PA
3136
F6
1922
MAIN
UC-NRLF
B M D5fi fifiM
me Use of Myths to Create Suspense
in Extant Greek Tragedy
A DISSERTATION
presented to the
Faculty of Princeton University
in Candidacy for the Degree
of Doctor of Philosophy
BY
WLLLIAM W. FLINT Jr.
£ m
&
x
- - g
IF1 v
The Use of Myths to Create Suspense
in Extant Greek Tragedy
A DISSERTATION
presented to the
Faculty of Princeton University
in Candidacy for the Degree
of Doctor of Philosophy
BY
WLLLIAM W. FLINT JR.
Accepted by the Department of Classics
June 1921.
/y-ca
FOREWORD.
The present study was originally intended to be part of a larger
treatment of all the specific means to secure suspense employed
by the Greek Tragic Poets. This, however, outgrew the scope of
a Doctoral Dissertation. The author hopes to publish separately
parts of the larger study.
The author's thanks are due to Professor Edward Capps of
Princeton University, and to Mr. A. W. Pickard-Cambridge of
Balliol College, Oxford, who have read the manuscript and gen-
erously given suggestions and assistance at every point.
St. Paul's School,
Concord, New Hampshire,
December 1, 1922.
49873
THE USE OF MYTHS IN CREATING SUSPENSE.
By the word ' plot ' we mean nowadays the bare abstract of the
action of a play or story, like a summary of a game of chess. So
we speak of an 'elopement plot', a 'jealous husband plot', and so
on. The word /j.v6os in Aristotle's Poetics appears in the process
of change from the meaning it bears in Fifth Century prose, which
is 'story', to a later meaning identical with 'plot'. Now 'story'
means more than 'plot', for a story is about some one; there must
be a Red-Riding-Hood, a Guenevere, or an Odysseus. Thus
when Aristotle names /jlvOos as one of six elements of tragedy
(Poetics 1450 a 9), and says elsewhere that he intends to show
xcos Set ovvioTaodai. tovs fxWovs (ibid. 1447 a 9), the element of
p.Wos means more than an impersonal skeleton of hypothetical
events. It includes certain fictitious characters whose actions
and dispositions are already to a degree fixed by existing tradi-
tion. Concerning the same characters there may be several
traditions varying and even contradicting each other. A ju90os
has thus not the fixity of history. The duty of one who handles it
afresh is not that of the historian, to discover among the variants
one version and one only which is objectively true. So far from
being a source of confusion, a wealth of divergent stories about the
same characters is a clear advantage. From among them the
poet may select or combine with an eye solely to the artistic
worth of his creation, or to a moral which he wishes to illustrate.
The Greek tragic poets worked in a field of national legend,
with characters and events already familiar to all or part of their
hearers. Most of these myths were by the Fifth Century fairly
well fixed in their main lines. But within these existed an end-
less diversity of localization, chronology, and minor detail, so
that a poet, by combining different stories or by alluding to
variants in the course of the action, could create a semblance of
uncertainty as to the issue of his play. Occasionally, as in the
stories of the end of Oedipus or of the career of Helen, the vari-
ants assumed the importance of flat contradictions on essential
points. These variants may be divided into two main classes:
1) Variants due to artistic elaboration by earlier poets within the
recollection of the spectators. These affect our question of sus-
6
pense to a limited degree, as will appear. In Aristophanes, Ach.
417 ff. Oeneus, Telephus, Phoenix, Philoctetes, Bellerophontes,
and Thyestes are mentioned, each with some familiar individual
characteristic. (See Demosthenes, De Cor. 180.) But in each
case the character is something less or more than the same
character in the saga. Here we have to do, not with the shad-
owy Philoctetes of a mysterious legend, but with the Philoctetes of
Euripides, known by sight and voice to the audience. As the
characters, so the play itself stood out in the mind of one who
had seen it as a clearly outlined picture against a nimbus of
poorly related incident and detail that was the ancient saga.
Thus a poet who rehandled a theme familiar in contempora-
neous literature had to guard against two things: a) following
his model too closely for originality, b) diverging from his model
where that model embodied a consensus of tradition, to depart
from which would be unconvincing or shocking. Similarly the
poets tended to avoid the stories of the Iliad and Odyssey, which
lay already at hand in a highly artistic form, contained few in-
cidents big enough for independent development (as Aristotle
remarks, Poetics 23), and were fixed in the minds of every Athe-
nian audience. Occasionally older literary variants are alluded
to in the course of a tragedy as matters of interest or as contribut-
ing to the fixing of a mood. As an example of this latter way,
the ax with which Clytaemestra killed Agamemnon in Stesichorus'
Oresteia figures impressively in Cassandra's prophecy along with
the sword which Aeschylus meant to be used in his play. The
ax was familiar to the audience through the contemporary tradi-
tion of painting, based as it was on Stesichorus. Literary vari-
ants could be thus alluded to, followed, or disregarded, in order
to produce suspense of doubtful issue, but only with great
caution.
2) Variants proceeding, from conflicting local versions of the
same myth. The element of uncertainty which could be pro-
duced by these means is perhaps the most important single fac-
tor in the suspense of any Greek play, a) Often a poet would
build up a strong rising action running directly counter to the
main lines of the received story (Philoctetes, Orestes); but when
the received story itself was honeycombed with contradictions
which the audience knew, who could be certain what dramatic
conclusion would be used to square all the facts? And who among
the audience was so accomplished a mythologer as to be certain
the poet had no authority for the version adopted? b) Or
again, a poet by starting from an isolated and little known ver-
sion of a myth could develop with perfect logic a situation for
which no precedent existed at all (Helen), c) Again, the Euripi-
dean device of a concluding deus ex machina might or might
not affect importantly the conclusion of a play, and thus a plot
might be developed, humanly considered, on lines of absolute
heresy and be mechanically squared with tradition at the end.
(See Verrall's study of the Orestes.) Then minor variants of
the myth offered endless opportunities for temporary uncer-
tainties and surprises.
Thus we see that while to us a Greek tragedy is a region of
second-hand thrills and foregone conclusions, it was anything
but that to its proper audiences. Our own elementary knowl-
edge of mythology comes indirectly from writers of the Roman
period who formulated traditions fixed by the tragic poets them-
selves. In some cases, of course, notably the Oresteia, the
tradition was fixed beyond recall even before Aeschylus. But
this is not true of the greater part of the Theban Cycle, of the
Heracles stories, nor of most isolated plots like those of the
Medea or the Philoctetes.
An attempt will be made in what follows to examine the evi-
dence as to the forms of myths used by the tragic poets in their
extant works, with an eye to determining as far as possible how
far the use made of the received story contributed to real un-
certainty on the part of the audience as to the issue of the play.
Naturally the history of the stories will not concern us except in
so far as they affect this question. Such historical material will
naturally group itself, as we saw, into two heads: the literary
predecessors which limited a playwright's opportunities, and the
non-literary which enriched them.
I. Stories of the Trojan War.
1. Rhesus.
The only source we know for this story is Iliad X. The
dramatist has followed this closely, introducing a few conven-
tional dramatic devices.
8
a) The point of view is shifted from the Greek to the Trojan,
and the two important incidents, the sending out of Dolon (149
ff.) and the arrival of Rhesus, are (264 ff.) introduced before anjr
Greeks appear. Consequently we feel the presence of Odysseus
and Diomedes as a menace hanging over the actors, which may
materialize at any moment. We are kept reminded of this theme
by the forebodings of Aeneas 128 el 8' h 86\ov tiv t?5' iiyei,
and of Hector 498-509. This passage is dragged in purely for
this purpose, because the event Hector describes suggests the
Doloneia. (The initial impulse of the Doloneia (II. X, 12 ff.)
was the burning of night-fires by the Trojans, not the Greeks.
Given the shift to the Trojan point of view, the author of the
Rhesus had to make some such change. The 4>pvKTupia is thus
poorly motivated in the play and serves merely to warn the
audience of what in general is to follow, through a vague recol-
lection of //. X, 12.) The plot initiated by Odysseus is strictly an
anachronism, for it comes from the Little Iliad. The passage ma}'
be a reminiscence of Hec. 239 ff.
b) Magnification of Rhesus, so that the whole war is made to
depend on this night. In II. X, 435 ff.,he is only a lay figure
who owns horses that may be stolen. In the play are introduced
his strength as an ally, 276-7, 290, 309-16; his personal impres-
siveness 301-8, 314-6; his confidence 391-2, 447-53, 467-73,
488-91. All this is ratified by Athena's prophecy 600-5, that if
Rhesus lives through the night he will win the war for the Tro-
jans. (Cf. Soph. Ai. 750-7.) Also may be noted the suspense
which is developed against Rhesus' entrance by the messenger's
awe-struck account 284-6, which helps animate the first half of
the play.
c) In the Iliad Rhesus had arrived the day before or at some
recent time, so that the Trojan camp knew all about him though
the Greeks did not; his force had not yet been coordinated with
the rest of the Trojans: //. X, 434 ver)\v8es, ea-xaroi aXKuv. In
the play he arrives after Dolon sets out. The result is that
when Odysseus and Diomedes appear (565) the keen listener
realizes that they can know nothing of Rhesus, since Dolon, from
whom in 27. X they learned about him, here knew nothing him-
self. In 575-6 it appears that they are still after Hector. The
possibility that they may get him is a real one, for he may at
any moment return to his tent and if so will be off his guard.
9
Thus the issue of the Iliad is only made possible by the inter-
vention of Athena 595-607. This is the only example extant of
a god being introduced, in the middle of a play, to square tin-
action with tradition.
Dolon is mentioned by Diomedes in 573; we do not find out
that he has been killed till 591. This bit of information, which
leads us back to the tradition, follows on 507 90, during which
tradition seemed to be ignored. Similarly in 499 ff. the reminder
about Odysseus comes at the end of the episode of Rhesus' en-
trance, where again tradition was altered. 591-2 are followed
by Athena's directions to Odysseus and Diomedes which put
them on the right track; 499 ff. come at the end of the episode
preceding Odysseus' arrival. Both of these passages are evi-
dently pointers to the audience intimating that the familiar
vers 'on is shortly to be resumed.
d) The password in 573 would hardly be introduced unless it
was to be used later, and its use thus assures us that the spies will
be for a time at least in the hands of the Trojans. So 682-91.
e) 161-90. Dolon's stipulating for a reward. This, like the
circumstance attending Rhesus' arrival, is introduced to fill out
the first half of the play, for which no example already existed.
Similarly the dispute between Hector and Rhesus in 393-453,
which leads to nothing, and Hector's original unwillingness in
319-341 to accept his aid.
See Porter, Hermathena 1913, p. 348 ff., for a theory about a
literary version of the Doloneia between the Iliad and our play.
Also Overbeck, Gallerie Heroischer Bildwerke, 112 ff. ; Schreiber,
Annali 1875, 299; Robert, Arch. Ztg. 1882, 47; and cf. a late
Capuan vase in the Ashmolean Museum, which may have drawn
on the play, where the costume is clearly not a disguise. The
costume of Dolon on the vase at least does not establish what
Porter thinks it does, and the evidence is too vague to be of use
to us.
The poet of the Rhesus produces suspense through varying a
fixed literary form:
a) by the uncertainty of the meaning of the Greek watch-fires,
128;
b) by the importance given to Rhesus through a theme
borrowed from Soph. Aias;
c) by changing the order of events so that the paths of Rhesus
10
and of Odysseus and Diomedes converge during the play before
our eyes;
d) by introducing suspense over the possible murder of Hector,
Aeneas, or Paris;
e) by additional detail: password; Dolon's claim for reward;
argument between Hector and Rhesus.
2. Aias.
The story of the madness and suicide of Aias following on the
award of the arms was common to the Aethiopis, the Little Iliad,
and the Iliupersis. The story seems to have been duplicated in the
first two epics and alluded to in the third. (Eustath. on II. XIII
515.) From the Little Iliad we get the essentials of the Sopho-
clean plot, the madness of Aias, the killing of the cattle, followed
by the suicide of Aias (Procl.). The suicide is also alluded to by
Pindar (A7, vii 25 ff. ; N. viii 23 ff. ; I. iv 35) with a possible refer-
ence to the madness (N. vii 24-5, el yap ?jv \ % rav akaOeiav Vbkufv)
and the madness and suicide are handled by Aeschylus in the
Threissae. (Schneidewin-Nauck, Intr. to Ai., p. 45 ff.) In the
last paragraph of the hypothesis to the Aias appear traces of a
story, probably older than ours, by which Aias was killed in
battle with the Trojans. To this Od. Ill 109 doubtless refers.
The story about the Trojans throwing mud over him might have
been a satyric perversion of this. For a death by stoning, such
as the Atreidae are made to threaten in 251-2 (the chorus are
reporting camp-rumor), there seems no precedent in the saga. It
can hardly be an allusion to the mud-throwing story, for this was
done by the Trojans in battle. We know nothing of the details
of the version in the Cycle, and so it is impossible to say with
certainty how much of Sophocles' handling is original. The
speech of Aias in 646-92, nominally disclaiming the intention of
suicide, really affirming it in veiled language:
654 dXX' etjut xpos re \ovrpa nal TapaKrlovs
Xtijucoj'as, cos av \vp.ad' dyplaas ep.a
p.rjvLv fiapelav e£aXi>£a)jutu Beds '
juoXcoj/ re x&P0V ivO' av aaTiflrj nixw,
xpui/'co t65' «7xos rovfiov, exdiVTOV (3e\oiv,
yaias 6pv£as evda fit] ris oi/'crat '
dXX' avro vvi; "Al8t]$ t« gu^ovtwv koltco.
691 . . . Kai rax' o.v fx' ictcs
irvdoiade, Kti vvv 5v<ttvx&, ceaoocixevov.
11
is thoroughly Sophoclean and can hardly be assumed to have
been paralleled in an earlier version. Nothing could be better
calculated to initiate a keen suspense lasting over the following
ode and episode leading to the actual suicide. On the other hand,
the prophecy alluded to by the messenger:
752 . . . et7re K(X7rea/crji/'e, iravTola Texvfl
elp^aL kclt' fjnap T0vp.4>aves to vZv rbbt
Aiaf#' U7ro aK-qvaiai fxriS' cufrkvT' kav, . . .
756 eXS yap avrbv rfjde drj/jikpa fxbvj)
8las 'Adapas p.fjvis . . .
probably comes from the Aethiopis or the Little Iliad. We know
that the time of Aias' suicide was noted in the Aethiopis as the
early morning (Sch. Pind. I. iii 53) ; cf. Pindar I. iv 35 kv b\piq.
wkt'l. The change to day time would be no more than was re-
quired in a daytime play. But, what is more important, 757
does not square with the rest of the Sophoclean version. Aias
is no longer suffering from the wrath of Athena but from the
shame consequent upon it; cf. 348-52, 367, 372-6, 460 ff., where
he passes from bewilderment and savage despair to the settled
conviction that life for him is no longer worth living (vid. 654 ff.
cited above). 752-7 is clearly a survival from an older version
which was not interested in real psychology, preserved here for
its obvious advantage as a means of quickening suspense in an
excited scene (cf. Rhesus 595-607).
The only reference to a previous handling of the burial theme
in the Aias is in Eustathius ad II., p. 285, 34 Rom. 6 r^v ftucpip
"IXid5a ypa\pas icrTope7 fJ.r)5e Kavdrjvat o-wqduis top A'lavra, Ttdfjpat. 5e
ovtus kp aop(jo 5id T-qu opyrjv tov /3acrtXea;s. In the Nckyia Aias is
with the other shades and so must have been properly buried.
There are references to an Aias-cult in Salamis (7. G. ii, 1, 594;
Hdt. viii, 64, 121; Paus. i, 35, 2); in Athens he was the epony-
mous hero of one of the tribes (Paus. i 5, 1; iii, 9, 9; Plut., Mor.
628 A ff.; Plut. Solon 10; Hdt, v 66), and the mythical ancestor
of the Eurysakidae and Philaidae (Marcell. Vit. Thuc. 3; Plut.
Ale. 1; Hdt, vi 35). In fact, the Athenians took special pains to
appropriate Aias as an ally through the settling in Attica of his
two sons (Sch. Pind. N. ii 19). The only reference I can find to
an actual tomb of Aias is Paus. i 35. This was in the Troad and,
like the barrow of Orestes at Tegea (Hdt. i 67-8), was connected
with a find of bones of fabulous size. But no hero who enjoyed
12
the reputation of Aias in Athens could have been thought of as
cast out like Polyneices. Thus the suspense which is initiated in
1047 is purely that of a foregone conclusion. (Note also 1166-7
'ivda fipoTols tov a.dy.vr\GTOV \ tck^ov evpojevra Kadki-ei. The anapests
at the end of the scene between Teucer and Menelaus remind the
audience that the cult existed and that, therefore, Aias must
somehow be buried decently.) It is quite probable, however,
that the raising of the burial issue is new to the saga in this play
and that its novelty in part justified the use of a conclusion which
seems to us tame. In the passage from Eustathius cited above,
the phrase 5id ttjv bpyijv rod (SacuXews is tacked on at the end
and may be a reason supplied by the writer who had Sophocles'
play in his mind. Nowhere else do we find burial referred to as
a pis-aller for cremation; the two customs are parallel in the
period represented by the cyclic epics. And the word avv-qdus
bears the mark of a late scholar who was puzzled at finding a sim-
ple instance of burial and set about to account for it.
The myth is used for suspense :
a) by developing through suggestive passages the familiar
myth already well known, and excluding references to other
stories;
b) by over-emphasizing the function of Athena, foreign to the
original story, a detail useful for momentary suspense;
c) by developing uncertainty in the play over the burial issue,
which was a foregone conclusion to the audience, not from any
version of the myth, but from common knowledge of Aias' status
as hero.
3. Philoctetes.
Three possible endings to the Philoctetes are indicated in the
end of the episode at 1081. They are:
a) 1078: x°Stos tclx' o.v 4>pbv7)(nv kv tovtu) Xdj3cH
Xtoco riv r)pXv " vui p.ev ovv bpp.6iixeQov.
That is, Philoctetes may accept the situation and go to Troy;
b) 1054: acpere yap avrbv p.r)be Trpoaypavarjr' en '
eare p.ipi>eiv. obbe gov irpocrxPy£0txei'>
to. y' ott\' exovres raDr'.
c) 1069: rj/jLuv oxajs fj,rj T-qv tvxw bia4>depets.
1072: 65' eariv i]p.Giv vavKpaToip 6 ircus"
1074: a.Koba'op.ai fiev cos e<f>vv o'lktov rXews
Tpbs tov8'.
13
Neoptolemus is independent of Odysseus and controls the situa-
tion. Odysseus fears that he may decide to take Philoctetes'
part and ruin the p'an.
The only one of these possibilities which receives any sanction
from the epic or lyric tradition is the first. Philoctetes is a hero
who is to be brought from his enforced habitation at Lemnos, by
whose help alone Troy can fall.1 That no abstraction was
thought of between Philoctetes and his bow is shown by the
reference to Bacchylides, where the bow of Heracles first makes
its appearance. . . . oi "EWrjves t/c Arjppov //ercGrreiXai'ro tov
l\>CKoKTr]TT]u *E\evov pavrevaapkvov' e'ipapro yap ixvtv t&p 'HpaKXtLuv
to^wv prj wopdr)6rii>ai to "IXlov (schol. Pind. P. i 53. See Marx I.e. for
the relation of Heracles' bow to the rest of the story). Philoc-
tetes has been- slight ed by the Greeks, and the belated oracle
simply brings him into his own: rd%a 5e pvyaeaOat tpeWov 'Apydot
irapa vrjval ^CkoKT-qrao clvclktos (II. II 724-5). Of recalcitrancy on
his part there is naturally no question.
The tragic poets in handling this story had to make some sort
of a play out of it. They could not take it in extenso as did the
epic, and the incident which most appealed to the imagination
was the encounter of Philoctetes with the messenger of the
Atreidae after his exile. Obviously the dramatic value of a play
dealing with this scene would depend upon the success with which
the poet presented a possibility contrary to the received version.
Aeschylus naturally used the simplest means to this end. Philoc-
tetes is represented as nourishing a deep and implacable resent-
ment against the Greeks; he broods on his sufferings, and his
lamentations occupy a considerable part of the play (Dio Chrys.
Hi 4 ff.). Now that there is to be difficulty in bringing him around,
the function of king's agent is shifted from Diomedes (Was Parva
ap. Procl.) to Odysseus. Philoctetes fails to recognize him, and
he tells a long lie about the utter disaster and desolation of the
Greeks; the conclusion comes presumably after a simple process
of persuasion extending over the entire play, which finally
breaks down a vaguely stated conflict of will. Odysseus keeps
his Homeric character of keenness and cunning without being
1 II. II 724-5; Lit. II. ap. Procl.; Pindar P. i 50; Bacchyl. Fr. 7 Bl., 36 Jebb,
16 Bergk. See F. Marx, Neue Jahrb.f. </. Kl. Alt. xiii 1904, 679. Marx docs
not do violence to tradition in emphasizing the necessity of Philocteles' per-
sonal presence. His account of the source of the myths is uncertain.
14
degraded ('OSuccea Spinvv icai 86\iou . . . tto\v 5e airkxovTa rrjs vvv
naKoriddas, Dio Chrys. Hi 4). What alternative to returning
with Odysseus Philoctetes may have had in mind we do not
know. In order to answer this question Euripides introduced
an embassy of the Trojans offering Philoctetes the throne of
Troy if he would come and help them. This gave an oppor-
tunity for an agon between Odysseus and the Trojan agent with
Philoctetes as umpire; it was this part of the play which most
impressed Dio Chrysostom and doubtless formed the kernel of it.
Odysseus tries to lure Philoctetes under false pretences; he is a
friend, forsooth, of Palamedes who, ruined by Odysseus, is
traveling back to Greece and is willing to take Philoctetes in his
ship. How this is brought into connection with the offer of the
Trojans — whether, that is, Philoctetes recognizes the disguised
Odysseus before the Trojans appear — is uncertain. It would
seem to make a better play if an anagnorisis came first and if in
the agon Philoctetes was faced with the clear-cut choice of cap-
turing or triumphantly defending Troy.1 Sophocles made the
suggestion of Philoctetes' return to Greece, which with Euripides
had been merely a bait understood by the audience, into a real
possibility, a great advance in the creation of suspense. To do
this it was necessary to diminish the importance of Odysseus,
and to this end Neoptolemus is made the pin whereon the success
of the project turns, in violation of the epic source, which placed
Neoptolemus' arrival at Troy after that of Philoctetes. (Ilias
Parva ap. Procl.) Neoptolemus' youthful sympathy and com-
parative detachment from the interests of the Greek army make
him possible in such a role, as neither of the traditional figures
was.
The distinction which Philoctetes possessed by reasoD of his
bow opened a third possibility, namely, that Philoctetes should
be left on the island, and the bow — all that the Greeks needed —
should be taken. This theme of the bow had entered the Philoc-
tetes story independently of tragedy. In the Catalogue, to be
sure, he is only an archer-king from Thessaly destined by his
1 For the vases vid. Roscher iii2 2337 ff. The evidence is late and seems to
conflict. Odysseus and Diomedes in the cave are robbing Philoctetes of his
bow and arrows. Philoctetes faces the Trojans with the bow in his hand,
Odysseus and Diomedes looking on from the other side. Evidence for Euripi-
des can hardly be derived from this source.
15
prowess to end the war. But Philoctetes appeared independ-
ently in the Heracles-saga,1 and when the inevitable conflation
took place, his archer's prowess was made to depend on a legacy
from Heracles and hence gradually became detachable from his
person. Nevertheless the tradition stuck that it was Philoctetes
himself and not this bow that should capture Troy, and Sophocles
in spite of the obvious disadvantage cannot ignore it. Compare
196 ff. and 839-42 with 1053-62. This third possibility owes
its full development to Sophocles.
