Browse

This book explores Euripides's revolutionary literary art. While scholars have long pointed to subversive elements in Euripides's plays, this book goes a step further in identifying a Euripidean program of enlightened thought enacted through carefully wrought textual strategies. The driving force behind this program is Euripides's desire to subvert the traditional anthropomorphic view of the Greek gods—a belief system that in his view strips human beings of their independence and ability to act wisely and justly. Instead of fatuous religious beliefs, Athenians need the wisdom and the strength to navigate the challenges and difficulties of life. Throughout his lifetime, Euripides found himself the target of intense criticism and ridicule. He was accused of promoting new ideas that were considered destructive. Like his contemporary, Socrates, he was considered a corrupting influence. No wonder, then, that Euripides had to carry out his revolution “under cover.” This book lays out the various ways that the playwright skillfully inserted his philosophical principles into the text through innovative strategies of plot development, language and composition, and production techniques that subverted the traditionally staged anthropomorphic gods.

To address the roots of pardoning’s treatment in contemporary politics and uncover what new formulations of pardoning might contribute, this book examines the role of what it calls “theaters of pardoning”—a form of tragicomedy—in the drama and politics of seventeenth-century England. Historically, shifts in the representation of pardoning tracked the transition from a more monarchical and judgment-focused to an increasingly parliamentary and legislative vision of sovereignty. On stage, a transformation surreptitiously took place from individual pardons of revenge to more sweeping pardons of revolution. The change can be traced from Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure to later works like Philip Massinger’s The Bondman. In the political arena, the pardon correspondingly came to be envisioned in increasingly law-like terms, culminating in the idea of a general amnesty, or “Act of Oblivion,” implemented by the Restoration Parliament under King Charles II. The figuration of pardoning as lawgiving did not eliminate its connection with sovereignty but instead displaced sovereignty from the King onto Parliament. The link between pardoning and sovereignty has contributed to the suspicion that has more recently surrounded the exercise of pardoning. Only by breaking the connection between pardoning and sovereignty cemented in seventeenth-century England can we reinvigorate pardoning in the polity today.