1
Euripides: Orestes (Ὀρέστης)
Cast of characters:
ELECTRA – DAUGHTER of AGAMEMNON and
CLYTEMNESTRA, SISTER of ORESTES
HELEN – sister of Clytemnestra, WIFE of
MENELAUS
HERMIONE – young daughter of Menelaus
and Helen
ORESTES – SON of Agamemnon and
Clytemnestra, BROTHER of Electra
MENELAUS – brother of Agamemnon, HUSBAND
of Helen
TYNDAREUS – FATHER of Helen and Clytemnestra
PYLADES – son of Strophius of PHOCIS, Orestes’
companion
MESSENGER – an ARGIVE citizen
PHRYGIAN – a SLAVE of Helen
APOLLO – DEUS EX MACHINA
CHORUS of Argive women (see also CHORUSES;
FEMALE CHORUSES IN GREEK TRAGEDY).
Non-speaking extras (see also SILENT
CHARACTERS): Hermione in the PROLOGUE;
Hermione, Helen, Pylades, and Electra in the
last scene; some ATTENDANTS of Menelaus and
SERVANTS of Tyndareus.
A likely distribution of parts is: PROTAGO-
NIST – Orestes; DEUTERAGONIST – Electra, Menel-
aus, Phrygian; TRITAGONIST – Helen, Tyndareus,
Pylades, Messenger, Hermione, Apollo (see
also ACTORS AND ACTING; FEATURES OF GREEK
TRAGEDY; PERFORMANCE). The scene is set in
front of the palace of the ATREIDAE in Argos,
where Orestes lies asleep in a bed. It is the sixth
day after Clytemnestra’s FUNERAL. (See also
ANCIENT GREEK THEATERS; FURNITURE; SPACE;
THEATER ARCHITECTURE; THEATRICAL SPACE
AND THE LOCALE ITSELF.)
Plot Prologue (1–139): Electra, sitting
near the bed of Orestes, narrates the grim
story of the Tantalid FAMILY. She informs the
AUDIENCE that since the funeral of
The Encyclopedia of Greek Tragedy, First Edition. Edited by Hanna M. Roisman.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Clytemnestra, Orestes has been tormented by
hallucinations sent by the Erinyes (see
FURIES), and that on this day the Argive
assembly will decide whether she and her
brother should die (see also GREEK TRAGEDY
AND POLITICAL THOUGHT; GREEK TRAGEDY’S
POLITICAL CONTENT). She is anxiously await-
ing Menelaus, who has arrived at the port of
NAUPLIA. Helen comes out of the palace and
asks Electra to make an offering on the tomb
of Clytemnestra on her behalf; the princess
declines and suggests sending Helen’s daugh-
ter Hermione instead.
PARODOS (140–207): The Chorus enters
and inquires after Orestes’ health. Electra
hushes the Argive women so that Orestes
does not wake up (see also MEDICINE,
SUFFERING, AND HEALING).
First EPISODE (208–315): Orestes wakes up,
lovingly assisted by Electra, who informs him
of the return of Menelaus. Their dialogue is
interrupted by an attack of MADNESS. The hal-
lucinating Orestes tries to put the Erinyes to
flight with the (probably imaginary) BOW of
Apollo (see also PROPS; NOTIONAL PROPS) and
mistakes Electra for one of them. When the
crisis is over he asks her to enter the house
and rest.
First STASIMON (316–47): The Chorus sings
a PRAYER to the Erinyes.
Second Episode (348–806): Menelaus
arrives at the palace and asks about Orestes’
situation. The dialogue is interrupted by the
arrival of Tyndareus, who accuses Orestes,
arguing that he should have EXILED
Clytemnestra instead of killing her. Orestes
defends himself, recalling Apollo’s com-
mand. Tyndareus leaves, announcing that
he will urge a sentence of DEATH and warn-
ing Menelaus not to help the MATRICIDE (see
also PUNISHMENT). Orestes appeals to
Menelaus, who does not go beyond a vague
PROMISE of moral support. Pylades arrives
from Phocis and persuades Orestes to go to
the assembly.
