Chapter VI: Metre and Rhythm in Greek Tragedy (2)

δεινὰ μὲν οὖν, δεινὰ ταράσσει σοφὸς οἰωνοθέτας
οὔτε δοκοῦντ’ οὔτ’ ἀποφάσκονθ’· ὅτι λέξω δ’ ἀπορῶ (_Œd. Tyr._,
483 _sq._).

–⏑⏑–|–⏑⏑–‖–⏑⏑–|–⏑⏑–‖
–⏑⏑–|–⏑⏑–‖–⏑⏑–|–⏑⏑–‖

This measure expresses great agitation and perplexity. In the passage just cited they pass into ionics, which indicate a gradual comparative calming of mind. For example, the antistrophe reads:—

ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν οὖν Ζεὺς ὅ τ’ Ἀπόλλων συνετοὶ καὶ τὰ βροτῶν
εἰδότες· ἀνδρῶν δ’ ὅτι μάντις πλέον ἢ ’γω φέρεται
κρίσις οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθής· σοφίᾳ δ’ ἂν σοφίαν
παραμείψειεν ἀνήρ.

–⏑⏑–|–⏑⏑–‖–⏑⏑–|–⏑⏑–‖
–⏑⏑–|–⏑⏑–‖–⏑⏑–|–⏑⏑–‖
⏑⏑⁝– –⏑⏑|– –⏑⏑‖– –⏑⏑|⏘ꞈ̄‖
⏑⏑⁝– –⏑⏑|⏘ꞈ̄‖.

The late Rupert Brooke left some exquisite _Experiments_ in this metre, _e.g._:—

Ah! Not now, when desire burns, and the wind calls, and the suns of
spring
Light-foot dance in the woods, whisper of life, woo me to wayfaring.

That is—

⏗⏗|–⏑⏑–|–⏑⏑–‖–⏑⏑–|⏗⏗‖

(_h_) _Dochmiacs._—It is convenient to discuss these here, though the dochmius is not a foot, but a colon. The rule both of metre and music is that all feet or bars should have the same time-value; a trochaic colon may contain ⏗ or ᷋⏑ as well as –⏑, but not –⏑⏑. Dochmiacs are generally regarded as an exception to this rule. The dochmius is a colon of which the simplest form[888] is ⏑– –⏑–, to be divided ⏑⁝– –⏑|–ꞈ||, _e.g._ κακορρημόνων. The dochmius is always catalectic, but the anacrusis of one serves to complete the trochee of the preceding colon:—

φανήτω μόρων ὁ κάλλιστ’ ἐμῶν
ἐμοὶ τερμίαν ἄγων ἁμέραν (_Antigone_, 1329 _sq._).

⏑⁝– –⏑|–⏑‖– –⏑|–ꞈ‖.

But this simplest form is not the most frequent, and a considerable sequence is rare. Resolution of one or more long syllables is very common. The favourite form is ⏑⁝⏑⏑–⏑|–ꞈ‖:—

περίβαλον γάρ οἱ πτεροφόρον δέμας (_Agamemnon_, 1147).

⏑⁝⏑⏑–⏑|–⏑‖⏑⏑–⏑|–ꞈ‖

This metre is frequent in passages of lamentation, and as these are extremely numerous the dochmiac measure is one of the most important. It is also perhaps the most difficult, because of the many varieties admitted. In all, twenty-two[889] forms are said to be found, though several of these are rare; this great number is due to resolution and irrational long syllables. Thus—

ἰὼ σκότου
νέφος ἐμὸν ἀπότροπον, ἐπιπλόμενον ἄφατον
ἀδάματόν τε καὶ δυσούριστον ὄν (_Œd. Tyr._, 1313).

⏑⁝⏘⏑|–ꞈ‖
⏑⁝⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑|⏑⏑⏑‖⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑|⏑⏑ꞈ‖
⏑⁝⏑⏑–⏑|–⏑‖– –⏑|–ꞈ‖.

The second line of course would by itself have no rhythm at all, being so completely broken to pieces, in order to express the extreme limit of agitation possible in articulate speech. But it gains rhythm from the clearer lines of the context. The antistrophe shows a further variety—an irrational syllable in the last line:—

ἰὼ φίλος,
σὺ μὲν ἐμὸς ἐπίπολος ἔτι μόνιμος· ἔτι γάρ
ὑπομένεις με τὸν τυφλὸν κηδεύων.

(κηδευ͐ων). Evidently it is important to accustom one’s ear thoroughly to the basic form ⏑– –⏑– and to ⏑⏑⏑–⏑–. Another instance may be of use:—

ἆρα πύλαι κλῄθροις χαλκόδετ’ ἔμβολά τε
λαϊνέοισιν Ἀμφίονος ὀργάνοις
τείχεος ἥρμοσται; (_Phœnissæ_, 114 _sqq._).

˃⁝⏑⏑–˃|–˃‖⏑⏑–⏑|⏑⏑ꞈ‖
⏑⁝⏑⏑–⏑|–˃‖⏑⏑–⏑|–ꞈ‖
˅⁝⏑⏑–˃|–ꞈ‖.

The last division of our subject is the different types of period, the various ways in which cola are combined and correspond. It should be noted that a colon with anacrusis can correspond to one without; so of catalexis and τονή.

(i) The simplest form is the _stichic_ (στίχος “a row”), in which the cola are of the same length. The scheme

⎧ _a_ ⎧ 2 ⎧ 4 ⎧ 6 ⎧ _a_
is ⎨ —that is ⎨ or ⎨ or ⎨ , etc.—or ⎨ _a_ and so forth:
⎩ _a_ ⎩ 2 ⎩ 4 ⎩ 6 ⎩ _a_

πᾶς γὰρ ἱππηλάτας
καὶ πεδοστιβὴς λεώς (_Persæ_, 126 _sq._).

–⏑|⏗|–⏑|–ꞈ‖
–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ〛.

Where correspondence is indicated by

⎛ 4
⎝ 4.

It makes no difference that ⏗ is answered by –⏑ in the second foot.

(ii) To the stichic corresponds the _palinodic_ period (παλινῳδία, “repetition”), in which not a single colon but a group of cola is repeated so far as length is concerned:—

μείξουσιν ἢ πρὸς Πυθίαις ἢ λαμπάσιν ἀκταῖς,
οὗ πότνιαι σεμνὰ τιθηνοῦνται τέλη (_Œd. Col._, 1047 _sq._).

–⁝⏗⏑|– –|⏗⏑|– –‖–⏑⏑|– –‖
–⁝⏗⏑|⏘|–⏑⏑|– –‖⏗⏑|–ꞈ̄‖

⎰ 4 ⎞
⎛ ⎱ 2 ⎟ ⎞
⎝ ⎰ 4 ⎠ ⎟
⎱ 2 ⎠

This type of period is frequent in English poetry, where the use of rhyme and the absence of τονή make the cola perfectly plain, _e.g._:—

Love still has something of the sea
From whence his Mother rose;
No time his slaves from care sets free,
Or gives their hearts repose.—(Sedley.)

⎰ 4 ⎞
⎛ ⎱ 3 ⎟ ⎞
⎝ ⎰ 4 ⎠ ⎟
⎱ 3 ⎠

(iii) _Antithetic_ periods are formed by the inverted repetition whether of different cola or of different groups of cola.

(_a_) The simplest type is that in which a series of ungrouped cola is repeated in inverse order:—

διανταίαν λέγεις δόμοισι καί
σώμασιν πεπλαγμέναν
ἀναυδάτῳ μένει
ἀραίῳ τ’ ἐκ πατρὸς διχόφρονι πότμῳ (_Septem_, 895 _sqq._).

⏑⁝⏗|⏗|–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ‖
–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ‖
⏑⁝⏗|⏗|–⏑|–ꞈ‖
⏑⁝⏗|⏗|–⏑|–⏑|–⏑⏑|–˃〛.

6 ⎞
4 ⎞ ⎟
4 ⎠ ⎟
6 ⎠

(_b_) In a similar manner groups may be repeated antithetically. Each group retains its internal order; hence such periods are called “palinodic-antithetic”:—

δι’ αἰῶνος μακροῦ πάνολβον·
ἔνθεν πᾶσα βοᾷ χθών,
“φυσιζόου γένος τόδε Ζηνός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς·
τίς γὰρ ἂν κατέπαυσεν Ἥρας νόσους ἐπιβούλους;”
Διὸς τόδ’ ἔργον καὶ τόδ’ ἂν γένος λέγων
ἐξ Ἐπάφου κυρήσαις (Æsch., _Supplices_, 582 _sqq._).

⏑⁝⏗|⏗|–⏑|–⏑|⏗|–ꞈ‖
–˃|–⏑⏑|⏗|–ꞈ‖
⏑⁝–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|⏗‖–⏑|–⏑⏑|⏗|–ꞈ‖
–⏑|–⏑⏑|–⏑|⏗‖–⏑|–⏑⏑|⏗|–ꞈ‖
⏑⁝–⏑|–˃|–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ‖
–⏑⏑|–⏑|⏗|–ꞈ〛.

