonfante 1989, 546–48, 559–64; McDonnell 1993; Shapiro 2000; and Thuillier 2004. Pickard-Cambridge 1968, 185. Csapo 2010a, 42. On the mask as a prosthetic object, see Duncan’s chapter in this volume. See, most recently, Lissarrague 2013; see also Voelke 2001. See Compton-Engle 2015, 21–24. Compton-Engle 2015, 24. Lämmle 2013, 245–91; see also Seidensticker 2003, 103: “Whereas tragedy presents ever new Choruses in the same or similar roles, satyr play presents the same satyrs in ever new roles, often already advertised by the plural title of the play.” Seidensticker 2003, 103. Comparable, perhaps, is the onstage transformation of the Chorus, albeit by means of a secondary costume, in Aeschylus’s Theoroi, where the satyrs appear to take up “new playthings” (νεοχμὰ [. . . .] ἀθύρματα ̣fr. 78c 50), on which see Ferrari 2013, 205–8, and Lämmle 2013, 313. On ancient theories of smell, see recently the contributions in Bradley 2014. As will be clear, I do not agree with Zagagi (1999, 189–90), who argues that “it must be clear that the canine behavior of the satyrs has one purpose and one alone: to enliven the scene of pursuit by means which are as dramatic, realistic, and economical as possible. Once this aim has been achieved, the task of the canine pantomime is at an end, and the satyrs return to their natural and original dimension.” Nor does Zagagi specify when in the text this “aim” should be understood to have “been achieved.” The dramatic self-consciousness of satyr drama, particularly with regards to music/ dance and costume, is explored by Kaimio et al. (2001) and, with respect to music and dance, by Griﬃth (2013). Power (2018) explores the musical self-consciousness of Ichneutae in particular. On the sonic landscape of the play, see Guida 2013 and Power 2018.
Notes to pages 161–166
36 On the mimetic nature of the satyrs’ approach as dogs, see Griﬃth 2013, 266–68, and Antonopoulos 2015, 250–52, and 2014, 57–63, on the canine names that they are called. 37 Griﬃth 2013, 270, and Power 2018, 360. 38 The phrase τί χρῆμα is found often in drama and generally means little more than τί (LSJ s.v. II.2), but the use of the definite article argues against that being the case here. On the periphrastic usage, which is often applied to animals and thus perhaps influenced Sophocles’ unusual formulations in Ichneutae, see Bergson 1967. 39 Sophocles employs χρῆμα four times in Ichneutae, far more frequently than in any of his other extant works. The word is found once (Aj. 288; Ant. 1049; El. 390; Tr. 1136) or twice (OT 542, 1129; Ph. 1231, 1265) in the canonical plays, most often in the form τί χρῆμα or with the clear sense of “aﬀairs.” Χρῆμα is found an additional five times in fragments (excepting Ichneutae). The two uses in fr. 88 Radt (Aleadae) both have the unambiguous sense of “money,” as does the single instance in fr. 254 Radt (Creusa). The periphrastic form is used at fr. 401 Radt (Meleager) to refer to the boar (συὸς μέγιστον χρῆμ᾽). Fr. **219.9 Radt is too lacunose to render sense. 40 Maltese 1982, 70. 41 Compare the Chorus’s exclamation at 191 (ἔνι β[ο]ῦς, ἔνι πόνο ̣[ς [“There’s a cow, there’s labor”]) and Silenus’s rejoinder at 207–8 (κἀξίχνευε ̣καὶ πλού[τ / τὰς βοῦς τ ̣ε κα[ὶ] τὸν χρυσὸν . . . [“Track down the riches, both the cows and the gold”]). On the relationship between Apollo and Silenus/the satyrs, see Zagagi 1999, 182–89. 42 Voelke (2001, 54–60) and Lämmle (2013, 436–40) explore the complex range of the satyrs’ animal nature. 43 Power (2018, 350) notes that “the complete invisibility of the lyre certainly would have been a powerful means of involving the audience aﬀectively in the stage action.” On materiality and invisibility in Aeschylus, see the chapter by Weiss. 44 H. Merc. 38 ἢν δὲ θάνῃς τότε κεν μάλα καλὸν ἀείδοις. See the discussion of Borthwick (1970, 373–74). 45 Cf. 292 where the fragmentary θηρευμ[ likely describes the tortoise as the object of Hermes’ hunting. 46 On the comic nature of the satyrs’ riddles, see Zagagi 1999, 211. 47 On the resonances of the musical terminology, see Power 2018, 356. 48 On the reference to masturbation, see Voelke 2001, 213, and Slenders 2005, 45–46. 49 Guida 2013, 144. 50 Griﬃth (2013, 270–71) and Power (2018, 359–65) link the language and the later reference to the instrument’s multiplicity (αἰόλισμα 327) to New-Musical discourse. 51 Power 2018, 357. 52 Power (2018, 348) notes that the invisibility of the instrument “dials up the ‘fear factor,’ ” a technique that may have been paralleled in Sophocles’ Inachus. 53 Hall (2006, 99–141) oﬀers an elegant exploration of drama as a plastic art.
Notes to pages 166–172
54 Antonopoulos 2013, 84. 55 Kaimio et al. (2001, 54) see a similar reference to costume, though only to the perizôma, at 366–68.
Chapter 10 1 On the meaning and role of opsis in Aristotle’s Poetics, see esp. Halliwell 1998, 337–43; Konstan 2013; and Sifakis 2013. 2 Sofer 2013, 12. In De Anima, Aristotle explores the close relation between “mental images” (phantasmata) and objects that are actually perceived (427a18–432b14). 3 See Webb 2009 on enargeia (“making absent things present”) and phantasia in ancient rhetorical theory; see also Plett 2012. Zeitlin (1994) and Torrance (2013, 63–134) explore the play between word and image in Euripides’ ecphrases, and in fifth-century tragedy more broadly. 4 Ar. Ra. 907–1297, esp. 923–38; Vit. A. 2, 7, 9, 14. On Aeschylean spectacle, see Taplin 1977, esp. 39–49. Taplin (2016) convincingly argues that Aeschylus was already experimenting with innovative uses of stage objects in the Achilleis trilogy, which probably dates from the first twenty years of his career (perhaps as early as the 490s). 5 Vit. A. 14. Translation by S. Burges Watson (https://livingpoets.dur.ac.uk/w/ Life_of_Aeschylus (accessed 15th January 2018)). 6 Vit. A. 7. 7 Vit. A. 9; Poll. 4.110. 8 On oﬀ-stage objects functioning as props in Greek tragedy, see Mueller 2016, 6: “because of the horizon of semiotic possibilities created by the genre’s more general reliance on stage props to create meaning, it seems . . . likely that regular theatergoers would have been capable of intuiting a prop’s action before seeing the object itself— before registering it, that is, as a visual sign.” 9 Steiner 1994, 50–60; Lissarrague 2007, and 2009, 25; and Chaston 2010, 67–130. Cf. Zeitlin 1994 on how the fifth-century tragedians, especially Euripides, engage with their audience’s experience of visual arts. See also Estrin in this volume on the interaction between stage objects and real objects in Euripides’ Ion. 10 On the emphasis on noise here, see Stanford 1983, 55–56, and Gurd 2016, 75–76. 11 Griﬃth 2017, 125–27, esp. 127: “The audience is swept along and aurally bombarded by the Chorus’s multiple short syllables (resolved dochmiacs and iambics) and extensive onomatopoeia, an assault that is in its own way rhythmically exciting and engaging— and one must assume that it was melodically appealing and suspenseful as well.” 12 Cf. E. Alc. 87, Andr. 1211, Supp. 87, 605, Tr. 1325, Ph. 1351, Or. 963, 1467. On κτύπος and other percussive words used in tragic performances of lament, see Weiss 2017, 248–49, and 2018a, 41, 136–37.