2
Second Stasimon (807–43): The Chorus
reflects on the terrible act of Orestes, who has
murdered his mother while she was showing
him her breast.
Third Episode (844–959): A Messenger
informs Electra that the assembly has
condemned her and Orestes to death. He
reports the arguments of the speakers and
adds that the citizens have granted that they
can take their own lives instead of being
stoned (see also SUICIDE IN GREEK TRAGEDY).
Third Stasimon and Monody of Electra
(960–1012): The Chorus LAMENTS over the
destiny of the CHILDREN of Agamemnon.
Electra joins in the lament.
Fourth Episode (1013–245): Orestes and
Pylades come back from the assembly. Orestes
and Electra are ready to die, but Pylades sug-
gests that they could take REVENGE on
Menelaus by killing Helen; Electra adds that
they should seize Hermione as a hostage in
order to force Menelaus to rescue them from
death (see also MURDER).
Fourth Stasimon (1246–85): The Chorus
collaborates with the conspirators by survey-
ing the streets around the palace (see also
CONSPIRACY).
Fifth Episode (1286–352): Helen cries from
the house. Hermione, back from the tomb of
Clytemnestra, is DECEIVED by Electra and
seized by Pylades and Orestes.
Fifth Stasimon (first part: 1353–65): The
Chorus makes a noise to hide what is happen-
ing inside; they rejoice over the alleged death
of Helen.
EXODOS (first part: 1366–536): A Phrygian
Slave flees from the house and narrates the
assault against Helen in an excited song (see
also COMIC SCENES IN GREEK TRAGEDY;
ETHNICITY; FOREIGN LANGUAGE). He cannot
say whether Helen has died or not, since she
has suddenly disappeared from the hands of
her would-be killers. Orestes comes out and
threatens to kill the Phrygian, but eventually
lets him go.
Fifth Stasimon (second part: 1537–48):
The Chorus decides not to inform the citizens
of what is happening. A light and the smoke
of torches are seen on the top of the house.
Exodos (second part: 1549–67): Menelaus
believes that Helen has been killed and is bent
on rescuing Hermione. Orestes appears on
the roof holding a SWORD to Hermione’s
throat and threatening to burn his own house
(see also THEOLOGEION). After a brief excited
parley, Orestes gives the command to kindle
the FIRE. Suddenly Apollo and Helen appear
on high. The god puts an end to the VIOLENCE
and reveals that Helen has been brought to
heaven, according to Zeus’ will. Orestes will
live one year in exile and then reach ATHENS,
where he will be prosecuted by the Erinyes
and acquitted by the AREOPAGITIC tribunal
(see also LAW IN GREEK TRAGEDY). He will
eventually become king of Argos and MARRY
Hermione. Pylades will marry Electra (see
also HAPPY ENDINGS).
Date and transmission of text Orestes was
produced at the CITY DIONYSIA of 408 BCE
(Snell–Kannicht TrGF vol. 1 DID C 19).
Hegelokhos was the first actor and played
the  part of Orestes (schol. ad Or. 279,
Schwartz 1887: 126–7; Strattis, Anthroporestes
PCG F 1). The other plays of the TETRALOGY
are unknown; the theory that Euripides pre-
sented Hypsipyle, PHOENICIAN WOMEN, and
Antiope (see also FRAGMENTARY AND LOST
PLAYS), with Orestes as the fourth pro-satyric
play (Müller 1984: 66–9), is based on a
doubtful interpretation of schol. in Ar. Ran.
53a (Chantry 1999: 12; see Porter 1994:
291–7; see also SATYR DRAMA; SCHOLIA). Since
the play was repeatedly produced after
Euripides’ death, it may well be that some of
the changes introduced by the actors found
their way into the copies acquired by the
Library of Alexandria (see also REVIVALS).