⎰ 6 ⎞
⎛ ⎱ 4 ⎟ ⎞
⎜ ⎰ 4 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟
⎜ ⎛ ⎱ 4 ⎟ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟
⎜ ⎝ ⎰ 4 ⎠ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟
⎜ ⎱ 4 ⎠ ⎟ ⎟
⎝ ⎰ 6 ⎠ ⎟
⎱ 4 ⎠

(iv) Any of the three periods just described, the stichic, the palinodic, the antithetic (whether simple or palinodic-antithetic) may be “mesodic,” that is, it may be grouped round a central colon (the mesode), to which no colon corresponds, save of course the mesode of the other _strophe_. The schemes, then, are:—

(_a_) Stichic-mesodic.

_a_ ⎞
_x_ ⎟
_a_ ⎠

(_b_) Palinodic-mesodic.

⎰ _a_ ⎞
⎛ ⎱ _b_ ⎟ ⎞
⎜ _x_ ⎟ ⎟
⎝ ⎰ _a_ ⎠ ⎟
⎱ _b_ ⎠

(_c_) Antithetic-mesodic.

_a_ ⎞
_b_ ⎞ ⎟
_x_ ⎟ ⎟
_b_ ⎠ ⎟
_a_ ⎠

(_d_) Palinodic-antithetic-mesodic.

⎰ _a_ ⎞
⎛ ⎱ _b_ ⎟ ⎞
⎜ ⎰ _c_ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟
⎜ ⎛ ⎱ _d_ ⎟ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟
⎜ ⎜ _x_ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟
⎜ ⎝ ⎰ _c_ ⎠ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟
⎜ ⎱ _d_ ⎠ ⎟ ⎟
⎝ ⎰ _a_ ⎠ ⎟
⎱ _b_ ⎠

(_a_) The stichic-mesodic:—

ἀμηχανῶ φροντίδος στερηθείς
εὐπάλαμον μέριμναν
ὅπα τράπωμαι, πίτνοντος οἴκου (_Agamemnon_, 1530 _sqq._).

⏑⁝–⏑|⏗|–⏑|–⏑|⏗|–ꞈ‖
–⏑⏑|–⏑|⏗|–ꞈ‖
⏑⁝–⏑|⏗|–⏑|–⏑|⏗|–ꞈ‖.

6 ⎞
4 ⎟
6 ⎠

(_b_) The palinodic-mesodic:—

ἐμοὶ χρῆν συμφοράν,
ἐμοὶ χρῆν πημονὰν γενέσθαι,
Ἰδαίαν ὅτε πρῶτον ὕλαν
Ἀλέξανδρος εἰλατίναν
ἐτάμεθ’, ἅλιον ἐπ’ οἶδμα ναυστολήσων (_Hecuba_, 629 _sqq._).

⏑⁝⏗|⏗|–⏑|–ꞈ‖
⏑⁝⏗|⏗|–⏑|–⏑|⏗|–ꞈ‖
–˃|–⏑⏑|–⏑|–˃‖
⏑⁝⏗|–⏑|–⏑⏑|–ꞈ‖
⏑⁝⏑⏑⏑|⏑⏑⏑|–⏑|–⏑|⏗|–ꞈ‖.

⎰ 4 ⎞
⎛ ⎱ 6 ⎞ ⎟
⎜ 4 ⎟ ⎟
⎝ ⎰ 4 ⎟ ⎠
⎱ 6 ⎠

(_c_) The antithetic-mesodic:—

σύ τοι σύ τοι κατηξίωσας,
ὦ βαρύποτμε, κοὐκ
ἄλλοθεν ἔχει τύχᾳ
τᾶδ’ ἀπὸ μείζονος·
εὖτέ γε παρὸν φρονῆσαι ... (_Philoctetes_, 1095 _sqq._).

⏑⁝–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–⏑‖
–⏑|⏑⏑⏑|–ꞈ‖
˃⁝⏑⏑⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ‖
–⏑⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ‖
˃⁝⏑⏑⏑|–⏑|⏗|–ꞈ‖.

4 ⎞
3 ⎞ ⎟
3 ⎟ ⎟
3 ⎠ ⎟
4 ⎠

(_d_) The palinodic-antithetic-mesodic:—

μή μοι μὴ προδίδου·
μόνος μόνῳ κόμιζε πορθμίδος σκάφος.
χαιρέτω μὲν αὖλις ἥδε, χαιρέτω δὲ θυμάτων
ἀποβώμιος[890] ἃν ἔχει θυσίαν
Κύκλωψ Αἰτναῖος ξενικῶν κρέων κεχαρμένος βορᾷ.
νηλής, ὦ τλᾶμον
ὅστις δωμάτων ἐφεστίους ... (_Cyclops_, 351 _sqq._).[891]

–˃|–⏑⏑|–ꞈ‖
⏑⁝–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ‖
–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–⏑‖–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ‖
ω⁝–⏑⏑|–⏑|–⏑⏑|–ꞈ‖
–˃|–˃|–⏑⏑|–⏑‖–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ‖
–˃|–˃|–ꞈ‖
⏗|⏗|–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ〛.

⎰ 3 ⎞
⎛ ⎱ 6 ⎟ ⎞
⎜ ⎛ ⎰ 4 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟
⎜ ⎜ ⎱ 4 ⎟ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟
⎜ ⎜ 4 ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟
⎜ ⎜ ⎰ 4 ⎠ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟
⎜ ⎝ ⎱ 4 ⎠ ⎟ ⎟
⎜ ⎰ 3 ⎠ ⎟
⎝ ⎱ 6 ⎠

Most of the periodic structures which have been described are by no means obvious to the ear. A trained sense of rhythm, attention to quantity, and careful practice, will reduce the difficulties. But in any case Greek periods are far less easy to grasp than English. Their variety and length, the frequent occurrence of prolongation, resolution, and irrational syllables, the possibility of preludes or postludes—all these are formidable to modern students, who lack the help of the music. We may perhaps work out the period with ease on paper, but our ear often cannot appreciate the balance and contour of the whole as it can in English lyrics, where we have the immense assistance of a rhyme-scheme. But it is no sound deduction that the study of Greek lyric metre and rhythm is therefore useless. We cannot always hear the period—that is a question of music; but we can always hear the colon—that is a question of language. To utter the cola correctly is easy after a little practice; and it is these “sentences” which, by their own internal rhythmical nature and by the identities or contrasts existing between them, reinforce and more pungently articulate the sense of the words wherefrom they are moulded.

FOOTNOTES

[1] See Haigh, _The Tragic Drama of the Greeks_, pp. 19 _sq._

[2] It arose in a similar fashion to tragedy, from the phallic songs to Dionysus at his winter festival.

[3] τί ταῦτα πρὸς τὸν Διόνυσον; (Plutarch, _Symposiaca_, 615 A).

[4] Pp. 39-41.

[5] These first paragraphs give a summary of the view almost universally held as to the origin of Greek tragedy. Of late, however, Professor Sir William Ridgeway (_The Origin of Tragedy, with Special Reference to the Greek Tragedians_, Cambridge, 1910) has combated current beliefs with great vigour. His belief is (p. 186) “that Tragedy arose in the worship of the dead, and that the only Dionysiac element in the Drama was the satyric play”. Aristotle’s evidence (see p. 4) he dismisses as mistaken, because “Aristotle was only interested in Tragedy as a fully developed art, and paid little heed to its early history” (p. 57). The present writer is bound to confess that, after following and estimating to the best of his ability the numerous and heterogeneous statements put forward in evidence, he cannot regard Professor Ridgeway’s contention as proved. It is undoubtedly true that many extant tragedies centre more or less vitally upon a tomb, but many do not. The mimetic ritual in honour of the slain Scephrus (p. 37) is real evidence, so far as it goes; but the utmost it proves is that Greek tragedy _could_ have arisen from such funeral performances—it does not show that it did. The most remarkable point in the book is the discussion of the well-known passage in Herodotus (V, 67): τά τε δὴ ἄλλα οἱ Σικυώνιοι ἐτίμων τὸν Ἄδρηστον καὶ δὴ πρὸς τὰ πάθεα αὐτοῦ τραγικοῖσι χοροῖσι ἐγέραιρον, τὸν μὴν Διόνυσον οὐ τιμέωντες, τὸν δὲ Ἄδρηστον. Κλεισθένης δὲ χοροὺς μὲν τῷ Διονύσῳ ἀπέδωκε, τὴν δὲ ἄλλην θυσίην Μελανίππῳ (see Ridgeway, p. 28): “The men of Sicyon paid honours to Adrastus, and in particular they revered him with tragic choruses because of his sufferings, herein honouring not Dionysus, but Adrastus. Cleisthenes gave the choruses to Dionysus, and the rest of the offering to Melanippus.” It may well be that Professor Ridgeway is right in asserting that ἀπέδωκε means not “restored” but “gave”—that is, these tragic choruses were originally of the funereal kind which he suggests for all primitive Greek tragedy. This is excellent evidence for his contention, so far as it goes, but it only proves one example. Herodotus’ words, on the other hand, imply that he believed tragedy to be normally Dionysiac. To sum up, we cannot regard Professor Ridgeway as having succeeded in damaging the traditional view.