Bibliography Ablow, R., ed. 2010. The Feeling of Reading: Aﬀective Experience and Victorian Literature. Ann Arbor, MI. Adorno, T. 1974. Minima Moralia: Reflections on a Damaged Life. London. Ahmed, S. 2004. The Cultural Politics of Emotion. London. Ahmed, S. 2006. Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. Durham, NC. Ahmed, S. 2010a. “Orientations Matter.” In New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics, edited by D. Coole and S. Frost, 234–57. Durham, NC. Ahmed, S. 2010b. The Promise of Happiness. Durham, NC. Allan, W., ed. 2008. Euripides: Helen. Cambridge. Alston, R., Hall, E., and L. Proﬃtt., eds. 2011. Reading Ancient Slavery. London. Altieri, C. 2001. “Taking Lyrics Literally: Teaching Poetry in a Prose Culture.” NLH 32: 259–81. Altieri, C. 2003. The Particulars of Rapture: An Aesthetics of the Aﬀects. Ithaca, NY. Amesbury, R. 2016. “Fideism.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by E. N. Zalta, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/fideism (accessed 15th January 2018). Anderson, S. 2010. “Journey into Light and Honors in Darkness in Hesiod and Aeschylus.” In Light and Darkness in Ancient Greek Myth and Religion, edited by M. Christopoulos, E. Karakantza, and O. Levaniouk, 142–52. Lanham, MD. Antonopoulos, A. 2013. “An Extraordinary Insult in Sophocles’ Ichneutai.” Hermes 141: 83–87. Antonopoulos, A. 2014. “Named Satyrs in Sophocles’ Ichneutai.” Philologus 58: 53–64. Antonopoulos, A. 2015. “Sophocles’ Ichneutai 176–202: A Lyric Dialogue (?) Featuring an Impressive Mimetic Scene.” Hermes 142: 246–54. Arrington, N. T. 2014. Ashes, Images, and Memories: The Presence of the War Dead in Fifth-Century Athens. Oxford. Arrowsmith, W. 1973. “Aristophanes’ Birds: The Fantasy Politics of Eros.” Arion 1: 119–67. Aston, E., and G. Savona. 1991. Theatre as a Sign System: A Semiotics of Text and Performance. London. Athanassaki, L. 2010. “Art and Politics in Euripides’ Ion: The Gigantomachy as Spectacle and Model of Action.” In Mito y Performance: De Grecia a la Modernidad, edited by A. M. González de Tobia, 199–242. La Plata. Austin, J. L. 1975. How to Do Things with Words. New York. Azrael, D., and M. J. Miller. 2016. “Reducing Suicide Without Aﬀecting Underlying Mental Health: Theoretical Underpinnings and a Review of the Evidence Base
Linking the Availability of Lethal Means and Suicide.” In The International Handbook of Suicide Prevention, edited by R. C. O’Connor and J. Pirkis, 637–62. Chichester. Bakker, E. J. 2010. “Pragmatics: Speech and Text.” In A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language, edited by E. J. Bakker, 151–67. Chichester. Barad, K. 2003. “Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter.” Signs 28: 801–31. Barasch, M. 1994. Imago Hominis: Studies in the Language of Art. New York. Barker, J. M. 2009. The Tactile Eye: Touch and the Cinematic Experience. Berkeley. Barlow, S. A. 1971. The Imagery of Euripides: A Study in the Dramatic Use of Pictorial Language. London. Barlow, S. A. 1981. “Sophocles’ Ajax and Euripides’ Heracles.” Ramus 10: 112–28. Barlow, S. A., ed. 1986. Euripides: Trojan Women. Warminster. Barrett, J. 2002. Staged Narrative: Poetics and the Messenger in Greek Tragedy. Berkeley. Barthes, R. 1972. Critical Essays. Evanston, IL. Bassi, K. 2005. “Things of the Past: Objects and Time in Greek Narrative.” Arethusa 38: 1–32. Bassi, K. 2007. “Spatial Contingencies in Thucydides’ History.” ClAnt 26: 171–218. Bassi, K. 2014. “Homer’s Achaean Wall and the Hypothetical Past.” In Probabilities, Hypotheticals, and Counterfactuals in Ancient Greek Thought, edited by V. Wohl, 122–41. Cambridge. Bassi, K. 2016. Traces of the Past: Classics Between History and Archaeology. Ann Arbor, MI. Bassi, K. 2017. “Mimesis and Mortality: Reperformance and the Dead among the Living in Hecuba and Hamlet.” In Imagining Reperformance in Ancient Culture: Studies in the Traditions of Drama and Lyric, edited by Richard Hunter and A. Uhlig, 138–59. Cambridge. Batchelder, A. G. 1995. The Seal of Orestes: Self-Reference and Authority in Sophocles’ Electra. Lanham, MD. Battezzato, L., ed. 2018. Euripides: Hecuba. Cambridge. Beekes, R. 2010. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden. Behar, K., ed. 2016. Object-Oriented Feminism. Minneapolis. Belfiore, E. S. 2000. Murder Among Friends: Violation of Philia in Greek Tragedy. Oxford. Bell, J. M. 1978. “Κίμβιξ καὶ σοφός: Simonides in the Anecdotal Tradition.” QUCC 28: 29–86. Belsey, C. 2005. Culture and the Real: Theorizing Cultural Criticism. New York. Belting, H. 2017. Face and Mask: A Double History. Princeton. Bennett, J. 2001. The Enchantment of Modern Life: Attachments, Crossings, and Ethics. Princeton. Bennett, J. 2005. “The Agency of Assemblages and the North American Blackout.” Political Culture 17: 445–66. Bennett, J. 2010. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham, NC. Bennett, J. 2012. “Systems and Things: A Response To Graham Harman and Timothy Morton.” NLH 43: 225–33.
Bennett, J. 2015. “Systems and Things: On Vital Materialism and Object-Oriented Philosophy.” In The Nonhuman Turn, edited by R. Grusin, 223–39. Minneapolis. Bergson, L. 1967. “Zum periphrastischen χρῆμα.” Eranos 65: 79–117. Berlant, L. 2004. “Introduction: Compassion (and Withholding).” In Compassion: The Culture and Politics of an Emotion, edited by L. Berlant, 1–13. New York. Berlant, L. 2008. The Female Complaint: The Unfinished Business of Sentimentality in American Culture. Durham, NC. Berlant, L. 2011. Cruel Optimism. Durham, NC. Bernstein, R. 2009. “Dances with Things: Material Culture and the Performance of Race.” Social Text 27: 67–94. Bernstein, R. 2011. Racial Innocence: Performing American Childhood from Slavery to Civil Rights. New York. Bersani, L. 2010. Is The Rectum a Grave? And Other Essays. Chicago. Bettini, M. 1999. The Portrait of the Lover. Berkeley. Bielfeldt, R., ed. 2014. Ding und Mensch in der Antike: Gegenwart und Vergegenwärtigung. Heidelberg. Biles, Z. 2007. “Celebrating Poetic Victory: Representations of Epinikia in Classical Athens.” JHS 127: 19–37. Billings, J. 2017. “The ‘Smiling Mask’ of Bacchae.” CQ 67: 19–26. Blanchot, M. 1995. The Writing of Disaster. Lincoln, NE. Blundell, M. W. 1989. Helping Friends and Harming Enemies: A Study in Sophocles and Greek Ethics. Cambridge. Boitani, P. 1990. “Anagnorisis and Reasoning: Electra and Hamlet.” REAL: Yearbook of Research in English and American Literature 7: 99–136. Bond, G. W., ed. 1981. Euripides: Heracles. Oxford. Bonfante, L. 1989. “Nudity as a Costume in Classical Art.” AJA 93: 543–70. Booth, N. B. 1956. “Euripides, Hecuba 923–26.” CP 51: 95–96. Borthwick, E. K. 1970. “The Riddle of the Tortoise and the Lyre.” Music & Letters 51: 373–87. Boscagli, M. 2014. Stuﬀ Theory: Everyday Objects, Radical Materialism. London. Bradley, E. M. 1980. “Admetus and the Triumph of Failure in Euripides’ Alcestis.” Ramus 9: 112–27. Bradley, M., ed. 2014. Smell and the Ancient Senses. London. Braginskaya, N. 2016. “Olga Freidenberg: A Creative Mind Incarcerated.” In Women Classical Scholars: Unsealing the Fountain from the Renaissance to Jacqueline de Romilly, edited by R. Wyles and E. Hall, 286–315. Oxford. Braidotti, R. 2011. Nomadic Theory: The Portable Rosi Braidotti. New York. Bremer, D. 1976. Licht und Dunkel in der frühgriechischen Dichtung: Interpretationen zur Corgeschichte der Lichtmetaphysik. Bonn. Brennan, T. 2004. The Transmission of Aﬀect. Ithaca, NY. Brillet-Dubois, P. 2010. “Astyanax et les orphelins de guerre athéniens. Critique de l’idéologie de la cité dans Les Troyennes d’Euripide.” REG 123: 29–50.
Brinkema, E. 2014. The Form of the Aﬀects. Durham, NC. Brook, P. 1968. The Empty Space. New York. Brown, B. 2003. A Sense of Things: The Object Matter of American Literature. Chicago. Brown, B. 2004. “Thing Theory.” In Things, edited by B. Brown, 1–22. Chicago. Brown, B. 2015. Other Things. Chicago. Buchan, M. 2008. “Too Diﬃcult For a Single Man to Understand: Medea’s Out-Jutting Foot.” Helios 35: 3–28. Budelmann, F. 2000. The Language of Sophocles. Cambridge. Burkert, W. 1966. “Greek Tragedy and Sacrificial Ritual.” GRBS 7: 87–121. Burnett, A. P. 1965. “The Virtues of Admetus.” CP 60: 240–55. Burnett, A. P. 1998. Revenge in Attic and Later Tragedy. Berkeley. Butler, J. 2009. “Survivability, Vulnerability, Aﬀect.” In Frames of War: When is Life Grievable?, 33–62. London. Butler, J. 2015. Senses of the Subject. New York. Calame, C. 1986. “Facing Otherness: The Tragic Mask in Ancient Greece.” History of Religions 26: 125–42. Callinicos, A. 1983. “The ‘New Middle Class’ and Socialist Politics.” International Socialism 2: 82–119. Carel, H. 2006. Life and Death in Freud and Heidegger. Amsterdam. Carlson, M. 1993. Places of Performance: The Semiotics of Theatre Architecture. Ithaca, NY. Carlson, M. 2001. The Haunted Stage: The Theatre as Memory Machine. Ann Arbor, MI. Carman, T. 1999. “The Body in Husserl and Merleau-Ponty.” Philosophical Topics 27: 205–26. Carson, A. 1986. “ ‘Echo with No Door on Her Mouth’: A Notional Refraction through Sophocles, Plato, and Defoe.” Stanford Literature Review 3: 247–61. Carter, J. B. 1987. “The Masks of Ortheia.” AJA 91: 355–83. Chase, G. H. 1902. “The Shield Devices of the Greeks.” HSPh 13: 61–127. Chaston, C. 2010. Tragic Props and Cognitive Function: Aspects of the Function of Images in Thinking. Leiden. Cheah, P. 2010. “Non-Dialectical Materialism.” In New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics, edited by D. Coole and S. Frost, 70–91. Durham, NC. Chen, M. Y. 2012. Animacies: Biopolitics, Racial Mattering, and Queer Aﬀect. Durham, NC. Citti, V. 1978. Tragedia e lotta di classe in Grecia. Naples. Clairmont, C. 1970. Gravestone and Epigram: Greek Memorials from the Archaic and Classical Period. Mainz. Clairmont, C. 1993. Classical Attic Tombstones. Kilchberg. Clements, A. 2014. Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae: Philosophizing Theatre and the Politics of Perception in Late Fifth-Century Athens. Cambridge. Collard, C., ed. 1991. Euripides: Hecuba. Warminster. Collard, C. 2007. Tragedy, Euripides, and Euripideans. Exeter. Collinge, N. E. 1954. “Euripides, Hecuba 925–26.” CP 49: 35–36. Compton-Engle, G. 2015. Costume in the Comedies of Aristophanes. Cambridge.