The possibility of detecting these interpola-
tions is a much debated issue among editors
(see Di Benedetto 1965; Willink 1989;
Diggle 1994; Kovacs 2002; see also ACTORS’
INTERPOLATIONS; ALEXANDRIAN SCHOLARSHIP;
EURIPIDES: TRANSMISSION OF TEXT). The wide
library circulation of Orestes in the Hellenistic
and Roman world is documented by 25 papyri
dating from the third century BCE to the sixth
century CE and by a vast number of quotations

and ALLUSIONS. Included around the second
century CE in a selection of Euripidean trag-
edies accompanied by scholia, the play has
been preserved to us mainly by five “old”
manuscripts dating before 1204 CE; many
later copies are known, in particular of the
so-called “BYZANTINE TRIAD” (Orestes,
HECUBA, and Phoenician Women: more than
250 exemplars; see Diggle 1991).
Myth In again bringing to the Athenian
stage the MYTH of Orestes, Euripides inten-
tionally chooses a new perspective that allows
him to challenge the treatments of the story
in AESCHYLUS’ ORESTEIA and SOPHOCLES’
ELECTRA. He moves the matricide to the
background and focuses on a question that
has hitherto been unexplored: how does the
community of Argos react to Orestes’ matri-
cide? In the earlier versions of the story
Orestes’ fellow citizens were not concerned
with the juridical issues raised by the murder.
In Orestes instead they react with hostility,
prohibiting any form of contact with the
POLLUTED children of Agamemnon and put-
ting them on trial. This new “episode” of the
story is an invention of Euripides, and
Orestes’ largely innovative plot is based on a
brilliant mixture of NOVELTY and conveni-
ently altered traditional elements (see also
EURIPIDES: DRAMATIC INNOVATIONS; EURIPIDES:
TREATMENT OF MYTH; EURIPIDES AND SUB-
VERSIVENESS). A major innovation is that after
the vengeance, Orestes does not leave Argos
in search of purification (as in Oresteia and
in  EURIPIDES’ ELECTRA) but remains in the
city and is brought to trial before the assem-
bly. The traditional MOTIVE of the mental
disorder caused by the Erinyes, already pre-
sent in AESCHYLUS’ CHOEPHOROI and in
IPHIGENIA AMONG THE TAURIANS, is here the
starting-point for a deep exploration of the
dimension of REMORSE. Another relevant
novelty is that Apollo, Orestes’ protector in
AESCHYLUS’ EUMENIDES, has apparently aban-
doned him (see also EURIPIDES: GODS AND
FATE; GODS’ ROLE/GODS AND MORTALS). The
HELPLESSNESS of the protagonist is enhanced
by a slight alteration of a traditional element:
3
Menelaus’ return from TROY, usually coinci-
dent with the funeral of Clytemnestra (Hom.
Od. 3.311), is delayed till the very day of the
trial. A minor innovation is aimed at increas-
ing Pylades’ affinity with Orestes: he had
returned to Phocis after the vengeance, but
has been banned by his father and comes
back to Argos immediately before the trial.
The most exciting innovations, however, are
reserved by Euripides for Helen. He invents
the plan of Orestes, Pylades, and Electra to
take revenge on Menelaus by killing his wife
and taking Hermione hostage. The plan fails
because Helen is rescued by Apollo, who
brings her to heaven (Helen’s apotheosis was
predicted by CASTOR in EURIPIDES’ HELEN,
but only at the end of her natural life). The
traditional course of the story is reinstated
only by the final speech of the god.
Themes and dramatic structure In Orestes
Euripides presents a brilliant and intellectu-
ally provoking revisitation of one of the most
popular tragic stories by creating a clash
between the traditional heroic figure of
Orestes and the unheroic reality of Argos.
The rift between what the protagonist is
bound to be as a figure of the myth and the
immense SUFFERING he must face as a human
being is beyond remedy. The OBEDIENCE to
Apollo’s command has thrown the matricide
into an insoluble interior conflict, far worse
than the persecution of the Erinyes. Orestes is
tormented most of all by his own awareness
of what he has done (synesis, Or. 396), which
constantly reminds him of his responsibility
and deprives any possible self-defense of all
meaning. Despite this burden of remorse,
however, he never takes into account the idea
that the vengeance was not just: he considers
himself an unfortunate man who has been
abandoned by Apollo in the moment of
utmost need (Or. 600–1). The character,
entrapped by his own mythical role, has thus
no means to resist the pressure of the hostile
community of the polis.