In neither Aeschylus nor Euripides is Lemnos2 represented as
deserted, since the chorus in both cases were Lemnians. It
does not matter whether or not they had attended him in the
past; Philoctetes, robbed of his bow, but left with a friendly
chorus on a populated island, does not constitute a tragic ending
to a play. So again, in violation both of the Iliad (VII, 467 ; XXI
40) and the Cypria (Procl. sub fin.: Patroclos sold Lycaon at
Lemnos), Sophocles makes Lemnos a desert island. Philoctetes
is not cut off by the cliffs, for his cave opens both on sea and land
(see Woodhouse, J.H.S. 1912, 239). In addition, Aeschylus
and Euripides make the coveted bow Philoctetes' sole means of
support, 287-9. The importance of the bow is kept in our
minds by the business with it during the play: 55, where the
stealing of the bow is the essential thing enjoined by Odysseus;
839—40, eyu 5' bpw ovvtna Q-qpav tt)v8' dXtws exop.ev to^cov, 8lx<x roOSe
ir\kovT€s. TObde yap 6 arecpauos, tovtov 8eos elwe kojj.'l'^€iv. Neoptolemus
here repudiates the purpose of Odysseus to carry off the bow
at any cost; 974, where Neoptolemus is stopped by Odysseus
from returning the bow to Philoctetes; 1292, where he succeeds
in doing so.
Thus in the Sophoclean play the three possibilities are fully
developed: a) Philoctetes' going to Troy has the sanction of
the consensus of the saga, b) The theft of the bow and the
1 References all late; see Roscher iii2 2313; there cannot be any doubt, how-
ever, of the antiquity of the story.
2 The island Chryse docs not appear in the extant literature before Euripides.
Corssen, Pkilol. 1907, 346, endeavors to show that it was a desert island orig-
inally associated with Philoctetes. This may be true, but we must be quite
clear that it was not the Philoctetes of the Trojan saga but of the Heracles-
saga, as is shown by the vase, Reinach, Repertoire ii ISO, depicting Heracles
and two boys sacrificing to a goddess Chryse. The place of banishment is
Lemnos in every case. The desolation was added in literature tor effect.
16
fresh abandonment of Philoctetes are developed out of the play
itself, from the seizure of the bow, from Philoctetes' refusal, even
in the face of starvation, to follow willingly, and from Odysseus'
contempt for the details of the prophecy. This is made a
thoroughly tragic possibility by the desolation of the island and
Philoctetes' dependence on his bow. (Cf. Serv. ad Aen. iii 402.)
c) Philoctetes' return to Greece with Neoptolemus again grows
naturally out of the latter's commanding position due to the
fact that he, of the two, is unknown to Philoctetes, and the
sailors owe their allegiance to him. Indeed, it is the only human
solution of the play.
Thus while no divergence from tradition occurs, divergent
mythical themes are used to the fullest degree to create suspense :
a) through emphasis on the Heracles myth in making Philoc-
tetes detachable from his bow;
b) by depopulating Lemnos in order to make the alternative
more tragic;
c) by tampering with the traditional chronology in order to
bring in Neoptolemus, and using him to strengthen a further
counter-possibility.
In the introduction of significant detail, the altering of chronol-
ogy, and the emphasis on the personal presence of one character,
the Philoctetes strikingly resembles the Rhesus.
4. Hecabe.
a) Polydorus and Polymestor. Polydorus in the Iliad (XX
407 ff.) is old enough to fight with Achilles; there he is not the
son of Hecabe but of "Laothoe" (XX 46). The story of his
being the child of Hecabe's old age, sent into Thrace out of the
war, has no earlier parallel extant and may well be Euripides'
invention. Of Polymestor there is no earlier mention at all.1
b) Polyxena. The sacrifice of Polyxena on the grave of
Achilles by Neoptolemus appeared in the Iliupersis, and there is
1 Kaibel, Hermes, 1895, 71 ff. and R. H. Tanner, Trans. Amer. Philol. Assoc,
xlvi, 173 ff., point out parallels to the blinding scene in the Cyclops. Tanner
shows from the use of certain words in the Hecabe which are more appropriate
to the Cyclops that the former was written with the text of the latter in mind ;
therefore later. As the blinding in the Hecabe is a surprise, not otherwise led
up to, there is no reason to suppose that the memory of the Cyclops led the
audience to suspect it before the event.
17
no variant as to the general course of proceedings (Ibycua apud
schol. Eur. Hec. 41; Iliup. apud Procl. sub fin.; vases in Roscher
iii2 p. 2735). There is a difficulty about the connection between
the sacrifice and the resurrection of Achilles. This is not men-
tioned in the Iliupersis; but in the Nostoi Achilles appears (Frocl.)
to Agamemnon as he is sailing off and prophesies the evil things
that will happen to him. Sophocles brings the sacrifice of Poly-
xena into the same play with the resurrection (Longin. de Subl.
xv. 7), but a line remains from this play, obviously from the sort
of speech made by Achilles in the Nostoi, prophesying the murder
of Agamemnon in terms borrowed from Aeschylus: Fr. 483
Nauck: xItuv a' airupos hdvT-qpios kclkuv. This speech would fit
the end of a play better than the middle and would, if coupled
with a request for the death of Polyxena, dwarf the interest
in the sacrifice. It is not unreasonable to suppose that both
in Sophocles and the Iliupersis the sacrifice was motivated by a
prophecy from Calchas like that regarding Iphigeneia,1 and that
the connection between it and the resurrection was first made by
Sophocles (so Weil, Introduction to Eur. Hec.) ; the conclusion
follows that in the latter dramatist the sacrifice performed the
function of the libations in the Persians 609 ff. and served to
call up the dead.
The interest in our play is pathetic, primarily relating to Hec-
abe, and thus the resurrection is not, as in Sophocles, represent ed
on the stage. The demand of Achilles is announced in the
prologue 40-4, and by Odysseus 305, and the result is a foregone
conclusion, as is always the case when events are predicted in
the prologue by a supernatural being. In 345 ff . Polyxena offers
herself a willing sacrifice. Judging from the analogy of Iphi-
geneia (cf. Iph. Aid. 1375 ff., 1552 ff. with Aesch. Ag. 228 ff.) we
should be inclined to ascribe this to Euripides' invention, but
there is nothing to prove it. (See the discussion of Iph. Aid.
in this dissertation.) In the oldest vase representing the scene
(Roscher iii2, p. 2737-8) there is no question of a willing sacrifice.
The only unexpected element in the handling of received
myths is Polyxena's willing sacrifice. Nevertheless, if w<> agree
that the Polymestor story was at least unfamiliar to an Athenian
1 Calchas appears as a spectator at the sacrifice in the Tabula Uiaca, Roscher
iii2, 2736, 65; and in Seneca Tro. 364, Calchas confirms a demand already made
by Achilles.
2
18
audience, the whole play from 657 has all the suspense of an
entirely unknown matter.
5. Troades.
There is no confusion which could possibly affect suspense in
t his play. Our knowledge of the fate of Astyanax is presupposed
in 713-9, where Talthybius announces hesitatingly the sentence
of the Greeks. Cf. Iliad XXIV 735 ff. Andromache predicts
his death at the hands of the Greeks; Ilias Parva, fr. 18 Kinkel;
lliwp. ap. Procl.
Similarly we know in 860 ff. that Helen will not be murdered.
JNIenelaus' intention to punish Helen with death and his inability
to do it appear in Ilias Parva, fr. 16 Kinkel; Ibycus ap. schol.
Ay. Lys. 155; and schol. Ar. Vesp. 714; Eur. Andr. 628-31. In
lliwp. ap. Procl. he takes her to the ships. In the Odyssey they
are living happily together at Sparta. For Vases see Roscher i2
1970.
These two incidents are not mentioned in the prologue. Ob-
serve, however, that the fate of Cassandra, where variants did
appear, is there settled, 41-4, 70, by reconciling the violation by
Aias, son of Ileus,1 with her servitude to Agamemnon (Nekyia
422; Pind. P. xi, 20). An obscure variant which Euripides evi-
dently could ignore appears in Bias Parva, fr. 15 Kinkel (cf. the
description of a painting supposed to illustrate the Ilias Parva in
Paus. X 27), d0tK€ro iikv 8% kirl rov Kacrcra.i>8pas 6 K6pot/3os yafiov,
airtSave 8e, cos fxev 6 ifKdcov \6yos, inro NeoTTciXe/JLOV, Aecrxecos 8e bird
&io(jLr)8ovs tTToirjaev. All suspense of objective issue is thus re-
moved in the Troades, so that interest can be centered on the
effect upon Hecabe of one blow after another, which the audience
can, but she cannot, foresee.
II. Return of the Greeks from Troy.
1. Cyclops.
The Cyclops is a humorous dramatization of the ninth book of
the Odyssey with the addition of the satyrs. The satyrs seem to
have been brought into the story by Aristias the son of Pratinas,
1 Iliup. ap. Procl.; Overbeck Gal. Her., p. 635-55; vases, etc. in Roscher ii,
i, 979 ff. ; also the chest of Cypselus, Paus. v 19, 5; Polygnotus in Lesche, Paus
x 26, 3.
19
who wrote a Cyclops, of which the only fragment thai makes
sense is airuiXecras rbv olvov eirixtas v8(*)p (cf. Eur. Cyc. 557-8,
which means, if anything, that Silenus is trying to fill up
the Cyclops' cup with water). That this connection of the
Cyclops with the satyrs is more ancient than Euripides seems
likely from a vase published with a reproduction by F. Winter,
Jahrb. Arch. Inst. 1891, 271 ff., dated about 415 B.C. (cf. Robert,
Bild und Lied, p. 35), on which Odysseus' companions are pre-
paring to put out the eye of the sleeping Cyclops whilst satyrs
frisk about. The same story, with or without the satyrs, was
handled by Cratinus in a comedy, probably soon after this play.1
Nevertheless, Euripides follows Homer fairly closely. The
main variations arc these (see W. Schmid. Philol. 1896, 59-60) :
a) 445-6, 507 ff, 536 ff . The Cyclops sets out to join his com-
panions; this is merely a false lead to quicken suspense for the
time.
b) The blinding of the Cyclops is not necessary as in Homer,
because from the necessities of the stage the cave-mouth cannot
be closed. Therefore the motive becomes purely one of revenge
(422, 441, 693), and the act a tragic retribution for hybris
(605). The Cyclops' famous speech of calculated blasphemy,
316^6, thus becomes a necessary element in the mock-tragic
effect. The slaughter of the companions (397 ff.) has to be kept,
for the same reason. In Cratinus' comedy no one was killed
(shown by Kaibel, Herm. 1895, 71 ff.), but nothing needed to be
motivated in comedy.
c) 131-203. (See F. Hahne, Philol. 1907, 36 ff.) Odysseus has
no intention of meeting the Cyclops and only does so through
dawdling with Silenus. This is a necessary consequence of his
finding someone on the island who can tell him of the Cyclops
from a Greek point of view, but it none the less contributes to
suspense.
d) 437^0, 466-8, 619-23, 708-9. The freeing of the satyrs.
This motive appears also in the Ichneutae, possibly also in the
Busiris (Kaibel, I.e.), and might apparently be an element of any
satyr-plot. Suspense again appears only as the result of added
details: the Cyclops going to join his companions; Odysseus'
desire to escape the Cyclops, where the added suspense is short.
1 R. H. Tanner, Trans. Amer. Philol. Assoc, xlvi 173 ff.
20
2. Agamemnon.
The story of the murder of Agamemnon passes through three
stages, of which our play is the third.
a ) Odyssey III 198, 235, 250, 303-5; IV 91-2, 519-37; XI 409-
10; XXIV 22, 97. This is a primitive version, in which Aegisthus
seduces Agamemnon's wife during his absence and murders him
over a banquet at his return. In IV 536-7 there is a free fight
between the followers of the respective rivals, in which everyone
is killed. Clytaemestra's part in the murder is secondary.
b) The beginnings of another story appear in Od. XI 410-29
(Ktcl avv ov\op.evji dXoxy, XXIV 97 Alyladov vtto xtpo~lv nal ov\op.evqs
aXoxoio. Here the deaths of Agamemnon and Cassandra at the
hands of Clytaemestra and Aegisthus are told in inextricable con-
fusion. Clytaemestra is certainly thought of as having planned
the business (429); what she did, beyond butchering Cassandra
over her already prostrate husband, is doubtful. XXIV 97 is a
mere doublet of the passage in XL We get nearer the familiar
version in III 309-10 which lv run tuv ktcdocrewv ovk rjoav (schol.) ;
rj tol 6 rbv Kreivas Baivv rafov WpyeioLCL
Hrjrpos re aTvyepr/s kcli ayaX/a5os Aiyladoio,
referring of course to Orestes. This is the earliest notice of
the mother-murder and implies that she had a more active
part in the death of Agamemnon than that of a contriver.
Lines of this type in Homer (see schol. to Od. I 300 ovk olbev 6
TroirjTris rbv KXvrai/z^crrpas bird rod wcudbs p.bpov) are generally in-
sertions from later epics (cf. schol. to Iliad XXIV 720; Iliad
XXIII 843; Od. VIII 192 etc.) Hesiod referred to Clytaemes-
tra's unfaithfulness (Kat. Gyn. fr. 67 Evelyn-White), and the
Nostoi told of the murder of Agamemnon by Aegisthus and
Clytaemestra (Procl. sub fin.). These literary references are,
however, too scanty for us to draw conclusions from as to the
form of the story in the later epic; we can only say that the
part of Clytaemestra grew in importance, and that her punish-
ment was thought necessary.
But the vases of the fifth century show a fairly consistent tradi-
tion evidently fixed by literary authority (Robert, Bild und Lied,
Ch. V), and the vase in this series (Robert I.e. No. 7) that deals
with the death of Agamemnon shows Clytaemestra approaching
an open door brandishing an ax. The one outstanding literary
21
version known to us between Homer and Aeschylus was the
Oresteia of Stesichorus, and this we know from the quoting of
the opening lines in Ar. Pax 775 to have been current and familiar
in the fifth century. (Linos 1-2 of Stes. Or. are quoted as one
might quote: "Of man's first disobedience and the fruit ..."
or "Mrjviv aetSe 0ed." See schol. ad loc.) There is no evidence
that Cassandra figured here. The outlines of this version seem
harsh and savage. Clytaemestra steps into Aegisthus' place of
the Odyssey, and the ax typifies the unnatural brutality of her
deed; she kills Agamemnon merely to get him out of the way.
This had also been treated by a lyric poet Xanthus, used
extensively by Stesichorus and mentioned by Athenaeus, xii,
513A 7roXXd 5e tQsv "Eavdov irapaireTroLriKev 6 1,TT)aixopos chairep Kai
rr)v 'Opeareiav KaXovp-ku-qv.
c) The foreshadowing of the third and characteristically fifth-
century version appears in Pindar P. xi 22 ff.
iroTtpbv vlv dp' 'l^Lykvti ew' Evpiir^
a^ax^tcrci rrjXe irarpas tuviaev fia.pvTrahaiJ.ov opaai y^oKov ;
i] erepw Aexet bap.a'^op.kvav
evvvxoi rrapayov Kolrat ;
With this begins the civilizing of the story by the study of motive.
Pindar merely mentions Cassandra (P. xi 33) as killed with
Agamemnon, while Aeschylus uses the Iphigeneia-theme 218-57,
1415, 1525-9, 1555-9; general dissatisfaction of the neglected
wife, 606-10; Aegisthus 1435-7; Chryseis 1439; Cassandra 1440-
7, 1263, as all vital in developing Clytaemestra's motive.
The story is thus made tragic because, with all its horror, it
exhibits a sequence of cause and effect, logical indeed, if not
inevitable, with its root in Agamemnon's history as well as in his
wife's. (See Hedwig .Ionian's article on the development of
'Das Tragische' in Aeschylus. Neue Jahrb. f. d. EX. Alt. 1908,
322.)
Other elements derived by Aeschylus from the story are:
a) Cassandra. There is no good reason to suppose that she
did not appear in Stesichorus, though we have no definite evi-
dence. Certainly the passage in Pindar proves that she was
part of the continuous tradition, and it is useless to talk about
her being taken from the Odyssey (Bild und Lied, p. 180).
b) The watchman is taken out of the Odyssey (Bild und Lied,
22
p. 180 n.) whore, however, he was merely a picket of Aegisthus to
wat ch for Agamemnon's return (III 524-8). The chain of beacon
fires was suggested to Aeschylus by an incident of the Persian
war. Xerxes established a chain of such beacons through the
islands to announce the capture of Athens (Hdt. ix 3). Fischl,
Fernspreche u. Meldewesen in Allertum, Prog. Schweinfurt, 1904,
who collects the evidence for ancient telegraphy, fails to find any
other early parallel. The advantage to suspense in announcing
the approach of Agamemnon by these bizarre means is obvious;
it is explained to us 8-10. The light is seen, 20. The chorus
doubts Clytaemestra's word, 317-9; appears convinced, 351^,
but returns to its doubt, 475-87; the evidence is not sufficient
for it.
c) (From Robert, Bild und Lied, p. 164.) The herald, 503
ff., is a degraded Talthybius, like the Paedagogus in Soph. Electra.
Talthybius saved Orestes from Clytaemestra at the murder of
Aegisthus in Stesichorus (vases in Robert, Ch. V), and was later
the companion of Orestes' return (Melian relief, identified by
his herald's cap, Mittheil. d. Inst, vi, Taf. Ivii; Roscher, i, 1237-8).
Hence it seems to follow that he had early been represented as
present at the murder of Agamemnon and rescuing the young
Orestes, as he is said to do in Nic. Dam. ap. schol. Muller F.H.G.
iii fr. 34, p. 374.
d) The brutality of the Stesichorean story is softened by
Clytaemestra's use of a sword — that of Aegisthus — instead of an
ax. The strength of the tradition which associated an ax with
Clytaemestra both here and at the death of Aegisthus (vases
Robert I.e., Eur. Tro. 361) appears from Aeschylus' allusions to it.
There has been such confusion on this simple point (Robert
B. u. L., p. 176; Wilamowitz, Aesch. Interp., p. 173 n.; Hofer ap.
Roscher ii1 1237) that it may be well to quote the relevant pas-
sages in full. They are:
Sword: Ag. 1262 kirevxtr cu 8r)yov(xa </>cori <$>aayavov
6/ztjs cryoryrjs avTiTiaaadai <\>bvov.
1528-9 firjhiv ev "\l8ov fxeyaKavx^'t-rco tji&SriKrjTcp
davoiTCj} t'igcls a7rep rjp&v.
Cho. 1011 . . . <£apos rob', cos e($a\pev Aiyladov £i<£os.
Ax: Ag. 1127 /xeXa7/cepa> Xa/3oDo-a fjirjxa.vrifAa.Ti.
Cho. 889 00177 tls avdpoKfxrjra irkXeKvv ws raxos.
23
Besides these specific references to the sword, the language else-
where used of the murder can only be taken in one way:
Ag. 1343 . . . Kaiplav Tr\r]yr]v exw-
Surely a remark verging on the obvious, from a man with his
skull broken in!
Ag. 1405 . . . vtKpos be, rrjcrbe be&as xeP°s
epyov, dmaias Tenrouos.
The only definite evidence for the ax in the Agamemnon is
Wilamowitz's emendation of 1116 (Aesch. Int., I.e.). 1262-3 is
implicitly ruled out of court, if I understand his argument,
because Cassandra only begins to visualize the murder in 1114 ff.
If so, why is she certain of the ax in 1116, but in 1127 can do no
better than ''black-horned engine"? As to the emendation,
surely the d\Xd expresses only a loose transition between ideas.
In 1115 she sees the net, and the 'net' suggests one aspect of the
situation as a whole. "Net! Nay, his own bedfellow is a snare!"
As to iipKvs in this loose sense, cf. Barnes on Eur. Electra 965,
'sunt autem haec proverbialia, in laqueos, casses, retia, incidere,
ets apKvs irl-KTtLv ubi quis in periculum aut malum aliquod impro-
viso cadiV , and see indices to Aeschylus and Euripides for
examples.
Nevertheless, neXaynepco ix-qxap^ixarL is a reference to the Ste-
sichorean ax. Taken with 1262-3 it stimulates a certain curiosity
as to how the murder will be consummated. 1343 and 1405
make it fairly clear to the audience that a sword was used and
this is settled definitely by 1528-9.
d) The complete obscuring of Aegisthus is peculiarly Aeschy-
lean. It follows naturally from his conception of the story.
The play is a study of Clytaemestra's feeling toward Agamemnon
and to this end the two are the only important figures to appear
before the murder. During this part of the play we study Cly-
taemestra's hatred toward her husband, expressed in intense
irony, legitimately interpreting it by subsequent events; the short
references she makes afterwards to the causes of the hatred serve
to fill in the impression we have already gathered. To have
brought in Aegisthus earlier would have blurred this impression
by making us dwell on the least worthy of all her motives, which
Aeschylus, like Pindar (/.c.), wishes to suppress. Nevertheless,
24
he has to come in at the end in order to make him a real figure for
us, since in the next play he has to be killed.
Stesichorus' Oresteia had fixed the Agamemnon story too
securely for any suspense to be developed by Aeschylus as to
main issues. Mythological suspense appears only in details: a)
Will she use an ax or sword? and has she used an ax or sword?
b) Will Aegisthus have anything to do with the murder? c)
Delay over the uncertain announcement of victory by the fire
telegraph.
The main suspense lies in the unfolding, not of Clytaemestra's
purpose, but of her motive.
3. Choephoroe. Sophocles' Electra. Euripides' Electra.
The retribution story has two stages only:
a) Od. Ill 307-8.
. . . Kara 5' eKravt TarpcHpovrja
Myiadov 5o\6/jlt]tlv, 6 ol irarepa k\vtov tnro..
So Od. I 30, 298; III 198. In XI 457 ff. Agamemnon asks about
his son, concluding significantly:
461 ov yap 7T03 Te9v7]nev eirl x®0VL ^i°s 'OpecrTrjs.1
b) Od. Ill 309-10. The death of Clytaemestra and Aegisthus
together is alluded to in the two late lines. This can only mean
that Clytaemestra had been killed by her son. The vengeance
of Orestes and Pylades is mentioned in the Nostoi (Procl.) ; it is
not said on whom it falls, but as Aegisthus and Clytaemestra are
both named as guilty, it is reasonable to suppose, on both. So
Pindar P. xi 37. In the Oresteia of Stesichorus, Orestes first
kills Aegisthus; Clytaemestra rushes up with the ax but is held
and disarmed by Taltlrybius (vases in Bild und Lied, Ch. V).
There is nothing to show whether or not he despatched her
afterwards.
The version of the Choephoroe does not differ materially from
this. Aegisthus is first killed (869). Clytaemestra appears,
attracted by the noise (885) and after a dispute with Orestes,
1 This strictly Homeric version seems to be the source of the relief from
Aricia in Arch. Zeit. 1849, taf. II; Baumeister, Denk., p. 1112. Clytaemestra
seeks to hinder Orestes, who is killing Aegisthus. There are no names on the
relief, but this identification of the scene (Welcker's) is probable. It is a good,
archaic Greek work. See O. Jahn in the original publication.
25
serving to emphasize the justice of his design and Apollo's will.
is driven inside and killed (930). The scene represented on the
vases was impossible for Aeschylus, since killing was not allowed
on the stage. The settlement with Aegisthus needed no apology,
but the interval which is inserted between that and 930 gives a
chance to summarize at the supreme moment the leading ideas
of the tragedy, well epitomized in 923:
<tv tol (7eavTr]u, ovk tyo), KaraKTeuets-
Notable is the reference to an ax in 889. To the audience, for
whom the tradition of her rushing at him with an ax still lived,
this brings a keen thrill of excitement.