Conacher, D. J. 1967. Euripidean Drama: Myth, Theme, and Structure. Toronto. Conche, M. 1973. La mort et l’ apparence. Villers-sur-Mer. Cook, A. 1968. “The Patterning of Eﬀect in Sophocles’ Philoctetes.” Arethusa 1: 82–93. Coole, D. 2013. “Agentic Capacities and Capacious Historical Materialism: Thinking with New Materialisms in the Political Sciences” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 41: 451–69. Coole, D., and S. Frost 2010. “Introducing the New Materialisms.” In New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics, edited by D. Coole and S. Frost, 1–43. Durham, NC. Cotter, J. 2016. “New Materialism and the Labor Theory of Value.” Minnesota Review 87: 171–81. Crane, G. 1990. “Ajax, the Unexpected, and the Deception Speech.” CP 85: 89–101. Crawley, R., trans. 1910. Thucydides: History of the Peloponnesian War. London. Crimp, D. 2002. Melancholia and Moralism: Essays on Aids and Queer Politics. Cambridge, MA. Croally, N. T. 1994. Euripidean Polemic: The Trojan Women and the Function of Tragedy. Cambridge. Cropp, M., ed. 1988. Euripides: Electra. Warminster. Crowley, J. 2014. “Beyond the Universal Soldier: Combat Trauma in Classical Antiquity.” In Combat Trauma and the Ancient Greeks, edited by P. Meineck and D. Konstan, 105–130. New York. Csapo, E. 2010a. Actors and Icons of the Ancient Theater. Chichester. Csapo, E. 2010b. “The Context of Choregic Dedications.” In The Pronomos Vase and its Context, edited by O. Taplin and R. Wyles, 79–130. Oxford. Daly, J. 1982. “The Name of Philoctetes: Philoctetes 670–673.” AJP 103: 440–42. Dearden, C. W. 1975. “The Poet and the Mask Again.” Phoenix 29: 75–82. DeArmitt, P. 2009. “Resonances of Echo: A Derridean Allegory.” Mosaic 42: 89–100. de Jong, I. J. F. 1994. “πιστὰ τεκμήρια in Soph. El. 774.” Mnemosyne 47: 679–81. DeLanda, M. 2006. A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. London. DeLanda, M. 2016. Assemblage Theory. Edinburgh. Deleuze, G. 1986. Cinema I: The Movement-Image. Minneapolis. Deleuze, G. 1990. The Logic of Sense. New York. Deleuze, G. 1994a. Diﬀerence and Repetition. New York. Deleuze, G. 1994b. “He Stuttered.” In Gilles Deleuze and the Theater of Philosophy, edited by C. V. Boundas and D. Olkowski, 23–29. London. Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis. Dellner, J. 2000. “Alcestis’ Double Life.” CJ 96: 1–25. del Rio, E. 2008. Deleuze and the Cinemas of Performance. Edinburgh. Denniston, J. D., ed. 1939. Euripides: Electra. Oxford. de Romilly, J. 1973. “Gorgias et le pouvoir de la poésie.” JHS 93: 155–62.
Derrida, J. 1981. Positions. Chicago. Derrida, J. 1988. The Ear of The Other: Otobiography, Transference, Translation. Lincoln, NE. Derrida, J. 1989. Memoires for Paul de Man. New York. Derrida, J. 1991. “ ‘Eating Well,’ Or the Calculation of the Subject: An Interview with Jacques Derrida.” In Who Comes After the Subject?, edited by E. Cadava, P. Connor, and J.-L. Nancy, 96–119. New York. Derrida, J. 1995. Points . . . Interviews, 1974–1994. Stanford. Derrida, J. 1997. The Politics of Friendship. London. Derrida, J. 2000. “ ‘A Self-Unsealing Poetic Text’: Poetics and Politics of Witnessing.” In Revenge of the Aesthetic: The Place of Literature in Theory Today, edited by M. P. Clark, 180–207. Berkeley. Derrida, J. 2001. The Work of Mourning. Chicago. Derrida, J. 2002a. Without Alibi. Stanford. Derrida, J. 2002b. “As If It Were Possible, ‘Within Such Limits’. . .” In Negotiations: Interventions and Interviews, 1971–2001, edited by E. Rottenberg, 343–70. Stanford. Derrida, J. 2005. On Touching—Jean-Luc Nancy. Stanford. Derrida, J. 2011. Parages. Stanford. Derrida, J. 2014. Cinders. Minneapolis. de Sélincourt, A., trans. 1954. Herodotus: The Histories. London. de Ste. Croix, G. E. M. 1981. The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World. Ithaca, NY. Detienne, M. 1996. The Masters of Truth in Archaic Greece. New York. Deutscher, P. 1998. “Mourning the Other, Cultural Cannibalism, and the Politics of Friendship (Jacques Derrida and Luce Irigaray).” Diﬀerences 10: 159–84. Di Benedetto, V., and A. Lami, eds. 1981. Filologia e marxismo: contro le mistificazioni. Naples. Dick K., and A. Z. Kofman. 2002. Derrida. New York. Dodds, E. R., ed. 1960. Euripides: Bacchae. Oxford. Doerries, B. 2015. The Theater of War: What Ancient Greek Tragedies Can Teach Us Today. Melbourne. Drew, D. L. 1931. “Euripides’ Alcestis.” AJP 52: 295–319. du Bois, P. 2003. “A Passion for the Dead: Ancient Objects and Everyday Life.” In Representing the Passions: Histories, Bodies, Visions, edited by R. Meyer, 270–88. Los Angeles. Dugdale, E. 2017. “Of This and That: The Recognition Formula in Sophocles’ Electra.” TAPA 147: 27–52. Duncan, A. 2005. “Gendered Interpretations: Two Fourth-Century Performances of Sophocles’ Electra.” Helios 32: 55–79. Dunn, F. M. 1998. “Orestes and the Urn: Sophocles, Electra 54–55.” Mnemosyne 51: 438–43. Edelman, L. 2004. No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive. Durham, NC. Elam, K. 1980. The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. London. Ellendt, F. 1965. Lexicon Sophocleum. Hildesheim. Elmer, D. 2017. “Aeschylus’ Tragic Projections.” In Albert’s Anthology, edited by K. Coleman, 57–60. Cambridge, MA.
Elsner, J. 2002. “Introduction: The Genres of Ekphrasis.” In The Verbal and the Visual: Cultures of Ekphrasis in Antiquity, edited by J. Elsner. Ramus 31: 1–18. Elsner, J. 2010. “Art History as Ekphrasis.” Art History 33: 10–27. Essin, C. 2015. “Unseen Labor and Backstage Choreographies: A Materialist Production History of A Chorus Line.” Theatre Journal 67: 197–212. Estrin, S. 2016. “Cold Comfort: Empathy and Memory in an Archaic Funerary Monument from Akraiphia.” ClAnt 35: 189–214. Estrin, S. Forthcoming. “Experiencing Elegy: Materiality and Visuality in the Ambracian Polyandrion.” In The Genres of Archaic and Classical Greek Poetry: Theories and Models, edited by M. Foster, L. Kurke, and N. Weiss. Leiden. Falkner, T. M. 1998. “Containing Tragedy: Rhetoric and Self-Representation in Sophocles’ Philoctetes.” ClAnt 17: 25–58. Fantuzzi, M. 2010. “Typologies of Variation on a Theme in Archaic and Classical Metrical Inscriptions.” In Archaic and Classical Greek Epigram, edited by M. Baumbach, A. Petrovic, and I. Petrovic, 289–310. Cambridge. Faraone, C. A. 1992. Talismans and Trojan Horses: Guardian Statues in Ancient Greek Myth and Ritual. Oxford. Farmer, M. S. 1998. “Sophocles’ Ajax and Homer’s Hector: Two Soliloquies.” ICS 23: 19–45. Farrington, B. 1947. Head and Hand in Ancient Greece: Four Studies in the Social Relations of Thought. London. Featherstone, M. 2017. Planet Utopia: Utopia, Dystopia, and Globalization. London. Feldman, A. 2001. “Philoctetes Revisited.” Social Text 68: 57–89. Ferrari, F. 2013. “Oggetti non identificati: Riflessioni sui Theoroi di Eschilo.” In I papiri di Eschilo e di Sofocle, edited by G. Bastianini and A. Casanova, 199–216. Florence. Ferrari, G. 1997. “Figures in the Text: Metaphors and Riddles in the Agamemnon.” CP 92: 1–45. Ferrari, G. 2000. “The Ilioupersis in Athens.” HSPh 100: 119–50. Finglass, P. J., ed. 2007. Sophocles: Electra. Cambridge. Finglass, P. J., ed. 2011. Sophocles: Ajax. Cambridge. Fisher, J. 2002. “Tactile Aﬀects.” Tessera 32: 17–28. Fisher, N. 2011. “Competitive Delights: The Social Eﬀects of the Expanded Programme of Contests in Post-Kleisthenic Athens.” In Competition in the Ancient World, edited by N. Fisher and H. van Wees, 175–220. Swansea. Fisher-Lichte, E. 1992. The Semiotics of Theater. Bloomington, IN. Fitzgerald, W. 2000. Slavery and the Roman Literary Imagination. Cambridge. Fletcher, J. 2013. “Weapons of Friendship: Props in Sophocles’ Philoctetes and Ajax.” In Performance in Greek and Roman Theatre, edited by G. W. M. Harrison and V. Liapis, 199–215. Leiden. Foley, H. P. 1985. Ritual Irony: Poetry and Sacrifice in Euripides. Ithaca. Foley, H. P. 1992. “Anodos Dramas: Euripides’ Alcestis and Helen.” In Innovations of Antiquity, edited by R. Hexter and D. Selden, 133–60. New York. Foley, H. P. 2015. Euripides: Hecuba. London.