The political context plays a decisive role in
Euripides’ dramatic project. The Aeschylean
Areopagus is replaced with an assembly
4
conditioned by local and individual interests,
whose members are eager to accept the vio-
lent arguments of the demagogue instructed
by Tyndareus, ignoring the moderate pro-
posal of DIOMEDES as well as the honest coun-
tryman’s defense of Orestes. The low moral
standard of this corrupt political body makes
it unable to face the thorny ethical issues
raised by the matricide; it reacts with more
violence (this was a particularly current theme
for the spectators of 408 BCE, who easily rec-
ognized in the fictional Argos many traits of
the political corruption of contemporary
Athenian society: see Interpretations below;
see also POLITICAL APPROACH TO GREEK
TRAGEDY). The inadequacy of the social con-
text is a major theme of Orestes and also
involves the protagonist’s family. The mem-
bers of his genos are far from showing the soli-
darity one might expect of them. Orestes and
Electra are excluded from their own house,
occupied by the egotistic and frivolous Helen;
Menelaus is a coward who would never
jeopardize the possibility of ruling Argos by
defending Orestes; Tyndareus does not hesi-
tate to cooperate with his enemies. The des-
perate isolation of the two siblings is expressed
also by the scenic arrangement: they are
besieged in the scenic space, with the façade of
their lost house at their rear and the hostile
space of the city disposed all around the
ORCHēSTRA.
The decision of the assembly articulates the
play in two strongly contrasted halves, the
first developing the theme of Orestes’ help-
lessness and suffering, the second showing
the perverse transformation of fraternal LOVE
and LOYAL FRIENDSHIP into negative forces that
make of Orestes, Electra, and Pylades a trio of
bloodthirsty avengers capable of overtly
CRUEL actions.
In the opening scenes a major role is
assigned to the motives of madness and phys-
ical suffering, described even in their most
repugnant features. The desperate condition
of the protagonist is carried to extremes and
becomes in fact the touchstone revealing the
nature of all the characters around him. Only
Orestes’ true PHILOI Electra and Pylades
break the barrier of disease and pollution in
moving scenes of physical contact (probably
echoing SOPHOCLES’ PHILOCTETES, produced
the year before). The culminating point is
the exceptional attack of madness on stage,
through which Euripides gives one of the
most intense representations of fraternal love
in all Greek drama.
After the condemnation, Orestes and his
comrades undergo a terrible transformation.
Fraternal love turns into a desperate desire to
share death, and the aristocratic values of
nobility, freedom, and loyal friendship
(philia) are distorted to support a terroristic
vengeance plan (the three friends now adopt
the language of contemporary political strife,
stasis). It has been rightly observed that the
attempt on Helen’s life is presented by
Euripides as a perverted reenactment of the
murder of Clytemnestra, lacking both divine
sanction and moral justification (Greenberg
1962: 160). The rhythm of the play dramati-
cally accelerates: an explosive release of nega-
tive energies rapidly brings the action,
through a breathtaking climax of EMOTIONS,
to the verge of a violent and self-destructive
conclusion. The finale planned by Euripides
is, however, far different and entails another
failure for Orestes. The poet skillfully pre-
pares a surprising ending through a subtle
strategy of suggestio falsi about the death of
Helen. He develops a complex play with the
spectators’ expectations in a sequence of
scenes displaying a masterful command of
theatrical conventions (Arnott 1983) and
prefiguring the later dramaturgy of New
Comedy. The key scene of this section is the
astonishing narration of the Phrygian, char-
acterized by an innovative musical style
(influenced by the contemporary current of
“New  MUSIC”) and by the presence of less
serious features regarded by some scholars as
intentionally breaking down the barrier
between tragedy and comedy (for Orestes as
“TRAGICOMEDY” see Dunn 1989; the “comic”
elements are discussed by Seidensticker
1982: 101–14; see also COMEDY AND TRAGEDY:
GENERIC INTERACTIONS). This shift in tone
mitigates the dark atmosphere of the play

and prepares the final scene, with its puzzling
belated intervention of Apollo, who com-
pletely reverses the conclusion deriving from
the action. It seems difficult to deny that,
despite the happy ending, many doubts
about the god’s behavior remain, and that
the enormous burden of Orestes’ suffering
does not seem redeemed by Apollo’s assump-
tion of responsibility. Euripides probably
intended to suggest a double-level reading:
while giving his spectators some relief by
reminding them that Orestes’ self-destruc-
tion was not after all the traditional conclu-
sion of the story, he lets them perceive behind
the apparently positive solution the shadow
of the chaos that has almost annihilated his
characters and could at any moment break
the barrier of dramatic fiction to ravage
Athenian reality.
