Reassessing The Nonconformist Charges Against Euripides: A Study Of Selected Plays Of Euripides And Aristophanes’ Frogs

ABSTRACT Ancient Greek tragedy came to Euripides with its general conditions fixed in a manner which he could not attempt to alter. There is a governing diction, tone and propriety which define the genre and sustains its elevation; three actors in a play, a chorus, and subject-matter that must be taken from the heroic legends and myths. Wounds and death were not supposed to be presented on stage. These are some of the basic conventions of ancient Greek play. But it is widely held against the background of the criticisms of Euripides‘ drama that his plays generally represent a sharp departure from the existing traditions, customs, and theatrical conventions of the tragic genre. To Aristophanes in particular, and some modern scholars such as August W. Schlegel, Friedrich Schlegel, Ann Norris Michelini, Paul Decharme, Stahlin Schmid and Ebener Dietrich, Euripides is an immoral dramatist, a misogynist, an anti-traditionalist, impious, a lover of rhetoric, a sophist, a systematic thinker and a skeptical dramatist whose plays show nonconformist attitudes and views towards the traditional religion, morality and the mythological stories of the tragic genre. However, some other commentators like Adele Robert, Donald Mastronarde, Helen Foley, Desmond Conacher, David Kovacs, and G. M. A. Grube are of the view that Euripides is an innovative, realistic, and creative dramatist, whose drama should not be misinterpreted from our modern perspectives. Thus, there appears to be lack of consensus among ancient and modern scholars about the interpretations of Euripides‘ plays