Ford, A. 2002. The Origins of Criticism: Literary Culture and Poetic Theory in Classical Greece. Princeton. Fortier, M. 2016. Theatre/Theory: An Introduction. London. Franz, M. 1991. “Fiktionalität und Wahrheit in der Sicht des Gorgias und des Aristoteles.” Philologus 135: 240–48. Freud, S. 1914. “Remembering, Repeating and Working-Through.” SE 12: 147–56. Freud, S. 1915. “Thoughts for the Times on War and Death.” SE 15: 275–300. Freud, S. 1917. “Mourning and Melancholia.” SE 14: 239–60. Freud, S. 1920. “Beyond the Pleasure Principle.” SE 18: 1–64. Freud, S. 1927. “Fetishism.” SE 21: 152–58. Frontisi-Ducroux, F. 1995. Du masque au visage: Aspects de l’identité en Grèce ancienne. Paris. Frontisi-Ducroux, F. 1996. “Eros, Desire, and the Gaze.” In Sexuality in Ancient Art: Near East, Egypt, Greece, and Italy, edited by N. Kampen, 81–100. NewYork. Frontisi-Ducroux, F. 2007. “The Invention of the Erinyes.” In Visualizing the Tragic: Drama, Myth, and Ritual in Greek Art and Literature, edited by C. Kraus, S. Goldhill, H. P. Foley, and J. Elsner, 165–76. Oxford. Frontisi-Ducroux, F., and J.-P. Vernant. 1997. Dans l’oeil du miroir. Paris. Fulkerson, L. 2006. “Neoptolemus Grows Up? ‘Moral Development’ and the Interpretation of Sophocles’ Philoctetes.” CCJ 52: 49–61. Fullerton, M. D. 2016. Greek Sculpture. Chichester. Gaifman, M., Platt, V., and M. Squire, eds. 2018. The Embodied Object in Classical Antiquity, Art History (Special Issue). Gantz, T. 1977. “The Fires of the Oresteia.” JHS 97: 28–38. Garber, M. 2004. “Compassion.” In Compassion: The Culture and Politics of an Emotion, edited by L. Berlant, 15–27. New York. Garner, R. 1988. “Death and Victory in Euripides’ Alcestis.” ClAnt 7: 58–71. Garner, S. 1994. Bodied Spaces: Phenomenology and Performance in Contemporary Drama. Ithaca, NY. Garvie, A. F., ed. 1986. Aeschylus: Choephori. Oxford. Gelzer, T. 1970. “Aristophanes der Komiker.” In Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Supplementband XII, 1391–1570. Stuttgart. George, D. P. 1994. “Euripides’ Heracles 140–235: Staging and the Stage Iconography of Heracles’ Bow.” GRBS 35: 145–57. Gibbs, A. 2010. “After Aﬀect: Sympathy, Synchrony, and Mimetic Communication.” In The Aﬀect Theory Reader, edited by M. Gregg and G. J. Seigworth, 186–205. Durham, NC. Gibert, J. C. 1995. Change of Mind in Greek Tragedy. Göttingen. Gibert, J. C. 1997. “Euripides’ Heracles 1351 and the Hero’s Encounter with Death.” CP 92: 247–58. Gödde, S. 2011. Euphêmia: Die gute Rede in Kult und Literatur der griechischen Antike. Heidelberg. Goﬀ, B. E. 2009. Euripides: Trojan Women. London.
Goldberg, G., and C. Willse. 2007. “Losses and Returns: The Soldier in Trauma.” In The Aﬀective Turn: Theorizing the Social, edited by P. T. Clough and J. Halley, 264–86. Durham, NC. Goldhill, S. 1986. Reading Greek Tragedy. Cambridge. Goldhill, S. 1999. “Programme Notes.” In Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy, edited by S. Goldhill and R. Osborne, 1–29. Cambridge. Goldhill, S. 2012. Sophocles and the Language of Tragedy. Oxford. Green, J. R. 1982. “Dedications of Masks.” Révue Archéologique 2: 237–48. Green, J. R. 1991. “On Seeing and Depicting the Theatre in Classical Athens.” GRBS 32: 15–50. Greengard, C. 1987. Theatre in Crisis: Sophocles’ Reconstruction of Genre and Politics in Philoctetes. Amsterdam. Gregory, A. 2016. Anaximander: A Re-Assessment. London. Griﬀero, T. 2014. Atmospheres: Aesthetics of Emotional Spaces. London. Griﬃth, M. 1977. The Authenticity of Prometheus Bound. Cambridge. Griﬃth, M. 2002. “Slaves of Dionysos: Satyrs, Audience, and the Ends of the Oresteia.” ClAnt 21: 195–258. Griﬃth, M. 2013. “Satyr-play, Dithyramb, and the Geopolitics of Dionysian Style in Fifth-Century Athens.” In Dithyramb in Context. edited by B. Kowalzig and P. Wilson, 257–81. Oxford. Griﬃth, M. 2017. “The Music of War in Aeschylus’ Seven Against Thebes.” In Aeschylus and War: Comparative Perspectives on Seven Against Thebes, edited by I. Torrance, 114–49. London. Grosz, E. 2008. Chaos, Territory, Art: Deleuze and the Framing of the Earth. New York. Guida, A. 2013. “Sofocle, I Segugi: Alla scoperta di un ‘suono adulatore di pastori’.” In I papiri di Eschilo e di Sofocle, edited by G. Bastianini and A. Casanova, 143–58. Florence. Gurd, S. 2016. Dissonance: Auditory Aesthetics in Ancient Greece. New York. Guyer, S. 2007. “Buccal Reading.” The New Centennial Review 7: 71–87. Haldane, J. A. 1965. “Musical Themes and Imagery in Aeschylus.” JHS 85: 33–41. Hall E. 1989. Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition through Tragedy. Oxford. Hall, E. 1990. “The Changing Face of Oedipus and the Mask of Dionysus.” Cambridge Review 111: 70–74. Hall, E. 1993. Review of Sons of the Gods, Children of Earth: Ideology and Literary Form in Ancient Greece, by P. W. Rose. CR 43: 64–66. Hall, E. 1995. “The Ass with Double Vision: Politicizing an Ancient Greek Novel.” In Heart of the Heartless World: Essays in Honour of Margot Heinemann, edited by D. Margolies and M. Joannou, 47–59. London. Hall, E. 1998. “Ithyphallic Males Behaving Badly: Satyr Drama as Gendered Tragic Ending.” In Parchments of Gender, edited by M. Wyke, 13–37. Oxford. Hall, E. 2006. The Theatrical Cast of Athens: Interactions Between Ancient Greek Drama and Society. Oxford.
Hall, E. 2011. “Beneath the Shadow of the Porta Nigra: Karl Marx and the Ruins of Trier.” European Review of History 18: 783–97. Hall, E. 2012. “The Politics of Metrical Variety in Classical Athenian Drama.” In Music and Cultural Politics in Greek and Chinese Societies, edited by D. Yatromanolakis, 1–28. Cambridge, MA. Hall, E. 2018a. “Classics in Our Ancestors’ Communities.” In Forward with Classics!, edited by A. Holmes-Henderson, S. Hunt, and M. Musie. London. Hall, E. 2018b. Happiness: Ten Ways Aristotle Can Change your Life. London. Hall, E. 2018c. “The Black Sea Back Story to Euripides’ Medea.” In Greek Theatre and Performance around the Ancient Black Sea, edited by D. Braund, E. Hall, and R. Wyles. Cambridge. Hall, E., and H. Stead. 2016. “Between the Party and the Ivory Tower: Classics and Communism in 1930s Britain.” In Classics and Class: Greek and Latin Classics and Communism at School, edited by D. Movrin and E. Olechowska, 3–31. Warsaw. Halliwell, S. 1993. “The Function and Aesthetics of the Greek Tragic Mask.” In Intertextualität in der griechisch-römischen Komödie, edited by N. Slater and B. Zimmermann, 195–211. Stuttgart. Halliwell, S. 1998., ed. Aristotle’s Poetics. Chicago. Halliwell, S. 2002. The Aesthetics of Mimesis: Ancient Texts and Modern Problems. Princeton. Hamilakis, Y. 2014. Archaeology and the Senses: Human Experience, Memory, and Aﬀect. Cambridge. Hancock, N. 2010. “Virginia Woolf ’s Glasses: Material Encounters in the Literary/ Artistic House Museum.” In Museum Materialities: Objects, Engagements, Interpretations, edited by S. Dudley, 114–27. London. Hansen, P. A., ed. 1983/1989. Carmina epigraphica Graeca, 2 vols. Berlin. Haraway, D. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: the Reinvention of Nature. New York. Haraway, D. 2003. The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness. Chicago. Haraway, D. 2008. When Species Meet. Minneapolis. Harman, G. 2002. Tool-Being: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects. Peru, IL. Harman, G. 2005. Guerrilla Metaphysics: Phenomenology and the Carpentry of Things. Peru, IL. Harman, G. 2011a. “On the Undermining of Objects: Grant, Bruno, and Radical Philosophy.” In The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism, edited by L. Bryant, N. Srnicek, and G. Harman, 21–40. Melbourne. Harman, G. 2011b. “Autonomous Objects.” New Formations 71: 125–30. Harman, G. 2012. “The Well-Wrought Broken Hammer: Object-Oriented Literary Criticism.” NLH 43: 183–203. Harris, E. M. 2002. “Did Solon Abolish Debt-Bondage?” CQ 52: 415–30. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., and R. L. Rapson. 1994. Emotional Contagion: Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction. Cambridge.
Hauptmann, A., Pernicka, E., and G. A. Wagner, eds. 1987. Archäometallurgie der Alten Welt: Beiträge zum Internationalen Symposium “Old World Archaeometallurgy.” Heidelberg. Hausrath, A., and H. Hunger, eds. 1970. Corpus Fabularum Aesopicarum. Leipzig. Hawkins, A. H. 1999. “Ethical Tragedy and Sophocles’ Philoctetes.” CW 92: 337–57. Hayles, N. K. 1999. How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. Chicago. Heath, J. 1999. “Disentagling the Beast: Humans and Other Animals in Aeschylus’s Oresteia.” JHS 119: 17–47. Heidegger, M. 1962. Being and Time. New York. Heidegger, M. 1967. What is a Thing? Chicago. Heinämaa, S. 2015. “The Many Senses of Death: Phenomenological Insights into Human Mortality.” In Death and Mortality: From Individual to Communal Perspectives, edited by O. Hakola, S. Heinämaa, and S. Pihlström, 100–17. Helsinki. Henrichs, A. 2004. “ ‘Let the Good Prevail’: Perversions of the Ritual Process in Greek Tragedy.” In Greek Ritual Poetics, edited by D. Yatromanolakis and P. Roilos, 189–98. Cambridge, MA. Herman, J. 1992. Trauma and Recovery. New York. Hesk, J. 2000. Deception and Democracy in Classical Athens. Cambridge. Highmore, B. 2017. “Capacious Aesthetics.” New Formations 89–90: 234–42. Holbraad, M. 2011. “Can the Thing Speak?” Open Anthropology Cooperative Press Papers Series #7: http://openanthcoop.net/press/2011/01/12/can-the-thing-speak/ (accessed 15th January 2018). Holly, M. A. 2013. The Melancholy Art. Princeton. Holmes, B. 2008. “Euripides’ Heracles in the Flesh.” ClAnt 27: 231–81. Holmes, B. 2010. The Symptom and the Subject. Princeton. Honig, B. 2010. “Antigone’s Two Laws: Greek Tragedy and the Politics of Humanism.” NLH 41: 1–33. Honig, B. 2013. Antigone, Interrupted. Cambridge. Illingworth, J. R. 1898. Divine Immanence: An Essay on the Spiritual Significance of Matter. London. Ingold, T. 2011. Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge, and Description. New York. Issacharoﬀ, M. 1989. Discourse as Performance. Stanford. Jebb, R. C., ed. 1894. Sophocles: The Electra. Cambridge. Jebb, R. C., ed. 1896. Sophocles: The Ajax. Cambridge. Jenkins, T. E. 2015. Antiquity Now: The Classical World in the Contemporary American Imagination. Cambridge. Johnson, B. 1986. “Apostrophe, Animation, and Abortion.” Diacritics 16: 29–47. Johnson, M. 1992. “Reflections of Inner Life: Masks and Masked Acting in Ancient Greek Tragedy and Japanese Noh Drama.” Modern Drama 35: 20–34.