Interpretations Orestes is perhaps a Eur-
ipidean play about which the opinions of crit-
ics are most widely divergent. Many serious
difficulties have been detected: the sudden
change of atmosphere and the psychologically
unconvincing evolution of Orestes; the low
moral standard of almost all the characters
(already criticized in antiquity: see Arist. Poet.
1454a29–30 on Menelaus and the second
ancient HYPOTHESIS of the play: Diggle 1994:
189, lines 43–4); the lack of tragic decorum
and the presence of “comic” features; the dis-
turbing nature of the vengeance plan; the
tumultuous sequence of apparently incoher-
ent episodes followed by a disconcerting
happy ending. Nineteenth-century critics dis-
missed Orestes as a second-rate decadent
drama pandering to the audience’s taste.
Its  tragic nature was vindicated by Steiger
(1898) by calling attention to the poet’s
polemic reaction against earlier dramatiza-
tions of the myth, and by Verrall (1905) who
read the play as a psychological study in
criminal folly (see also RATIONALIST CRIT-
ICISM).  Only around 1950, however, did
the  problems  of Orestes begin to be
approached through more refined readings.
Critics mainly interested in psychology have
elaborated two possible responses to the ques-
5
tion of coherence (see also PSYCHOLOGICAL
APPROACH TO GREEK TRAGEDY). Some regard
the play as a study in demoralization, in which,
under the pressure of remorse and civic hostil-
ity, the true nature of the monster who had
dared to kill his mother comes eventually to
surface, involving also his philoi (Mullens
1940; Grube 1941; Conacher 1967). Eur-
ipides, however, has attributed truly sympa-
thetic traits to Orestes, Electra, and Pylades
and serious moral failings to their opponents.
The protagonist’s demoralization has there-
fore been explained by other scholars as the
humanly understandable reaction of a noble
young man exposed to terrible mistreatment
(Krieg 1934; Pohlenz 1954: 412–21).
A different avenue of thought has been fol-
lowed by interpreters who regard the contra-
diction between the positive feelings of the
first half of the play and the violent chaos of
the exodos as a deliberate choice, through
which Euripides proposes a deeply ironic
reading of the myth as the mirror of a corrupt
and violent society. In a most relevant study,
Reinhardt (1960a) interpreted Orestes as a
form of theater of the absurd, a bitter reflec-
tion of the poet on the intellectual and
spiritual crisis (Sinneskrise) of the Athenian
culture of the late fifth century BCE; in a still
more philosophical perspective, Wolff
(1968/1983) regarded it as a picture of a
nonsensical world in which all human plans
are always deluded, and Parry (1969) focused
on the clash between rational and non-
rational experience revealing the illusory
nature of all human ideals. This approach
makes sense of the finale, interpreting it as
an  intentionally disconcerting conclusion
unmasking the ironic nature of the play. Far
different evaluations of the role of the gods
have, however, been proposed: the loss of
confidence in Apollo’s help is considered by
Burnett (1985: 183–222) the real cause
of  Orestes’ (and of human) suffering, and
more recently Kovacs (2002) has explained
Orestes’ plight as the consequence of a naïve
rationalism that prevents him from taking the
religious sanctities seriously. In any case,
the ending of the play can hardly be considered
6
reassuring from a moral and religious
perspective (Mastronarde 2010: 192–4).