[6] Aristotle, _Poetic_, 1448_a_: διὸ καὶ ἀντιποιοῦνται τῆς τε τραγῳδίας καὶ τῆς κωμῳδίας οἱ Δωριεῖς.

[7] _Ol._, XIII, 18 _sq._: ταὶ Διωνύσου πόθεν ἐξέφανεν σὺν βοηλάτᾳ χάριτες διθυράμβῳ; _i.e._ as the context shows, the dithyramb appeared first at Corinth.

[8] α for η, and sometimes -ᾶν as the inflexion of the feminine genitive plural.

[9] _Poetic_, 1449_a_: γενομένη δ’ οὖν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς αὐτοσχεδιαστική ... ἀπὸ τῶν ἐξαρχόντων τὸν διθύραμβον ... κατὰ μικρὸν ηὐξήθη προαγόντων ὅσον ἐγίγνετο φανερὸν αὐτῆς, καὶ πολλὰς μεταβολὰς μεταβαλοῦσα ἡ τραγῳδία ἐπαύσατο, ἐπεὶ ἔσχε τὴν αὐτῆς φύσιν. καὶ τό τε τῶν ὑποκριτῶν πλῆθος ἐξ ἑνὸς εἰς δύο πρῶτος Αἰσχύλος ἤγαγε καὶ τὰ τοῦ χοροῦ ἠλάττωσε καὶ τὸν λόγον πρωταγωνιστὴν παρεσκεύασεν, τρεῖς δὲ καὶ σκηνογραφίαν Σοφοκλῆς. ἔτι δὲ τὰ μέγεθος ἐκ μικρῶν μύθων καὶ λέξεως γελοίας διὰ τὸ ἐκ σατυρικοῦ μεταβαλεῖν ὀψὲ ἀπεσεμνύνθη. τό τε μέτρον ἐκ τετραμέτρου ἰαμβεῖον ἐγένετο· τὸ μὲν γὰρ πρῶτον τετραμέτρῳ ἐχρῶντο διὰ τὸ σατυρικὴν καὶ ὀρχηστικωτέραν εἶναι τὴν ποίησιν ... ἔτι δὲ ἐπεισοδίων πλήθη. καὶ τὰ ἄλλ’ ὡς ἕκαστα κοσμηθῆναι λέγεται.... Here and elsewhere, in quoting from the _Poetic_, I borrow Butcher’s admirable translation.

[10] These narratives and conversations were naturally regarded as interruptions in the main business, and this feeling is marked by the name always given to the “acts” of a play, ἐπεισόδια (“episodia”), _i.e._ “interventions” or “interruptions”.

[11] The text of the treatise is, however, incomplete. The author of the pseudo-Platonic _Minos_ (321 A) speaks of the current belief that Thespis was the originator of tragedy.

[12] This is a mere name for a really anonymous collection of information on philosophical and other history.

[13] _Ars Poetica_, 275-7.

[14] _Poetic_, 1449_a_.

[15] βασιλεὺς ἦν Χοίριλος ἐν σατύροις (Plotius, _De Metris_, p. 2633, quoted by Haigh, _Tragic Drama_, p. 40).

[16] _Frogs_, 689: εἴ τις ἥμαρτε σφαλείς τι Φρυνίχου παλαίσμασιν. The allusion in the first instance points undoubtedly to the famous _general_ Phrynichus; but his political machinations are jokingly referred to as a “wrestling-bout” because of the celebrated description in his namesake the playwright.

[17] Herod. VI, 21.

[18] _Wasps_, 220 (μέλη ἀρχαιομελισιδωνοφρυνιχήρατα).

[19] _Birds_, 748-51, reading ὥσπερ ἡ μέλιττα.

[20] λάμπει δ’ ἐπὶ πορφυρέαις παρῇσι φῶς ἔρωτος. Notice the exquisite alliteration. Sophocles no doubt had this line in mind when he wrote _Antigone_ 782.

[21] The writer of the Argument to the _Persæ_ says: Γλαῦκος ἐν τοῖς περὶ Αἰσχύλου μύθων ἐκ τῶν Φοινίσσων Φρυνίχου φησὶ τοὺς Πέρσας παραπεποιῆσθαι. The late Dr. Verrall (_The Bacchantes of Euripides and Other Essays_, pp. 283-308) believed that not only is the _Persæ_ modelled on the _Phœnissæ_ but _Æschylus_ incorporated a large portion of Phrynichus’ play with little change (_Persæ_ vv. 480-514 especially).

[22] By M. Croiset, _Hist. de la Litt. grecque_, III, p. 49.

[23] This is asserted by his epitaph:—

Αἴσχυλον Εὐφορίωνος Ἀθηναῖον τόδε κεύθει
μνῆμα καταφθίμενον πυροφόροιο Γέλας,
ἀλκὴν δ’ εὐδόκιμον Μαραθώνιον ἄλσος ἂν εἴποι
καὶ βαθυχαιτήεις Μῆδος ἐπιστάμενος.

These verses are said to come from the pen of Æschylus himself. For once such tradition appears to be true. No forger would have had the audacity to omit all reference to the plays.

[24] This, however, is certainly stated by Aristotle (_Nic. Ethics_, 1111_a_). On the other hand, Æschylus says in the _Frogs_ (886); Δήμητερ, ἡ θρέψασα τὴν ἐμὴν φρένα, εἶναί με τῶν σῶν ἄξιον μυστηρίων.

[25] Aristotle, Poetic, 1449_a_.

[26] The following plays were performed with two actors only: of Æschylus, _Supplices_, _Prometheus_, _Persæ_, _Seven against Thebes_; of Euripides, _Medea_, and perhaps _Alcestis_.

[27] By Plutarch, _Life of Cimon_, VIII. Haigh (_The Tragic Drama of the Greeks_, p. 128²) gives good reasons for rejecting the story.

[28] One of these occasions was that on which he presented the _Œdipus Tyrannus_.

[29] A fragment of Ion’s Ἐπιδημίαι remarks: τὰ μέντοι πολιτικὰ οὔτε σοφὸς οὔτε ῥεκτήριος ἦν, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἄν τις εἷς τῶν χρηστῶν Ἀθηναίων.

[30] Aristophanes, too, in the _Frogs_ (v. 82), bears witness to his charm: ὁ δ’ εὔκολος μὲν ἐνθάδ’, εὔκολος δ’ ἐκεῖ· “Sophocles, on the other hand, is gentle here (_i.e._ in Hades) as he was in life.”

[31] _Œd. Col_. 1225-8.

[32] _Poetic_, 1460_b_: Σοφοκλῆς ἔφη αὐτὸς μὲν οἵους δεῖ ποιεῖν, Εὐριπίδην δὲ οἷοι εἰσίν.

[33] Plutarch, _De Profectu in Virtute_, 79 B: ὁ Σοφοκλῆς ἔλεγε, τὸν Αἰσχύλου διαπεπαιχὼς ὄγκον, εἶτα τὸ πικρὸν καὶ κατάτεχνον τῆς αὐτοῦ κατασκευῆς, τρίτον ἤδη τὸ τῆς λέξεως μεταβάλλειν εἶδος ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἠθικώτατον καὶ βέλτιστον.

[34] See Haigh, _Tragic Drama_, p. 162.

[35] Aristotle, _Poetic_, 1449_a_.

[36] Suidas (_s.v._ Σοφοκλῆς): καὶ αὐτὸς ἦρξε τοῦ δρᾶμα πρὸς δρᾶμα ἀγωνίζεσθαι, ἀλλὰ μὴ τετραλογίαν.

[37] In the Anonymous _Life_.

[38] See Haigh, _Attic Tragedy_, pp. 139 _sq._, where this excellent point is made.

[39] The most celebrated is the description of the sun as a “clod” (_Orestes_, 983). _Alcestis_, 904 _sqq._, may very possibly refer to the death of Anaxagoras’ son.

[40] XV, 20.

[41] A passage in his _Life_ suggests that he was indifferent to the strictly “theatrical” side of his profession: οὐδεμίαν φιλοτιμίαν περὶ τὰ θέατρα ποιούμενος· διὸ τοσοῦτον αὐτὸν ἔβλαπτε τοῦτο ὅσον ὠφέλει τὸν Σοφοκλέα.

[42] _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, Vol. IX, pp. 124-82.

[43] Pp. 29 _sq._

[44] ἀκριβῶς ὅλως περιείληφεν τὸν Ἀναξαγόρειον διάκοσμον ἐν τρισὶν περιόδοις.

[45] Aristotle, _Poetic_, 1452_b_.

[46] Not all. The elegance of his iambic style excited Aristophanes’ admiration: indeed he confessed to imitating it, and the great Cratinus invented a significant compound verb εὐριπιδαριστοφανίζειν. See Meineke, _Frag. Comicorum Græcorum_, II, 1142.