Johnston, S. I. 1999. Restless Dead: Encounters between the Living and the Dead in Ancient Greece. Berkeley. Kahn, C. 1960. Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology. New York. Kaimio, M. 1988. Physical Contact in Greek Tragedy: A Study of Stage Conventions. Helsinki. Kaimio, M., et al. 2001. “Metatheatricality in the Greek Satyr-Play.” Arctos 35: 35–78. Kane, R. L. 1996. “Ajax and the Sword of Hector: Sophocles, Ajax 815–822.” Hermes 124: 17–28. Kapellos, A., ed. 2014. Lysias 21: A Commentary. Berlin. Keesling, C. 2017. Early Greek Portraiture: Monuments and Histories. Cambridge. Khan, G. A. 2012. “Vital Materiality and Non-Human Agency: An Interview with Jane Bennet.” In Dialogues with Contemporary Political Theorists, edited by G. Browning, R. Prokhovnik, and M. Dimova-Cookson, 42–57. Basingstoke. King, F. W., ed. 1938. Euripides’ Hecuba. London. Kirkwood, G. M. 1958. A Study of Sophoclean Drama. Ithaca, NY. Kitzinger, R. 1991. “Why Mourning Becomes Elektra.” ClAnt 10: 298–327. Knowles, R. 2004. Reading the Material Theatre. Cambridge. Konstan, D. 1995. Greek Comedy and Ideology. Oxford. Konstan, D. 2001. Pity Transformed. London. Konstan, D. 2013. “Propping Up Greek Tragedy.” In Performance in Greek and Roman Theatre, edited by G. Harrison and V. Liapis, 63–76. Leiden. Kosak, J. C. 1999. “Therapeutic Touch and Sophocles’ Philoctetes.” HSPh 99: 93–134. Kossatz-Deissmann, A. 1982. “Zur Herkunft des Perizoma im Satyrspiel.” Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 97: 65–90. Kovacs, D., ed. 1995. Euripides, vol. 2 (Children of Heracles—Hippolytus—Andromache— Hecuba). Cambridge, MA. Kucharski, J. 2004. “Orestes’ Lock: The Motif of Tomb Rituals in the Oresteia and the Two Electra Plays.” Eos 91: 9–33. Kurke, L. 1999. Coins, Bodies, Games, and Gold: The Politics of Meaning in Archaic Greece. Princeton. Kurke, L. 2013. “Imagining Chorality: Wonder, Plato’s Puppets, and Moving Statues.” In Performance and Culture in Plato’s Laws, edited by A.-E. Peponi, 123–170. Cambridge. Kyle, D. 1987. Athletics in Ancient Athens. Leiden. LaCapra, D. 2014. Writing History, Writing Trauma. Baltimore. Lacan, J. 1990. Television. New York. Lacan, J. 1992. The Ethics of Psychoanalysis. New York. Lacan, J. 2002. Ecrits: A Selection. New York. Lamari, A. 2010. Narrative, Intertext, and Space in Euripides’ Phoenissae. Berlin. Lämmle, R. 2013. Poetik des Satyrspiels. Heidelberg. Laplanche, J., and J.-B. Pontalis, eds. 1973. The Language of Psychoanalysis. New York.
Lardinois, A. P. M. H. 2006. “The Polysemy of Gnomic Expressions and Ajax’ Deception Speech.” In Sophocles and the Greek Language, edited by I. J. F. de Jong and A. Rijksbaron, 213–24. Leiden. Latour, B. 1992. “Where Are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts.” In Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by W. E. Bijker and J. Law, 225–58. Cambridge, MA. Latour, B. 1996. Aramis, or the Love of Technology. Cambridge, MA. Latour, B. 2004. Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge, MA. Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford. Lawrence, Q. 2017. “Veterans at Risk of Suicide Negotiate a Thorny Relationship with Guns.” National Public Radio, May 2 2017. http://www.npr.org/2017/05/02/526421055/ veterans-at-risk-of-suicide-negotiate-a-thorny-relationship-with-guns (accessed 15th January 2018). Lee, K. H., ed. 1976. Euripides: Troades. London. Lee, K. H., ed. 1997. Euripides: Ion. Warminster. Leonard, M. 2015. Tragic Modernities. Cambridge, MA. Levinas, E. 1969. Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. Pittsburgh, PA. Levinas, E. 1990. “Intersubjectivity: Notes on Merleau-Ponty.” In Ontology and Alterity in Merleau-Ponty, edited by G. A. Johnson and M. B. Smith, 55–60. Evanston, IL. Levinas, E. 1998a. Entre Nous: On Thinking-of-the Other. New York. Levinas, E. 1998b. Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence. Pittsburgh, PA. Ley, G. 2007. The Theatricality of Greek Tragedy: Playing Space and Chorus. Chicago. Lissarrague, F. 2007. “Looking at Shield Devices: Tragedy and Vase Painting.” In Visualizing the Tragic: Drama, Myth, and Ritual in Greek Art and Literature, edited by C. Kraus, S. Goldhill, H. P. Foley, and J. Elsner, 151–64. Oxford. Lissarrague, F. 2008. “Corps et armes: Figures grecques du guerrier.” In Langages et métaphores du corps dans le monde antique, edited by V. Dasen and J. Wilgaux, 15–27. Rennes. Lissarrague, F. 2009. “Le temps des boucliers.” In Traditions et temporalités des images, edited by G. Careri, F. Lissarrague, J.-C. Schmitt, and C. Severi, 21–31. Paris. Lissarrague, F. 2013. La cité des satyres : Une anthropologie ludique (Athènes VIe-Ve siècles avant J.-C.). Paris. Litz, B. T., Stein, N., Delaney, E., Lebowitz, L., Nash, W. P., Silva, C., and Maguen, S. 2009. “Moral Injury and Moral Repair in War Veterans: A Preliminary Model and Intervention Strategy.” Clinical Psychology Review 29: 695–706. Lloyd, M. 1986. “Realism and Character in Euripides’ Electra.” Phoenix 40: 1–19. Lönneker, A. 2015. “‘What Can This Sorrow Be?’: Elegiac Aﬀectivity in Virginia Woolf ’s The Wolves.” In Structures of Feeling: Aﬀectivity and the Study of Culture, edited by D. Sharma and F. Tygstrup, 169–77. Berlin. Loraux, N. 1986. The Invention of Athens: The Funeral Oration in the Classical City. Cambridge, MA.
Loraux, N. 1993. The Children of Athena: Athenian Ideas About Citizenship and the Division between the Sexes. Princeton. Lorenzo, K. 2015. “Triremes on Land: First Fruits for the Battle of Salamis.” In Autopsy in Athens: Recent Archaeological Research on Athens and Attica, edited by M. M. Miles, 126–38. Oxford. Luciano, D., and M. Y. Chen. 2015. “Has the Queer Ever Been Human?” GLQ 21: 183–207. Lynch, K. A. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA. MacIntosh, F. 1994. Dying Acts: Death in Ancient Greek and Modern Irish Tragic Drama. Cork. MacLeod, L. 2001. Dolos and Dikê in Sophocles’ Elektra. Leiden. Maltese, E., ed. 1982. Sofocle: Ichneutae. Florence. Marconi, C. 2007. Temple Decoration and Cultural Identity in the Archaic Greek World. Cambridge. Marks, L. 2000. The Skin of the Film: Intercultural Cinema, Embodiment, and the Senses. Durham, NC. Marks, L. 2002. Touch: Sensuous Theory and Multisensory Media. Minneapolis. Marshall, C. W. 1999. “Some Fifth-Century Masking Conventions.” G&R 46: 188–202. Marshall, C. W. 2000. “Alcestis and the Problem of Prosatyric Drama.” CJ 95: 229–38. Marshall, C. W. 2001. “The Costume of Hecuba’s Attendants.” Acta Classica 44: 127–36. Marshall, C. W. 2006. “How to Write a Messenger Speech (Sophocles, Electra 680–763).” In Greek Drama III: Essays in Honour of Kevin Lee, edited by J. Davidson, F. Muecke, and P. Wilson, 203–21. London. Massumi, B. 1995. “The Autonomy of Aﬀect.” Cultural Critique 31: 83–109. Massumi, B. 2002. Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Aﬀect, Sensation. Durham, NC. Mastronarde, D. J. 1990. “Actors on High: The Skene Roof, the Crane, and the Gods in Attic Drama.” ClAnt 9: 247–94. Mastronarde, D. J., ed. 1994. Euripides: Phoenissae. Cambridge. Matthews, G. 2015. “The Masks of Noh and Tragedy: Their Expressivity and Theatrical and Social Functions.” Didaskalia 12: 12–28. Matthiessen, K., ed. 2010. Euripides: Hekabe. Berlin. Mayes, S. 2003. The Great Belzoni: The Circus Strongman Who Discovered Egypt’s Treasures. London. McClure, L. 2015. “Tokens of Identity: Gender and Recognition in Greek Tragedy.” ICS 40: 219–36. McClure, L. 2016. “Hearth and Home in Euripides’ Alcestis.” In Wisdom and Folly in Euripides, edited by P. Kyriakou and A. Rengakos, 85–104. Berlin. McDonnell, M. 1993. “Athletic Nudity among the Greeks and Etruscans : The Evidence of the ‘Perizoma Vases.’ ” In Spectacles sportifs et scéniques dans le monde étruscoitalique, 395–407. Rome. McInnes, N. 1972. The Western Marxists. New York. Meagher, R. E. 2006. Herakles Gone Mad: Rethinking Heroism in an Age of Endless War. Northampton, MA.