In Euripides' Electra the separation of the two victims is made
still greater. This springs naturally from Euripides' new con-
ception of the story.1 Electra is removed to a peasant's cottage
in order that the hatred springing from her humiliation may be
the determining motive of the mother-murder. (Cf. Sheppard
in Class. Rev. 1918, 137 ff. for good psychological analysis.)
Aegisthus is not important enough to be brought to this retreat,
and so he is killed at a festival to the nymphs (625) ; his death is
the subject of the only proper angelia in this series of plays, 774-
858, which intervenes after the old man had been despatched to
lure Clytaemestra to her death (684). After Electra's speech
over Aegisthus' head, there follows the stichomythia, 962-87,
corresponding to Cho. 908-30, explaining the necessity for the
coming deed. Orestes' wavering is thus spread over a period (cf .
Sheppard, I.e.); it was only momentary in Cho. (899). Clytae-
mestra is ignorant of what is in store for her, while we see her on
the stage, and for the suspense of hearing her plead for her life is
substituted that of her ignorance as against the irony of her de-
stroyers in 1007, 1111, 1118, etc. Euripides makes the play.
in short, one of intrigue. In the Choephoroe, Orestes and Pylades
seize the palace once for all by a coup dc main, namely, the
death of Aegisthus. In Euripides, the chances of miscarriage
continue up to the end. Aegisthus is taken, not alone before his
house, but at a public festival surrounded by a body guard 798-9,
631-3, on whose favor, after the death of their master, all further
success depends (632); Orestes' mastery of this body guard, not
■See Wilamowitz's convincing account of this play in Die beiden El
Herm. 1883, 214.
26
the murder itself, is the real climax of the angelia (844-55); even
hero the forethought of the plotters penetrates, for it is the old
man himself (853, cf. 664-6) who starts the acclamation of
Agamemnon's heir. Again it is the old man's business (664-6)
to correlate this murder with Clytaemestra's journey to us and
to see that news is kept from her. The scene before the hut,
998 flf., is in its effects a doublet of Hecabe 953 ff. Physical force
is in each case kept concealed up to the crucial moment.
In literary form, the version of Sophocles returns to that of
the Choephoroe. Clytaemestra and Aegisthus are killed in the
palace within a few minutes of each other, the preparatory dia-
logue in each case taking place before us. The lesser importance
of Aegisthus is indicated, not by making his death preliminary
to the other, but by relegating it to the exodus. This enables
the poet to keep his actors in the excitement of action to the very
end; failing this, he would have had to end with moral reflexions,
and this is what he evidently wished to avoid. The sense of
danger and uncertainty which Aeschylus neglects to create, is
made to pervade the play, in Orestes' stealthy withdrawal (75),
in the emphasis on the false story told at length, in the paedagogus
mounting guard inside, 1326 ff., and in the remark ovtls avopuv
hbov 1369. Much of this may have been in Stesichorus and
been brushed aside by Aeschylus in his concentration on the
moral issue, but our evidence for the similarity of the two ver-
sions is only that Talthybius was Orestes' companion in the art
type.
Other incidents of the dramatic handling are:
a) Anagnorisis. The anagnorisis in Stesichorus between
Electra and the returning Orestes was, if we are to judge from
the Melian relief, a simple affair.1 Talthybius accosts Electra;
Orestes remains in the background at first. Talthybius is known
to Electra and to the old nurse who accompanies her (Laod-
ameia in Stesichorus; schol. ad Cho. 733; Arsinoe in Pindar P. xi
17), and introduces himself and Orestes.
b) Dream. The dream of Clytaemestra was taken over from
Stesichorus, of whom the fragment remains (42 Bergk.)
ra 8e SpciKcov eSotcrice napa fiefipOToipevos ixupov'
en 5' apa tov fiaaikevs U\ei<jdevL8as etpavq.
1 Discussion in Robert, Bild und Lied, Ch. V. Picture in Roscher s.v.
Electra.
27
The interpretation of these lines is uncertain. (Compare Robert
Bild unci Lied, p. 170-1; Wilam. Aesch. Interp., p. 191, for the
two interpretations.) A dream implies, however, most of the
earlier art ion, viz. the libations and anagnorisis at the tomb.
c) The price on Orestes' head. Eur. El. 33. The source is
uncertain.
d) Pylades as Orestes' companion in revenge dates from the
Nostoi (Procl.), where the story must have been expanded to
some degree. He does not appear in the fifth century art type
and hence probably not in Stesichorus, where, to judge from the
Melian relief, his part of assistant was played by Talthybius, as
by the paedagogus in Soph. El. (Cf. the passage from Nic. Dam.
quoted by Robert, p. 164, in which Pylades and Talthybius both
appear.) He is important for suspense only through his three
lines in Choephoroe 902 ff\, which give the effect of a divine oracle
fortifying Orestes' resolution.
e) Chrysothemis is borrowed from the list of Agamemnon's
daughters in II. IX 145, 287. Sophocles docs not dare violate
verisimilitude by placing Agamemnon's tomb on the stage, and
yet he wishes to use the dream and libations of Clytaemestra
and the offerings of Orestes. Electra must be kept on the stage
throughout, and Chrysothemis is requisitioned to carry the liba-
tions. She is useful as a foil to Electra and in character is merely
a doublet of Ismene, as was noted by Wilamowitz in Die beiden
Electren. That she had some part in the saga between Homer
and Sophocles is shown by the type-vase (Robert, p. L49a, p.
155), where she is present at the death of Aegisthus.
f) 379-84, the purpose of Clytaemestra and Aegisthus to im-
mure Electra is borrowed from the Antigone {rid. Wilamowitz, I.e.)
773-80, 885-90.
In both the Agamemnon and the plays dealing with Orestes'
revenge, the issue was fixed by tradition. Suspense could be
created cither by sheer illusion or by rousing curiosity as to the
means whereby the foregone conclusion would be reached.
Details worthy of note are:
a) suspense in Choephoroe as to whether Clytaemestra will
resist by force, 889;
b) variation in the three plays in means of creating suspense
over the killing of Aegisthus;
c) echo of the Hecabe in Eur. El. 998 ff.
28
4. Orestes.
In 52-3 the fact that Menelaus is coming is noted by Electra
in the prologue. This expectation governs suspense till 356,
when he actually appears, and so all through the earlier part of
the play (243-4, 448, 634-5, 722) it is assumed that Menelaus
can save Orestes if he wishes. After the public trial it becomes
merely a question of punishing Menelaus (1099, 1105, 1143, 1171).
Later Electra returns to the first idea; if Menelaus cannot be
persuaded, he may be forced to save Orestes and herself, 1339
MevkXaov 17/iSs fir) davouras elcndelp. No doubt is cast on his abil-
ity to do this. In the final crazy scene Orestes returns to this
idea (1610-1). All this is suggested by Od. Ill 311-2, where
Menelaus appears the day when Clytaemestra is killed. In
Orestes the murder happened five days sooner (422) . Euripides'
play, so far as suspense goes, is built up around this suggestion
that Menelaus may save the murderers from the human conse-
quences of their deed. The counter-action is provided by a
public trial, an entire innovation. The conventional later his-
tory of Orestes, viz. the Dorian (1643-52), appears mechanically
at the end. Here the play is built around a mere suggestion in
Homer. Obviously in a situation created entirely by Euripides,
no matter what we may have read or heard about Orestes, the
suspense is as vivid as in a play dealing with new characters.
5. Eumenides.
Aeschylus said in the Choephoroe (1034 ff.) only that Orestes
would go to Delphi to seek atonement and release from the Furies.
The Eumenides opens before the Delphian temple. In Apollo's
first speech it appears that the atonement cannot be consum-
mated here (79 ff.), but that Orestes must go to Athens and put
himself under the protection of Athena. The only question for
us is whether or not Aeschylus had any precedent for the story
of Orestes' acquittal by the Areopagus and Athena. It has been
assumed by two groups of scholars (see Wilamowitz., Aesch. hit.,
p. 189; Hirzel, Rh. Mus. xliii 631-5; Zielinski, Neue Jahrb. f. d.
Kl. Alt., II 1899, p. 169; Hofer ap. Roscher, s.v. Orestes) that
there was an old Athenian tradition that in some way or other
Orestes was acquitted in Athens. The first of these advance a
theory that the story represented an Athenian reaction against
the religious authority of Delphi; it is not the god that can ac-
29
quit of murder, but the state. The second base their statement
on the argument that the Eupatrid family (distinct from the
social class) traced its descent and its name from someone who
was pious toward his father — who could be none oilier than
Orestes. Therefore Orestes must have settled in Athens, and
the story was a family legend. Beyond this, there is no evidence
that I can discover. In Eur. Or. 939 ff. the story of Orestes'
visit to Athens and the founding of the festival of the Chocs had
no bearing on Orestes' fate or later fortunes, as is seen by 1 he way
Euripides uses it in connection with another story. The art
representations (see Roscher iii1 989 ff.) are too late to proceed
from a pre-dramatic source. For our purposes, then, we must
assume that the Athenian story of Orestes' acquittal was invented
whole and entire by Aeschylus. It contradicts: a) the Athenian
story of the founding of the Areopagus which Aeschylus tried to
explain away in 685 ff., but which Euripides reasserts in Electro,
1258 ff., where he endeavors to make peace between the Aeschy-
lean and the traditional versions; b) the previous literary tradi-
tion as established by the type vase (Roscher iii1, 979 ff.), in
which Orestes was purified finally by Apollo at Delphi by pig's
blood (cf. Eum. 282). There is no reason to suppose (Robert
Bild und Lied, p. 181) that this was not the version followed by
Stesichorus. It was obviously a Delphian story and Stesichorus
composed in the hey-day of Delphian influence. For its influence
on his Oresteia we have in schol. Eur. Or. 258 ( = Fr. 40 Bergk5)
the bow given by Apollo to Orestes. This seems to imply the
Furies and is thus the first reference to them in this story. The
provincial story of the Oresteion in Parrhasia was dug up by the
logographers (the earliest source is Pherecydes ay. schol. Eur. Or.
1645) and inserted by Euripides into a speech by the god, like
other obscure local cults. Cf. Helen 1673-4, Phoen. 1707, Hip.
1424, etc.
In the Eumenides, then, after lines 79-80 Aeschylus is tapping
a new source. The audience, expecting the reconciliation to
take place at Delphi will be surprised at Apollo's words, 64 ff.
ov 70i 7rpo5co(Tco ' 5td reXoi's 5k aoi </>cXa£ . . .
66 tyfipoioi rots erots ov yevrjaofxai irkTruv.
These are not the words of confidence but of determination in
the face of difficulties. This is partially explained 79-80. The
30
essential thing is that Orestes should put himself under the pro-
tection of the bretas of Athena; from then on we shall find some
way. No solution is indicated in 235-396, during the persecu-
tion by the Furies; in 290 Orestes heightens our interest by
proclaiming an alliance with Argos if Athena saves him. In 397
Athena appears and without any declaration of purpose holds a
preliminary hearing that ends with a profession of non-compe-
tence (470 ff .) parallel to Apollo's in 64 ff . In 480-9 she outlines
the form proceedings will take, without any mention of the
Areopagus or even of the number of jurors to be chosen — 487
Kpivaaa a'aorCov tup kfx&v to. fiekTioTa / r/£co. In 566 she suddenly
reappears with the jurors and proceedings begin at once. The
case is heard out; while thejurorsaredepositingtheirvotes (676ff.),
Athena explains who they are — that is, our familiar Areopagus;
to forestall objection the name is explained without recourse to
the Halirrhothios story. But it is quickly seen (710 ff.) that a
sinister cloud hangs over the establishment of this institution.
Either the dread divinities or the God of Light himself must
be slighted and alienated by the decision our Areopagus is to
make — the first in its history. We turn to await the decision
with suspense deepened by the intermingling of patriotism and
pious wonder. In this awful issue, Hades and Athens and Olym-
pus seem inextricably confused; and our wonder is enhanced by
the compelling force of novelty.
Once the decision is rendered, suspense turns on the appeasing
of the Erinyes. There is not a man in the audience who will not
sleep easier on his bed to-night if some means are found.
The play is thus a fine tour de force. For a long time it seems
to drag along inconclusively; but the hearing itself is quickfy over,
and the suspense of the announcement is intensified by the bit
of aetiology (681-710) which suddenly illuminates the issue by
aligning it with the politics and institutions of contemporary
Athens. Thus the nature of the court is itself made an element of
suspense that runs parallel and joins forces with the suspense
about Orestes' fate.
Mythological suspense proper lasts only to line 80. The
opening of the play at Delphi constitutes a strong false lead that
the play will be concluded here according to the legend. The
rest is new and uncertain. In the face of a new situation the
suspense rests on; a) the novel means of acquittal, b) the bearing
31
on Athens of the proceedings. Except for the drama, Orestes
rather drops out of sight in the legend after the death of his
mother and even a condemnation is not inconceivable
6. Iphigeneia in Aulis.
There is no variation in the main lines of our play from the
story of the Cypria (Procl.). KaXxcuros be elirbvTos ttjv tt)s deov
firjviv kcli 'lcf>iyeveiav Ke\evaavTOs Oveiv rrj 'Aprepitu, ojs eirl yapov o.vrr)v
'AxiXXel peTawepxpapevoi dveiv e7rixeipof'(nj>' "Aprepis 5^ auTtjv e^apwa-
<raaa ets Tavpovs peraKopl'^ei Kal adavarov irotel, eXacJMv be avrl ttjs
Kop-qs irapio-Tricri tco /Scopco. The transference to the Tauri was
mentioned in the lost conclusion to our play (Aelian, H.A. vii
39).
Variations which give the peculiar character to this play must
be noted. The question of motivation, (cf. Iph. Taur. 20-4 with
Aesch. Ag. 192-215), though significant for the myth, does not
concern us (cf. Wilamowitz Herm. 1883, 249 ff.). We observe:
a) the willing self-sacrifice of Iphigeneia; b) Achilles as Iphige-
neia's chivalrous protector and later, lover; c) Menelaus as the
promoter of the sacrifice. The second of these requires the first,
for so only can Achilles be made to rise in her defense and then
withdraw without appearing a poltroon.
a) The self-sacrifice.1 This was a stock theme with Euripides:
Macaria in Heracleidae, 474 ff. ; Polyxena in Hec. 345 ff. (cf. with
this the vases, which represent a forced sacrifice): Euadne, Eur.
SuppL 990 ff.; Menoeceus, Phoen. 991 ff. (cf. Eur. Erechtheus
(Nauck); cf. Phrixus fr. 829, fr. 833, and Hyg. Fab. 2; cf. also
Iph. Taur. 669-716). There seems to have been no parallel to
this in older versions: cf. Aesch. Ag. 228-38 where she is bundled
up in clothes, gagged, and butchered. Even the language of
Iph. Taur. 27 pteTapcrla \t]4>de7a' kKai.vbp.-qv £tc/>ei points to a forced
sacrifice.
The idea of a willing sacrifice existed already in cult myths,
and the one wliieh lay readiest to Euripides' hand was that of
Aglauros, the daughter of Cecrops, who freely offered herself as
a sacrifice during a long war (Philochoros ap. schol. Dem. xix 303;
schol. Arist. Panath. 119). In Paus. i, 18, 2. she and her sister
Her.se dash themselves to death from the Acropolis after disobey-
1 Since the above was written, this whole subject lias been made a Bpecial
study by Johanna Schmitt, Freiwilliger Opfertod bei Euripides, Giessen 1921.
32
ing Athena in opening the receptacle containing the infant
Erichthonius. The ritual in her honor was the Plynteria. See
Phot. Lex. p. 127; Hcsych. s. v. Il\vpTripia: Bekk. A need, i 270, line
2. The origin of Aglauros is mysterious, but a sinister side of her
character appears in Porphyry, De Abst. ii 54; in Cyprus she
used to receive human sacrifices until these were taken over by
Diomedes. This means only that a divinity of this character,
called Aglauros, was in Cyprus. The "v Kkpo7ros" is a note
by the person who observed the usage, or by a mythographer.
In Athens she is associated with the Cecropian snake (Apollod.,
iii 14, 6, 5; Paus. i 18, 2) she is in fact much the same sort of
goddess that Iphigeneia originally was (Harrison in Journal of
Hellenic Studies, 1891, 350-5), and the parallels between the two
are striking. Each was sacrificed in Greece for success in war;
each was connected with human sacrifice in a distant place.
With the Plynteria, during which the bretas of Athena was car-
ried to the sea and washed, compare the story of the bretas-
washing in Iph. Taur. Euripides handled this story in the
Erechtheus, where one of Erechtheus' daughters was sacrificed to
secure victory against Eumolpus. Her two sisters committed
suicide (Paradox, ed. Westermann 219), and the three became
afterwards Hyades (schol. to Aratus 172). The Hyades are
clearly the two dew-goddesses Herse and Pandrosos plus Aglauros.
Euripides hardly called them by these names, or they would have
appeared in the mythographers as daughters of Erechtheus, but
the suicide of Herse and Pandrosos, after Aglauros' death, is
mentioned in schol. Arist. Panath. 119. As to the names of
Erechtheus' daughters, there is no agreement among the mythog-
raphers. There is no evidence in the fragments as to a willing,
or unwilling, sacrifice. Emphasis is laid on the willingness of the
mother, Praxithea, to give up her daughter. Euripides' general
custom, plus the references to Aglauros quoted above, are enough
to make it probable that the maiden did not die unwillingly. See
Eur. Fragments 357, 360. It is of course possible that the girl
was only a child and had no speaking part.
A similar story, not used by Euripides so far as we know, comes
from Antoninus Liberalis 25 = Bergk Korinna fr. 7, cf . Ov. Met .
13, 681, ff. Lcrropel ~SiKav8pos eTepoiovfievoji> 8' kcll Koptwa iTepoicou
a' 'Qpicxivos tov 'Ypiews h Boicorta eyhovTO dvyarkpes Mt]tl6xv Kai
yievL-jnrr).
33
A pestilence fell on the country and word was brought from
Gortynian Apollo ihaoaodai hvo tovs 'EpiowLovs 6eovs' e#7j 5^
KarairavcreLV avrovs tt]v /j.rjviv ei 8vo bvoiv tKovaai irapOevot dvpara.
yevoLvro. These two girls volunteered and committed suicide,
/cat aural pev dp.c/>6repat Kareireaov es ttjv yr\v. $>epoe4>6vq be /cat "AiStjs
o'lKTelpavres to. p.ev atopara twv irapd'evuv ■q^ai'Laav' avri b' eKeivwv
aarepas avqveynav e/c tt)s 777s. (Cf. the Hyades in schol. Arat. 172
supr., which evidently is drawn from a speech by a god at the
end of Euripides' play.) oi be (pavevres b.vr]v'exQr[ao.v els ovpavov /cat
avrovs uvopaoav audpuiroi Koprjras ' Ibpvaavro be iravres "Aoves ev
'OpxofJ-evu rrjs Botwrtas lepbv eiriarjpov rdv irapQevuv rovrccv' /cat aurats
Kad' enaarov eros nopoi re /cat Kopat peihiy par a (pepovaLV ' rrpooayopev-
ovo~i 5' auras a-xpt- vvv AtoXets KopuvLbas rrapdevovs.
Korone and Koronis are names belonging to the cult of Ascle-
pius.1 Koronis, the mother of Asclepius, was a goddess in her
own right in Pergamon (Num. Chron. 1882, p. 36, pi. I, 13) and
at Titane in Sikyonia (Paus. ii, 11, 7). These Koronides are
identical with the 'Epiovvcoi deoi to whom they are sacrificed,
and these are local earth-gods who must be appeased. The
analogy between the cults from which sacrifice-stories proceed is
thus striking. The same cult-names appear occasionally in more
than one of them; e.g. schol. Pind. P. iii 14; schol. II. IV 195; Hyg.
Fab. 97. Arsinoe is interchangeable with Koronis as mother or
wife of Asclepius. In Pind. P. xi 17 Arsinoe is the nurse of
Orestes. In the passage quoted from Porphyry Koronis is the
ancient name of Salamis, where Aglauros was worshiped with
human sacrifice. Further discussion of these matters would
take us too far afield. It is enough to point out the connec-
tion of these early stories of a willing sacrifice with a chthonian
worship analogous to the cult of Iphigeneia. Cf. the parallel
Orchomenian story of Androklca and Alkis, Paus. ix 17, 1.
Thus the theme of a willing sacrifice was secured by Euripides
from his studies of myths of various localities, not from litera-
ture. Where a willing sacrifice occurs in any play, the suppo-
sition is from the beginning that the sacrifice will be consum-
mated, always with the possibility of divine intervention.
b) Achilles' chivalrous conduct, though it was echoed and
developed in later literature, seems to have had no earlier parallel.
Achilles offers his services to help Iphigeneia (950), and the sus-
1 Full discussion in Roscher ii, 1, 1385 ff.
3
34
pense of the next section of the play depends on what he may be
able to do. This is curiously crossed in 1368-1405. Iphigeneia
offers herself; which act at once takes the responsibility for her
off Achilles' shoulders and makes him really anxious to save her
and get her for himself. Cf. 959-60 with 1404-5. A com-
promise in the action is reached in 1424-9. He will ground
arms near the altar, ready to carry off his Guenevere through the
fire and the rest of the army if she but gives the word.
Achilles had not, except for the use of his name, appeared in
the story before. His appearance, and his vigorous taking of
sides, obscure the compulsion of the saga and give the impression
of a new story.
c) Soph. Iph. fr. 284 (see context in Phot. Lex. p. 410, 13) and
Iph. Tanr. 24-5 make Odysseus the king's agent as in the Philoc-
tetes. The fragment represents Odysseus talking to Clytaemestra.
Either, then, Clytaemestra came to Aulis as in Iph. Aul. or the
scene was Argos, where extraordinary means must have been
used to make a play out of it. In Iph. Taur. 24-5 Clytaemestra
clearly does not go to Aulis. Little is to be got from the other
fragments of Soph. Iph. Fr. 286 seems to be from Clytaemestra's
injunctions to Iphigeneia on the eve of her supposed marriage;
Fr. 287 a reference to the enforced waiting at Aulis.
Menelaus appears in the Iph. Aul. as the foil to Agamemnon's
wavering instead of the stock character for these roles, Odysseus.
This gave several openings for Euripides' special genius: 304
cowardly bullying of the old man; 317 ff. quarrel between two
brothers over the life of the daughter of one of them; 480 ff.
Menelaus faces about, and he and Agamemnon reverse their
positions of 317 ff. Menelaus thus furnishes the uncertainty of
the first half of the play exactly as Achilles does that of the
second. For neither does there appear an earlier parallel.
d) The chorus. Gellius, xix 10, says that the chorus in
Ennius' play was composed of warriors. Welcker thinks Soph.
Fr. 287 was spoken by the coryphaeus of such a chorus. In any
case the lines contain a suggestion of the reason why Euripides
introduced the chorus of sight-seeing girls. The play is one of
intrigue between two parties. Now the natural components of
the chorus would be a group of soldiers from the Greek army.
But the army are bound, in the nature of the case, to take sides
in the intrigue, namely, the side demanding that Iphigeneia shall
35
be killed. Compare the references to them 412-4, 514-25.
Odysseus' power with the multitude, 1267-8, may recall incidents
in the Sophoclean play. Thus some indifferent group of spec-
tators must be brought in from elsewhere, and Euripides solves
the problem with the maids from Euboea.
Mythological suspense here arises from: a) the introduction
of Achilles and the love-story, and the emphasis on Menelaus;
b) the introduction of the willing sacrifice idea from the Aglauros
cult-story, new in drama, but carrying from its association with
the cult the supposition that the sacrifice would be consummated;
c) the bizarre chorus.