[47] _Frogs_, v. 1122: ἀσαφὴς γὰρ ἦν ἐν τῇ φράσει τῶν πραγμάτων.

[48] vv. 846-54.

[49] vv. 518-44.

[50] _Frogs_, 939 _sqq._

[51] _Ibid._ 948 _sqq._

[52] _Ibid._ 959: σύνεσμεν may recall Grant Allen’s famous sentence about taking Hedda Gabler down to dinner.

[53] Of these three points the first two come from Suidas (under the article Νεόφρων), the third from the argument to the extant _Medea_: τὸ δρᾶμα δοκεῖ ὑποβαλέσθαι τὰ Νεόφρονος διασκευάσας, ὡς Δικαίαρχός τε περὶ τοῦ Ἑλλάδος βίου καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν ὑπομνήμασι.

[54] vv. 1211-6.

[55] There is good reason to suppose that what we possess is a second version. The scholiast on Aristophanes mentions passages as parodies of lines in the _Medea_ which we no longer read there.

[56] In his ὑπομνήματα, quoted by the Argument to the _Medea_.

[57] πρῶτος εἰς τὸ νῦν μῆκος τὰ δράματα κατέστησεν.

[58] Unless we except the _Rhesus_ (996 lines).

[59] The original form of it seems to have been:—

ὥστ’ οὐχ ὑπάρχων ἀλλὰ τιμωρούμενος
ἀγωνιοῦμαι.

[60] The name is not certain. The book is variously called ὑπομνήματα (“notes”), ἐπιδημίαι (“visits”), and συνεκδημητικός. The first is not a “name”—it merely describes the book. The second was explained by Bentley to mean “accounts of the visits to our island of Chios by distinguished strangers”. The third could mean something like “traveller’s companion”.

[61] Plutarch (_De Profectu in Virtute_, 79 E), no doubt quoting from Ion, tells us that at a critical moment in a boxing match Æschylus nudged Ion and said: “You see what a difference training makes? The man who has received the blow is silent, while the spectators cry aloud.”

[62] Plutarch, _Pericles_, Chap. V.

[63] v. 835. To the scholium on this line we owe much of our information about Ion.

[64] One of them bears the curious title “Great Play” (μέγα δρᾶμα), but nothing is known of it.

[65] _Frogs_, 1425.

[66] XXXIII, 5 (Prof. Rhys Roberts’ translation).

[67] Diog. Laert. II, 133.

[68] Croiset III, p. 400 (n.), thus explains the strange words of Suidas, ἐπεδείκνυτο δὲ κοινῇ σὺν καὶ Εὐριπίδῃ.

[69] Haigh, _Tragic Drama of the Greeks_, p. 409.

[70] Ath. X, 451 C.

[71] Aristotle, _Poetic_, 1451_b_.

[72] _Ibid._ 1456_a_ (Butcher’s translation).

[73] Plutarch, _Symposiaca_, 645 E.

[74] _Thesm._ 100: μύρμηκος ἀτραπούς.

[75] Aristotle, _Poetic_, 1456_a_.

[76] _Ibid._

[77] _Ibid._

[78] Such a sentence as that of M. Orgon in _Le jeu de l’amour et du hasard_ (I, ii.): “Va, dans ce monde, il faut être un peu trop bon pour l’être assez,” strikes one as thoroughly Agathonesque.

[79] _Protagoras_, 315 E.

[80] _Symposium_, 198 C. Socrates says of Agathon’s panegyric upon Eros: καὶ γάρ με Γοργίου ὁ λόγος ἀνεμίμνησκεν. The whole speech of Agathon is intended to show these characteristics. Cp., for example, 197 D: πρᾳότητα μὲν πορίζων, ἀγριότητα δ’ ἐξορίζων· φιλόδωρος εὐμενείας, ἄδωρος δυσμενείας κτἑ.

[81] _Thesm._ 130 _sqq._

[82] _Ibid._ 54 _sqq._

[83] It is noteworthy that Socrates’ famous “prophecy of Shakespeare” (_Symposium_, 223 D), “one who can write comedy can write tragedy and _vice versa_,” is addressed to Agathon and Aristophanes jointly.

[84] The attribution of this play to Critias is not certain, but probable; it is accepted by Wilamowitz. The new life of Euripides by Satyrus (see above, p. 18) attributes it to that poet.

[85] _Eratosthenes_, II.

[86] _Poetic_, 1453_b_.

[87] _De Gloria Atheniensium_, 349 E.

[88] _Poetic_, 1455_a_, _b_.

[89] Aristotle, _Rhetoric_, III, 12, 2: βαστάζονται δὲ οἱ ἀναγνωστικοί, οἷον Χαιρήμων· ἀκριβὴς γὰρ ὥσπερ λογογράφος.

[90] “You know how to feel contempt before you have learnt wisdom,” or, to reproduce (however badly) the play upon words, “You practise contempt before using contemplation”.

[91] Athenæus, fr. 10: δρᾶμα πολύμετρον.

[92] _Poetic_, 1447_b_.

[93] vv. 677-774.

[94] Symonds, _Studies in the Greek Poets_, II, p. 26.

[95] _Adversus Indoctos_, 15.

[96] Athenæus III, 98 D, reports, for example, that he called a javelin βαλλάντιον (properly “purse”), because “it is thrown in the face of the foe” (ἐναντίον βάλλεται).

[97] _Poetic_, 1454_b_.

[98] 1455_a_.

[99] _Rhetoric_, II, 1400_b_.

[100] _Ibid._ 1417_b_, but the passage is obscure.

[101] _Eth. Nic._ 1150_b_, 10.

[102] Ælian, V.H. XIV, 40.

[103] _Orator_, 51.

[104] _Poetic_, 1452_a_.

[105] _Ibid._ 1455_b_.

[106] “First there came a circle with a dot in the middle,” etc.

[107] θέλω τύχης σταλαγμὸν ἢ φρενῶν πίθον.

[108] That he belongs to the fourth century is not certain, though extremely probable.

[109] We have only one title (_Telephus_) which implies a legendary theme.

[110] Meineke suggests that the subject is an incident related by Xenophon, _Hellenica_, VI, iv. 33, 34.

[111] He might at least have written τοῖς ἀμείνοσιν.

[112] The meaning of this name is unknown.

[113] Athenæus XIII, 595 F.

[114] He uses the diminutive δραμάτιον.

[115] κατὰ ἰατρῶν (Stobæus, 102, 3). He was thus a precursor of Molière and Mr. Bernard Shaw.

[116] Diogenes Laertius, VII, 173.

[117] This point is made by Bernhardy, _Grundriss der Gr. Litteratur_ II, ii. p. 72.

[118] His date is not, however, certain, and there is some reason to assign his _floruit_ to the time of Alexander the Great.

[119] The most amazing example is that of the “Three Unities”—those of Action, Time, and Place—of which such a vast amount has been heard and which ruled tyrannically over French “classical” tragedy. It is difficult to believe that Aristotle never mentions the “Three Unities”. On the Unity of Action he has, of course, much to say; the Unity of Time is dismissed in one casual sentence. As to the Unity of Place there is not a word. (It is signally violated in the _Eumenides_ and the _Ajax_.)

[120] _Poetic_, 1454_a_.

[121] _Ibid._

[122] See Wilamowitz-Moellendorff’s magnificent _Einleitung in die griechische Tragödie_, pp. 48-51 (_e.g._ “nicht mehr Aristoteles der aesthetiker sondern Aristoteles der historiker ist der ausgangspunkt unserer betrachtung” and “unser fundament ist und bleibt was in der poetik steht”).

[123] _Poetic_, 1449_b_: ἔστιν οὖν τραγῳδία μίμησις πράξεως σπουδαίας καὶ τελείας μέγεθος ἐχούσης, ἡδυσμένῳ λόγῳ χωρὶς ἑκάστῳ τῶν εἰδῶν ἐν τοῖς μορίοις, δρώντων καὶ οὐ δι’ ἀπαγγελίας, δι’ ἐλέου καὶ φόβου περαίνουσα τὴν τῶν τοιούτων παθημάτων κάθαρσιν.

[124] 1448_a_.

[125] 1451_a_, _b_.

[126] 1462_a_.

[127] 1462_a_, _b_. (The phrasing in the summary above is borrowed from Butcher.) See further 1449_b_.

[128] 1450_b_.

[129] 1450_a_.

[130] 1451_a_.

[131] 1451_a_.

[132] 1451_b_.

[133] 1452_a_.

[134] 1452_a_.

[135] 1452_b_.

[136] οἱ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ θάνατοι.

[137] 1453_a_.

[138] 1453_b_.

[139] 1454_a_, _b_.

[140] pp. 163-5.

[141] pp. 313-5.

[142] 1454_b_, 1460_a_.