Meillassoux, Q. 2010. After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency. London. Meineck, P. 2011. “The Neuroscience of the Tragic Mask.” Arion 19: 113–58. Meineck, P. 2016. “Combat Trauma and the Tragic Stage: Ancient Culture and Modern Catharsis?” In Our Ancient Wars: Rethinking War through the Classics, edited by V. Caston and S.-M. Weineck, 184–210. Ann Arbor, MI. Meineck, P. 2017. Theatrocracy: Greek Drama, Cognition, and the Imperative for Theatre. New York. Merleau-Ponty, M. 1964. The Primacy of Perception. Evanston, IL. Merleau-Ponty, M. 2012. Phenomenology of Perception. New York. Millett, P. 1991. Lending and Borrowing in Classical Athens. Cambridge. Montaigne, de M. 1987. The Complete Essays. London. Morrison, T. 1992. Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination. Cambridge, MA. Morton, T. 2007. Ecology Without Nature: Rethinking Enviromental Aesthetics. Cambridge, MA. Morton, T. 2010. “Queer Ecology.” PMLA 125: 273–82. Morton, T. 2012. “An Object-Oriented Defense of Poetry.” NLH 43: 205–24. Morton, T. 2013. Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology After the End of the World. Minneapolis. Morton, T. 2015. “They Are Here.” In The Nonhuman Turn, edited by R. Grusin, 167–92. Minneapolis. Mossman, J. 1995. Wild Justice: A Study of Euripides’ Hecuba. Oxford. Most, G. W. 2013. “The Madness of Tragedy.” In Mental Disorders in the Classical World, edited by W. V. Harris, 395–410. Leiden. Mueller, M. 2010. “Athens in a Basket: Naming, Objects, and Identity in Euripides’ Ion.” Arethusa 43: 365–402. Mueller, M. 2016. Objects as Actors: Props and the Poetics of Performance in Greek Tragedy. Chicago. Mueller, M. 2018. “Dreamscape and Dread in Euripides’ Iphigenia Among the Taurians.” In Landscapes of Dread in Classical Antiquity, edited by D. Felton, 77–94. New York. Munteanu, D. L. 2012. Tragic Pathos: Pity and Fear in Greek Philosophy and Tragedy. Cambridge. Naerebout, F. G. 1997. Attractive Performances: Αncient Greek Dance. Amsterdam. Neer, R. T. 2010. The Emergence of the Classical Style in Greek Sculpture. Chicago. Neer R. T. 2015. “Pitiless Bronze.” Art in America. http://www.artinamericamagazine. com/news-features/magazine/pitiless-bronze/ (accessed 29th July 2017). Neils, J. 2016. “Color and Carving: Architectural Decoration in Mainland Greece.” In A Companion to Greek Architecture, edited by M. M. Miles, 164–77. Chichester. Nicolson, N., and J. Troutman, ed. 1979. The Letters of Virginia Woolf: volume 5 (1932–1935). New York. Nigianni, C. 2009. “Introduction.” In Deleuze and Queer Theory, edited by C. Nigianni and M. Storr, 1–10. Edinburgh.
Nooter, S. 2012. When Heroes Sing: Sophocles and the Shifting Soundscape of Tragedy. Cambridge. Nussbaum, M. 1986. The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy. New York. Nussbaum, M. 2008. “The ‘Morality of Pity’: Sophocles’ Philoctetes.” In Rethinking Tragedy, edited by R. Felski, 148–69. Baltimore. O’Sullivan, P., and C. Collard, eds. 2013. Euripides’ Cyclops and Major Fragments of Greek Satyric Drama. Oxford. Oakley, J. H. 2004. Picturing Death in Classical Athens: the Evidence of the White Lekythoi. Cambridge. Oliensis, E. 2009. Freud’s Rome: Psychoanalysis and Latin Poetry. Cambridge. Padel, R. 1990. “Making Space Speak.” In Nothing to Do with Dionysos?: Athenian Drama in Its Social Context, edited by J. J. Winkler and F. I. Zeitlin, 336–65. Princeton. Padel, R. 1992. In and Out of the Mind: Greek Images of the Tragic Self. Princeton. Padel, R. 1995. Whom Gods Destroy: Elements of Greek and Tragic Madness. Princeton. Page, D. L., ed. 1981. Further Greek Epigrams. Cambridge. Parker, L. P. E., ed. 2007. Euripides: Alcestis. Oxford. Parker, R. 1983. Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion. Oxford. Parlavantza-Friedrich, U. 1969. Täuschungsszenen in den Tragödien des Sophokles. Berlin. Parry, A. 1981. Logos and Ergon in Thucydides. New York. Parry, H. 1969. “Euripides’ Orestes: The Quest for Salvation.” TAPA 100: 337–53. Patera, M. 2005. “Comment eﬀrayer les enfants.” Kernos 18: 371–90. Paterson, M. 2007. The Senses of Touch: Haptics, Aﬀects, and Technologies. Oxford. Pedersen, E. S. 2015. “ ‘One Thing Melts into Another’: Unanimism, Aﬀect, and Imagery in Virginia Woolf ’s The Waves.” In Structures of Feeling: Aﬀectivity and the Study of Culture, edited by D. Sharma and F. Tygstrup, 178–86. Berlin. Peponi, A.-E. 2004. “Initiating the Viewer: Deixis and Visual Perception in Alcman’s Lyric Drama.” Arethusa 37: 295–316. Peponi, A.-E. 2012. Frontiers of Pleasure: Models of Aesthetic Response in Archaic and Classical Greek Thought. Oxford. Peradotto, J. 1964. “Some Patterns of Nature Imagery in the Oresteia.” AJP 85: 378–93. Pickard-Cambridge, A. W. 1968. The Dramatic Festivals of Athens. Oxford. Platt, V. 2014. “Likeness and Likelihood in Classical Greek Art.” In Probabilities, Hypotheticals, and Counterfactuals in Ancient Greek Thought, edited by V. Wohl, 185–207. Cambridge. Platt, V. 2016. “The Matter of Classical Art History.” In What’s New About the Old? Reassessing the Ancient World, edited by M. Santirocco. Daedalus 145: 69–78. Platter, C. 2007. Aristophanes and the Carnival of Genres. Baltimore. Plett, H. 2012. Enargeia in Classical Antiquity and the Early Modern Age. Leiden. Podro, M. 1998. Depiction. New Haven CT. Poole, A. 1976. “Total Disaster: Euripides’ The Trojan Women.” Arion 3: 257–87. Porter, J. I. 1993. “The Seductions of Gorgias.” ClAnt 12: 267–99.
Porter, J. I. 2003. “The Materiality of Classical Studies.” Parallax 9: 64–74. Porter, J. I. 2006. “Feeling Classical: Classicism and Ancient Literary Criticism.” In Classical Pasts: the Classical Traditions of Greece and Rome, edited by J.I. Porter, 301–52. Princeton. Porter, J. I. 2010. The Origins of Aesthetic Thought in Ancient Greece. Cambridge. Porter, J. I. 2011. “Making and Unmaking: The Achaean Wall and the Limits of Fictionality in Homeric Criticism.” TAPA 141: 1–36. Porter, J. I. 2013. “Why Are There Nine Muses?” In Synaesthesia and the Ancient Senses, edited by S. Butler and A. Purves, 9–26. Durham, UK. Porter, J. I. Forthcoming. “Hyperobjects, OOO, and the Eruptive Classics—Field Notes of an Accidental Tourist.” In Antiquities Beyond Humanism, edited by E. Bianchi, S. Brill, and B. Holmes. Oxford. Porter, J. R. 1994. Studies in Euripides’ Orestes. Leiden. Posamentir, R. 2002. “Zur farblichen Ausgestaltung des Eupheros-Reliefs.” In Die griechische Klassik—Idee oder Wirklichkeit, edited by M. Maischberger and W.-D. Heilmeyer, 473–75. Mainz. Power, T. 2011. “Cyberchorus: Pindar’s Κηληδόνες and the Aura of the Artificial.” In Archaic and Classical Choral Song: Performance, Politics and Dissemination, edited by L. Athanassaki and E. Bowie, 67–114. Berlin. Power, T. 2018. “New Music in Sophocles’ Ichneutai.” In Paths of Song: Interactions between Greek Lyric and Tragedy, edited by R. Andujar, T. Coward, and T. Hadjimichael, 343–66. Berlin. Pratt, J. 2015. “On the Threshold of Rhetoric.” ClAnt 34: 163–82. Prauscello, L. 2010. “The Language of Pity: Eleos and Oiktos in Sophocles’ Philoctetes.” CCJ 56: 199–212. Price-Robertson, R., and C. Duﬀ. 2016. “Realism, Materialism, and the Assemblage: Thinking Psychologically with Manuel DeLanda.” Theory & Psychology 26: 58–76. Pucci, P., ed. 2003. Sofocle: Filottete. Milan. Purves, A. 2015. “Ajax and Other Objects: Homer’s Vibrant Materialism.” Ramus 44: 75–94. Purves, A. ed. 2017. Touch and the Ancient Senses. London. Quincey, J. H. 1963. “The Beacon-Sites in the Agamemnon.” JHS 83: 118–32. Rabinowitz, N. S. 1993. Anxiety Veiled: Euripides and the Traﬃc in Women. Ithaca NY. Raeburn, D. 2000. “The Significance of Stage Properties in Euripides’ Electra.” G&R 47: 149–68. Raeburn, D., and O. Thomas, eds. 2011. The Agamemnon of Aeschylus: A Commentary for Students. Oxford. Rapp, G. R. 2013. Archaeomineralogy. Berlin. Razinsky, L. 2009. “How to Look Death in the Eyes: Freud and Bataille.” SubStance 38: 63–88. Rehm, R. 1994. Marriage to Death: The Conflation of Wedding and Funeral Rituals in Greek Tragedy. Princeton.