7. Iphigeneia in Tauris.
There are two clear early references for Iphigeneia's removal to
the Taurians (Cypr. ap. Procl.; Hdt. iv 103). The evidence for
the existence previous to Euripides of a story of her return thence
to Greece is scattered and inconclusive. So far as I have been
able to discover, it is:
a) Paus. iii 16, 7 (Sparta), to be x^piop ro kiropop-a'^bpepop
AipvaZop 'Opdias iepbp kariv 'Ap~ep.ibos. to £6avov be kutivo elvai
\'eyovcrip 6 xore 'Opecrrrjs Kai Icfriyepeia e.K tt)s TavpLKrjs eKKkeirTOvaiv '
ks be ttjp (j(f)tT(.pav AaKebaipbpioi KOfjuodrjpaL 4>a<nv 'Opecrrou Kai evravda
^aatXevoPTOs. Kai p.oi eiKora Xeyeip paWbp tl boKovcnp t; ' Adrjvaloi.
7roto) yap brj X670J KareKLirev clp ev Bpavp&vi 'Icfriyepeia to ayaXpa ;
77 ircos, yviKa 'AOrjvaloL rr\v \wpav eKKiirelp TrapecrKeva^oPTO, ovk eaedePTO
Kai tovto es rds pads ', Kairoi biapepeprjKep en Kai pvp ttjXlkovto opopa
rfj TavpLKrj 0ec3, ware ap.<i)io-&T]TOvo~i p.ep KaTiraboKaL oi top Ev^eipov
oiKovPTts to ayaXfxa elpat irapa cr<picrip, ap.<f>icrpT)TOV(Tt. be Kai Avb&p
ols earip 'ApTepabos iepop 'Apaunbos. 'Adypaiois be apa irapucfrdr)
yepbpevop Xa^vpop rc2 Mrjbai' to yap e/c Bpavp&pos eKopiadt] re es
ZoOaa, Kai varepop 'ZeXevKov bbpTOs 2upioi AaobiKels e<$> r)pwp exovcn.
He goes on to state reasons why the real bretas is in Lacedacnmn.
The real point is the story that the Tauric bretas was carried
off by the Persians. If this be taken at its face value, there was
in 480 at Brauron-Halai a bretas supposed to come from the
Tauri. Robert (Arch. Mar. ch. ix) argues against so taking it.
Clearly there was in Brauron in Euripides' day an ancient xoanon
as there was in Pausanias' day; on this hypothesis it must
have been a substitute. Where then did it come from, and how
would Euripides have dared to allude to a story which was only
36
humiliating to the Athenians? Robert also shows that the older
cult stories and names at Lacedaemon connected with the shrine
of Iphigeneia do not square with the Taurian maiden but proceed
from an earlier cult of Lygodesma. The story of an image
carried off by the Persians was invented in Seleucus' time to give
value and antiquity to a new image presented to the Syrians
from whom Pausanias got the story he tells. In Euripides' time
everyone believed the image then at Brauron to be an original
cult-statue. Thus all the extant stories containing the return
of Iphigeneia from the Tauri can be traced to Euripides' play.
To this may be added the argumentum ex silentio, which is es-
pecially significant for Herodotus.
b) Hyg. Fab. 120 tells that Iphigeneia and Orestes after
leaving the Tauri went to Sminthe, an island near the Troad,
where they found old Chryses of the Iliad, Chryseis, and young
Chryses, her son by Agamemnon. Old Chryses tells his grand-
son who the strangers are and their relationship to him. Mean-
while Thoas pursues the fugitives and the half-brothers combine
to kill him. After that, Iphigeneia and Orestes proceed to
Lacedaemon. The fragments of the Chryses of Pacuvius indi-
cate that this was the subject of that play. Now there is also a
play, Chryses, of Sophocles (fragments insignificant), which
Welcker (G. T., i 212) is certain is the model for Pacuvius' play.
But he argues illegitimately from the unassigned Sophoclean
fragment, now Nauck 668, rots 'EKa.Ta.las nayidas bbpiroov. There
are also traces in Pacuvius' play of the contest of unselfishness
between Orestes and Pylades (Iph. Taur. 669-715), noticed by
Wilamowitz, Hermes 1883, 249 ff., and his cosmological frag-
ments are certainly Euripidean. Thus while we have definite
evidence for Euripidean influence on Pacuvius' Chryses, the
supposition of Sophoclean influence rests merely on the identity
of names.
A difficulty still remains in accounting for the connection of
Iphigeneia with Sminthe and Chryses, which must be of Greek
origin. A hint as to the source of this comes from the cults that
lie behind the myths. Chryse of the Troad (see Corssen in
Philol. 1907, 346 ff.; Roscher s.v. Chryse and Iphigeneia; Farnell,
Cults of the Greek States, s.v. Artemis Iphigeneia) and Iphigeneia
of Brauron-Halai are similar chthonian goddesses associated with
propitiatory sacrifices, and it is conceivable that Iphigeneia
37
might become a visitant at Chryse or Sminthe (Hyg. Fab. 120;
cf. //. I 39) as she did in the Tauric Chersonese, to a kindred
foreign divinity. (Tzctzes on Lye. 183 makes Iphigeneia and
Chryses brother and sister, children of Agamemnon and Chry-
seis.) But there is no trace of this in early Greek literature; the
Cypria contained only the removal to the Taurians, and the
Catalogue of Women, the only other poem where such a tradition
would be likely to be perpetuated, gave a still more primitive
version (cf. Wilam. Herm. 1883, I.e.), which ignores the Taurian
story, and in which Iphigeneia's former divinity remains undis-
guised;— viz. by the will of Artemis, she (after the sacrifice)
became Hecate (Philodcm. de Vel. 24; Stes. Fr. 37 B, Bergk8;
Paus. i 43). This version was followed by Stesichorus. On the
other hand, Iphigeneia's wanderings after leaving the Tauri were
by later writers variously elaborated out of local tales (Paus. iii
16, 6; i 33, 1 ; i 43, 1 ; Strab. xii 535), just as the chivalrous action
of Achilles in the Iph. Aul. initiated a cycle of romantic stories
about the pair (Ammian. xxii 8, 34 f. ; Tzetz. on Lye. 183; schol.
and Eustath. ad II. XIX 326; Eustath. ad Dionys. P. 306), and
our evidence would seem to put the story of Iphigeneia's visit to
the Troad in this class.
Thus until the first mention of Athens occurs (1083) there is
suspense as to: a) whether they will be saved; b) where they
will go if they are saved.
We may glance at certain elements in our play:
a) 669-716. The contest between Orestes and Pylades as to
which shall be sacrificed is an echo of the willing sacrifice theme,
the origin of which we have already examined. With 678-83
cf. Soph. At. 1012-20. Tcucer and Pylades each fear the accusa-
tion of having had a hand in a friend's death.
b) 727-826 is occupied with the anagnorisis; 904-1088 with a
planning scene.
c) In 1152 ff. the plan is put into execution. It consists of the
bretas-washing idea derived from some cult, probably the
Athenian one of the Plynteria. Aglauros, who was associated
with the Plynteria, influences Euripides elsewhere as we have
seen.
d) In 1391 ff. the escaping vessel is held up at the mouth of
the bay by a sea wind and driven on the rocks. This is natural
but unnecessary. In the Cyclops and the Helen escapes by sea
38
occur without the help of a god. Obviously Euripides intended
to have a deus ex machina in the I ph. Taur., and the reverse (1391)
is inserted to keep up suspense until it began. The special pur-
pose with which this deus is introduced is to prove a connection
between two similar cults, those of Halai and Brauron. Halai
is located in the lines:
1450: x^pos tis 'i<JTLv '\t9'l8os irpos kaxo-TOis
opoiai, yeiTotv 5etpd5os Kapvarias
Upos. 'AXds viv oi'p.6s bvojia^ti Xecos.
Here the bretas of Artemis is to be settled under the name of
Tauropolos with a ceremony commemorative of the old Taurian
sacrifices. The Brauronian temple, however, where was the
tomb of Iphigeneia, was known to the audience, and it needs
onty an allusion:
ce 5' afKJjl aep.vas, 'I^L-ykveia, K\ip,aKas
Bpavpcavias del rfjSe kXtiSovx^ Ota.
(See Paus. i 33 and Fraser's notes for Brauron and Halai and
their probable location.)
The bear-dances are not mentioned because they are harder to
explain. Thus the suggestion for this speech and for the whole
play lay in the juxtaposition of these facts: the story of a cult
among the Tauri connected with both Iphigeneia and Artemis;
Artemis Tauropolos at Brauron; and a grave of Iphigeneia at
Brauron. The pains taken by Euripides to introduce and empha-
size the divine speech would indicate that the facts had not been
handled together before.
Suspense appears throughout the play, as in the Orestes and
the Helen, at its maximum through the handling of a brand new
situation. The grave of Iphigeneia at Brauron was not a suffi-
ciently conspicuous cult to give many of the audience any hint
about her fleeing there. As was noted under the Eumenides all
these characters have rather dropped out of the legend; Iphigeneia
since her removal to the Taurians; Orestes and Pylades since
the death of Clytaemestra. Euripides carefully includes all the
known later history of Orestes as occurring prior to the action
(939 ff.), so that the audience will have no lead as to the outcome
of this action. Thus the poet could elaborate or even conclude
the life of any one of them practically at will. In this con-
39
nection is to be noted the poet's preference for ;t happy ending,
where one was not driven into the opposite by the saga.
Note the introduction of two cult themes, the bretas-washing
and the willing sacrifice. The latter theme in all the other
stories is consummated, a fact which leads one to suspect that it
will be consummated here and hence produces the suspense of
False Lead. The bretas-washing, being pure ritual, gave no
lead as to its results as a stratagem.
8. Helen.
The white-washing of Helen was developed by Stesichorus
from a suggestion in some Hesiodic poem.1 For the content of
Stesichorus' ira\t.vu)8La see Tzetzes ad Lye, 113. \kyovtn yap otl
OLtpxoiikiHxi 'A\e$;av8pu) cV Alyvirrov 6 Upcorevs 'EXkvrjv dc/>eX6p€i>os,
e'lduiXov 'EXevrjs avrui 8e8ccKtv, kcll oiitlos eir\tvaev eis Tpoiav, cos c/>7?cu
wTjjo-ixopos. Schol. to Aristides, iii 150 . . . ZTrjaLxopov . . .
\eyei yap kxelvos otl eKd&v 6 ' A\e£av8pos eiri ravr-qs ttjs vqaov ttjs
$dpou, acfrypkdri irapa rov ITpcoTews ri\v 'EXevqv nai e'i8(i)\ov avrrjs
kSk^aro. Cf. Dio. Chrys., Or. xi 182. nai rov p.lv ^Trjalxopov kv
rr\ varepov co8y \eycLV on to irapairav oi<8k irXevcetev 77 'EXe^r? ov8apboe.
clWol 8k tlvcs otl dpvaadeir] p.ev 'EXei'Ti virb 'A\e%av8pov, 8evpo 8e irap'
T}p,as els Alyvirrov dc^iKero.
The second version is right, namely, that Helen did not sail at
all, for it alone exonerates Helen and comports with the second
line of the fragment (26 Bergk3) :
OVK €<7t' tTVfXOS X67OS OVTOS
ov8' «j3as ev vavaiv ei/ereXpots
ov8' 'Ueo Hkpyapa Tpoias.
Stesichorus, however, did use the image (PI. Rep. 586 C) ; whore
Helen spent the intervening time herself is a question. Mayer-'
argues probably rightly that Stesichorus invented the story pre-
served in the prologue of our play, and that Helen was miracu-
lously transported to Egypt. She could not have stayed at home,
and the only other place associated with her, Leuke (supposed
by Welcker and Duhn to have been used by Stesichorus), appears
1 Schol. LijC. 822 tp&tos 'UaioSos irtpl ttjs 'EXtvrjs to tlSuXov iraprryayi. May r
changes 'llalooos to Sr^ixopoj. The manuscript reading is defended by von
Premerstein.
2 Max Mayer, De Euripidis Mythopoeia, 1883.
40
only in late stories, while even in the Odyssey she is said to have
gone to Egypt (IV, 125; 228). Cf. //. VI, 289, where she went to
Sidon, which was confused by the ancients with Egypt. Cf. Od.
IV, 83; V, 282-3. If she went to Egypt and did not board a ship,
there was probabljr something miraculous about it, and whether
or not Hermes was the agent does not much matter.
The play thus begins where Stesichorus left the story, for we
have no certain evidence for an earlier tale of Menelaus' recovery
of Helen that fits on to the iraXivudia, but from Stesichorus
may proceed the version in Apollodorus, p. 226 Wagner, where
Menelaus finds Helen with Proteus. In this passage two sources
are implicitly quoted. According to 1) he reached Egypt with
five ships; in 2) he finds Proteus living. Thus we have two vari-
ants from Euripides, not one. It is hence unmethodic to clap
these two together and father them on Stesichorus without
further ado, as is done by von Premerstein, Philol. 1896, 642.
The Helen is an original story pieced together out of the poet's
fancy and a quaint conflation of Od. IV, 351-586; the rationalist
account in Hdt. ii 113 ff.; the plot of the Iph. Taur., and very
likely obscure legends now lost. According to Lye. 820 ff. the
eidolon left Menelaus shortly after he had put out from the Troad,
and his search for her occasions his wanderings. Von Premer-
stein (I.e.) supposes this to have been the Stesichorean version,
and that Euripides retained the eidolon till the middle of his play
to create suspense. Euripides' handling of this is undoubtedly
effective, but we are not entitled to posit an earlier version as
certain.
Another conventional theme, the hero in rags, appears here,
but its contribution to suspense is doubtful. The best discussion
of this is in Ar. Ach. 412-70.
From Herodotus, Euripides got the location, a palace (a temple
in Herodotus) on the Canobic mouth of the Nile, overlooking
the river but near the sea (Hdt. ii 113, 2; Hel. 1), and the germ
of the sanctuary idea (Hdt. ii 113, 2-3; Hel. 64). Proteus is
made a king as in Herodotus, not a sea-god as in the Odyssey,
but the story (Hdt. ii 119, 2-3) of a righteous barbarian and a
rascally Greek, though dramatically possible, would have been
an offence to Greek taste. Thus the son of Proteus becomes the
central figure with a disposition modeled on that of Thoas —
the conventional barbarian king. In Herodotus the temple
41
where Helen was cast up and the king's palace arc kept separate.
In a play they must be run together or one of them discarded. So
the temple sanctuary becomes a tomb only (cf. Ar. Thesm. 886-
8), no longer that of Heracles, but that of Proteus himself, in
order to give a palpable basis to the arguments used by Helen
and Menelaus against Theonoe. In place of the Herodotean
warden of the temple named Thonis (cf. Od. IV, 228), the Ho-
meric daughter of Proteus is humanized and her name Eidothea l
translated into Theonoe, perhaps by the similarity of sound to
Thonis. She is naturally, being the daughter of Proteus, the
sister of the king's son, but the omniscience of her Homeric father
is bestowed upon her as a device to create suspense. Much of
the play is pure humor, e.g. 386-475. The mock-burial of
Menelaus occupies the place of the bretas- washing in the Iph.
Taur. involving the suspense of persuasion by a very thin story.
The previous stage of planning suggests the earlier play. With
Eel. 1043-6 compare Iph. Taur. 1020-3.
Teucer is introduced in the prologue; 1) to give us the Greek
point of view, 71 ff., and thus quicken curiosity as to how Men-
elaus will react at first towards his re-discovered wife; and 2) to
acquaint us of the danger to any Greek who appears on these
shores (151-7), at the same time suggesting that Menelaus may
possibly appear. There was no improbability in his appearing
in Egypt on the way from Salamis to Cyprus. The idea of sac-
rificing all Greeks, copied from the Iph. Taur., is weakly moti-
vated in lines 468-70.
Thus the play contains three principal themes: 1) anagnorisis,
a stock in trade; 2) the omniscient Theonoe and the winning of
her support, developed as was seen out of the Odyssey and Herodo-
tus; 3) the escape, an adaptation of one of the poet's own pre-
vious works.
The only real indications which the audience had as to the out-
come of this play from the beginning were: a) the general (latum
that Menelaus and Helen ended their days in peace at Sparta; b)
the general similarity to the situation in t he I ph. Taur., a probably
earlier play (Bruhn, ed. Helen, p. 11 ff.). The other themes,
Theonoe, Teucer, the sanctuary of Proteus, the eidolon, were
1 Cf. schol. Od. IV 3GG. kcu Alcrxv^os if Ilpu'rel Eii5c0*ar a&n}p KaXet, Etytn.
Gud., p. 310, 30. vTroKopiariKois cos irap' Ai<r\0^U} t] Kioto.
42
picked up from sources too scattered and obscure to give the
audience any lead as to their outcome. Thus the suspense, as in
the Iph. Taw., is practically complete from the beginning.
9. Andromache.
Except for the murder of Neoptolemus at Delphi, the plot of
the Andromache is practically new. In it Euripides tries the
effect of combining elements already given independently of one
another in the history of Neoptolemus. The chief elements are:
a) Andromache as Neoptolemus' captive; Nostoi and Iliup.
ap. Procl.; Bias Parva Fr. 18 K.; cf. Paus. i, 11, 1;
b) The marriage of Hermione to Neoptolemus is in Od. IV, 4
ff., where Menelaus sends Hermione to Neoptolemus in fulfilment
of a promise made at Troy. There is no mention of Neoptolemus'
death. Compare also Pherecydes ap. schol. Eur. Or. 1655. QepeavSris
8e c^rjcn xept tclLSoov xPV^P'bv airovvra tov NeoTrToXepop avaipedrjvat..
kirel Neo7rToXepos 'Ep/xibvrjv yapLel ttjv MeveXaov /cat epxerat £fc AeXc/>ot;s
irepl iraldcov xP7labp,evos, ov yap eyevovro e£ 'EppLOvrjs. . . .
c) The death of Neoptolemus at Delphi.
Pherec. I.e. . . . /cat bpa Kara xPyvTVPi-ov KP'ta- biapira^ovras
tovs Ae\<t>ovs, a^aipelTai ra upka avrovs, avrbv oe urdvei Maxatpeus
6 tovtujv Upevs /cat Karopvaaei.1 avrbv vtto tov ovbbv tov ve&. raOra
7ej^eaXo7et /cat So^okXtjs.
Pind. N. vii 40 ff.
[Neo7TToXe/xos] #XCT0 ^ 7rpos debv,
KTtav' aycov TpteiaOev anpodivLiov
Iva Kpeojv viv inrep pdxas eXacrev
o.vtltvxoi't' avrjp paxatpa.
fiapvvdev 8e 7repto"crd AeXc/>ot ^evaykrai
dXXd to p.bpcnp.ov airkboiKtv ' exPW $* Tlv' '^vdov aXact 7raXatrdTco
AlaKiSav nptbvrwv to Xoltov eppevat
deov Trap' euretxea 8bp,ov. 77pcotats 8e 7rop7rats BepiaKO-Kov ointiv.
Pind. Paean, vi 105 ff.
dXX' ovre piaTtp' €7retra Kthvav
e'ibev ovre 7rarpco-
tats ev apovpats
Itttovs Mvppudbvuv
1 Leopardus for ms. kavrov 8e Krdvet ixax^ipq.' 6 5e tovtlov upevs naropvaau.
Cf. Eust. ad Od., p. 1479-80.
43
Xa\KOKopv(iTap
6(jli\ov tyeipojv . . .
ufioae yap Oeos,
yepaiov os \\p'iap\ov
irpos epKtiov r\vape fi<jj/j.di> e-
■KtvdopbvTa jiT] vlv ev(f>pov' es ot[/cW
fiyr' kiri yrjpas i'£e-
p.ev filov a/jufriiroKois 5e
[K]i,p[tai'] irepi TL/iav
[dr]pi]a.£6iJ.evov uravev
[< kv~>Ttp.k\v€i 4>L\co yas
Trap' dfxcpaKov evpvv.
The last reference indicates the source of the story of Neop-
tolemus' death. It was one circulated by the Delphian priests,
to whom the murder of Priam was repugnant (Iliup. ap. Procl.).
The order will thus probably be: 1) death-story as above; 2)
a grave of Neoptolemus shown at Delphi to confirm the story;
3) legend of an Aeacid buried at Delphi, partially whitewash-
ing Neoptolemus (N. vii 44). Neoptolemus is here only rjpwicus
wofxirals 6e/j.l(TKOTros, a vague office. He is not in receipt of offerings,
and this shows that the grave is a late thing, not the relic of an
ancient cult (cf. Paus. x, 24, 6). The motivation in the Delphian
story is impossible. Neoptolemus goes to Delphi because Apollo
wishes him to do so; Pherecydes, or his source, saw the explana-
tion for this in the lack of any genealogy ascribing offspring to
his union with Hermione and brings in the familiar theme of
consulting the oracle about children. The important innovation
we find in the drama is the marriage of Orestes with Hermione.
That this rested on an earlier story of some sort seems probable
from the fact that the Sophoclean version is apparently the ear-
lier, and radical innovations in the plot are not in the manner
of the Sophocles known to us.1 But in any case the direct par-
1 Eust. ad Od., p. 1479, 10. In Soph. Herm., Hermione was given by Tynda-
reus to Orestes. But Menelaus promised her to Neoptolemus at Troy, ni.l
after the war she was taken away from Orestes ami given to him. After the tat-
ter's death she reverted to Orestes. There are no sure means of telling w hether
this or Euripides' version is the older; a radical innovation in th<- legend ifi more
after the manner of Euripides. But the story in Sophocles seem- a less closely
knit one: — Neoptolemus killed as in Pindar; Hermione already married to
Orestes when the war ends — and therefore presumably earlier.
44
ticipation of Orestes in the murder of Achilles' son is almost
certainly Euripides' invention. This incident deserves a mo-
ment's notice. The character of Orestes in this play is one
familiar to us from Soph. El. and Eur. Or. — harsh, fanatical and
vindictive. This character is not developed in our play but
assumed from some earlier treatment, which could only rest upon
the mother-murder. No such treatment appears in Aeschylus
or in Eur. El. In the first, Orestes is the passive instrument of
Apollo; in the other, wavering and soft-hearted, requiring to be
pushed at every step. Our play can hardly be later than 408
B.C., and the conclusion follows that it must be later than the
undated Sophoclean Electra unless Euripides was influenced by
a now unknown work of some minor dramatist. The parallels
between the two plays are inconclusive. The scene 881 ff.
vaguely suggests an anagnorisis with Electra. Cf. Andr. 896-7
with Soph. El. 80; Andr. 881-2 with Soph. El. 660-1 (both
conventional tags).
The action of Andromache (1-546) as a suppliant is quite new;
it is a development of the common suppliant-theme, which could
be brought in wherever there was a clash between a weaker and
stronger party (see later; also Dieterich, Pulcinella, p. 9 ff.) . The
clash between two women was the sort of thing Euripides would
naturally think of; the datum of Pherecydes that Hermione had
no children appears as motivation 32-5, 157-8. Menelaus ap-
pears in order to strengthen Hermione's hand and make a sup-
pliant-play plausible; there is no earlier reference for his appear-
ance here. Similarly Peleus, like Heracles, is the rescuer which
a suppliant-play demands. In the Iliad Peleus is merely Achilles'
father; Achilles does not even know whether or not he is alive
(II. XIX, 334). But in the Nostoi (Procl.) Peleus meets Neop-
tolemus on his return, and there is no difficulty about bringing
him in here. The attempted suicide of Hermione, a momentary
false lead (811 ff.) and new to this play, like the attack on An-
dromache, springs from Hermione's vile disposition. This dis-
position is created for the play and made additionally plausible
by its appropriateness as an attack on Sparta. The murder of
Neoptolemus by Orestes is new in Euripides and is introduced to
knit the threads of the play more closely together. Neoptole-
mus' errand is noted in the prologue (49-55) with a new motiva-
45
tion; after this his absence is noted only as bearing on Androm-
ache. We do not expect his return, for in 79 ff. Andromache
sends for Peleus; this means that the grandfather will be the
rescuer, not Neoptolemus himself. Orestes' connivance enables
him (995 ff.) to predict the murder and thus bring it into the
main action of our play.