[143] 1452_b_: ἔστιν δὲ πρόλογος μὲν μέρος ὅλον τραγῳδίας τὸ πρὸ χοροῦ παρόδου, ἐπεισόδιον δὲ μέρος ὅλον τραγῳδίας τὸ μεταξὺ ὅλων χορικῶν μελῶν, ἔξοδος δὲ μέρος ὅλον τραγῳδίας μεθ’ ὃ οὐκ ἔστι χοροῦ μέλος, χορικοῦ δὲ πάροδος μὲν ἡ πρώτη λέξις ὅλη χοροῦ, στάσιμον δὲ μέλος χοροῦ τὸ ἄνευ ἀναπαίστου καὶ τροχαίου, κόμμος δὲ θρῆνος κοινὸς χοροῦ καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ σκηνῆς.

[144] p. 4.

[145] Chap. VI.

[146] 1455_b_.

[147] 1452_a_.

[148] 1450_b_.

[149] Plato (_Symposium_, 175 E) makes Socrates congratulate Agathon on his success in the presence of “more than 30,000 Greeks”. Modern archæologists, by statistics based on the seating-accommodation, would reduce this figure to 17,000.

[150] There are fourteen of these at Athens.

[151] This account is based on Dörpfeld (_Das griechische Theater_, Abschnitt VII) who believes there was no stage, and on Haigh (_Attic Theatre_³, edited by Mr. Pickard-Cambridge, Chap. III) who believes there was a stage.

[152] That is, shorter, viewed from left to right by the spectators. The depth of the Vitruvian stage was 10 feet.

[153] Vitruvius V, vii, 3-4.

[154] By Wieseler and others.

[155] Haigh³, pp. 165-74.

[156] ἀναβαίνω: _Knights_, 148; _Acharnians_, 732; _Wasps_, 1342.

[157] καταβαίνω: _Eccles._ 1151; _Wasps_, 1514.

[158] Euripides, _Ion_, 727, _Electra_, 4 _sq._, _Herc. Fur._ 119. As Haigh (3rd ed., p. 167) points out, “in the last passage it is the chorus which makes the complaint; so that in this case, if there was any visible ascent, it cannot have been the ascent to the stage”.

[159] This is a strong and favourite argument for the stage; when Haigh (3rd ed., p. 168) denies this because “a sufficient reason is ... the fact that, if they had gone into the palace, the scene of action would have been left empty for the time being,” he forgets that such a departure of the chorus is quite possible. It occurs in _Eumenides_, _Ajax_, _Alcestis_, and _Helena_, not to mention Comedy.

[160] Haigh³, p. 170 _sq._

[161] _Symposium_, 194 B.

[162] _Ars Poetica_, 278: Æschylus et modicis instravit pulpita tignis.

[163] _Das Gr. Theater_, p. 350.

[164] He wrote a lexicon to Plato in the third century after Christ.

[165] Dörpfeld gives various optical diagrams to exhibit the effects.

[166] We incessantly see this effect in modern theatres. But in Greece the presence of the chorus performing below would force spectators to regard the building as suspended.

[167] Save, of course, those on the new lowest seats, which went down to the new level of the excavated half. Dörpfeld has discovered evidence that the present lowest seats at Athens were added after the rest.

[168] _Das griechische Theater_, p. 364. After the publication of this view Dörpfeld altered his opinion, and suggested (_Bull. Corr. Hell._ 1896, p. 577 _sqq._) that V. means not the ordinary Greek Theatre, but the Græco-Roman type found in Asia Minor. But this seems worse than his first thought. See Haigh³, pp. 147 _sq._

[169] _Ibid._ pp. 146 _sq._

[170] In Plato’s time this was notably so (_Laws_, 659 A-C, 700 C, 701 A).

[171] Plutarch, _Nicias_, 524 D.

[172] Aristotle, _Rhetoric_, III, i.

[173] This is the usual term employed. See, however, Haigh³, p. 13, note 3: “the word τετραλογία was applied only to a group of four plays connected in subject,” etc.

[174] This was certainly the number for comedy; it is assumed for tragedy.

[175] τράγος. This was supposed to be the origin of the word “tragedy” (τραγῳδία “goat-song”).

[176] Vitruvius, V, vi., and Pollux, iv., 126.

[177] Professor Ridgeway makes much use of this custom in his theory that Greek drama originated in celebrations at the tombs of great persons. See his _Origin of Tragedy_, and pp. 2 _sq._ above.

[178] Haigh³, p. 187.

[179] _Clouds_, 225.

[180] Pollux (iv. 128), who gives the most definite description, adds: “one must understand it at each door, as it were in each house,” but his unsupported testimony on any subject is not trustworthy.

[181] In fact Pollux, who is fond of making a particular case into a general rule, may have had this instance in his head. He writes (iv. 128): “the eccyclema is a lofty stand raised upon timbers and carrying a chair” (ἐπὶ ξύλων ὑψηλὸν βάθρον ᾧ ἐπίκειται θρόνος).

[182] Ar. _Knights_, 1249.

[183] This story occurs in the anonymous _Life_ of Æschines.

[184] They are mutes, for the lines supposed to be uttered by one or both behind the scenes were probably delivered by one of the actors not needed “in front”.

[185] The _Œdipus Coloneus_ is an exception. See Jebb’s _Introduction_, 3rd ed., pp. 7, 8.

[186] Cp. the vigorous protest of Pratinas (p. 6).

[187] Pherecrates, _Cheiron_, frag. 1, cp. Arist. _Thesmoph._ 100.

[188] Ar. _Frogs_, 1314.

[189] We hear from the scholiast on _Choephorœ_, 900, that the same actor took the part of Pylades and of the servant who gives the alarm. The latter after arousing Clytæmnestra rushes within, and when the Queen has uttered five lines Pylades appears accompanying Orestes. This example is given by Haigh³, p. 232.

[190] Told by the scholiast on Aristophanes, _Frogs_, 303.

[191] The slovenliness in this regard of many modern actors is mostly due to “long runs”. After saying the same thing hundreds of times, an actor naturally tends to mechanical diction. The writer has heard a performer in an emotional crisis suddenly (as it appeared) call for champagne. Feeling sure that “Pommery” could not be right, he reflected, and discovered that the mysterious syllables meant “Poor Mary!” Even actors at the head of the profession are guilty of such things as “the lor of Venice”.

[192] See Haigh³, p. 279 _sq._, for some highly interesting extracts.

[193] _Poetic_ 1456_a_ (tr. Butcher).

[194] _Ibid._

[195] This was the normal mode of entry, but the plot sometimes demanded others. In the _Eumenides_ the Chorus rush in pell-mell; so probably in the _Bacchæ_; in the Euripidean _Supplices_ they are discovered grouped around the Queen.

[196] See pp. 344 _sq._

[197]

ὥστ’ εἴ τις ὀρχοῖτ’ εὖ, θέαμ’ ἦν· νῦν δὲ δρῶσιν οὐδέν,
ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ ἀπόπληκτοι βάδην ἑστῶτες ὠρύονται.

[198] Haigh³, p. 318. Both the gestures described sound like a curious anticipation of the gestures favoured by the performers of “coon-songs”.

[199] This was not always an advantage when comedy held the scene. There is a delightfully impudent passage in the _Frogs_ (v. 297) where Dionysus to escape a hobgoblin appeals to his own priest for protection.

[200] For a detailed description of the seating see Haigh³, pp. 94-101.

[201] It is a fact familiar to students of comparative religion that obscenity is often a part of ritual. This is true of several Greek worships, including that of Dionysus. Hence even tragedy retained its satyric complement, though satyric drama regularly showed obscene features.

[202] Puchstein would date it earlier (end of the fifth century).

[203] Plutarch, _Liber Amatorius_, 756 B, C.

[204] ἐκσυρίττειν (“to hiss off”).

[205] Demosthenes, _De Falsa Legatione_, § 337.

[206] _Ethics_, X, 1175 B.

[207] _Date_: uncertain. Professor Tucker thinks the year 492-1 probable; Æschylus was then thirty-three years old. Historical considerations are here of doubtful value, but the technique of the play seems to prove beyond question that it is an early work.

_Arrangement_: protagonist, Danaus, Egyptian herald; deuteragonist, King of Argos.

[208] In the centre of the orchestra, as always.

[209] Danaus is necessarily dismissed so that the actor who impersonates him may appear as the Egyptian herald.

[210] vv. 991-2.

[211] vv. 994-1013.

[212] Ζεύς (or words derived therefrom) occurs about sixty times.

[213] vv. 91-5 (Professor Tucker’s translation).

[214] vv. 230-1.

[215] _Date_: 472 B.C. _Arrangement_: protagonist, Atossa and Xerxes; deuteragonist, Messenger and Darius.

[216] The actor who presents the queen has now to present the king.

[217] This was a satyric play, and must not be confused with the extant _Prometheus_.

[218] See Patin, _Eschyle_, p. 211.

[219] _Henry V_, IV, viii.

[220] vv. 361-2.

[221] _Arrangement_: protagonist: Eteocles and Antigone; deuteragonist, messenger, and herald. The part of Ismene was taken by a member of the chorus.