Rehm, R. 2002. The Play of Space: Spatial Transformation in Greek Tragedy. Princeton. Rehm, R. 2006. “Sophocles on Fire: ΤΟ ΠΥΡ in Philoctetes.” In Sophocles and the Greek Language, edited by I.J.F. de Jong and A. Rijksbaron, 95–107. Leiden. Reinhardt, K. 1979. Sophocles. New York. Renehan, R. 1979. “The Meaning of ΣΩΜΑ in Homer: A Study in Methodology.” California Studies in Classical Antiquity 12: 269–82. Riley, K. 2008. The Reception and Performance of Euripides’ Herakles: Reasoning Madness. Oxford. Ringer, M. 1998. Electra and the Empty Urn: Metatheater and Role Playing in Sophocles. Chapel Hill, NC. Roach, J. 1996. Cities of the Dead: Circum-Atlantic Performance. New York. Robertson, F. W. 1866. “Two Lectures on the Influence of Poetry on the Working Classes, Delivered before the Members of the Mechanics’ Institution, February 1852.” In Lectures and Addresses on Literary and Social Topics, 95–208. Boston. Roisman, H. 1997. “The Appropriation of a Son: Sophocles’ Philoctetes.” GRBS 38: 127–71. Rose, P. W. 1992. Sons of the Gods, Children of Earth: Ideology and Literary Form in Ancient Greece. Ithaca, NY. Roselli, D. K. 2011. Theater of the People: Spectators and Society in Ancient Athens. Austin, TX. Rosenmeyer, T. G. 1955. “Gorgias, Aeschylus, and Apate.” AJP 76: 225–60. Rouse, W. H. D. 1902. Greek Votive Oﬀerings: An Essay on the History of Greek Religion. Cambridge. Ruﬀell, I. 2011. Politics and Anti-Realism in Athenian Old Comedy: The Art of the Impossible. Oxford. Rusten, J., ed. 2011. The Birth of Comedy: Texts, Documents, and Art from Athenian Comic Competitions, 486–280. Baltimore. Saghafi, K. 2010. Apparitions of Derrida’s Other. New York. Scheﬄer, S. 2013. Death and the Afterlife. Oxford. Schein, S. 2005. “Divine and Human in Sophocles’ Philoctetes.” In The Soul of Tragedy: Essays on Athenian Drama, edited by V. Pedrick and S. M. Oberhelman, 27–47. Chicago. Schein, S. 2006. “The Iliad and Odyssey in Sophocles’ Philoctetes: Generic Complexity and Ethical Ambiguity.” In Greek Drama III: Essays in Honour of Kevin Lee, edited by J. Davidson, F. Muecke, and P. Wilson, 129–40. London Schein, S., ed. 2013. Sophocles: Philoctetes. Cambridge. Schlörb-Vierneisel, B. 1964. “Zwei klassische Kindergräber im Kerameikos.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 79: 85–104. Schneider, R. 2011. Performing Remains: Art and War in Times of Theatrical Reenactment. New York. Scholl, A., and K. Vieniesel. 2002. “Reliefdenkmäler dramatischer Choregen im klassischen Athen. Das Müncher Maskenrelief für Artemis und Dionysos.” Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst 53: 7–55. Schumacher, B. N. 2011. Death and Mortality in Contemporary Philosophy. Cambridge.
Seaford, R. 1994. Reciprocity and Ritual: Homer and Tragedy in the Developing City-State. Oxford. Seaford, R. 2004. Money and the Early Greek Mind. Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy. Cambridge. Sedgwick, E. K. 1985. Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire. New York. Sedgwick, E. K. 2003. Touching Feeling: Aﬀect, Pedagogy, Performativity. Durham, NC. Sedgwick, E. K. 2011. The Weather in Proust. Durham, NC. Segal, C. 1980. “Visual Symbolism and Visual Eﬀects in Sophocles.” CW 74: 125–42. Segal, C. 1981. Tragedy and Civilization: An Interpretation of Sophocles. Cambridge, MA. Segal, C. 1986. Interpreting Greek Tragedy: Myth, Poetry, Text. Ithaca, NY. Segal, C. 1993. Euripides and the Poetics of Sorrow. Durham, NC. Segal, C. 1995. Sophocles’ Tragic World: Divinity, Nature, Society. Cambridge, MA. Segal, C. 1997. Dionysiac Poetics and Euripides’ Bacchae. Princeton. Seidensticker, B. 2003. “The Chorus in Greek Satyrplay.” In Poetry, Theory, Praxis, edited by E. Csapo and M. C. Miller, 100–21. Oxford. Seigworth, G. J., and M. Gregg. 2010. “An Inventory of Shimmers.” In The Aﬀect Theory Reader, edited by M. Gregg and G. J. Seigworth, 1–25. Durham, NC. Serpieri, A. 1977. “Ipotesi teorica di segmentazione del testo teatrale.” Strumenti critici 32–33: 90–137. Shapiro, H. A. 2000. “Modest Athletes and Liberated Women: Etruscans on Attic Black-Figure Vases.” In Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art, edited by B. Cohen, 315–37. Leiden. Shay, J. 1994. Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character. New York. Shay, J. 2002. Odysseus in America: Combat Trauma and the Trials of Homecoming. New York. Shay, J. 2012. “Moral Injury.” Intertexts 16: 57–66. Sheldon, R. 2015. “Form/Matter/Chora: Object-Oriented Ontology and Feminist New Materialism.” In The Non Human Turn, edited by R. Grusin, 193–222. Minneapolis. Sherman, N. 2015. Afterwar: Healing the Moral Wounds of Our Soldiers. Oxford. Sherman, N. 2016. “Moral Injury, Damage, and Repair.” In Our Ancient Wars: Rethinking War through the Classics, edited by V. Caston and S.-M. Weineck, 121–154. Ann Arbor, MI. Shipton, M. 2018. Politics of Youth in Greek Tragedy: Gangs of Athens. London. Shirazi, A. 2017. The Mirror and the Senses: Reflection and Perception in Classical Greek Thought. Dissertation, Stanford University. Sier, K. 2000. “Gorgias über die Fiktionalität der Tragödie.” In Dramatische Wäldchen: Festschrift für Eckard Lefèvre zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by E. Stärk and G. VogtSpira, 575–618. Hildesheim. Sifakis, G. 2013. “The Misunderstanding of Opsis in Aristotle’s Poetics.” In Performance in Greek and Roman Theatre, edited by G. Harrison and V. Liapis, 45–62. Leiden. Silverman, K. 1988. The Acoustic Mirror: The Female Voice in Psychoanalysis and Cinema. Bloomington, IN.
Skutsch, O. 1957. “Euripides Hecuba 925–26.” CP 52: 173. Slater, N.W. 1989. “Lekythoi in Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae.” Lexis 3: 43–51. Slenders, W. 2005. “Λέξις ἐρωτική in Euripides’ Cyclops.” In Satyr Drama: Tragedy at Play, edited by G. Harrison, 39–52. Swansea. Smethurst, M. J. 1989. The Artistry of Aeschylus and Zeami: A Comparative Study of Greek Tragedy and Nō. Princeton. Smethurst, M. J. 2013. Dramatic Action in Greek Tragedy and Noh: Reading with and beyond Aristotle. Lanham, MD. Smith, S. H. 1984. Masks in Modern Drama. Berkeley. Sobchack, V. 1992. The Address of the Eye: A Phenomenology of Film Experience. Princeton. Sobchack, V. 2004. Carnal Thoughts: Embodiment and Moving Image Culture. Berkeley. Sofer, A. 2003. The Stage Life of Props. Ann Arbor, MI. Sofer, A. 2010. “ ‘Take up the Bodies’: Shakespeare’s Body Parts, Babies, and Corpses.” Theatre Symposium 18: 135–48. Sofer, A. 2013. Dark Matter: Invisibility in Drama, Theater, and Performance. Ann Arbor, MI. Sommerstein, A., ed. 2008. Aeschylus: Oresteia. Cambridge, MA. Sommerstein, A. 2010. Aeschylean Tragedy. London. Stanford, W. B. 1983. Greek Tragedy and the Emotions. London. Stears, K. 1995. “Dead Women’s Society: Constructing Female Gender in Classical Athenian Funerary Sculpture.” In Time, Tradition, and Society in Greek Archaeology: Bridging the “Great Divide,” edited by N. Spencer, 109–31. London. Stehle, E. 2002. “The Body and Its Representations in Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazousai: Where Does the Costume End?” AJPh 123: 369–406. Steiner, D. T. 1994. The Tyrant’s Wit: Myths and Images of Writing in Ancient Greece. Princeton. Steiner, D. T. 2001. Images in Mind: Statues in Archaic and Classical Greek Literature and Thought. Princeton. Steinhart, M. 2007. “From Ritual to Narrative.” In The Origins of Theater in Ancient Greece and Beyond: From Ritual to Drama, edited by E. Csapo and M. C. Miller, 196–220. Cambridge. Stewart, A. 1996. “Reflections.” In Sexuality in Ancient Art: Near East, Egypt, Greece, and Italy, edited by N. Kampen, 136–54. New York. Stieber, M. 1994. “Aeschylus’ Theoroi and Realism in Greek Art.” TAPA 124: 85–119. Stieber, M. 1998. “Statuary in Euripides’ Alcestis.” Arion 5: 69–97. Stieber, M. 2011. Euripides and the Language of Craft. Leiden. Stroszeck, J. 2002. “Das Grab des Eupheros.” In Die griechische Klassik: Idee oder Wirklichkeit, edited by M. Maischberger and W.-D. Heilmeyer, 468–472. Mainz. Sullivan, J. P., ed. 1975. Marxism and the Classics. Arethusa 8 (Special issue). Szendy, P. 2015. Apocalypse-Cinema: 2012 and Other Ends of the World. New York. Tahmasebi-Birgani, V. 2014. Emmanuel Levinas and the Politics of Non-Violence. Toronto. Taousiani, A. 2011. “ΟΥ ΜΗ ΠΙΘΗΤΑΙ: Persuasion versus Deception in the Prologue of Sophocles’ Philoctetes.” CQ 61: 426–44.