There is thus a high probability that things would end about
as they did: i.e. that Neoptolemus would perish; that Hermione
would go off with Orestes; and that Andromache would be res-
cued into some vague "lived-happily-ever-after" arrangement
and drop out of the saga. The suspense rises from the novelty
of the situations: Menelaus and Peleus; Andromache and
Hermione, quarreling; Orestes appearing in Thessaly, estab-
lishing an unheroic and clandestine understanding with Hermione,
and departing with veiled menaces against his rival. The sus-
pense of these scenes arises and progresses from their own content
and thus gets clear of the saga-compulsion, which is lost to view
as the play proceeds. It should be kept in mind that treatment
of this kind was only possible with myths that were weak in
detail and less current than the Oresteia.
III. The Theban Stories.
The history of this set of myths has been so thoroughly investi-
gated and admirably presented by Robert in his Oedipus that
little need be done here bej^ond fitting his results to our study.
The use of his book will be assumed throughout this section.
1. Oedipus Tyrannus.
This play is entirely devoted to an anagnorisis. In such a
unique plot incidents have to be crowded in from other sources
or invented, and these we shall summarize:
a) The herdsmen and the double anagnorisis. The only pre-
vious form of the anagnorisis known to us is the simple one
sketched in Od. XI, 274. In addition to this, Robert believes
that 0. T. 1032, irodolv iiu iipdpa p.apTi>pr]aeuv to. era, points to a
version where this was the only means of the anagnorisis. It
is the only evidence we have, and as it is unnecessary here, it is
46
probably a reference to some earlier story. In the Thebais,
time was allowed for Oedipus to have children,1 and it is hard to
see how this could have been done if the swollen feet were alone
used. Probably the oracle or Teiresias entered as well, or recog-
nition was effected by exchange of confidences as in the Pisander
schol. to Phoen. 1760.
The entry of herdsmen into the play is perhaps Sophoclean.
Robert argues that Oedipus was reared among the shepherds of
Cithaeron in the Aeschylean trilogy, but the only pre-tragic
source for his early history is the Euphorbus vase (p. 73), which
represents him carried in the arms of a young nobleman, could fit
only his rearing at some court, and would exclude the shepherds
altogether. This is, however, too uncertain ground to be profit-
able for us. We do not even know whether or not Aeschylus
handled the anagnorisis; Robert's reconstruction of the trilogy,
excluding it, is built around the a priori statement (p. 274 ff.)
that Aeschylus must have handled Oedipus' death in a play. But
surely, on his own showing, this is a most hazy feature, which
admits the greatest variation in the earlier stories. Both Sopho-
cles in the Oedipus Tyrannus and Euripides in the Phoenissae
seem uncertain about the death, while the anagnorisis idea is the
most obvious theme for a tragedy in this whole "cycle". Thus
the suspense on the appearance of the first shepherd rises, as
throughout Euripides' Andromache, from the situation itself and
frees itself from the data of the saga.
b) The plague. There is no earlier source for this,2 and it
was probably invented by Sophocles. It furnishes the initial im-
pulse that disturbs the status quo. Observe that the initial scene
does not contain the initial impulse, which lies before the play
opens. Oedipus has sent to Delphi, and hence the prologue is
merely exposition. This is to save time. From the plague
spring the appeals to Delphi and to Teiresias, who is also new in
this connection. In the ancient story Teiresias probably figured
alone; Delphi substituted itself for him at the time when it re-
modeled many of the ancient myths.3 The Teiresias scene is
1 For the various names of Oedipus' wife see Robert, p. 109. Robert
maintains that thejr are all variants for the same person and that in no story
was Oedipus married more than once.
2 Robert, p. 69, suggests that the idea was borrowed from Iliad, I 48-83.
3 See Robert, p. 68 ff.
47
remarkable in that it contains the whole content of the anagno-
risis, even to Oedipus' subsequent wandering. (Robert, p. 290.
Note lines 35(M, 3G2, 366-7, 413-23, 449-60.) This in a play
where the issue is bound to be foreknown, so far from diminishing
suspense, actually stimulates it, for it puts Oedipus in big in-
credulity under a cloud of arrj that adds a horror and wonder
to the general effect. As the Teiresias scene follows on the
plague, so the quarrel with Creon springs inevitably out of
Teiresias' statements. For Oedipus to hear this clear speaking
and remain absolutely confident of his own position, it is neces-
sary to make him pitch on some particularly violent line of
reasoning,1 which by a single basic assumption sweeps Teiresias
out of consideration. This line is supplied by the notion that
the seer is party to a plot (346-9; 385 ff.; cf. 124). This mis-
guided theme supplies suspense for a certain distance. Note
that it, like the investigation into the murder of Laius, is never
expressly concluded. Both are swallowed up from 1016 in the
supreme issue of Oedipus' birth. The function of the plague is
to start the suspense along new lines, foreign to the old story,
and, as we shall see in a moment, to introduce the sentence on
the murderer of Laius, upon which Oedipus' fate is made to
depend.
c) Iocaste. In Od. XI, 277-8 Iocaste hangs herself after the
anagnorisis; she is not present in the Seven against Thebes (see
Robert, p. 263), and therefore she must have died at this time in
the Aeschylean trilogy. But in some version prevalent before
the dramatists, which one naturally infers to be the Thebais, she
was present at the war and mourned the conflict of her sons.
(Paus. ix 4, 2; IX 5, 11 /ecu 'Ovaalas IlXaTcuacnv 'iypa\f>e Karrjcprj tt\v
Evpvyav€iav kirl rfj p,axv twv 7rauW. This is assuming the iden-
tity of Iocaste and Euryganeia. See Robert, p. 180 ff.)
Sophocles had this choice. The manner of her going strongly
suggests the suicide, 1072-5. Note the cryptic a\\o 5' ovwod'
vortpov. The chorus then utters a conventional warning (cf.
Ant. 1244-5; 766-7; Trach. 813^). Suspense about Iocaste <;ets
no clear lead from the saga, because there were two conflicting
stories. Thus it develops out of the play itself, like the Buspense
concerning Oedipus' fate.
1 See Robert's keen analysis of Oedipus' reasoning, p. 293 ff.
48
d) Future of Oedipus. In the earliest version, which lay back
of 7/. XXIII, 678; Od. XI, 279-80; Hes. Erg. 161-5; Eoiae, frr.
99 A and 99 Evelyn-White, Oedipus had a long and stormy career
as King of Thebes after the anagnorisis and the death of his wife,
fell in battle against the Minyae, and was buried with appropriate
magnificence (Robert, p. 112 ff.).
The dramatists preserve two versions which exclude the
former:
1. Soph., 0. T. 421, 454, 1451^, 1436-9; cf. 236 ff., 816 ff.,
1340, 1381 ff., 0. C, 3 ff. Oedipus goes, a blind, wandering
beggar, first over Cithaeron, later throughout Hellas.
2. Euripides, Phoen. 64 ff.; cf. 0. T. 1424. Oedipus is kept a
prisoner in the house as being too polluted for the light of the sun
to look upon.
Robert believes both of these to be echoes of "eine uralte,
liber das Epos zuruckreichende Sagenform" (p. 17). This he
bases on the necessity of perpetuating in the human successor
the sufferings of the old year-god. This only concerns us in so
far as variants to this effect existed at the time the Oedipus
Tyr -annus appeared. For the wandering, there seems to be no
earlier evidence, although Robert (p. 17) believes it to have been
a part of the earliest saga. The Thebais fragments (2 and 3
Evelyn- White) present the same picture as the Phoenissae, a blind
(cf. (ppaaOrj fr. 2; tv6-q<j€ fr. 3) old man living on in the palace
dependent on his sons and impotent except for his power to
curse. The blindness was kept by Aeschylus (Sept. 783 f.). Of
the two curses in the Thebais, Aeschylus kept only the first and
milder one (Robert, p. 264 ff .) ; this may argue a curtailment of
his life, but there is no evidence as to when or where he died.
Now if we examine the passages in the Oedipus Tyrannus
bearing on Oedipus' wandering, three things appear:
1. Oedipus' banishment is the consequence of the sentence
already passed on the unknown murderer of Laius, 236 ff.; 816
ff.; 1381 ff. 350-3. This sentence grows out of the plague theme,
which, as we saw, was Sophocles' own peculiar way of initiating
the action.
2. It is also a projection of Oedipus' exposure in youth, 1452^:
ovfxds Kidcupuiv ovtos, bv pr\Tt\p re not
ttclttip t' edeaOrjv ^oovtl nvptov tol^ov,
IV e£ tKtivwv, o'i p,' airuiWvTrjv davo).
49
3. Further it is a fulfilment of part of the purpose with which
Oedipus was incarcerated in the Thebais and Phoenissae, 1430 f. :
fii\pov fit yfjs «k TT\ob' baov raxt-crQ' , 6irov
dvqTdv <f>avov pat (irjotvos irpoo-qyopos.
Thus there is no mention after the anagnorisis of beggary in
populated Hellas. Before that, the only mention made is in 455
tttcoxos avrl ir\ovaiov, where the former word is chiefly for con-
trast to the latter. Cf. 1451 ea p,e vaieiv optoiv. Cf. 248 kclkov
nanus viv dfiopov kuTplxpciL (ttov, and Kvpiov Tcicpov above, of Cithaeron.
In fact, the exile, as implied in the Oedipus Tyrannus, means a
desolate wandering in the wilderness, ending inevitably in a
lonely death within a few days. Compare Ant. 50-1.
. . . iraTrjp
<hs v<2v airexdys 8v(Tk\€7]s t* airaiXtro,
irpbs a.VTO<p<j)puv ap.ir\a.KrifiaTWV, 5i7rXas
oxptLs dpa£as avrbs avrovpyui xtp'L-
This version would fit neither into any cult story nor into any
consecutive treatment of the whole saga, of which we have
evidence. Therefore the probability is that Sophocles invented
it. Thus while Oedipus may have been represented, before this
play, as a blind wanderer, there is no solid evidence for it and the
theme in the Oedipus Tyrannus is developed purely out of the
play itself. The bearing on suspense is obvious. At the outset
our minds are directed to the coming fate of Oedipus by a
new motive, viz., the anonymous condemnation to exile of the
murderer. Teiresias fixes this on the king. Cithaeron is men-
tioned first in a vague suggestion, after the manner of Aeschylus
(421). Thus a suspense of real uncertainty is kept up over the
anagnorisis and angelia. We wonder how, after the blinding,
this banishment sentence can be carried out, until we discover
(1451 ff.) that Oedipus intends to visit it on himself strictly and
literally; of its full hideousness he only leaves us to imagine —
ov yap av irore
dvrfaKoiv k<j6>Qr)v, fxi] 'vl to; 8eii>u} kclkw.
Creon's scruple in 1518 roD Otov p.' airtTs 66<nv, does not weigh
against Teiresias' prophecy.
The best comment on this exodus is 0. C, 431 ff., 765 ff.,
from which it appears that Oedipus is indeed sent into banish-
4
50
ment after the anagnorisis, but not immediately; that is, not in
the mood in which he was exhibited to us when
rjBiaTOU 8e p.01
to na.Tda.veiv y)v nal to XevaOfjvai weTpois,
and when death would have been the inevitable consequence of
his departure. What is almost certainly a criticism of the
exodus of the Oedipus Tyr annus appears in Eur. Phoen. 1620 f.,
t'l fi' 6.p8i]v w5' aironTeiveis, Kpeov ;
awoKTeveis yap, el jue 777s e£co jSaXets.
Euripides finds his way out of the difficulty here by inventing
Antigone's part as that of guide and help in place of Iocaste —
a ir68a obv tv4>\6ttovv OepaTev/xaaLv aiev tfioxOeu (Phoen. 1549).
Similarly for Euripides' Oedipus Robert makes out a strong
probability that Iocaste there followed him into exile (p. 314 ff.).
But Antigone has not yet announced her intention (1679) of going
with her father when Phoen. 1620-1 are spoken, so that the words
of those lines have their full force. The passages quoted in the
Oedipus Cohneus as well as the introduction of Antigone and
Ismene as caring for and accompanying Oedipus show that
Sophocles accepted this criticism.
In the Oedipus Tyrannus the suspense regarding the fate of
Oedipus naturally falls between three lines: imprisonment, exile,
or suicide; and exile is the least obvious of the three. The issue
is quite uncertain, and the actual conclusion develops by suc-
cessive hints, none of them very obvious, out of the action itself.
The suspense is acute on this point during the entire play and is
admirably sustained by vague hints, not by any clear plan or
prediction.
2. Seven against Thebes.
The story of an attack on Thebes instigated by Polyneices and
led by Adrastus was handled in the Thebais and alluded to in II.
IV, 365 ff. and V, 800 ff., ending in the defeat of the attackers
and the death of most of their champions (Theb., fr. 4, 5, 7
Evelyn- White). Oedipus condemned his sons to death at each
other's hands in a curse (fr. 3), which was certainly fulfilled.
There is thus no novelty as regards essentials in the Aeschylean
play. A few incidents may be noted:
51
a) Form of the curse. Theb. fr. 3 —
evKTO Ad ^acn\rJL nai dXXots aBavaToiai
Xtpviv vtt' aXK-qXoov naTafi-qntvai "Ai5os etcrw.
Robert (p. 264 ff.) believes that Aeschylus suppressed, in the
preceding plays of the Theban triology, this second and grimmer
form of the curse, keeping only the first, ibid. fr. 2.
cos ov ol irarput.' ev rjdeiy 4>l\6tt]tl
60.000.^7' , a/icfroTepoicn 5'aei ir6\ep.oi re /zdxcu re . . .
cf. Sept. 785 ff.
t€Kvols 5' aypias
6<f>rJK€l> tTTlKOTOVS TpO(j)OLS,
cuat, TrinpoyXuaaovs apas,
/ecu acf>e aibapovofico
5td xePL iroTt \ax*i-v
KTY]/j.aTa,
and cites Eteocles' words in going out to battle, which clearly
indicate that the issue of the duel was in doubt, to him at least;
cf. 69 ff., 659 ff., 683 ff. This is thoroughly in the manner of the
Oresteia and would make a much better play, for it introduces an
element of uncertainty as to the outcome of the brother-duel and
at the same time makes the play more impressive ethically by
emphasizing human motive at each step. At best, however, it
is only an attractive possibility. Robert has to explain away
(pp. 266-7) the lines 689-91
eirei to irpay/j.a napr' eiriaTrepxti- Oeos,
lto) kclt' ovpov KVfia Kookvtov \axbv
4>otj3cjj arvyqdev irav to Aatov yevos,
and 819-20
eijoucu 5' 771/ XafiuicTLv tv racpfj x®bva
irarpos /car' evxo-s dvairorpovs 4>opovp.evot..
The first line sounds like an echo of the text of an actual curse;
cf. 0. C. 789-90.
b) The pairing of the combatants. The exact pairing of
champion with champion was introduced by Aeschylus (Robert,
p. 244 ff.; cf. the story of Tydeus, p. 130 ff.), obviously f<> lead up
to the announcement of the duel between the brothers. It was
the natural mechanical means to let 1 his lie known to the audience
before the battle. Otherwise the brothers would only quietly
52
seek each other out in the melee and we should know nothing till
after the event. Note the shift of Polyneices from fourth place,
which he had in the row of statues dedicated at Delphi by the
Argives after the battle of Oenoe (Paus. x 10, 3), to the dramatic
place of honor, namely the last. Robert discusses this list on p.
237 ff. and p. 244, and gives what he believes to be the true list
for the Thebais. They do not differ materially so far as Poly-
neices is concerned. In Robert's list he is placed fifth. In the
statues of the Epigoni at Argos (Paus. ii 20, 7) the sons of Poly-
neices come last. These statues are undated; Pausanias says in
a parenthesis "for the Argives followed Aeschylus' poetry," but
the list given is not that of Aeschylus' Seven.
c) 587-9. Amphiaraus predicts his own death. A different
version appears in Pindar N. ix, 16 ff. The sons of Talaus lead
an army against Thebes. Zeus tried to deter them by an ill-
omened thunderbolt as they were setting out. All the heroes
were killed; Amphiaraus was saved from death at the hands of
Periclymenus by being swallowed up in the earth; but there is no
mention of his having predicted his own death. In Od. VI 13,
Amphiaraus is a prophet. In Od. XI, 326-7; XV, 246-7 allusion
is made to the story of Eriphyle, who was bribed into betraying
her husband (cf. schol. ad loc; Apollod. iii 6, 2, 4; Diodor. iv 65,
6). It is likely enough that the story of Amphiaraus' prediction
of his own death was not part of the Odyssey1 version, although
there is no reference to it that I can find earlier than our plaj^.
Eriphyle in the act of being bribed by Polyneices appears on a
vase (Robert, p. 209). On the Cypselus chest (Paus. v 17, 7)
she appears with the necklace, at the departure of Amphiaraus,
and a similar scene is on an archaic vase reproduced in Roscher
s.v. Amphiaraus. Of the other Argive heroes, Tydeus was
familiar from II. IV, 365 and VII, 800. The exact names of the
seven in the Thebais are uncertain, but the more individualized,
Tydeus, Capaneus, Amphiaraus, Polyneices, were certainly there,
and their boasts and appearance might suggest to the audience
their exploits and fate in the last battle. But for all this, Aeschy-
lus is our earliest source. Robert believes that the series of Etrus-
can urns (p. 228 ff.) represents a tradition that can be traced
1 Hes. Cat. fr. 99 Evelyn-White is too fragmentary to be certain evidence,
though it seems to contain this story.
53
indirectly to the Thebais, but this is too uncertain to be of use
to us.
For the spurious closing scene of this play, see Robert , p. \\~~) IT.
The results from this play are not satisfactory. The only
mythological suspense that could arise would concern: a) the
fate of the city which, as all stories agreed and everyone knew,
was saved; b) the fate of Eteocles and Polyneices. If Aeschylus
disregarded earlier in the trilogy the full curse-form of the Thebais
and made Oedipus pray only that his sons might divide their
inheritance by the sword, not that they kill each other; also if a
story was current, independent of the Thebais, in which they
survived this battle, then considerable suspense might arise over
this issue. But we cannot even hazard a guess on either of these
points. There can hardly have been much intrinsic interest or
suspense over the other pairs of combatants; their function is to
lead up to the brother-duel, making this battle dignified and
noble as well as terrible. To allow the brothers to seek each
other out in the press and glut their mutual hatred with common
disregard of the common weal would have offended Aeschylus'
sense of order.
Hence the only means of suspense we can be sure of here is the
development of the anticipation of a certain end.
3. Phoenissae.
In this curious play nearly all the elements of the Theban saga
are introduced in one form or another, and we may discuss briefly
each one in so far as it contributes to the general suspense.
a) Iocaste. By making her present at the attack of the Seven,
Euripides goes back over Sophocles and Aeschylus to the Thebais.1
Her inclusion, though justifiable dramatically, was partly
motivated by Euripides' desire to present every important per-
sonage in the saga that could possibly be dragged into a single
play; the same is true of Oedipus and Polyneices. Iocaste's
usefulness appears throughout: 1) She is the obvious person to
speak the prologue, having played a leading part in all the events
since the exposure of Oedipus; 2) she is also the most convincing
link possible between the two brothers if they are to be brought
1 Cf. painting of Onasias ap. Pans, ix 4, 2. See Robert, p. L80
54
together. Note 452-68, 528-85, her speeches to Eteocles and
Polyneices. In 559 ff. she states well the futility of their joining
battle, whatever the issue. Note also that in 469 ff. Polyneices'
speech follows on his mother's; his demands are just and mod-
erate (484-91), based on the former arrangement of alternating
kingship1 (473-80; 69-76), which appears here for the first time.
In putting Polyneices in the right, Euripides follows Pherecydes
and probably the Thebais, which was written from the Argive
point of view (Powell, Intro, to Phoenissae, p. 61). Thus by
introducing Iocaste and justifying Polyneices, Euripides fixes
our sympathies and creates a livelier suspense as to the outcome
of the meeting. Eteocles has to take refuge in sophistry (504-
10) and pure self-will (510-20), so that the story may take its
course; 3) there is a second attempt by Iocaste, probably quite
new in this play, to prevent the conflict of the brothers at the
last moment; to this end the angelia is made more elaborate and
the proceedings divided into three stages, so as to be quite under-
standable. The third stage is the truce initiated by Eteocles'
proclamation from the tower (1223 ff.), under cover of which
Iocaste rushes out with Antigone (1264-82). Thus the suspense
of the second angelia (1339, 1349) is highly complicated. Not
only the success or failure of Iocaste's errand but her actual fate
is clearly a question after 1282. Quite conceivably her death
followed here in the Thebais (see Robert, p. 415), but whether or
not the audience had this or another lead as to her fate we cannot
say.
b) Form of the curse. As in the Septem only the first of the
two Thebais curses is kept (67-8),
apas dparcu waiaiv avoa lut ar as
Bt)kt& atdrjpu} 5ojp,a dLaXax&v rode.
So, except for the compulsion of the saga, the conclusion is not
foregone. On the other hand, more is made of the abiding effect
of the original oracle to Laius than in the Septem (19-20),
el yap Tenvcoaeis xcu5', aTOKrevei a' 6 4>vs,
Kal iras ads olkos firjaeTaL dl aiparos.
To this clearly refers 624 epperio ■wpbwas 56/xos, which is an answer
to Iocaste's irarpos oh (frev^ead' 'Epivvs; Not only the father's curse,
1 For another story of a contract, see Hellanicus ap. schol. Phoen. 71, and
Robert, p. 271 with note 41.
55
but an older blight, is destroying us, a blight which affects the
whole family. Note the suggestion of Iocaste's suicide and also
her reference to Polyncices' marriage (341-3) as
aXaara parpl rade Aatco re tQ> Trakaiytvt'i,
yapcov (iraKTOv arav.
The word akaara and the mention of Laius show that more is
meant than that " a foreign wife is no blessing". Clearly it was
art] to marry at all. This thought is pursued in the antistrophe
(801 ff.). Would that Cithaeron had never taken up Oedipus!
—814 ff.
ov yap o /jlti Kakbv ovttot' e<t>v tcaXov,
01)8' OL /JLTj VOp.ljJ.OL
7ratdes /xarpi /\6xtvp,a, plaapa irarpds.
A curse lay on the boys from the manner of their birth, from
which ill was bound to come; — 867-9
vooti yap r)5e yrj iraXai, Kpeov,
e£ ov 'TtKvcoOr] Aaios fiia deoou,
Tocriv t' e<f)vo~e prjrpl pekeov QibLirovv.
Yet, though the explicit death-curse is omitted, there is no doubl
as to the coming death of the brothers. This is settled by Teire-
sias (880). This theme appears in the Septem, but too late to
affect suspense (844, 902 ff. ; cf. 748 dvq.aKovra yewas arep aw^tLv
■koKlv, the counterpart of Phoen. 20-1). In the Oedipus Tyran-
nies the oracle states simply that any son Laius begets will kill
him (713-4, 1176), and this was undoubtedly the original form
of the prediction when the story of Laius and Oedipus was
still personal and independent of the wars with Argos and the
Minyae. (See Robert, p. 62, 66-7, 119 ff.) Here, in an unavoida-
ble issue, suspense is produced, not by trying to bring up alterna-
tives, but by alluding constantly to the end which everyone knows
is coming, and thus inducing a mood of nervous expectation.
