Ritual Irony: Poetry and Sacrifice in Euripides

by Helene P. Foley

Ritual Irony is a critical study of four problematic later plays of Euripides: the Iphigenia in Aulis , the Phoenissae , the Heracles , and the Bacchae . Examining Euripides' representation of sacrificial ritual against the background of late fifth-century Athens, Helene P. Foley shows that each of these plays confronts directly the difficulty of making an archaic poetic tradition relevant to a democratic society. She explores the important mediating role played by choral poetry and ritual in the plays, asserting that Euripides' sacrificial metaphors and ritual performances link an anachronistic mythic ideal with a world dominated by "chance" or an incomprehensible divinity. Foley utilizes the ideas and methodology of contemporary literary theory and symbolic anthropology, addressing issues central to the emerging dialogue between the two fields. Her conclusions have important implications for the study of Greek tragedy as a whole and for our understanding of Euripides' tragic irony, his conception of religion, and the role of his choral odes. Assuming no specialized knowledge, Ritual Irony is aimed at all readers of Euripidean tragedy. It will prove particularly valuable to students and scholars of classics, comparative literature, and symbolic anthropology.

Hardcover

First published May 1, 1985

Reviews

[Al · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is an examination of four later plays of Euripides: “Iphigenia in Aulis”; “Phoenissae”; “Heracles”; and “Bacchae”. Foley attempts to examine religious ritual human sacrifice in the context of these plays, in four long chapters, not including the long introductory chapter which is heavily theoretical, surrounding the question of how a sacrifice may or may not perform a civilizing function, despite its fictional context. Foley also tries to link the rituals in these plays to the political background of 5th century Athens, which was then engaged in war with Sparta. My personal opinion is that I think that the language of her argument is too close to what we recognize as critical literary theory and its heavy use of jargon, which doesn’t lead to definitive statements. Sometimes I found it hard to see where she was going with her argument. I didn’t think that she argued effectively or marshalled much evidence, other than relying on theorists who are not classicists. There were very few quotations or references to the texts themselves, and I was left with the distinct impression that the book was more about a discussion of ideas about the plays, instead of a discussion of the plays themselves. I’d like to read other works on the Euripidean plays, such as Whitman, Sandys or Vellacott which I think would help clarify Foley’s work in this instance.

[alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

never in my life have i ever actually read an entire book for research but. well. shout out to my MA diss i guess (also shout out to foley i’m fascinated by ur brain boo)