Taplin, O. 1977. The Stagecraft of Aeschylus. Oxford. Taplin, O. 1978. Greek Tragedy in Action. Berkeley. Taplin, O. 2007. Pots and Plays: Interactions between Tragedy and Greek Vase-Painting of the Fourth Century B.C. Los Angeles. Taplin, O. 2016. “Aeschylus, ‘Father of Stage-Objects.’ ” In Gli oggetti sulla scena teatrale ateniese: Funzione, rappresentazione, comunicazione, edited by A. Coppola, C. Barone, and M. Salvadori, 155–64. Padua. Tarkow, T. A. 1977. “The Glorification of Athens in Euripides’ Heracles.” Helios 5: 27–33. Telò, M. 2016. Aristophanes and the Cloak of Comedy. Chicago. Telò, M. 2017. “Reperformance, Exile, and Archive Feelings: Rereading Aristophanes’ Acharnians and Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus.” In Imagining Reperformance in Ancient Culture: Studies in the Traditions of Drama and Lyric, edited by R. L. Hunter and A. Uhlig, 87–110. Cambridge. Telò, M. Forthcoming (a). “Literary-Critical Intensities: Pathos, Aﬀect, and Greek Tragedy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Literary Theory and Criticism, edited by J. Connolly and N. Worman. Oxford. Telò, M. Forthcoming (b). Archive Feelings in Greek Tragedy. Thalmann, W. G. 1998. The Swineherd and the Bow: Representations of Class in the Odyssey. Ithaca, NY. Thomson, G. D. 1929. Greek Lyric Metre. Cambridge. Thomson, G. D. 1941. Aeschylus and Athens: A Study of Athenian Drama and Democracy. London. Thomson, G. D. 1945. Marxism and Poetry. London. Thomson, G. D. 1955. The First Philosophers. London. Thuillier, J.-P. 2004. “La nudité athlétique, le pagne et les Étrusques.” Nikephoros 17: 171–80. Tomkins, S. 1995. Shame and Its Sisters: A Silvan Tomkins Reader, edited by E. K. Sedgwick and A. Frank. Durham, NC. Torrance, I. 2011. “In the Footprints of Aeschylus: Recognition, Allusion, and Metapoetics in Euripides.” AJP 132: 177–204. Torrance, I. 2013. Metapoetry in Euripides. Oxford. Tracy, S. 1986. “Darkness from Light: The Beacon Fire in the Agamemnon.” CQ 36: 257–60. Tsagalis, C. 2008. Inscribing Sorrow: Fourth-Century Attic Funerary Epigrams. Berlin. Tueller, M. A. 2010. “The Passer-by in Archaic and Classical Epigram.” In Archaic and Classical Greek Epigram, edited by M. Baumbach, A. Petrovic, and I. Petrovic, 42–60. Cambridge. Tullman, K., and W. Buckwalter. 2014. “Does the Paradox of Fiction Exist?” Erkenntnis 79: 779–96. Turner, S. 2016. “Sight and Death: Seeing the Dead through Ancient Eyes.” In Sight and the Ancient Senses, edited by M. Squire, 143–60. London. Ubersfeld, A. 1977. Lire le théâtre. Paris.
Ueda, M. 1995. “Zeami and the Art of the No Drama: Imitation, Yugen, and Sublimity.” In Japanese Aesthetics and Culture: A Reader, edited by N. G. Hume, 177–92. Albany. Ussher, R. G. 1957.“Euripides, Hecuba 923–26.” CP 52: 107–8. Ussher, R. G. 1974. “Sophocles’ Ichneutai as a Satyr-Play.” Hermathena 118: 130–38. Valakas, K. 2009. “Theoretical Views of Athenian Tragedy in the Fifth Century BC.” In Sophocles and the Greek Tragic Tradition, edited by S. Goldhill and E. Hall, 179–207. Cambridge. Van Nortwick, T. 2015. Late Sophocles: The Hero’s Evolution in Electra, Philoctetes, and Oedipus at Colonus. Ann Arbor, MI. van Straten, F. T. 1981. “Gifts for the Gods.” In Faith, Hope, and Worship, edited by H. S. Versnel, 65–151. Leiden. Verdenius, W. J. 1981. “Gorgias’ Doctrine of Deception.” In The Sophists and Their Legacy, edited by G. B. Kerferd, 116–28. Wiesbaden. Vervain, C. 2012. “Performing Ancient Drama in Mask: The Case of Greek Tragedy.” New Theatre Quarterly 28: 163–81. Vidal-Naquet, P. 1986. The Black Hunter: Forms of Thought and Forms of Society in the Greek World. Baltimore. Vidal-Naquet, P. 1988a. “Sophocles’ Philoctetes and the Ephebeia.” In Myth and Tragedy in Ancient Greece, edited by J.-P. Vernant and P. Vidal-Naquet, 452–64. New York. Vidal-Naquet, P. 1988b. “The Shields of Heroes.” In Myth and Tragedy in Ancient Greece, edited by J.-P. Vernant and P. Vidal-Naquet, 273–300. New York. Voelke, P. 2001. Un théâtre de la marge: Aspects figuratifs et configurationnels du drame satyrique dans l’Athènes classique. Bari. Vollmann, W. T. 2010. Kissing the Mask: Beauty, Understatement, and Femininity in Japanese Noh Theater. New York. von Staden, H. 1975. “Greek Art and Literature in Marx’s Aesthetics.” Arethusa 8: 119–44. Walton, F. R. 1935. “A Problem in the Ichneutae of Sophocles.” HSPh 46: 167–89. Webb, R. 2009. Ekphrasis, Imagination, and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice. Farnham. Webster, T. B. L. 1965. “The Poet and the Mask.” In Classical Drama and Its Influence: Essays Presented to H. D. F. Kitto, edited by M. J. Anderson, 3–13. New York. Weiss, N. 2008. “A Psychoanalytic Reading of Euripides’ Ion: Repetition, Development, and Identity.” BICS 51: 39–50. Weiss, N. 2017. “Noise, Music, Speech: The Representation of Lament in Greek Tragedy.” AJP 138: 243–66. Weiss, N. 2018a. The Music of Tragedy: Performance and Imagination in Euripidean Theater. Berkeley. Weiss, N. 2018b. “Hearing the Syrinx in Euripidean Theater.” In Music, Texts, and Culture in Ancient Greece, edited by A. D’Angour and T. Phillips, 139–62. Oxford. Wellenbach, M. 2015. “The Iconography of Dionysiac Choroi: Dithyramb, Tragedy, and the Basel Krater.” GRBS 55: 72–103.
Wilamowitz-Moellendorﬀ, U. von, ed. 1959. Euripides: Herakles. 3 vols. Darmstadt. Wiles, D. 1997. Tragedy in Athens. Cambridge. Wiles, D. 2007. Mask and Performance in Greek Tragedy: From Ancient Festival to Modern Experimentation. Cambridge. Wilkie, R. 2016. “Introduction: After the Law of Value Is ‘Blown Apart’.” Minnesota Review 87: 110–15. Wilson, P. 1999. “The Aulos in Athens.” In Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy, edited by S. Goldhill and R. Osborne, 58–95. Cambridge. Wilson, P. 2000. The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia: The Chorus, The City and The Stage. Cambridge. Wilson, P. 2006. “Dikên in the Oresteia of Aeschylus.” In Greek Drama III: Essays in Honor of K. Lee, edited by J. Davidson, F. Muecke, and P. Wilson, 187–201. London. Winnington-Ingram, R. 1980. Sophocles: An Interpretation. Cambridge. Wohl, V. 2005. “Beyond Sexual Diﬀerence: Becoming Woman in Euripides’ Bacchae.” In The Soul of Tragedy: Essays on Athenian Drama, edited by V. Pedrick and S. M. Oberhelman, 137–54. Chicago. Wohl, V. 2015. Euripides and the Politics of Form. Princeton, NJ. Wolfe, C. 2010. What is Posthumanism? Minneapolis. Wood, C. 2016. “Image and Thing, A Modern Romance.” Representations 133: 130–51. Woodard, T. M. 1964. “Electra by Sophocles: The Dialectical Design.” HSPh 68: 163–205. Woodruﬀ, P. 1992. “Aristotle on Mimesis.” In Essays on Aristotle’s Poetics, edited by A. O. Rorty, 73–96. Princeton. Woolf, V. 2002. Moments of Being. London. Worman, N. 1999. “The Ties That Bind: Transformation of Costume and Connection in Euripides’ Heracles.” Ramus 28: 89–107. Worman, N. 2000. “Infection in the Sentence: The Discourse of Disease in Sophocles’ Philoctetes.” Arethusa 33: 1–36. Worman, N. 2017. “Touching, Proximity, and the Aesthetics of Pain in Sophocles.” In Touch and the Ancient Senses, edited by A. Purves, 34–49. London. Worman, N. Forthcoming. Edges of the Human: Embodiment, Figuration, and Materiality in Greek Tragedy. Wright, E. M. 1932. The Life of Joseph Wright, 2 vols. London. Wright, M. 2005. Euripides’ Escape Tragedies: A Study of Helen, Andromeda, and Iphigenia among the Taurians. Oxford. Wright, M. 2006. “Orestes: A Euripidean Sequel.” CQ 56: 33–47. Wright, M. 2012. The Comedian as Critic: Greek Old Comedy and Poetics. Bristol. Wyles, R. 2010. “The Tragic Costume.” In The Pronomos Vase and its Context, edited by O. Taplin and R. Wyles, 231–53. Oxford. Wyles, R. 2011. Costume in Greek Tragedy. London. Yoon, F. 2012. The Use of Anonymous Characters in Greek Tragedy: the Shaping of Heroes. Leiden.
Zacharia, K. 2003. Converging Truths: Euripides’ Ion and the Athenian Quest for Self-Definition. Leiden. Zagagi, N. 1999. “Comic Patterns in Sophocles’ Ichneutai.” In Sophocles Revisted, edited by J. Griﬃn, 177–218. Oxford. Zeitlin, F. 1980. “The Closet of Masks: Role-Playing and Myth-Making in the Orestes of Euripides.” Ramus 9: 51–77. Zeitlin, F. 1982. Under the Sign of the Shield: Semiotics and Aeschylus’s Seven Against Thebes. Rome. Zeitlin, F. 1994. “The Artful Eye: Vision, Ecphrasis and Spectacle in Euripidean Theatre.” In Art and Text in Ancient Greek Culture, edited by S. Goldhill and R. Osborne, 138–96. Cambridge. Zeitlin, F. 1996. Playing the Other: Gender and Society in Classical Greek Literature. Chicago. Zeitlin, F. 2008. “Intimate Relations: Children, Childbearing, and Parentage on the Euripidean Stage.” In Performance, Iconography, Reception: Studies in Honour of Oliver Taplin, edited by M. Revermann and P. Wilson, 318–32. Oxford. Zeitlin, F. 2012. “A Study in Form: Recognition Scenes in the Three Electra Plays.” Lexis 30: 361–77. Zellner, H. M. 1997. “Antigone and the Wife of Intaphrenes.” CW 90: 315–18. Žizek, S. 1991a. “Grimaces of the Real, or When the Phallus Appears.” October 58: 45–68. Žizek, S. 1991b. Looking Awry: An Introduction to Jacques Lacan Through Popular Culture. Cambridge, MA.
Report "‘Noses in the Orchestra: Bodies, Objects, and Affect in Sophocles’ Ichneutai’ in The Materialities of Greek Tragedy M. Telò and M. Mueller eds, Bloomsbury (2018)"