This need brings about the extension of the prophecy uttered to
Laius over the fortunes of the whole house until the family is
extinct.
c) Menoeceus. Robert (p. 416) following Wilamowitz (De
Eur. Heraclidis; Pr. Greifswald, 1882) believes this episode to be
a free invention of Euripides (so also Powell, Introduction t<>
Phoenissae, p. 82, and Weeklein quoted there). His argument
is "die dramatische Okonomie der Phoinisscn . . . allein den
56
Schliisscl fur diese Erfindung gibt", which amounts to saying
that the episode as it appears in the play is decently motivated.
The reference to a grave and legend of Menoeceus in Pausanias1
(ix 25, 1), which diverges from Euripides, and the dance
Mej/oiKecos d7rd>\eia in Luc. de Salt. 43 (surely a strange by-product
of literature! Cf. Hdt. v, 67), constitute a certain presumption
in favor of an independent legend.
The incident, however, as critics agree, is appropriate and
effective. It is introduced (867-9) as a means to do away with
the curse on the land due to Laius' disobedience and the resulting
abominations. He goes on:
880 e77i>s 8e davaros avrox^-P avrois, Kpkop.
884 ah t', Si TaXaiva, avynaTaaKairTfl ttoXl,
ei jii] \6yotai rots kfiois ris ireiaeTai.
Then the halt (S91). As in Oedipus Tyr annus he whets our
curiosity by refusing to speak. The suspense here works back-
wards in a curious way. We know the city was saved, and here
Teiresias makes this event depend on some intermediate step
which his reticence shows to be disagreeable, —
892 Triupbv re roiai rr\v tvxvv K€KTr]fxkvoLs.
In 905-7 he asks that Menoeceus be removed. The story was too
obscure to be known to many of the audience, and our curiosity
is not satisfied till 913 o-#d£cu Mepomka. Objective suspense is
now over, all around, and interest shifts to the means and details
of accomplishment. The delay is complicated by Creon's appeal
to Teiresias 919-29, followed by the reason for the sacrifice, 931-59
— Ares and Ge must be satisfied by the human blood of a Cad-
meian. These details are clear, and in themselves not relevant
to the story; very likely the legend was originally connected
with some other early war.
d) Polyneices. He appears in person in order: 1) to give his
side of the exposition, which includes an intimate statement of
his feeling and point of view 389 ff . ; 2) to make a reconciliation
seem possible for a while; 3) to give the contrast of character
1 Delphi, not Teiresias, is responsible for the sacrifice in Pausanias. Cf .
Phoen., lines 852-7, which almost certainly show that the "oracle" in the
Erechtheus to sacrifice the maiden proceeded from Teiresias. How else could he
have made the Cecropidae victorious? But the mythological source, which
also mentions Euripides, says els AeX^ow lui>. Lycurgus schol. Leoc. 98; see
Xauck s.v. Erechtheus. Cf. Stob. 39, 33; Paradox. 219 Westermann.
57
between himself, his mother, and his brother. The introduction
of Polyneiccs into Thebes here is doubtless quite new wit h Kurip-
ides. The suggestion of such a visit lay already in the story of
Tydeus' entry into Thebes:
tous 5' ap' 67r' 'Aacoircp Xi7re xaXKOxifwas Axcuous,
avrdp 6 fj.el\t.xov p-vOov 4>epe Ka!)p.tLoi.cni>
Keta' ' drdp a\j/ airiwv p.a\a p.kpp.epa prjaaTo tpya (II. X, 287-9).
For the relation of this passage to the Thebais see Robert, p.
186 ff.
Like Polyneiccs in the Phoenissae, Tydeus brought a proposal
for an agreement, was rejected, and on his return p.a\a nep/xepa
Hrjcraro (pya. Cf. Phoen. 625. Pol. cos rax' ovkW alp.aTr\pbv Tovp.6v
apyriaei £t0os. There is no trace in the Phoenissae of the
story of the athletic contest between Tydeus and the young
Thebans (II. IV, 806-7; VII, 385-90). But Polyneices' fear of
an ambush 263-73, 361-6 seems meant to suggest the passage in
II. VII, 391-8. Polyneices fears the ambush as he enters the
city; Tydeus fell into one on his return, presumably outside the
walls. Robert (p. 193) compares the story, which appears only
in pictures, of Achilles, Troilus, and Polyxena. See Roscher iii
2, 2723 ff. But in the Phoenissae the mention of an ambush at
Polyneices' departure would have been a jarring note after the
subtle psychological interests of the foregoing scene, and the play
begins at a stage in the war when the besieged were tightly en-
closed inside the citadel. Cf. the first part of the angelia 1090-
1186, and the change 1190. An ambush story like that about
Tydeus, the Doloneia, or, apparently, that about Troilus and
Polyxena, implies a state of open warfare in which the besieged
are encamped outside their gates. The Tydeus story would
probably not occur to any of the audience, nor did it occur to
anyone that Polyneices, since he was fated to fight with his
brother, would fall into an ambush. He is brought in merely
for the interest in the moral and pathetic side of his relations to
his mother and brother.
e) Burial of Polyneices. The command to leave Polyneices
unburied is put in the mouth of Eteoclea (774-7); these are al-
most his last words, and hence emphatic (cf. Soph. .1///. 515).
The suspense about this carries on through the angelia. where
it is re-aroused by Polyneices' dying requesl for burial I 1117 IT.).
58
Antigone announces her decision to bury her brother (1657), and
Creon threatens her with death (1658). The suspense as to this
is taken up into the quite novel theme which follows (1679 ff.):
Antigone will follow her father into exile. She actually bullies
Creon into agreeing to this by threatening to murder her bride-
groom if she is forced to marry Creon's son (1673-5), so that he
is only too glad to be rid of her (1682). There is no definite
conclusion of the burial issue, but the impression we carry away
is that Creon is cowed by 1673-5 and ready to let her out of the
country on her own terms, which would naturally include the
burial. The point Robert raises (p. 425), that the prohibition of
Eteocles only refers to Theban earth, is hence different from the
version of the Antigone, and, further, refers to the casting out of
the bones of Phrynichus in 412 B.C. (Lycurgus Leoc. 113), is
too subtle a distinction to have any value for suspense. Nor is
there any essential difference between the various versions of
Creon's proclamation, which is the definitive thing:
Ant. 26 ff. tov o' a6\l(j:s davbvra Uo\vp€lkovs v'tKvv
aoTolai 4>aaiv eKneKrjpvxda.1. to p.rj
Tacf)cp KaKvxj/aL fj.r]8e KoinvaaL tlvo.,
eav 5' anXavTOV, aracfrop, oioovols y\vicvv
drjaavpov.
Ant. 203 ff. tovtov wokei Trfi' eKK€K7]pvKTai tclcJ)co
fxrjre Krepi^eLv p.r}re KCOKvaai tlvo.
eav 5' adairrov nal irpbs oiwvcov <5e/xas
Kal irpbs Kvvdv kdearop aiKiaOevr' idelp.
Phoen. 1632 ff. os a.v veupbv tovo" f\ KaTaaTetpccv a\<2
r) yfj koKvtttwv, davarov avTaWa^erai.
The source of this incident lies, not in Phrynichus' bones, but in
the Antigone of Sophocles. As to the fate of Antigone, previous
stories gave no clear lead, as the matter was only taken up into
the drama by Sophocles. Whether Euripides' Antigone, which
flatly contradicted the Sophoclean issue,1 preceded the Phoenissae
or not, we do not know. But in an unfamiliar story like this, a
dramatist was not bound by the arrangements of a predecessor,
and Euripides cuts loose from both his own and the Sophoclean
Antigone in 1673-8. As at the end of the Oedipus Coloneus, her
future is simply left uncertain. This part of the play is so-
1 See Robert's convincing reconstruction, p. 381 ff.
59
crowded that the audience probably became confused from 1583
on. After 1588 and 1632-3 they would naturally expect to end
with a summary of the Antigone of Sophocles. Lines L673 5
shake them roughly out of this belief, and the answer comes in
1679, with her resolve to follow her father into exile, a criticism
of Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus, as we saw. The burial issue is
then dropped, and the suspense trails off rather lamely.
f) The future of Oedipus. As we saw above, both Euripides
and Sophocles felt that in any dramatization of Oedipus' history
subsequent to the blinding, Oedipus needed some companion.
Here Antigone steps into the place of her mother (1549) as his
protector (1679). His going forth is made necessary by the fact
that Euripides wishes to account for the local Colonus legend
(1707-9), which requires that he go forth from Thebes, and thus
Antigone's accompanying him is a corollary of that. For the
sources for the Colonus-story, see Robert, p. 18 ff., and for his
ingenious theory as to its origin see p. 36 ff. That this story went
beyond a legend vaguely associating Oedipus with the locality is
improbable, for it appears from the Oedipus Coloneus that there
was no visible grave or shrine. This is significant, for it suggests
that the close of the Oedipus Tyrannus, implying the inevitable
death of Oedipus, had been noticed and discussed in cultivated
circles. Euripides had already contradicted this by keeping
Oedipus shut up in Thebes through the war. Thus 1679 is to
show that, in sending Oedipus into exile, Euripides is not leaving
him to the fate of the Oedipus Tyrannus even at this time. The
Colonus legend might naturally occur here to many of the audi-
ence, and keep up suspense till it was mentioned.
Thus from 1679 on, the arrangements which close the play and
the history of the Labdacid house are in drama quite new. They
have a patriotic interest parallel to that of the Eumenidcs, as
sketching a history associating Attica with the final reconciliation
of a foreign house long at enmity with the gods.
4. Oedipus Coloneus.
The suggestion for this play lay already ;it hand in the Pi
issae (Robert, p. 457) 1703 ff.
vvv xp7?0"MOs, d) 7raT, Ao£ioi' Trepaiver ai .
1705 kv reus Wdrjuais Kardavtiv p.'a\<!oixtvov.
1707 iepos KoKccpos, biciiad' iinriov 9tov.
60
What was the form of the legend that lay behind this, we can-
not tell. Robert's ingenious theory (see Ch. 1 of his book) that
it grew out of an apparition to one of the soldiers in a hypothetical
battle with the Thebans in 506 B.C., an identification of this
with Oedipus, and a vaticinatio post eventum, deserves attention,
but there are many missing links in the evidence. However,
most of what is vital to suspense in our play was put together out
of the elements in the literary saga, or invented to supplement it.
a) The oracle. 1) Cf. Phoen. 1703-7 above. Sophocles uses
this oracle to bind together the varied action of his play. The
first intimation is in 44-5; he knows Colonus by the presence of
a shrine to the Eumenides, and he intends to stay. He wishes
(70) to send a message to the King, and states the meaning of the
oracle (88-95). He is to end his life at a place which is evidently,
by its description, the one where he now is. This sets the main
suspense of the play as suspense of anticipation, not of uncer-
tainty.
2) Another oracle appears in 1331-2:
el yap tl ■klctov kariv en xPV(TTrIP'LUV>
ols av crv irpocrdri, roLab' ec/xxc/c' elvai Kparos.
This, curiously, appears first in the scene with Polyneices and
causes a sham suspense of uncertainty as to the event of the
Theban war, until it is clear that Oedipus will join neither side.
3) Also 409-11
eorcu 7tot' apa tovto Ka8p.elois (3apos . . .
Trjs arjs vtt' opyrjs, cols orav ot&oiv racpois.
These last two oracles were evidently delivered to the Thebans
(possibly also the first, cf. 353-6), and made known to Oedipus
only by accident. It is impossible to win any coherent view as to
the occasions of these pronouncements. Oedipus speaks of a
body of oracles delivered about him (353-5) and spoken at
different times; in 87 they appear to have been delivered all at
once. Of the three oracles, 1) was taken from Phoen. 1703-5;
2) was invented for this play, for there is nothing to indicate
that in any previous story Oedipus was even potentially an
arbiter in the quarrel between his sons, except as damning both;
and 3) was presumably suggested by some element in the local
legend (cf. the oracle in schol. to 0. C. 57). Thus an element of
patriotic expectation would go into the suspense which this
61
arouses. Beside this, it serves to motivate the scene with Creon,
an action, that is, which tends against Oedipus' settlement here
and thus makes a play. If we could suppose that Creon knew
about the oracle (1332-3), it would serve as a further explanal ion
of his conduct. But Ismene has the latest information from
Thebes (387-90), and 1332-3 are doubtless meant for a separate
oracle to Polyneices and his allies. It quickens suspense at the
close of this scene and adds dignity to the conclusion, because it
makes this an alternative to Oedipus' returning to Thebes and
his home with full honors (1342). This causes a real suspense
of uncertainty till 1100, when the children are rescued and it is
clear that Oedipus will not go to Thebes. This oracle makes one
think for a while that he will go, because we know the city was
saved. But the oracle says "hard on the Cad?neians", not the
Thebans in general, and this must be taken as referring to the
reigning house. Robert (p. 469 ff.) believes the Polyneices scene
to be an addition unessential to, and here contradicting, the rest
of the play. But there is nothing to show that the two oracles
are incompatible. Cf. 422-3.
ev 5' kfiol tcXos
ainolv y'tvoiro rrjade rrjs naws irkpi.
1332-3 seem like a fulfilment of this. Did Sophocles think of
that oracle as delivered after Oedipus had uttered those very
words?
b) Oracle 2), as we saw, brought Oedipus into connection with
the expedition of the Seven and so, conformably, the impending
battle, which is perfectly familiar to the audience, is kept in the
back of their minds. Preparations are described in 365-81. and
continued in 1301-45. The progress extends to the action (13 1 I
2); the invaders are already camped before Thebes. Parallel
to this runs the development of the curse-theme: 1) 421-54;
neither son will ever get any benefit from his mother city. This
is changed from the simple curse of the earlier stories to a state-
ment of something which Oedipus knows from the oracles (452-4) ;
hence the strife is fated. 2) In 789 f. in answer to Creon, ( tedipus
says that both sons will get enough Theban land to die in (cf.
Sept. 819 f.). 3) From 1372 ff. it appears thai they will die at
each other's hands; this is confirmed by 1383-8. This last pre-
diction, made directly to Polyneices' face, is taken from the
second curse of the Thebais and possibly from the Aeschylean
62
trilogy. But the disastrous results of the war are really a fore-
gone conclusion from the beginning, and thus the curse is not the
cause of it, although Polyneices, less documented with oracles,
believes it so to be (1432-4).
The curse is thus in its form similar to the Thebais. 421-54
corresponds inexactly to fr. 2 Evelyn-White, and 1372-88
exactly to fr. 3. Only, the curse is not the cause, and this trait
is new. The actual issue of the fight is left unconcluded though
certain, and we are reminded of it once before the end (1769-70).
It should be noted that the curse theme, and the suspense of
anticipation it involves, run along independent of and parallel
to, the suspense of uncertainty caused by the oracle in 409-11.
They are confusing, but would contradict each other only in
case Oedipus went to Thebes.
c) Robert (p. 8 ff.) sees in 389-407, 784-6 a reference to the
legend and location of the original grave of Oedipus at Eteonus.
Thus the play represents the conflict between two local legends.
To Sophocles' mind this conflict was probably present, but the
fact of the Eteonus cult was hardly well known to his audience,
and the lines hence have no more than their face value. The
theme of a Theban embassy trying to fetch back Oedipus for the
sake of his grave, after he had gone on his wanderings, is unknown
to previous literature so far as we know it. The determining
factor in suspense here is the question whether Colonus will in
fact be the place of Oedipus' death. Once Sophocles has raised
this issue, we are keen to see it carried through and the Colonus
story justified.
5. Antigone.
The suggestion of this play seems to come from two sources :
a) The Eleusinian story (Hdt. ix 27, 3; Aesch. Eleusinioi
ap. Plut. Thes. 29: See Nauck.). According to this version,
after the expedition of the Seven, the Thebans refused burial to
their dead enemies, but the Athenians persuaded or compelled
the Thebans to allow burial. The corpses were then buried at
Eleusis or Eleutherae; ra^al 8e t&v ttoXXcov h 'EXevdepais Selnvvv-
tcu, tQiv 8' riyefjiovuv irepl 'EXevalva, Plutarch. Polyneices appears
in Eur. Suppl. His name is mentioned last, and by Theseus1
1 The connection of this passage is curious. Does it mean that his body was
not there?
63
(928 ff.). There is no allusion to Antigone, (iron figures in
Eur. Suppl. through the mouth of his herald. But there was
no question of a formal forbidding of burial, addressed to the
the Thebans, who might be presumed to stand together in this
matter. There was no Antigone and no Haemon. This story
contradicts the Thebais, in which the seven heroes, who did not
include Adrastus, were burned in greal state after the battle!
(Pind. N. ix 24; vi 15 ff., and Asclcpiades ad loc. in schol.)
b) Robert finds traces of a more personal story than this in t he
reference to Ion of Chios1 in the Salustian hypothesis to the
Antigone: 6 p.tv yap "Iwv kv tols 5i0updyu/3ois KaraTprjadriuai 4>t]<tii>
aiJL(f)OTfpas (i.e., Antigone and Ismene) ei> t<2 Upu> 7-775 "Upas viro
Aaoda/jiavTos tov 'EreoKXeous. This is supposed to be a punishment
for something. A story can be traced back as far as Callima-
chus2 to the effect that Antigone buried Polyneices by dragging
his body to the already burning pyre of his brother. The diffi-
culty lies in connecting this story with the curious event in Ion,
and precisely here, the evidence fails. Robert connects the two
without hesitation and finds in the reference to the temple of Hera
in Ion a trace of the temple legend that started the whole story.
If that is the case, we have a curious phenomenon, viz., two
parallel legends appearing in literary form about the same time,
dealing roughly with the same event but with the widest diver-
gence of detail and consequences, and each story securing, more-
over, a following amongst later writers. Nevertheless, there is
much to be said in favor of this theory. The incident in Ion is
otherwise hard to motivate, and the proposed inclusion of
Ismene in Antigone's punishment (Robert, p. 364 ff.) seems like
an echo of a story where both were equally guilty. Cf. Ant. 488
ff.; 534 ff.; 576 ff.; 779 ff. Robert compares also Polyneices'
appeal to both his sisters (0. C. 1407 ff.); also the tomb where
Antigone was immured, with the burned temple of Sera. Cf.
the Brazen House of Pausanias in Sparta (Thuc. i 134). The
inevitable conflation of a) and b) appears in Apollod. iii 7, 1.
If such a story was extant before Sophocles' Antigone, it would
create a strong presumption in favor of the disastrous endii
the play. But it would give no lead as to the precise event, vie.,
1 See Robert, p. 362 ff. for discussion: Inn's literary activity a1 Athens fall-
between B.C. 152 21.
2 See Robert, vol. ii, p. 126, n. 53 for refs.
64
her hanging of herself. Note also that the suspense is kept up
without any general recourse to foreknown saga. In 944 ff.
Creon has shown no sign of relenting, and disaster will follow in
the natural course. In 988, that certain harbinger of evil,
Teiresias, appears and (1064 ff.) proclaims disaster: Creon will
lose someone from his own family. Then Creon changes his
mind (1095-1110). But now we know from Teiresias that the
disaster is coming, and Creon's change of heart only adds to the
dramatic irony, but causes no uncertainty. This sequence is
only made possible by the fact that it takes Teiresias till 1064-71
to make Creon see what we, and even the chorus, saw in 762-7.
No traces of the romantic story of Haemon, nor of Eurydice,.
appear in earlier literature so far as we can trace it. Line 2
Toiv cur' 015'urov kclk&p is a general reference to the evils connected
with the birth and history of Oedipus, and this theme is elaborated
in an ode (583 ff.), but it finds no part in the dialogue, which is
vividly human and bears little relation to anything outside itself.
The story in Ion may therefore be taken as creating suspense
of anticipation of a disaster, while the precise nature of the dis-
aster is clearly a matter of doubt owing to the shift of chronology,
by which Eteocles is already buried. This is the same method
we saw in the Rhesus and Philoctetes.
6. Supplices.
For the old story, which is probably that of the Thebais, see
Pind. 0. vi 15 and Asclepiades ap. schol. ad loc; N. ix 22 ff. There
is here no question of the Thebans refusing burial to their dead
enemies. This story proceeded from Eleusis or Attica (Hdt. ix
27). Cf. Aeschylus and Philochorus ap. Plut. Thes. 29 (see
Nauck2, p. 18-9). There is no variant in its general course or
issue, except for the version less discreditable to themselves, in-
vented by the Thebans, according to which they gave up the
bodies willingly instead of under compulsion (Paus. i 39, 2).
There is no earlier reference for Euadne as daughter of Iphis and
wife of Capaneus; hence one is free to believe that her self-sacri-
fice was quite new to the audience, and that there was no lead
given by any previous story as to what she would do when she
appeared (990). There is no trace of a self-sacrifice story other-
65
wise in the legends of the burial of the seven heroes. The fad
that she is a sister of the shadow-figure, Eteoclus, who appears
first in Sept. 457, without parentage, and is here given a father by
Euripides (1036-7), would go to show thai she is, like him, only
the creature of a dramatic emergency. Iphis has a small history
of his own in later authors (see Roscher s.v.), but his connection
with Eteoclus seems to rest on this play. There is thus suspense
of anticipation regarding the burial theme from the beginning
and of uncertainty regarding Euadne from 980 to 1072.
IV. Athenian Legends.
1. Medea.
This play is drawn partly from an Athenian, partly from a
Corinthian, source. How much of the story existed before
Euripides it is impossible to say, for there is not one single trait
of his play beyond the localization of Iason and Medea in Corinth
for which uncontested earlier evidence exists. Without attempt-
ing an exhaustive review of the evidence, we may try to reach a
point of view regarding each important incident.
a) Murder of the children. Did anything in the earlier saga
lead the audience to expect this?
1) Pausanias, ii 3, 10, purporting to summarize Eumelus, a
Corinthian epic poet of the last half of the eighth century, tells
us that Medea hid her children in the temple of Hera, hoping to
make them immortal; she was deceived of her hope and left
Corinth; it is implied that her children died. But it appears
from Paus. ii 1, 1, that he had no direct knowledge of Eumelus,
but used a prose history1 which he thought was by Eumelus:
Ei'yurjXos ... 6s kclI to. e-n-q \eyerai TOLtjaat, (prjalu kv rjj KopwdLq.
avyy pa(f)fj, el drj Eu/^Aou ye -q <rvyypa<pr). . . . This history used
Eumelus, at least in the genealogies; cf. Paus. ii 3, 10, witli
Eum. fr. 2 K. The scholiast to Pind. 0. xiii 74, win. had a
text of Eumelus, supplements this story: 'etceX (i.e., in Corinth) 5t
avTTJs (Medea) 6 Zeus -qpaadrj, ovk eireldeTO 8e rj M^Saa, top ttjs 'Ilpas
eKK^ivovaa x°^ov Oib nai t) "Ilpa vireo-xeTO aVTr} adavaTOVs Troirjaat.
1 See E. G. Wilisch, Ucber die Fragmente dea Epikera Eum* los, Leipzig, l s7">.
66
tovs ircudas. airodavovTas 8e tovtovs Tip.wcn KopLvdioi, Kakovvres
HL%of3ap(3apovs. Much is lacking for a complete understanding of
what happened, e.g., why Hera went back on her promise, but
there ought to be no doubt that these two passages come from
the same source, viz., Eumelus' Corinthiaca. (Cf. the Scholiast
to Ap. Rh., i 146; hi 1372, who also had a text.) Thus we have
clear earlier evidence for a story of an involuntaiy murder, as
Seeliger rightly observes (Roscher s.v. Medea, col. 2493). This
however was probably not connected with an action on Iason's
part until Euripides, and would not figure in suspense until
Medea mentions it (792), with a new motivation. This issue
would then be certain, though the murder is here voluntary.
2) Medea, in lines 1378-83, proposes to bury her children in
the precinct of Hera Akraia, where the Corinthians will perform
aefxpriv eopriiv /ecu reXrj. To this passage may be traced schol. Med.