The evident connection suggested by
Euripides between the Argive polis and con-
temporary Athenian reality has been the
starting-point for readings concerned mainly
with the broader political implications of the
play. Orestes’ primary aim has been identified
in the poet’s protest against the corruption of
ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY and in his warning
against the dangers of civil strife after the
political turbulence of 411 BCE (see, with dif-
ferent nuances, Lanza 1961; Longo 1975;
Euben 1986b; Di Benedetto 1992a: 205–9;
Hall 1993; for Burkert 1974 the play expresses
desperate doubt about the meaning of trag-
edy in such a degraded political reality).
Considerable attention has duly been
reserved to the complex interplay of Orestes
with previous treaments of the myth, particu-
larly Aeschylus’ Oresteia and Sophocles’
Electra (Greenberg 1962; Schein 1975;
Fuqua 1976, 1978; and, in an intertextual
perspective, Zeitlin 1980/2003). The rele-
vance of its relationship with Helen has been
more recently highlighted by Wright (2006).
Lastly, critics like Willink (1989) and West
(1987) have proposed considering Orestes not
as a tragedy primarily intended to convey an
intellectual or political message but as a most
brilliant and enjoyable theatrical piece, based
on a masterful play with the myth that brings it
to an unexpected and spectacular conclusion.
Afterlife Orestes was immensely popular in
antiquity and was often revived in the Hellen-
istic world. The famous actor Neoptolemus pre-
sented it in the contest of the palaiai (tragedies
already acted) at the City Dionysia of 340 BCE
(Snell–Kannicht TrGF vol. 1 DID A 2.16–19),
and in a year between 275 and 219 BCE the play
was produced again in Athens by an unknown
actor who obtained the first prize (Snell–
Kannicht TrGF vol. 1 DID B 11.1–2). The
Messenger’s speech was imitated by Menander
in the narration of the assembly in his
Sicyonians (see Belardinelli 1984). Several
scholia, probably going back to a commentary
of the third to second century BCE, refer to
how “present-day actors” performed some
scenes, and also a musical papyrus (Pap. Vind.
2315, c. 200 BCE), preserving a fragment of
the first stasimon, documents that the play was
part of the repertory of Hellenistic actors (see
also ORIGINS AND HISTORY OF GREEK TRAGEDY).
Orestes was not among the models revisited
by the Roman tragedians; nonetheless, the the-
atrical figure of Orestes furens (“crazy”) was
familiar to Latin poets (see Verg. Aen. 3.330,
4.471; Hor. Ars P. 123; Luc. 7.777–8; Val. Fl.
7.147–52: Arduini 2000: 280–2), and surely
Hor. Sat. II 3.140f., vocando | hanc Furiam
(“calling her [Electra] a Fury”) and Ov. Am.
1.7.9–10, Orestes | ausus in arcanas poscere tela
deas (“Orestes who dared to call up the arrows
for the secret goddesses”) refer to the madness
scene of Orestes (cf. Juv. Sat. 14.283–4).
In modern times the play has not been as
much appreciated as in antiquity. It was very
rarely revived on stage before 1950; only after
World War II, and particularly with the social
and political changes of the 1960s, did the
atmosphere of chaotic violence and the politi-
cal overtones of the play begin to attract
interest. Since 1965 Orestes has been repeat-
edly produced, either on its own or mixed
with other Orestes dramas, in Greece (1971,
dir. A. Solomos; 1979, L. Trivizas; 1982–4,
G. Sevastikoglou; 1998, K. Koun), Britain
(1979, The Atreidae, J. Barton), Italy (1984,
L. Squarzina; 2000, P. Maccarinelli), the
United States (1968, Jan Kott, a “hippie”
version with an overt anti-war message; 1973,
adaptation by G. Rozakis; 1981, M. Kahn,
adaptation by Adrienne Kennedy), and else-
where. The disturbing vengeance of Orestes
has become quite current in the decade that
has experienced the chaos of global terrorism.