[222] _Frogs_, 1021.

[223] vv. 591-4.

[224] _Life of Aristides_, III.

[225] Dr. Verrall, however, in his Introduction (pp. xiv, xv) sees technical drama of the highest kind in the choosing of the champions. As the Theban warriors are told off one by one, the chorus (and audience) see with ever-increasing horror that Eteocles must be left as the opponent of Polynices.

[226] Müller-Heitz (_Griechische Litteraturgeschichte_, ii. p. 88) point out, also, that this play needs more elaborate machinery than any other extant drama. But it may well be doubted whether all the effects mentioned by the poet are realized.

[227] Bia (“Violence”), also present, is a mute.

[228] See H. Weil’s masterly _Note sur le Prométhée d’Eschyle_ (_Le drame antique_, pp. 86-92).

[229] Zeus had intended to wed Thetis. On hearing the secret, he married her to Peleus, who became the father of Achilles.

[230] It is fairly certain that it dealt with Menelaus’ visit to Egypt on his way back from Troy. He was shipwrecked on an island and the prophetic Proteus gave him advice, sending him first to Egypt. See _Odyssey_, IV, 351-586.

[231] _Arrangement_: protagonist, Clytæmnestra; deuteragonist, Herald, Cassandra; tritagonist, Sentinel, Agamemnon, Ægisthus.

[232] See especially his _Introduction_ (pp. xiii-xlvii of the 2nd edition).

[233] This is noted by an admirable touch. Almost always a tragedy ends with words of the chorus as the least impassioned parties. In the _Agamemnon_ the closing words are uttered by Clytæmnestra.

[234] _Choephorœ_, 889.

[235] _The Relapse_, V, iv. 135.

[236] _Arrangement_: protagonist, Orestes; deuteragonist, Electra, Clytæmnestra; tritagonist, Pylades, nurse, attendant, Ægisthus.

[237] This is of course a conventional _mise-en-scène_; we are to imagine the tomb as distant from the palace.

[238] On this and the other “tokens” see below, p. 258.

[239] The dead man is undoubtedly supposed to send aid in a mysterious way, but no ghost appears, as in the _Persæ_. This discrepancy points to a change in religious feeling. Clytæmnestra’s shade “appears” in the _Eumenides_, but as a dream (see v. 116).

[240] vv. 870-4. It seems most natural to suppose that they altogether quit the orchestra, returning before v. 930.

[241] Not quite, however. The poet is to depict a man, with whom we are to sympathize, almost in the act of slaying his mother. Not only Orestes, but the spectator also, needs as much spiritual fortification as can be provided.

[242] vv. 313: δράσαντι παθεῖν.

[243] _Arrangement._—Croiset gives: protagonist, Orestes; deuteragonist, Apollo; tritagonist, Athena, priestess, ghost of Clytæmnestra. This _grouping_ is certainly right, but it is not easy to suppose that the part of Athena was given to the tritagonist. It seems better to give Athena, etc., to the protagonist, Apollo to the second, and Orestes to the third actor.

[244] Probably the _eccyclema_ was used. See pp. 66-8.

[245] vv. 517-9:—

ἔσθ’ ὅπου τὸ δεινὸν εὖ
καὶ φρενῶν ἐπίσκοπον
δεῖ μένειν καθήμενον.

[246] The actual rule of the Areopagite Court was that if the votes were even the defendant was acquitted. This rule was explained as derived from the “Vote of Athena” in the trial of Orestes. It seems then that Athena’s vote here makes inequality, not equality. Therefore her pebble is not put into either urn, but laid between them.

[247] It is implied by the title of the drama that they assume the title Eumenides or “Gracious Ones,” but this title is not used in the play itself. Their most usual name was Σεμναί, “Awful Ones”.

[248] v. 644.

[249] In her great speech to the court she plainly adopts the language of the Furies. See below.

[250] v. 747: ἡμῖν γὰρ ἔρρειν, ἢ πρόσω τιμὰς νέμειν.

[251] Dr. Verrall (_Introduction_ to his edition, pp. xxxii, xxxiii) explains the reconciliation of the Furies as the result of a mystic revelation conveyed not in words but through a kind of spiritual magnetism exercised by Athena when she draws near to them at v. 886 (he notes the break in syntax at this point); such an influence could not be shown forth in words—it is too sacred and mysterious. But if a poet does undertake to dramatize the truths of religion, he must do so in dramatic form; he ought not suddenly to throw up his task. Several places in Æschylus can be found where he does put such ideas into words.

[252] This appears to me certain from Athena’s language to the court, but the reader should not suppose that the Furies say so definitely; they acquiesce.

[253] vv. 696-8.

[254] This vital point is admirably demonstrated by Dr. Verrall on v. 1046.

[255] This number is not certain. It is probably an under-statement.

[256] ποδαπὸς ὁ γύννις;

[257] ἐνθουσιᾷ δὴ δῶμα, βακχεύει στέγη.

[258] βρῦτον.

[259] _On the death of Kirk-White_: “’Twas thine own genius gave the fatal blow,” etc. The fiery verse, ὅπλων ὅπλων δεῖ· μὴ πύθῃ τὸ δεύτερον, recalls the famous line: “A horse, a horse! My kingdom for a horse!”

[260] _Frogs_, 911-3.

[261] Meineke, II, p. 1177.

[262]

οἱ θεῶν ἀγχίσποροι
οἱ Ζηνὸς ἐγγύς ὧν κατ’ Ἰδαῖον πάγον
Διὸς πατρῴου βωμός ἐστ’ ἐν αἰθέρι,
κοὔπω σφιν ἐξίτηλον αἷμα δαιμόνων.

Cp. Plato, _Republic_, 391 E.

[263] _Oration_ 52.

[264] Only one has survived, that of Sophocles.

[265] _Titus Andronicus_, II, i. 5-7.

[266] _Frogs_, 924-5.

[267] _Ag._ 494-5. In spite of Dr. Verrall’s ingenious remarks, it seems best to take this phrase in the traditional way, as a mere extravagance.

[268] _P.V._ 170.

[269] _Septem_, 493-4.

[270] _Choeph._ 451-2.

[271] _Eum._ 137-8.

[272] _Frogs_, 1261-95.

[273] _Suppl._ 836-7. I see no reason for supposing that the Greek is defective.

[274] _Ibid._ 12.

[275] _Ibid._ 608.

[276] _Persæ_, 115.

[277] _Ibid._ 346.

[278] _Persæ_ 395.

[279] _Ibid._ 815.

[280] _Septem_, 593.

[281] _P.V._ 89-90.

[282] _Ibid._ 993.

[283] _Ag._ 1434.

[284] _Choeph._ 647.

[285] _Eum._ 694.

[286] Haigh, _Tragic Drama_, pp. 82 _sq._

[287] _Frogs_, 932.

[288] Professor Gilbert Murray, _Literature of Ancient Greece_, p. 217.

[289] vv. 908 _sqq._

[290] Frogs, 1119 _sqq._

[291] Dr. Verrall’s theory is still, I believe, accepted only by a minority.

[292] _P.V._ vv. 350-2.

[293] _Danaides._

[294] Cp. _Septem_, 592-4 (Aristides), _P.V._ 1068 (Themistocles), and the references to the Areopagus (vv. 681-710) and to the Athenian Empire (vv. 398-401) in the _Eumenides_.

[295] _Choeph._ 313 _sq._: δράσαντι παθεῖν, τριγέρων μῦθος τάδε φωνεῖ.

[296] _Ag._ 750-7.

[297] _Septem_, 689-91.

[298] _Choeph._ 1076.

[299] Æschylus never worked himself entirely free from this savage conception of sin as a material defilement. Orestes, among the proofs that he has expiated his offence, mentions the use of swine’s blood as a cleansing power (_Eum._ v. 283).

[300] See Dr. Verrall’s discussion of the prologue to the _Eumenides_, _Euripides the Rationalist_, pp. 220-4.

[301] _Eum._ vv. 640-51.

[302] _Arrangement_: protagonist, Ajax, Teucer (Ajax, when dead, is represented by a lay figure); deuteragonist, Odysseus, Tecmessa; tritagonist, Athena, messenger, Menelaus, Agamemnon.

[303] For the arguments see Jebb’s _Introduction_ (pp. li-liv) to the _Ajax_. He thinks _Antigone_ the earlier.

[304] vv. 520-1: “Nay, have thought even of me. A man should sure be mindful of any joy that hath been his.” But of course the quality spoken of evaporates in such a “translation”.

[305] In the address to his child he throws a half-line to the mother (v. 559) and at the beginning of his disguised farewell to the chorus he expresses pity for Tecmessa (vv. 650-3), but there is nothing to show that this is not feigned, like his implied renunciation of suicide.

[306] See Jebb’s _Introduction_ to the play (pp. xxviii-xxxii).

[307] The _arrangement_ is uncertain. Jebb gives, protagonist: Antigone, Tiresias, Eurydice; deuteragonist: Ismene, guard, Hæmon, the messengers; tritagonist: Creon. Croiset gives, protagonist: Antigone, Hæmon; deuteragonist: Ismene, guard, Tiresias, messengers; tritagonist: Creon, Eurydice.