1379 and Zenodotus i 27, according to which Medea founded the
cult of Hera Akraia. Pausanias saw in Corinth (ii 3, 6) the graves
of Medea's children, at which propitiatory offerings had been
made yearly until the Roman conquest : ovk€tl kneivai KadecrrrjKacnv
avrols ai dvaicu irapa tuiv eTro'iKwv, ovde aironeLpovTaL (jfyiaiv ol 7rcu5es,
ov8e fxekaivav (popovatv kadrjra Paus., ii, 3, 7. With these offerings
he connects a legend contradicting the Eumelus story, which he
tells a few lines further on, to the effect that the Corinthians had
stoned to death Medea's children in revenge for the murder of
Glauce. Their own children then began to die, until, at the be-
hest of an oracle, they established the sacrifices. Parmeniscus
(schol. Med. 273) and Didymus (schol. Med. 273), quoting one
Creophylus, presumably the historian of Ephesus, give two
variants of this:
67
Parm.
rds 8e Kopivdlas ov fiovXopepas
virb fiapftapov Kal (pappaKtbos
yvpaiKos apxtoOai, avrrju re eirt-
/3oiAePcrcu Kal to. reKpa avTrjs
Creoph. ap. Did.
ttji> yap N-nbetap \eyti 5iarpi-
flovaav ep KopivOco top apxoura
Tore ttjs 7r6Xews Kpeopra airoKTel-
vo.1 4>app.aKois. beiaaoav be tovs
apeXelp, eirra pep appepa, tirra be <f)L\ovs Kal tovs avyyepels avrov,
(pvyelp eis 'Ad-qpas, tovs be viovs,
kirel veojTepoL ovres ovk rjbvpaPTo
anokovdelv, KaOielp eirl rbv fiwpbp
ttjs d/cpaias "Upas, popiaacrap top
warepa avrcjp (ppoPTtelp T7js
aojTT]pias avT&p. tovs be KpeoPTOS
oUelovs airoKTeivavras avrovs 6ia-
bovvai \byovs otl 77 Mr/beta ov
pbpop rbv Kpeovra dXXd nai tovs
eavTrjs iralbas airknTeive.
BrfKea. ravra be biuiKopepa Kara-
4>vye?v eis to ttjs d/cpaias "Upas
lepbv Kal eirl to lepbv KadiaaL,
Kopivdiovs be avrdv ovbe ovtus
airexto-dai. dXX' eirl tov /3copou
ivavTa ravra airoacpa^ai. Xotpou
be yevop.'evov eis tyjp itoXlp 7roXXd
(jdcpaTa virb ttjs vbaov bia^Qeip-
eadaL, pavTevopevois be avTols
Xpycrpcobr) a at top Bebv iKaaKeaOat
to ttjs M-qbeias TeKPoop 0.70s. bdev
KopipdioLs pexpi- tcjv KatpCiv twp
Kad' rjpas Kad' eKao~Tov evtavTOv
eiTTa Kovpovs Kal eirTa Kovpas tup
einaripoTaTOiP apbpup epairepiav-
Ttfciv tu ttjs Beds Tepkvei, Kal
peTa dvo~LU)p IXacrKecrdaL ttjp eKeipcop
prjpip Kal tt]v 81 eKelpovs yepop'ep-qp
ttjs Beds bpy-qp.
In the schol. to Med. 10 Parmeniscus is credited with the story
that Euripides received five talents for shifting the blame of the
murder from the Corinthians to Medea.
Clearly the same base underlies Paus. ii 3, 6 and the two quota-
tions in the scholium to Med. 273. Of these versions, thai of
Creophylus motivates the murder of the children through the
murder of Creon by Medea; that of Pausanias with the murder
of Glauce.1 Both these incidents are themselves unmotivated in
the context and the inference is that they were borrowed from
Euripides. The story of Parmeniscus, however, shows no trace
of Euripidean influence. The act of the Corinthians is motivated
simply by their irritation at Medea, whom they fell to be B
1 Her name is not in the text of Eur. Med. hut is associated later with
Euripides' story. Schol. Med. 19; Hyg. Fab. 25.
68
barbarian. As in the other versions, the murder is connected
closely with the fact of the cult and with the puzzling detail of
the seven youths and the seven maidens. On this ground Seeliger
(Rosch. s.v. Medea; col. 2494) says that the seven youths and
seven maidens have nothing to do with the children of Medea —
quite wrongly, as I believe.
The key to these passages lies in the end of the schol. Pind.
0. xiii 74 quoted above, airodavovTas 8e tovtovs Tip&ai Koplvdtoi,
KaKovvTts /jLL&fiapfiapovs. Here the sacrifices appear in connection
with a story that made no one responsible for the death of the
children. Now the word nL%0f3a.pP6.povs obviously comes from
the formulae of the cult itself. Hence the word may be, and
very likely is, older than any story we have. Thus the story
in Parmeniscus appears as a legend composed to account for
a particular ceremony, and the first part is an explanation of
the cult- word. It is not likely that this tale arose later than the
Euripidean play, which fixed the dominant tradition and even
took the cult into account. Thus we are left with the conclusion
that the two stories: 1) that of the unwitting murder; and 2)
that of a murder by the Corinthians, both preceded Euripides.
The five-talent story is thus a malicious allusion to the fact that
Euripides swept the older stories out of currency. That either
of these stories was known to many of the audience is very doubt-
ful, and therefore, so far as the children went, Euripides was vir-
tually working new material. To anyone, however, who knew the
story of the stoning, 792-3 would have a new significance. The
employment of the children in the murder of Creon's daughter
would make him think that the stoning-story would follow as a
result of Creon's anger. Thus Medea's purpose to kill them
needs to be expressed here to forestall the expectation of this.
This purpose was not likely to fall through unless her whole plan
failed, and the audience knew from the Athenian legend that it
did not fail. Hence in any case from 792 on the suspense as to
the fate of the children is purely that of anticipation.
b) The murder of Creon and his daughter. There is nothing
that I can find in previous stories about this, nor about the
second marriage of Iason. The only suggestions of a clash be-
tween Iason and Medea lie in the feeling of the Corinthians
against a barbarian woman and her children, which might easily
be carried over to her husband; and in the stories of her going to
09
Athens, or back to Asia. The suspense as to the marriage and
the murder is developed entirely out of the lines of I he play.
c) Medea and Athens. That a previous Legend existed con-
necting Medea with Athens we can hardly doubt, in view of the
unrelated appearance of Aegeus in this play, criticized in Aj. Poet.
61 b 19; cf. 54 b 1. A strong, though not conclusive, piece of
evidence for such a legend is Hdt. vii 62, 1, airiKofxhris Mrj5«iT/s
rfjs KoAx^os c£ ' 'AOrjvecov es tovs 'ApLovs. For the details of this we
are dependent on Euripides' Aegeus.1 Wilamowitz (Herm. xv
1880, 482) believes this to have preceded the Medea; certainly,
if that was true, it would have made the appearance of Aegeus
in Medea seem less violent, and directed our minds before line
663 to this conclusion; but there is no evidence for this. In
any case the existence of an Athenian legend would give the
audience a clue to Medea's method of escape.
Euripides' play is throughout one of character, and the sus-
pense as to particular events is little influenced by outside stories
except in so far as they allowed a presumption that, whatever
else happened, Medea herself would escape. (For the play of
Neophron, see Christ, Gr. Littgesch. i 357-8. I find ii impossible
to believe that the fragments of this work antedated the Medea.)
2. Hippolytus.
This was written partly as an apologia (Arg. Eur. Hip.) for an
earlier play on the same subject, and hence the variations of the
myth that affect us will be variations from the earlier version.
It seems pretty clear that in the earlier play Phaedra made her
addresses to Hippolytus directly.2 Phaedra also calls upon the
moon (Schol. Theoc, ii 10), not necessarily in magic rites. She
also blames Theseus for his previous misdeeds (Plut., De and.
poet, p. 28 A). Two passages in Apollod. Sabbait., p. 180,
line 9 ff., <rx'i-o~ao-a. tcls tov 6a\ap.ov dvpas /cat rds ea07jras enrapa^acra.
Karexpevaaro 'linroXvTov (5'ia.v, and line 24, ytvop.kvov 5e rod epedros
irepi4>ai>ovs tavr-qv avqpT-qae (f?ai5pa, are referred by Wagner with
some probability to this play. On the other hand, it is going
1 Fit. ap. Nauckj cf. schol. Med. 167. The story in schol. to //. XI, 711 is
probably an hypothesis of the Aegeus.
2 Hyp. Eur. Hip., p. 5, 6.irprrch nal Karriyopias l£un> Ar. Ran. L043 o\V ov
fia Ai ov <I>at5pas kwolovv wopvas. Cf. frr. 135-6 N. Tins trait appears also in
Seneca's Phaedra.
70
too far to suppose that Theseus was absent in the underworld
during the greater part of the play, or that this was the third
member in a trilogy of matter, preceded by the Aegeus and
Theseus (Wilamowitz, Inlr. to Hip. 1891).
The earlier play will thus have been coarser in its lines. (See
A. Kalkmann, Quaestiones Novae de Euripidis Hippolyto, p. 24 ff.)
Phaedra presumably announces her intentions when she addresses
the moon; the center of the play will contain her attempt to
persuade Hippolytus. The suspense of this is split up in the
extant play: 198-352 Phaedra declares herself; 401-2 she resolves
to die; 435 ff. the nurse proposes a remedy for disease (479);
this is explained in 491 and meets with violent opposition from
Phaedra; in 524 ff. we are uncertain as to what the nurse will do;
in 600 ff. we are uncertain whether Hippolytus will be won over;
in 680 the suspense reverts to Phaedra's proposal to die. (With
401-2 cf. 599-600.) There is no suspense springing from vari-
ants, because the fundamental data of the love-story were con-
stant and came down from the cult-song (1428-30). For the
origin of this and the cult of Hippolytus at Troezen and Athens,
see Wilamowitz, Intr. to Hipp., p. 30 ff.
There is, however, an important variant at the end of the play
in lines 1462-6:
kolvov r65' iixos 7ra<n 7ro\ircus
TJhdtV de\7TTCOS.
iroKKdv baupvwv earai tt'ltv\os '
tcov yap ixeyahoiv a^LOirevdets
4>rjfxcu fxaWov Karexovcriv.
Fortunately Stobaeus preserves the corresponding bit from the
Hippolytus Veiled (Fr. 446 N) :
co naxap, olas ekaxts rip.as,
'Itt6\v6' rjpcos, 5td aaxfrpoavvrjp '
ovirore dvrjTOLS
aperijs aXKr] 5vvap,LS pieLfav '
rj\de yap fj irpoad' rj ^eroTTLadev
rrjs evaefiias x^pts ea6\r].
This latter must refer to some more substantial benefit than the
hero-cult promised by Artemis in 11. 1423-30. Cf. Carmen
Naupactium Fr. 11 K. 'IttoKvtov {avkcr-qcxev 6 'Ao-kA^os), cbs 6
ra NaviranTLKa avyypa\j/as \kya. Paus. ii 27, 4, ravrrjs rrjs ari]\y]s
71
t<2 tTnypaidfiaTi (record of twenty horses dedicated to Asclepius
by Hippolytus on a stele in the precinct of Asclepius a1 Epi-
daUTUs) dp-oXoyovvra Xtyovaiv 'Apuueis ws reOvtcoTa 'IwkoXvtoi' kit rdv
Qrjaews apQ>v auearrjcreu 'AcrKXrjirios. A version which fits better to
1 he end of a play and docs not mention Asclepius is Paus. ii 32,
1. airodavetv 5e avrov ovu WeXovai avpeura bird t&v 'littvlcv ovdi tov
racfrov aTrocfMxivovGiv eldores. tov 5e tv ovpavu) KaXoiiptvov -qvloxov,
tovtov eivai vop.i£ovo~t.v tKtivov \ttttoKvtov, Tipriv irapa Oeoou TavTT)v'ixovTa.
Pausanias does not make it clear how this story fitted with the
grave of Hippolytus near his precinct at Troezcn. Scarcely any-
one will doubt that this, if it does not refer to the end of the
Hippolytus Veiled, at least refers to the legend there preserved.
Wilamowitz (Intr. to Hipp., p. 43 ff.) believes that Asclepius
restored Hippolytus to a superhuman life. This, however, will
be a Troezenian cult legend and probably not include Asclepius.
Asclepius, if he appeared at all, would restore only to life on
earth, as appears in the Epidaurian story of the dedication of
twenty horses. It is curious, however, that this Epidaurian
version of a Troezenian legend should turn up in the ^SaviraKTia.
Cf. Paus. x 38, 11, on the provenance of this epic. For 1 he ( ransla-
tion to stars, cf. Eur. Or. 1636-7; Hec. 1265-7; also the Hyades
and Coronides discussed above in connection with Iph. Aul.
A consequence of this would be that there was no death-scene
on the stage; it would be too much to ask of an audience to be-
lieve that a visible corpse was later to become a constellation.
The place of the death-scene would be taken by a long speech
from some divinity.
This bears on our play. If there were two earlier legends of
Hippolytus' recovery, one of which was certainly known to the
greater part of the audience through the Hippolytus Veiled, the
presumption would be that here too he would be rescued in some
miraculous way, at the last moment. This accounts for the
unusual way in which Artemis behaves. After Artemis bas ex-
plained the situation to Theseus, we expect I ll.it she will aniinlllirr
Hippolytus' translation and that the play will end. Hut instead
she explains her inability to interfere, 1328 34. Then Bippoly-
tus is brought in dying, and the converse he enjoys with Artemis
is a faint shadow of the blessings given to the deified Bippolytus
of the old Troezenian story.
Here mythological suspense appears at its highest, because it
72
sets us definitely on a false scent from the moment Hippolytus'
disaster is announced.
3. Ion.
There is an indication in the Ion that an old Attic legend was
being followed in the details as to localities, 11-3, 17; but in-
formation as to the sources of this plot is entirely lacking. Of
the two Sophoclean plays that may deal with this theme, the Ion
and the Creusa, the first has no fragments, and those of the
second offer nothing. The evidence as to the Ion-saga, together
with an attempt to account for the elements of this play, is well
put together by E. Ermatinger, Attische Autochthonensage; Thesis,
Zurich 1897, pp. 112-42.
One observation should be made, namely, that Ion here is a
young man, and later became eponymous hero of a race (Hdt. v
66; vii 94; viii 44; Eur. Ion 74-5). Therefore it is a foregone
conclusion that nothing serious can happen to him, even if both
Creusa and Xuthus go to the ground. In an Attic legend, this
means that suspense tends from 971 to discount the effectiveness
of Creusa's plotting and go beyond it to its recoil on herself.
V. Legends of Heracles.
1. Heracles.
Here as in the case of the Oedipus plays, the groundwork has
been laid for an understanding of the myth (Wilamowitz, Intro-
duction to Heracles) . The story of Heracles' murder of his chil-
dren is, according to Wilamowitz (Intr. I2 86-8), in the Theban
story a reason for his later absence from Thebes and his associa-
tion with Argos, which could not be done away. There is no
allusion in the Iliad or Odyssey to the child-murder; the Cypria
(Procl.) mention the madness of Heracles, presumably this event ;
Stesichorus and Panyasis (Paus. ix 11) dealt with the event; how,
we do not know; Pausanias (I.e.) gives the legend as current in
his own day. Heracles killed his children in a fit of madness and
was about to kill Amphitryon when Athena appeared (cf. Eur.
Her. 1001-9) and stunned him with a huge stone. Pherecydes
(fr. 30) relates that Heracles threw his children into a fire (cf.
Apollod. 2, 4, 12, 1), and an illustration of this appears in a vase-
73
painting by Assteas of Paestum in Alexander's time I Roscher s.v.
Megara, for picture; Wilam., I.e., p. 85). Pindar /. iv G3-4
diverges from, or, as Wilamowitz thinks (I.e., 82-3) directly
polemicizes against, this version in speaking of
Xa.\Koapap oktu davbvruv
tovs Meyapa reKe oi Kpttovrls viovs,
without saying that their father killed them.
This is the substance of the evidence for an earlier handling.
The first half of the play seems a pure invention by Euripides.
Lycus is, in this connection, unparalleled (lines 26-31; Wilam.,
I.e., p. 112). This part of the play is a variation of the suppliant-
theme, which could be introduced anywhere; cf. the Andromache,
which is similarly padded at the beginning. Dieterich (Pulcin-
ella, p. 9 ff.) points out striking parallels between the structure
of Herac. 1-522 and Andr. 1-543. The suppliant-theme in
extant plays implies a deliverer,1 and thus the presumption is
that someone, obviously Heracles, will appear. At the beginning
of the play the hero is in Hades, 25 IvQtv ovx v&i- ttoKlv. This is
no presumption against his appearing, because it is said 22-3
that this is the last of the twelve labors, which we know were
completed. Another resurrection was handled in Soph. Phaedra
(frr. 624-5); possibly in Eur. Hipp. Veiled.
Lycus orders servants to build a pyre to burn the children,
240-6. This is clearly a reference to another existing story, I hat
the children were burned by Heracles (cf. Wilam.; I.e., p. 85).
Here the pyre is to be reasonably built of firewood. In the
Assteas vase, it consists of household furniture. Hence it quick-
ens suspense to bring the present play into connection with
stories of the madness of Heracles, which has so far not been
mentioned.
The most important innovation is the introduction of Theseus
(Wilam., I.e., p. 109-12). Suspense is perhaps at its keenest at
the end of the scene with Amphitryon, where Heracles is con-
templating suicide (1146 ff.). In 1151-2 he ends his review of
possible deaths by aapKa ttju inqpev + epTrp-qaas irvpL a reference
to the fire-death on Mt. Oeta which, like 240 6, quickens sus-
pense by alignment with a known saga. Theseus one-; not
broach his suggestion that Heracles go to At hen- until L322 ff.
1 Cf . Aesch. Suppl., where tin- deliverance Lb contra licted la the m «ri play.
74
That this suggestion is to be followed, we are at once informed
by 1328-9 Travraxov 8k p.oi xdovbs \ Ttp.kvr\ bkhaarai.1 These precincts
existed and were called after Heracles, as we know. If their
existence is made conditional on Heracles' going, then obviously
he will have to go.
The end of Heracles' life is thus made similar to that of Oedipus.
That there was no legend already in Attica about this end of
Heracles, no one would be so rash as to assert. On the contrary,
it may be objected that Heracles is localized in no particular
spot. 1216-7:
ovdels <tkotos yap <£5' exet p.k\av vkcfros,
ocms kclkoov owv (TVfjLcfropav npv\J/ei.ev av,
and 1231-2:
Up. t£ 8rJTa jxov upar' apeKa\v\{/as rj\Lu>;
Qr]. t'l 6"; ov (jLiaiveis 6vt]t6s &v to. t&v dewv,
are a flat contradiction of the ideas expressed by Creon in Oed-
Tyr. 1424-8, and may well be a conscious criticism of that version
of the Oedipus legend which enclosed the blinded old man in the
house.
In 1406-8 Heracles' desire to embrace the corpses of his chil-
dren, whom he has murdered, seems a transference from Oed. Tyr.
1521-2. Cf. Her. 1414 6 Kkeivbs 'Hpa/cXTjs, with Oed. Tyr. 1524-5
018'ltovs 68e I os to. n\tiv' aivLyp-aT' f?5tt, and Oed. Tyr. 8 6 wacn
nXeivos Oldiirovs naXovpievos. Note also Her. 1402 8l8ov 8kpr\ or\v
xetp', b8r\yi]<j<s> 5' kyu>. There is no specific mention, but in the
exodus of the Oed. Tyr. Oedipus is evidently led by Creon 1515,
1521. On the. whole, the exodus of the Heracles seems written
with that of the Oedipus Tyrannus in mind; note the broken
lines Her. 1418-2; Oed. Tyr. 1516-22. It is not unlikely that
Euripides had already heard of the Colonus story of Oedipus
(Phoen. 1703 ff.) and invented a similar one for Heracles. The
interest in the embracing of the children is pathetic and does
not stimulate suspense. But the parallel to the final fortunes
of Oedipus suggests that this is an imitation of the Oedipus
Tyrannus exodus, with an echo of the Colonus story. But the
Colonus story had not yet figured in tragedy, unless this play
followed the Phoenissae, which is unlikely. The theme of Hera-
1 Cf. Wilamowitz, p. 110, for the transference of the precincts from Theseus
to Heracles.
75
cles' removal to Athens had already been secured by the mention
of the precincts (1328), before the embracing of the children is
spoken of, and therefore the suspense from this source is nil.
To sum up the results for mythological suspense, then- is do
reason to believe that the audience expected anything but the
deliverance by Heracles of the harassed family, until 822. Up
to this point the suspense of anticipation rests, as we saw, on the
familiar sequence of the suppliant motive: sanctuary, violence,
rescue.
At 822 Iris and Lyssa appear, to create suspense of anticipa-
tion, through the murder. The children are to be killed (835);
how, is not said. Knowing that Lycus has built :t pyre, the
audience will suppose, until the angelia, that Heracles will throw
the children upon it.
2. Trachiniae.
There is no detailed earlier reference to the content of this
play, and until the later sources have been more fully analyzed,
it is impossible to form much of an idea as to the nature of what
Sophocles and his audience had to go by. (So Wilamowitz, p.
71 ff.) The principal question is whether in any earlier version
the marriage with Dcianeira and the Nessus poison were asso-
ciated with the fiery death on Mt. Oeta. If that was the case,
the audience's mind would travel directly to the end of the play
from 555 ff., or perhaps from the mention of Iole in 476 ff. The
Nessus1 story must have been familiar to many, and the audience
can actually jump from 555 ff. through 1173. This, however,
was certainly an old independent version of the death of Heracles.
So likewise was the burning on Mt. Oeta, and different versions
of that appear (Soph. Phil. 670, 802, 1432; Apollo. 1. ii 7, 7. 11;
Tzet. on Lye. 50). Whether or not the conflation of the two thai
appears here, and, with still another addition, in Apollod. I.e., is
older than this play, is simply a non liquet.
Similarly, if the capture of Oechalia2 had been previously asso-
ciated with the Nessus shirt and a jealousy theme in which Iole
figured, we should suspect from 7 1 5 the course the story would
1 The earliest source is Archiloehus in schol. to Ap. Rh., i 1212. F<W later
references see Roscher s.v. Nessus.
2 We know from the epigram in Strabo xiv, 1, is that tins in Creophylus1
version contained the story of Iole; see Kinkel, p. 60.
76
take. Fahlnberg1 sees in Hyllus' steadfast refusal to light the
fire, that only breaks down (1249) under a conditional curse
(1239^40), an allusion to the stoiy that Poeas or Philoctetes lit
the pyre (Soph. Phil. 802, etc.). However, it is inevitable from
1195-9 that Heracles will be burned, and who touches him off
does not much matter.
3. Alcestis.
For the Alcestis, as for the Trachiniae, no earlier story exists
that amounts to anything. Reconstructions are therefore the-
oretical and too uncertain to serve us as data. The evidence is
presented, mixed with a good deal of speculation, by L. Bloch,
Neue Jahrb. f. d. Kl. Alt, 1901, 40 ff., 113 ff . See also in Wilam-
owitz, Isyllos, p. 65 ff., an attempt to trace the story of Alcestis
to Hesiod's Eoiae; the evidence is very scanty. Compare Robert,
Thanatos, p. 25 ff. It seems probable that the story was a whole
and did not vary in its main lines throughout its history (so
Bloch, I.e.) : Alcestis dies in place of her husband and is won back
from death or Hades by a hero. The question whether she was
won back by force or persuasion (see Bloch, p. 41, n. 1) does not
here affect suspense, as it is a matter of angelia after the event.
The only reference with any bearing on the story is Servius
to Aen. iv 694, " alii dicunt Euripidem Orcum in scaenam inducere
gladium ferentem quo crinem Alcesti abscindat; Euripidem hoc a
Phrynicho (0. Jahn for poenia F., phenico T.) antiquo tragico
mutuatum."
