A Dialogic Soliloquy?

On Polyxena’s Conversational Behaviour in E. Hec. 415-422

In: Mnemosyne
View More View Less
  • 1 University of Zurich, Seminar of Greek and Latin Languages and Literature

Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):



In Euripides’ Hecuba, both the scholia and modern interpreters detect a failure of communication in the farewell scene between the protagonist and Polyxena—though the scholiast names Polyxena as the source of the non-dialogue, whereas the modern commentators claim that neither character is engaging. This paper aims, firstly, by a slight redistribution of lines, to restore coherence to the dialogue. Secondly, it argues that it is Hecuba’s rather than Polyxena’s conversational behaviour that impedes the smooth progress of the dialogue. Polyxena is even the one trying to reintegrate her mother into the dialogue. Her linguistic behaviour thus matches her composed and ‘heroic’ overall conduct.

  • Battezzato, L. (forthcoming). Euripides, Hecuba. Cambridge.

  • Biehl, W. (1997). Textkritik und Formanalyse zur euripideischen Hekabe. Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Komposition. Heidelberg.

  • Cavarzeran, J. (2016). Scholia in Euripidis Hippolytum. Berlin.

  • Collard, C. (1991). Euripides, Hecuba. Warminster.

  • Denniston, J.D. (1954). The Greek Particles. 2nd edition. Oxford.

  • Diggle, J. (1982). Notes on the Hecuba of Euripides. GRBS 23, pp. 315-323 [repr. in: id. (1994). Euripidea, Oxford, pp. 229-238].

  • Diggle, J. (1984). Euripidis Fabulae, Volume 1. Oxford.

  • Gregory, J. (1999). Euripides, Hecuba. Introduction, Text, and Commentary. Atlanta.

  • Guiraud, C. (1962). La phrase nominale en grec d’Homère à Euripide. Paris.

  • Halliday, M.A.K., and Hasan, R. (1975). Cohesion in English. London.

  • Kovacs, D. (1995). Euripides. II. Children of Heracles, Hippolytus, Andromache, Hecuba. Cambridge, MA.

  • Mastronarde, D.J. (1988). Review of J. Diggle, Euripidis Fabulae, Volume 1. (Oxford, 1984). CPh 83, pp. 151-160.

  • Matthiessen, K. (2010). Euripides, Hekabe. Edition und Kommentar. Berlin/New York.

  • Murray, G. (1901). Euripidis Fabulae, Volume 1. Oxford.

  • Sanders, T.J.M., Spooren, W.P.M., and L.G.M. Noordman. (1992). Toward a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes 15, pp. 1-35.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schauer, M. (2002). Tragisches Klagen. Form und Funktion der Klagedarstellung bei Aischylos, Sophokles und Euripides. Munich.

  • Schuren, L. (2015). Shared Storytelling in Euripidean Stichomythia. Amsterdam.

  • Schwartz, E. (1887). Scholia in Euripidem, Volume 1. Berlin.

  • Tsui, A.B.M. (1991). Sequencing Rules and Coherence in Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 15, pp. 111-129.

  • Turyn, A. (1957). The Byzantine Manuscript Tradition of the Tragedies of Euripides. Urbana.

  • Zuntz, G. (1965). An Inquiry into the Transmission of the Plays of Euripides. Cambridge.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 252 62 4
Full Text Views 214 6 0
PDF Views & Downloads 53 9 0