[308] vv. 904-12. See Jebb’s discussion in his _Appendix_.

[309] vv. 450-70.

[310] _Rhetoric_, III, xvi. 9.

[311] Jebb’s _Introduction_, pp. xvii-xx.

[312] See pp. 8, 15.

[313] _Arrangement_ probably: protagonist, Electra; deuteragonist, Orestes and Clytæmnestra; tritagonist, Pædagogus, Chrysothemis, Ægisthus.

[314] Jebb, however, gives substantial reasons for putting it later. See his _Introduction_, pp. lvi-lviii.

[315] vv. 1424-5.

[316] _Choeph._ 1075-6 (Verrall’s translation).

[317] vv. 1508 _sqq._ (Jebb’s translation).

[318] vv. 616-21.

[319] This seems a fair deduction, not only from the whole situation, but from the pause after Αἴγισθον in v. 957; also perhaps from the emphatic ἐμοί of v. 974. Cp. also 582 _sqq._ and especially the comment of the chorus in v. 1080 (διδύμαν ἑλοῦσ’ Ἐρινύν).

[320] vv. 1331-3.

[321] _Arrangement_: protagonist, Œdipus; deuteragonist, Priest, Jocasta, servant of Laius; tritagonist, Creon, Tiresias, the two messengers.

[322] vv. 774 _sqq._

[323] It is true that when the prophet mentions the parents of Œdipus quite definitely (v. 436) the king is startled. But this is one point only. All the other remarks of Tiresias are ignored.

[324] See Aristotle, _Poetic_, 1454_b_.

[325] vv. 130-1.

[326] See pp. 127-8.

[327] vv. 124-5.

[328] The entry of Fortinbras at the end of _Hamlet_ is closely similar. Perhaps it is fear of anti-climax which causes producers nowadays to omit this finale.

[329] Note his preciosity, vv. 942, 959, 1028.

[330] He first (v. 1026) says that he found the infant Œdipus; only later (1038) does he admit that another man has been concerned.

[331] vv. 758-64.

[332] vv. 1117-8.

[333] v. 1141.

[334] _Arrangement_: protagonist, Deianira, Heracles; deuteragonist, Hyllus, Lichas; tritagonist, nurse, messenger, old man.

[335] See Jebb’s _Introduction_, pp. xxxviii _sq._

[336] vv. 575-7 (Jebb’s translation).

[337] vv. 547-9.

[338] These remarks are not vitiated by the fact (see Jebb on v. 1224) that legend wedded Iole to Hyllus. If the command of Heracles is as objectionable as Jebb appears to think, why did Sophocles go out of his way to cause the hero himself, instead of some other, to enjoin the marriage?

[339] vv. 719 _sq._

[340] This accounts also for the absurd behaviour of the nurse (vv. 927 _sq._) who instead of interfering hastens away to Hyllus, entirely unlike other such women in tragedy.

[341] See the speech of Lichas (vv. 248-86).

[342] Deianira’s plan, moreover, reads like a sort of dilution of Medea’s, and her last moments (vv. 900-22) recall the description in the _Alcestis_ (vv. 158-84).

[343] v. 427. Cp. Eur. _Helena_, 567: ποίας δάμαρτος;

[344] Jebb points out that _Trach._ 416 and _Supplices_ 567 are practically identical.

[345] v. 1140.

[346] 268.

[347] vv. 9-14.

[348] That even the equable Sophocles did on occasion embody criticism of other playwrights in his works is shown by such passages as _Electra_ 1288 _sqq._, _Œd Col._ 1148-9.

[349] _Arrangement_: protagonist, Philoctetes; deuteragonist, Neoptolemus; tritagonist, Odysseus, merchant, Heracles.

[350] vv. 1007-15.

[351] _E.g._ Mahaffy (_History of Gk. Lit., Poets_, pp. 309-12).

[352] Christ (_Geschichte der Gr. Lit._ p. 210) who compares Heracles here to the δαιμόνιον σημεῖον of Socrates.

[353] K. O. Müller (_Gr. Lit._, ii. p. 124) who is opposed by Bernhardy (II, ii. p. 370).

[354] vv. 1404 _sqq._

[355] When he threatens to shoot Odysseus (vv. 1299 _sqq._).

[356] v. 670: εὐεργετῶν γὰρ καὐτὸς αὔτ’ ἐκτησάμην.

[357] See Jebb’s 2nd edition (p. xxvii with footnote).

[358] _Or._ 52.

[359] vv. 936 _sqq._, 987 _sq._, etc.

[360] vv. 187-90 (Jebb’s reading and translation).

[361] v. 1455.

[362] vv. 282-4. Notice also the phrase ξὺν ᾗ (v. 268) used of his malady.

[363] Jebb (_Introd._ pp. xl, xli, 2nd ed.) seems unwilling to allow any direct allusions. But see vv. 385 _sqq._, 456 _sqq._, and particularly 1035 _sqq._; all three passages show a peculiar emphasis; vv. 1047-51 are quite in the tone of Thucydides’ “Melian dialogue”.

[364] The _arrangement_ of the parts is not certain. But the important fact seems clear that a fourth actor was here used not tentatively (as in other cases) but in a very remarkable degree. Jebb gives: protagonist, Œdipus; deuteragonist, Antigone; tritagonist, Ismene and Creon; fourth actor, “Stranger,” Theseus, Polynices, messenger. Croiset: protagonist, Œdipus; deuteragonist, Antigone; fourth actor, Theseus; all the other parts to the tritagonist.

[365] Creon, vv. 854 _sq._; Antigone, v. 1195.

[366] v. 106.

[367] vv. 1563 _sq._ The same word recurs in Antigone’s lament (v. 1682): ἄσκοποι δὲ πλάκες ἔμαρψαν.

[368] Note specially the word τοὐπιεικές (v. 1127) though the idea is of course expressed by the whole play.

[369] vv. 670-80 (Jebb’s version).

[370] See below, p. 185.

[371] σμικρὸς λόγος four times (vv. 569, 620, 1116, 1152), σμικρὸν ἔπος once (v. 443), and ἓν μόνον ἔπος once (v. 1615 _sqq._). Dr. Mackail (_Lectures on Greek Poetry_, p. 150) has indicated this point. See also _Electra_, 415.

[372] vv. 670 _sqq._: The parallel I owe to Jebb’s note.

[373] vv. 1503 _sq._

[374] _King Lear_, III, iv.

[375] vv. 1627 _sq._ Cp. 1 Sam. iii. 10.

[376] Deut. xxxiv. 6.

[377] Heb. xi. 22.

[378] vv. 62 _sq._: “Such ... are these haunts, not honoured in story, but rather in the life that loves them” (Jebb).

[379] v. 472.

[380] v. 506.

[381] vv. 964 _sq._

[382] vv. 1422-5.

[383] See Jebb, _Introduction_, pp. xxi _sq._

[384] See his splendid exculpatory speeches to the chorus (vv. 258-91) and to Creon (vv. 960-1013).

[385] See pp. 10, 12 _sq._

[386] _Ad Quintum Fratrem_, II, xv. 3.

[387] Fr. 344: πόνου μεταλλαχθέντος οἱ πόνοι γλυκεῖς, and fr. 345: μόχθου γὰρ οὐδεὶς τοῦ παρελθόντος λόγος; recall _Æneid_, I, 203: _forsan et haec olim meminisse iuuabit_.

[388] _De Subl._ XV, 7: ἄκρως πεφάντασται.

[389] For the Recognition-scene of this play, cp. Aristotle, _Poetic_, 1454_b_.

[390] _Birds_, vv. 100 _sqq._

[391] These have been published and annotated by Dr. A. S. Hunt (who, with Dr. B. P. Grenfell, discovered these and so many other precious remains) in Vol. IX of the _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_.

[392] Welcker thought that the wanderings of Europa formed the subject.

[393] The word ῥοῖβδος is inserted as a stage-direction (παρεπιγραφή). It no doubt means that the babe Hermes is playing his lyre “within”.

[394] The passage is amusing: χαίρει ἀλύων, “he is in a rapture of joy,” is an excellent phrase for this earliest of _maestri_; but, as Dr. Hunt remarks, his audience of one (Cyllene) seems not to share his ecstasy: παραψυκτήριον κείνῳ μόνον.

[395] The name is not certain. All that can be asserted is that the tragedy dealt with Eurypylus’ death, in defence of Troy, at the hands of Neoptolemus.

[396] See pp. 15-17.

[397] See _e.g._ the remarks in Creon’s opening speech (_Ant._ vv. 175-90).

[398] _O.T._ 587-8:

ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν οὔτ’ αὐτὸς ἱμείρων ἔφυν
τύραννος εἶναι μᾶλλον ἢ τύραννα δρᾶν.

[399] _Electra_, vv. 328 _sqq._

[400] See p. 16.