The play was revived in 2005 (S. Fasoulis),
2006 (N. Mekler, adaptation by H. Edmundson;
Classic Greek Theater of Oregon), 2009
(Theater Bonn: Elektra/Orest nach Euripides,
by H. Ortkemper), and 2010 (D. Lay). New
adaptations have been announced by A. Clark
(dir. G. Rodosthenous) and Mary-Kay Gamel
(D. Scheie).
Euripides’ Orestes has not inspired as many
literary reworkings as Aeschylus’ Oresteia or

the two Electra plays. Charles L. Mee’s Orestes
2.0 (1992) is one of the most innovative adap-
tations, illustrating the chaos of modern times
through the ancient story. The author sets the
scene in a hospital for veterans of the Persian
Gulf War, who, on returning home, find that
the uncontrolled violence of war has followed
them in everyday life. The play shows the bru-
talizing effect of suffering: Orestes, a victim,
becomes a victimizer in this nightmarish
world (McDonald 1993). Other post-modern
reworkings are Michael McClure’s Vktms.
Orestes in Scenes (1985) and Jeff Cohen’s
Orestes. I Murdered My Mother (1996). Cohen
proposes a provocative equation between
ancient tragedy and modern TV talk shows
that turn family horror stories into a subject of
public discussion. More recently in New York,
Theodora Skipitares presented The Exiles
(2007), an adaptation of Orestes that is part of
a series of puppet plays based on Greek classics
(see also RECEPTION).
See also TITLES OF TRAGEDIES
References
Arduini, P. 2000. “Il tema di Oreste in Roma
antica.” SCO 47.2: 235–88.
Arnott, W.G. 1983. “Tension, Frustration and
Surprise: A Study of Theatrical Techniques in
Some Scenes of Euripides’ Orestes.” Antichthon
17: 13–28.
Belardinelli, A.M. 1984. “L’Oreste di Euripide e i
Sicioni di Menandro.” Orpheus 5: 396–402.
Burkert, W. 1974. “Die Absurdität der Gewalt
und das Ende der Tragödie: Euripides’ Orestes.”
A&A 20: 97–109; repr. in W. Burkert, Kleine
Schriften VII. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2007: 97–110.
Burnett, A.P. 1985. Catastrophe Survived:
Euripides’ Plays of Mixed Reversal, 2nd edn.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chantry, M. 1999. Scholia in Aristophanem.
Part III. Scholia in Thesmophoriazusas; Ranas;
Ecclesiazusas; Plutum. Fasc. Ia, Scholia vetera in
Aristophanis Ranas. Groningen: Forster.
Conacher, D.J. 1967. Euripidean Drama: Myth,
Theme and Structure. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Di Benedetto, V. 1965. Euripidis Orestes.
Florence: La Nuova Italia.
7
Di Benedetto, V. 1992a. Euripide: Teatro e società,
2nd edn. Turin: Einaudi.
Diggle, J. 1991. The Textual Tradition of Euripides’
Orestes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Diggle, J. 1994. Euripidis Fabulae, vol. 3. Oxford.
Clarendon Press.
Dunn, F.M. 1989. “Comic and Tragic License in
Euripides’ Orestes.” CA 8: 238–51.
Euben, J.P. 1986b. “Political Corruption in
Euripides’ Orestes,” in J.P. Euben (ed.), Greek
Tragedy and Political Theory. Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press: 222–51.
Fuqua, C. 1976. “Studies in the Use of Myth in
Sophocles’ Philoctetes and the Orestes of Euripides.”
Traditio 32: 29–95.
Fuqua, C. 1978. “The World of Myth in Euripides’
Orestes.” Traditio 34: 1–28.
Greenberg, N.A. 1962. “Euripides’ Orestes: An
Interpretation.” HSCPh 66: 157–92.
Grube, G.M.A. 1941. The Drama of Euripides,
2nd edn. London: Methuen; repr. with minor
corrections, 1961, 1973.