[401] _Electra_, 303-16.

[402] For this and other metrical terms which follow see Chapter VI.

[403] There are no less than thirty iambic lines thus divided. The name for such division is ἀντιλαβή.

[404] _Phil._ vv. 287-92.

[405] _O.C._ 1697, translated by Jebb: “Ah, so care past can seem lost joy!”

[406] _Electra_, 1165 _sq._

[407] Dr. J. W. Mackail (_Lectures on Greek Poetry_, p. 150 _sq._) has described these lines with brilliant aptness. “The language is so simple, so apparently unconscious and artless, that its overwhelming effect makes one gasp: it is like hearing human language uttered, and raised to a new and incredible power, by the lips of some one more than human.”

[408] _O.C._ 607 _sqq._ The wonderful version of these first few fines is by Professor Gilbert Murray.

[409] _Ajax_, 815 _sqq._

[410] _O.C._ 1586 _sqq._

[411] This figure includes the _Rhesus_, the authenticity of which is not certain.

[412] It is almost certain that only two actors were employed, Alcestis being mute in the last scene (_i.e._ the character was apparently borne by a supernumerary, not the actor who had delivered her earlier speeches), and the few lines of the child Eumelos being sung by a chorister. Croiset suggests: protagonist, Apollo, Alcestis, Heracles, Pheres; deuteragonist, Thanatos, maidservant, Admetus, attendant.

[413] The true explanation, as Dr. Hayley points out, is that the two actors are already engaged (as A. and H.) so that the queen is presented by a mute. I cannot, however, agree that this is “a clumsy device”. Admetus deserved some modification of his delight; we may, moreover, feel that Alcestis would not wish to show precipitation in greeting the husband who had interred her with such strange promptitude.

[414] The celebrated “tag” beginning πολλαὶ μορφαὶ τῶν δαιμονίων (vv. 1159-63), which is found also at the close of _Medea_ (practically), _Helena_, _Andromache_, and _Bacchæ_.

[415] There are no satyrs and no indecency of language.

[416] _E.g._ v. 58: πῶς εἶπας; ἀλλ’ ἦ καὶ σοφὸς λέληθας ὤν; “What! _you_ among the philosophers!”

[417] The late Dr. A. W. Verrall’s brilliant theory of this play it will be better to discuss later (see pp. 190 _sq._).

[418] vv. 763 _sq._

[419] vv. 280-325.

[420] _Euripides the Rationalist_, pp. 1-128.

[421] The hurried obsequies probably do not fall into this category. We are almost certainly to assume that as Alcestis’ sacrifice is to be made on a certain day, that day must see her not only expire, but actually delivered up to the power of death. See Dr. H. W. Hayley’s _Introduction_ to the play (pp. xxxi _sq._) and my _Riddle of the Bacchæ_, pp. 143 _sq._

[422] I cannot write with decision about the _Alcestis_, because on the one hand universal testimony and opinion date it as only seven years anterior to the _Medea_, while my own instinct would put it quite twenty years earlier than that play. To me it reads essentially like the work of a young but highly-gifted playwright who has recently lost his wife.

[423] These celebrated lines (vv. 230-51) are not in character. They form a splendid and moving criticism of the attitude adopted by the poet’s own Athenian contemporaries towards women, but have only a very partial application to herself.

[424] (i) In vv. 1231-5, there is a very clear dittography. That is, either 1231-2, or 1233-5 would serve excellently as a speech of the chorus-leader; but it is unlikely that the poet meant both to be used; (ii) vv. 1236-50 read like another and far shorter version of the great soliloquy 1021-80; (iii) it seems odd that Medea, after finally gaining courage to slay her children, should before doing so, be seen again and join in conversations; (iv) vv. 1375-7 give the impression (as Dr. Verrall has pointed out) that the play is to end, not as it does, but with some kind of arrangement between Medea and Jason; (v) one or two ancient quotations purporting to come from this play are not to be found in our texts.

[425] See pp. 21 _sq._

[426] v. 389 _sqq._

[427] _Poetic_, 1454_b_.

[428] _Four Plays of Euripides_, pp. 125-30.

[429] vv. 1381-3.

[430] v. 472: ἀναίδεια.

[431] v. 364: κακῶς πέπρακται πανταχῇ· τίς ἀντερεῖ;

[432] vv. 801 _sq._

[433] v. 450.

[434] v. 1367.

[435] vv. 944 _sq._ Two MSS., however (followed by Murray), give the second line to Medea.

[436] v. 349: αἰδούμενος δὲ πολλὰ δὴ διέφθορα.

[437] vv. 309 _sq._

[438] v. 454.

[439] vv. 930 _sq._

[440] vv. 824-45.

[441] vv. 1081-1115.

[442] _Arrangement_: protagonist, Iolaus, Eurystheus; deuteragonist, Demophon, Alcmena; tritagonist, Copreus, Macaria, attendant, messenger. There were a great number of mutes: Acamas, the sons of Heracles, and probably some Athenian soldiers.

[443] It has only 1055 lines, but there are probably gaps in our text.

[444] This name is not mentioned by Euripides. The scholiasts have taken it from _Iliad_, XV, 639.

[445] In the Peloponnesian war. The Spartans were believed the descendants of Hyllus and his brothers.

[446] Professor Murray, however, supposes another lacuna here, and thinks there were two semi-choruses, one party supporting Alcmena, the other disagreeing.

[447] Even in ancient times it seems to have enjoyed little attention.

[448] v. 638.

[449] v. 625.

[450] vv. 9 _sq._, 540.

[451] vv. 869 _sqq._

[452] vv. 910 _sqq._

[453] Down to v. 847 his story contains nothing superhuman. Then “up to this point I saw with mine own eyes; the rest of my tale depends on hearsay,” τἀπὸ τοῦδ’ ἤδη κλύων λέγοιμ’ ἂν ἄλλων, δεῦρο δ’ αὐτὸς εἰσιδών· And when he mentions the identification of the miraculous lights with Hebe and Heracles, he attributes the theory to οἱ σοφώτεροι, “cleverer heads than mine,” as we may translate it.

[454] The oracle has demanded the daughter of “a well-born father,” and she of course mentions her own qualification in this respect, without proceeding to dilate (as one would think inevitable in Euripides—or anyone else) on the quite unrivalled “nobility” of her father.

[455] vv. 513, 563.

[456] _Hercules Furens_, vv. 151-64.

[457] vv. 997-9; v. 990, referring to the hostility of Hera, is too vague to stand as a warrant for the divine birth of Heracles.

[458] vv. 240 _sq._

[459] It has been thought that vv. 819-22 indicate the sacrifice of the maiden. They describe the soothsayers’ offering just before the battle: ἀφίεσαν λαιμῶν βροτείων εὐθὺς οὔριον φόνον. If βροτείων is right (though βοτείων, “of sheep,” is a tempting alteration) the reference to the girl’s heroism is brutally curt.

[460] vv. 597 _sqq._

[461] There is, however, in vv. 45-7 an isolated statement which vaguely contradicts this.

[462] Her remark on hearing the news (v. 665): τοῦδ’ οὐκέθ’ ἡμῖν τοῦ λόγου μέτεστι δή, sets the seal upon her utter feebleness of mind.

[463] vv. 1035-7.

[464] vv. 1049-52 and elsewhere in the last scene.

[465] vv. 1020-5.

[466] _Arrangement_ (according to Croiset): protagonist, Hippolytus; deuteragonist, Aphrodite, Phædra, Theseus (the body of Phædra being represented by a lay-figure); tritagonist, Artemis, servant (who announces the suicide), nurse, messenger.

[467] This additional name (_The Crowned H._) was given to distinguish the play from the earlier Ἱππόλυτος Καλυπτόμενος (now lost), or _Hippolytus Veiled_.

[468] vv. 73-87.

[469] vv. 121-5.

[470] vv. 208-31. Cp. vv. 219-21 with vv. 1375 _sq._

[471] vv. 732-51.

[472] vv. 828-9.

[473] vv. 1423-30.

[474] vv. 616-68. He seems to begin listening to the sound of his own voice at v. 654.

[475] vv. 728-31.

[476] vv. 831-3. Hippolytus agrees, vv. 1379-83.

[477] vv. 967-9, where note the emphatic ἐγώ. And the word νόθος is frequent in the play; see especially Hippolytus’ exclamation in vv. 1082-3, which, by a finely dramatic stroke, immediately turns Theseus’ anger to hot fury.

[478] vv. 337-41.

[479] Professor Murray.

[480] vv. 29-33.

[481] Cp. vv. 490 _sq._

[482] vv. 191-7 (Professor Murray’s translation).

[483] vv. 439-61.

[484] Cp. vv. 474 _sq._:—

λῆξον δ’ ὑβρίζουσ’· οὐ γὰρ ἄλλο πλὴν ὕβρις
τάδ’ ἐστί, κρείσσω δαιμόνων εἶναι θέλειν.

[485] vv. 493-6.

[486] vv. 507 _sq._

[487] vv. 1034 _sq._