Hall, E. 1993. “Political and Cosmic Turbulence
in Euripides’ Orestes,” in A.H. Sommerstein, S.
Halliwell, J. Henderson, and B. Zimmermann
(eds.), Tragedy, Comedy and the Polis: Papers
from the Greek Drama Conference, Nottingham,
18–20 July 1990. Bari: Levante: 263–85.
Kovacs, D. 2002. “Rationalism, Naive and Malign
in Euripides’ Orestes,” in J.F. Miller, C. Damon,
and K.S. Myers (eds.), Vertis in usum: Studies in
Honour of Edward Courtney. Munich and
Leipzig: K.G. Saur: 277–86.
Krieg, W. 1934. De Euripidis Oreste. Halle:
Gebauer-Schwetschke.
Lanza, D. 1961. “Unità e significato dell’Oreste
euripideo.” Dioniso 24: 58–72.
Longo, O. 1975. “Proposte di lettura per l’Oreste
di Euripide.” Maia 27: 265–87.
Mastronarde, D.J. 2010. The Art of Euripides:
Dramatic Technique and Social Context.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McDonald, M. 1993. “Orestes’ Mania: Euripides’,
Mee’s and Bogart’s Apocalyptic Vision.” ICS
18: 73–81.
Mullens, H.G. 1940. “The Meaning of Euripides’
Orestes.” CQ 34: 153–8.
Müller, C.W. 1984. Zur Datierung des sophoklei-
schen Ödipus. Mainz: Steiner.
Parry, H. 1969. “Euripides’ Orestes: The Quest for
Salvation.” TAPhA 100: 337–53.
Pohlenz, M. 1954. Die griechische Tragödie, 2nd
edn. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.
8
Porter, J.R. 1994. Studies in Euripides’ Orestes.
Leiden: Brill.
Reinhardt, K. 1960a. “Die Sinneskrise bei
Euripides,” in K. Reinhardt (ed.), Tradition und
Geist: Gesammelte Essays zur Dichtung.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 227–56;
originally published in Die Neue Rundschau 68
(1957): 615–46.
Schein, S.L. 1975. “Mythical Illusion and Historical
Reality in Euripides’ Orestes.” WS 88: 49–66.
Schwartz, E. 1887. Scholia in Euripidem, vol. 1:
Scholia in Hecubam, Orestem, Phoenissas.
Berlin: Reimer.
Seidensticker, B. 1982b. Palintonos Harmonia:
Studien zu den komischen Elementen in der grie-
chischen Tragödie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Steiger, H. 1898. Wie entstand der Orestes des
Euripides? Augsburg: Pfeiffer.
Verrall, A.W. 1905. Essays on Four Plays of Euripides:
Andromache, Helen, Heracles, Orestes.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
West, M.L. 1987. Euripides: Orestes: With
Translation and Commentary. Warminster:
Aris & Phillips.
Willink, C.W. 1989. Euripides: Orestes: With
Introduction and Commentary, 2nd edn.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Wolff, C. 1968/1983. “Orestes,” in E. Segal (ed.),
Euripides: A Collection of Critical Essays.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall: 132–49;
repr. in E. Segal (ed.), Oxford Readings in Greek
Tragedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1983: 340–56.
Wright, M. 2006. “Orestes, a Euripidean Sequel.”
CQ 56: 33–47.
Zeitlin, F.I. 1980/2003. “The Closet of Masks:
Role-playing and Myth-making in the Orestes of
Euripides.” Ramus 9: 57–77; repr. in J. Moss-
man (ed.), Euripides. Oxford Readings in
Classical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2003: 309–41.
Further Reading
Griffith, M. 2009. “Orestes and the In-laws,” in
D.E. McCoskey and E. Zakin (eds.), Bound by
the City: Greek Tragedy, Sexual Difference and
the Formation of the Polis. Albany: SUNY Press:
275–330.
Wright, M. 2008. Euripides, Orestes. London:
Duckworth.
ENRICO MEDDA