4. Heracleidae.
Three points in the Heracleidae demand attention:
1) The sacrifice of Macaria. There is no earlier story of a
willing sacrifice in connection with this plot. Macaria herself
appears as present at the death of Heracles (Duris Sam. ap. schol.
Plat. Hipp. Mai., p. 293 A), but this need be no more than a
conflation of Euripides with some story which mentioned Her-
acles' children as present at his death upon a pyre. For the will-
ing sacrifice theme, see the discussion above under Iph. Aul.
The issue of the play itself was a foregone conclusion to every
1 The early references to the story of the Trachiniae are well presented by A.
Fahlnberg, De Hercule Tragico Graecorum, p. 10 ff. See also Jebb's Intr. to
Trachiniae.
77
Athenian, and therefore after 403-9 it was certain thai someone
would have to be sacrificed; similarly after 502, thai ii will be
Macaria.
2) The rescuing of the Heracleidae from Eurystheus was told
in Hdt. ix 26-7, together with the expedition of the Argive
suppliants. Compare Ar. Plut. 385 and schol. for a painting by
Pamphilus, which must have been familiar to the audience then;
also Thuc. i 9; Isoc. Pan., p. 51; Plut. de Mai. Hdt., p. 872a;
Aristides Panath., p. 201. The story was common amongsl
panegyrists of the fourth century, and there could be no doubl of
the issue. The incident of Macaria is thus introduced to add
interest. The mythological suspense, so far as it occurs, is purely
that of anticipation.
3) The Aristeia of Iolaus and the fate of Eurystheus. Iolaus
was famous in the Theban legend as the great charioteer of
Heracles. (Hesiod Scut. 74 ff.; Archil, fr. 118 B2; Pind. /. i 16;
v 32; vii 9; P. xi, 60.) He also killed Eurystheus (P. ix 79).
On the other hand, he had a tomb at Eleusis (0. ix 98) with a
legend attached. Whether or not he appeared as an old man in
the pre-Euripidean stoiy, it is hard to tell. Pindar (P. xi 79)
mentions him simply as a hero,1 but this is a different legend from
ours, for there he is buried beside Amphitryon. The death of
Eurystheus, in some way or other, was an inevitable part of the
Athenian legend, for his grave existed on the battlefield (Paus. i
44, 10). Here it is postponed, in order to include the address
1026 ff., which bears on current events.
The compulsion of the saga is clearly seen from 966 to the
end. Both Herodotus (I.e.) and Thucydides (I.e.) agree thai
Eurystheus was killed. Euripides brings him into the play,
partly from interest, partly from the lack of other greal charac-
ters, and then is embarrassed by the question of what to do with
him. The saga said, "Kill him," but this was not a sporting
thing to do, and was repugnant to his patriotic Athenian feeling.
So the responsibility for the death is "put up" to Alcmene and
to her alone. There is keen suspense as to whether he will be
killed or not, from 958 to the end of what we have of the play.
1 The version in the scholium, that he rose from the dead on this occasion, ifl
probably only an elaboration of the Euripidean metamoiphoe
78
VI. Miscellaneous.
1. Bacchae.
The myth of Pcntheus was well fixed in its main outlines by-
Aeschylus' Pentheus. 17 8 e pvdoiroua KeTrcu Trap' AurxuXw h Uevdei.
Ar. Byz. in Arg. to Bacchae. The play will here be considered in
relation to the Athenian audience (cf. Schol. Ar. Ran. 64). It may
have been originally brought out in Macedonia. See H. Weil
Etudes, p. 110. Aeschylus' Xantriae may have also dealt with
the same story (Schol. Eum. 26; see Nauck2, s.v., p 55). It is also
one of the few tragic stories for which we have a vase-painting
of the severe type (Hartwig Jahrb. Arch. Inst, vii, p. 157; Taf.
5. Picture in Roscher hi 2, 1931-2). Pentheus (named) is being
torn to pieces by two female figures, one of whom is labeled
/Al> EN E. The completeness of the tearing — all the lower part
of his body is gone — and the few Maenads actually engaged in
pulling at the remains, suggest that the artist or his predecessor
had in mind a version like that of Bac. 1127-8:
aveenrapa^ev up,ov, ovx U7r6 adkvovs
d\X' 6 debs evp,apeiav kireblbov xcpotJ'.
Hartwig (I.e.) supposes that in this version Pentheus was torn in
pieces by Maenads accompanying Dionysus, not by his own
mother and aunts. Cf. Aesch. Eum. 25-6:
e£ ovre fianxcus karpar^yriadv deos
Xcryco 8Lkt]v HevdeZ Karappa\f/as p.bpov.
In the Xantriae Erinyes seem to have been present:
as ovre 7rep.0i£ 17X101; TrpocrSep/cerai
ovt' a(TTepo}Tr6v 6p.fxa AT/rwas /coprys.
Cf. P. V. 796 (the Phorcides); Eum. 71-2. Compare with this
the two late Italian vase-paintings, representing an Erinys (Bull.
Nap. iv, tav. 2, 3: Dilthey, Arch. Zeit., 31, taf. 7, 3). Nonnus
(Dionys. 44-6) represents Dionysus as calling to his aid Lyssa,
Mene, and Oestrus, but only to drive insane Pentheus, his mother
and his aunts. The murder is performed by Agaue. In one of
the Fury vases (Bull. Nap., I.e.) this creature (here I have only
the description in Roscher) stands over Pentheus while a Maenad
attacks him; this might fit with the Nonnus story. But in the
other (Dilthey) she conducts the attack herself, with a panther.
On both these vases she is dressed in hunting costume. Com-
pare the language of Aesch. Eum. 25-6.
79
Thus we seem to have these possibilities:
1) Pentheus was killed by Maenads (Attic vase 6-5 cent.) ;
2) Pentheus was killed by Agaue, etc. (Euripides and later
literature generally) ;
3) Pentheus was killed by a Huntress Fury (?) (vase ap.
Dilthey). Acsch. Eum. 25-6 seems to have followed fche firsl
version, and in none of the vases, so far as I can find, are the
Maenads named. In support of the second possibility, a fury
seems to be mentioned in Xantriae (Fr. 170 N.)
However, it is very unlikely that in neither the Xantriae nor
the Pentheus was the murder committed by Agaue. The diver-
gence is far too important to be overlooked by Aristophanes of
Byzantium even in a brief note (v. supr.), and the Bacchar ap-
pears throughout to be an echo of an Aeschylean crime and
punishment cycle; cf. Bac. 25 ff. If the Semele occurred in the
same trilogy, as is likely (Welcker, Aesch. Tril. 327 ff. ; Sandys
Intr. Batch, xxvi ff.) the hybris of Semele's sisters would occur
there and be punished later. Thus, again, if the murder of
Pentheus was a punishment for Agaue as well as for the mur-
dered man, an anagnorisis must follow as in Bac. 1277 ff. This
is the only issue beside the murder that calls forth objective
suspense. The death of Pentheus is quite certain; the legend
cannot exist without it. For the anagnorisis, as we see, an
earlier parallel is likely.
Euripides appears to play upon the uncertainty as to who ac-
tually will murder Pentheus. In 32 Dionysus mentions Agaue
and her sisters as roaming mad through the mountains. But
compare 52 — in the event of trouble, £vi>a\pu nat.v6.aL arpaTrjXaTtiv —
an echo of the very language of Eum. 25-6. The economy of
the play makes it increasingly clear that Pentheus will be mur-
dered by his relatives, as is in fact inevitable. The real Bac-
chanals are the chorus; such a scene could not be enacted en
the stage, and that the chorus should leave to do it is almost as
unthinkable. When Pentheus (810 ff.) is persuaded to go and
seek out the mad women on the mountain the issue can no Longer
be in doubt.
There is thus suspense of uncertainty rising from the double
tradition, as to who will actually kill Pentheus, and this i- grad-
ually cleared away by the lines themselves.
80
2. Supplices (Aeschylus).
Reconstructions of previous versions are based mainly on this
play. (See Wilam. Interp., p. 12 ff.)
The suppliant-theme presupposed, as was noted under Eur.
Andr. (cf. Dieterich, I.e.), a rescuer. Thus in this play there
has to be a rescuer to complete the motive, although this ran
counter to the saga, which is resumed in the succeeding play of
the trilogy, where the Danaids, in some way, fall into the hands
of the Aegyptids. If we accept this as a pre-existing tradition,
the suppliancy of the Danaids and their reception by a Pelasgic
king runs counter to the legend. It was probably inserted here
simply to make a play. Thus the compulsion of the saga and
the compulsion of religious feeling (later developed, as we saw,
into a stock dramatic motive), contradict each other, and this
issue doubtless caused lively suspense of uncertainty through 965.
The compromise is effected by giving the play to the suppliant
motive and the trilogy to the saga. Notice the title of this play
and the vague name of the rescuer king, merely a lay figure with
no footing in the legend; cf. Euadne in Eur. Sup. and Macaria
in the Heracleidae.
3. Prometheus.
What suspense there is in this play depends almost entirely
upon allusions to already known myths. These are:
1) A further punishment for Prometheus than the one he is
already undergoing; 311-3, 992 ff., 1015 ff., 1080 ff., 992 ff.
This is spoken of only in terms of a terrible storm, together with
an earthquake or volcanic eruption. Prometheus is, however,
immortal and indestructible. Nothing is said of a long period
of punishment of another kind. At the same time, this seems to
indicate something more radically different than the addition to
his present pains caused by the eagle feeding upon his liver
(Theogony 523-5), which would have been a legitimate inference
from 311-3. A further punishment of Prometheus would prob-
ably take the line explained in 347 ff., in the description (without
strict external connection) of the burden of Atlas in the west and
of Typhos buried under Aetna. Bapp (Roscher iii 2, 3042)
points the illuminating parallel between Typhos under Aetna and
Prometheus under a Caucasus believed volcanic. Atlas is Pro-
metheus' brother in the Theogony (1. 509), and his other brother,
81
Menoetius, was there sent down to Erebus (1. 515). Compare
the fate of the Titans in general w]10 warred od ( Hympus | Ttu og.
617 ff.; 729 ff.; 814). Hesiod docs not say where Prometheus
was confined, except that he gives the story of the eagle feeding
on his liver (Theog. 523 ff.). This would be conceivable in misty
Tartarus; hardly under a mountain. Hcsiod's uncertainty
probably accounts for Aeschylus' inclusion of the suggestive
passage 347-76. Thus both from the Theogony and from \<
chylus himself we get the answer to the question of what furl her
punishment can be meted out to Prometheus. As to a distinc-
tion between being buried under a mountain, and confined in
Tartarus, both Aeschylus and Hesiod are undoubtedly hazy
(note especially P. V. 1043-53), but the hearers would derive no
confusion from these poems that did not already exist in their
own minds.
2) A possible deliverance of Prometheus far in the future. No
less than three quite independent myths are brought to bear on
this point. All are presented in fragmentary, allusive form and
would have no point at all unless they referred to stories already
known.
a) The oracle about Thetis and Zeus. This is the most mud-
dled of the three. The gist of it appears (764) :
yaptl yap.ov tolovtov a> ttot' a.o'xa.Xa '
768 r) re£ercu yt 7raZ5a (frtprepov 7rarpos.
So 909-10
yapov yaptlv 6s avrov en TvpavviSos
dpbvmv t* aiorov tK^aXtl.
This is explained in Pind. /. viii 28 ff. Zeus and Poseidon con-
tend for the hand of Thetis, but are deterred by Themis, who tells
them that Thetis is fated to bear a son — (peprtpov ybvov avaKra
■n-arpos. These two references point, if not to a single epic poem,
at least to a widely current tradition of the early fifth century.
The pronouncement in Aeschylus affects both Thetis and Zeus;
that in Pindar merely says that Thetis will bear a son greater
than his father. But Aeschylus, or Prometheus, is not con-
sistent here. 755-6:
vvv ovdtv ton Tepp.a pot ivpoK.tip.tvov
poxOoov Tplv av Zers tKirtafl rvpavviSos.
The predictions following are in the uncompromising future tense.
6
82
Prometheus, that is, knows that Zeus will be overthrown and
trusts to come into his rights in the general revolution. And
yet, a little later — 769 — we read:
"Ico, ov8' toriv avr<2 Trj<r8' awoGT po(j>i) tvxvs >
Up. ov brJTa, ir\ijv €7^7' av tn btcfxuiv \vdeis.
and in 913 (Cf . 167 ff.) :
Toicovde ixbxQoiv eKTpoirfjv ovdels de&v
bvvair' av avrCo ir\rjv ep.ov 5e?£cu cameos.
This means that, taken strictly, the decree of fate is identical
with that in Pindar; it concerns primarily Thetis, and Zeus is at
liberty to put himself under it or not. Thus there are two strata
to the corpus of inside information which Prometheus has re-
ceived from his mother: 1) the unalterable degree that Thetis'
son will be better than his father; 2) the incomplete foreknowl-
edge that Zeus will one day seek Thetis, in marriage, and will get
her if he fails to find out about the fate of her offspring. This
situation is absurd, and unthinkable in any one connected
mythological account. Thus it shows clearly that, as Wilam-
owitz says (Aesch. Inter., p. 134; cf. Weil, Etudes, p. 74 ff.), the
connection between the marriage of Thetis and Prometheus
was invented by Aeschylus and is purely for dramatic purposes.
It is necessary, because some such device alone can give Prome-
theus a real hold on Zeus and make a counter-action.
b) Liberation by Heracles. This was part of the Heracles
saga (Bapp ay. Roscher, hi2 3043; Wilam., I.e., p. 132), a bit of
which found its way into the Theogony, 526-34, where it is incon-
sistent with Theog. 616, which leaves Prometheus bound. The
motive given is Zeus' desire to glorify his son (530 ff.), and
Prometheus is pardoned. An echo of this appears in P. V. 259:
Xo. ov8' eaTLv txd\ov repfxa 001 irpoKelfievov ',
Tip. ovk aXKo 7' ovbkv, ir\i]v orav Ke'ivco dour),
before the real themes of the play have been more than alluded
to (101-3, 167 ff.). In 772 ff., 871 ff., Prometheus refers to his
own actual deliverer. He will be of the thirteenth generation
from Io in direct descent, and will be a famous archer. The
audience knew from the first reference who the deliverer would
be, not perhaps because they knew that Heracles appeared in the
thirteenth generation from Io in some non-Attic epos, but be-
cause he was the only deliverer of Prometheus. This is fairly
well settled by the t6£oi<u k\€lv6s 872.
83
c) Cheiron. Up to line 1006, Prometheus has beei threatening,
and declaring his own conditions of peace with Zeus. In L026 9
Hermes imposes a counter condition from the constituted
authority:
TOiovdc ijloxOov Tepfxa fj.rj tl irpoaSoKa,
irplv av decov rts 8'.a8oxos tuv cdv ttoplov
<t>avfj, 6e\riay t' els avavyqTov fxoXetu
"Ai8r)i> Kvetpcua t' ap.cpl Taprdpov fiadr).
For an explanation of this we have to lake refuge in Apollodorus,
(a), ii 5, 4, 5; (b) ii 5, 11, 10; in (a) the centaur Cheiron, wounded
incurably, descends into Hades and gives up his immortality to
Prometheus; in (b) a formal transfer takes place on the ( Caucasus
under circumstances corresponding to those of the fragmei
Prometheus Lyomenos. Cheiron need not have been present . but
Heracles irapeax^ tcc Ail Xeipccva OvqaKtiv . . . dekovra. The
olive wreath, which, teste Athenaeo 674 D, appeared in the
Prometheus Lyomenos, appears here. For lack of other evidence
we must refer Cheiron (as Wilamowitz, Inter., p. 132), to the
Heracles saga, from which Aeschylus drew the freeing of Prome-
theus. This was of Thessalian origin, like the story of t lie death
on Mt. Oeta. Note the places mentioned by Apollodorus, ii 5, 4;
also the Centaurs; Heracles armed with bow and arrows instead
of a club, in P. V. 872 and Theog. 526-34, a version current when
Aeschylus wrote. Possibly it was followed by Pherecydes, who
told of the shooting of the eagle. See Schol. Ap. Ph. ii 1249; iv
1346.
A further question suggested by a review of the source- is
whether or not Prometheus was represented as chained on the
top of a mountain, where he could converse with divinities of the
air and sea, in any version previous to Aeschylus' plays. The
Theogony leaves the place of confinement obscure; of the two
Apollodorus passages about Cheiron, the one representing the act
of Heracles is clearly drawn from the Prometheus I.
Horace (Odes, ii 13, 37), speaks of Prometheus suffering with
Tantalus in the underworld, and (Epodes, xvii 67) oames him,
beside Tantalus and Sisyphus, as Prometheus "obligatus aliti."
This seems at least a parallel for a Prometheus sui in the
underworld, with the bird of prey. An answer to this question
would require, beside a thorough review of the later sources for
84
Prometheus, a reconstruction of the contents of the Heracles epic
or epics from which Stesichorus in the Geryoneis, Pherecydes,
Aeschylus, and possibly even Hesiod, drew.
The Prometheus is interesting as being a primitive attempt at
suspense of objective issue by means of several different possibili-
ties. Thus the further punishment for Prometheus, the possible
marriage between Thetis and Zeus, the rescue by Heracles, and
the substitution of Cheiron, are severally presented without any
considerable attempt to correlate them with each other. The
mind, therefore, of the reader or hearer is reduced to a state of
inextricable confusion. The work to a degree resembles some
early Flemish painting, which combines almost preternatural
insight and splendor of detail with imperfect composition and
perspective.
SUMMARY.
It will be seen from the foregoing that too detailed a classifica-
tion of the methods used to produce suspense from mythological
confusion or certainty, is impracticable. Methods spring naturally
out of individual plots and connect themselves with literary
and dramatic devices, such as delays, stage business, conflicts
of will, and so forth.
It appears, however, that mythological suspense tends rather
clearly to divide into two classes, that of anticipation and that of
uncertainty.
In suspense of anticipation the issue is known beforehand
either through something said in the prologue or by the unanimity
of familiar tradition. Here the poet's duty is to complicate the
means to the end so that it seems remote and difficult, however
inevitable (as in Eur. EL), or to lead up to it by a series of powerful
suggestions (as in Oed. Tyr.), so that the paradox of inevitabil-
ity and unfulfilment dangles momently before our eyes. Some-
times suspense of anticipation as to the one issue may be rein-
forced by suspense of uncertainty as to: a) another secondary
issue, as in Agamemnon, where there is certainty as to the death,
uncertainty as to the weapon; or in Choephoroe, which shows
certainty as to the death of Clytaemestra and Aegisthus, uncer-
tainty as to order and relative importance of the two deaths; or,
85
b) a subsequent issue, as in Iph. Taur., where there is certainty
as to the anagnorisis, uncertainty as to the fate of the cap-
tives.
That suspense of anticipation was not considered simply a
disagreeable makeshift is shown by the treatment of the /<>/<. In
the Ion, the content of the anagnorisis is given, in a divinely ut-
tered prologue, and the recognition of Ion by Xuthus as his heir
is there predicted. This makes a foregone conclusion of the en-
tire play down through 675, but leaves suspense (with the reser-
vation noted s.v. Ion) of Creusa's attempt on the lives of
Xuthus and Ion, and of her immediate recognition of her boy.
Greek tragedies began with one simple episode and expanded
later into two or several simple, successive episodes. We have
not extant, until the Iph. Aul., a modern drama of intrigue, in
which one complicated issue makes an entire play. In the Ion,
therefore, suspense of anticipation appears side by side with that
of uncertainty, as a recognized dramatic device.
We have seen suspense of anticipation developed by the
following means:
1) Delaying the introduction of a theme known to be part
of the story : Rhesus.
2) Increasing the emphasis on some one character: Athena
in Aias.
3) Developing by suggestion and a progressive, uninterrupted
action the expectation of a certain event known from the saga:
Bacchae, Heracleidae, Phoenissae, Septem, Euripides' Supplices,
Aias, Agamemnon, Sophocles' Electra, Euripides' Electra, Choe-
phoroe, Cyclops, Troiades, Oedipus Tyrannus, Persae, Andromache.
4) Introducing a matter of common belief, like the burial of
a hero: Heracles (Heracles at Athens), Heracleidae, Aias (burial
of Aias), Medea (Medea at Athens), Orestes, Eumenides (survival
of Orestes), Ion (Ion as eponymous hero), Helen (Helen and
Menelaus at Sparta), Oedipus Coloneus, Phoenissae (Oedipus at
At hens) .
5) Using a conventional theme not peculiar to the Btory in
hand, with a certain stock conclusion: Suppliancy — Aeschylus'
Supplices, Andromache, Heracles, Helen, Heracleidae, Euripides'
Supplices: Willing sacrifice — Iphigeneia Aulidensis, Heeabe,
Phoenissae, Alcestis, Heracleidae, Euripides' Supplies; Stupid
barbarian and clever Greek — Helen, Iphigeneia Taurica.
86
6) Echoes of other plays: Heracles, Andromache, Euripides'
Electra, (Polymestor in the Hecabe) , Helen, (Iphigeneia Taurica) .
Suspense of uncertainty is assumed to be the normal form of
modern dramatic suspense, and in the Greek tragedies we see it
in process of development. In the extant plays we can watch
it growing from a simple ritual motive like Aeschylus' Supplices
or from an historical pageant like the Persae, where every con-
clusion is foregone, through stages like the Eumenides and Oedipus
Tyrannus, where a simple uncertainty is stated and worked out,
to a complicated drama of intrigue like the Iphigeneia Taurica
or Orestes, where the audience could be sure of nothing. When
the methods of these latter plays were transferred to manufac-
tured middle class characters, there arose New Comedy, where
the audience had no clue to the outcome. But suspense of
uncertainty in New Comedy labored under two disadvantages:
1) the compulsion of the situation, where the hero had to marry
the heroine, and the stray girl had to be recognized as the pluto-
crat's long-lost daughter; 2) the demand for a happy ending.
This is seen, for example, in Plautus' Captivi and Rudens, where
the author thinks so little of suspense of uncertainty as to outline
his whole plot in the prologue with more fulness than appears in
any extant play of Euripides.
A moment's reflexion will show us that so far from being un-
usual in modern and contemporary drama, this lack of real un-
certainty characterizes a large type of comedy-melodramas from
As You Like It and Minna von Barnhelm to 'Way Down East.
In fact it is often only by some rather forced and not always con-
vincing development of alternatives, that real uncertainty can be
brought into a play at all. If the compulsion of the saga was
strong in the ancient drama, the compulsion of mood is strong in
ours. The conclusion is that in the developed Greek tragedy of
415-400 B.C. there was very little, if any, less suspense of ob-
jective issue than in our stage.
The following means were noted of creating suspense of un-
certainty :
1) Changing the order of events so that a known situation
points to an unknown outcome: Odysseus and Diomedes in
Rhesus; burial of Polyneices in Antigone.
87
2) Altering or introducing details of incidenl or description:
Rhesus; Philoctetes (Lemnos :i desert), Cyclops, Agamemnon
(sword or ax, fire-beacon), Choephoroe, Sophocles' Electra, i limp-
ides' Electra.
3) Altering emphasis on a character so as to make his rdle in
the story seem to differ from the accepted saga: Rhesus (Rh<
Agamemnon (Aegisthus), Iphigeneia Aulidensis (Achill.
4) Working in a story new or unfamiliar: Hecabe, Eumen
Orestes, Iphigeneia Taurica, Helen, Antigone (Haemon), Euripides'
Supplices (Euadne), Ion.
5) Giving a special function to the chorus: Philoctetes, Iphi-
geneia Aulidensis.
6) Introducing a non-dramatic theme: Iphigeneia Taurica
(willing sacrifice). Usually this presupposes the end, bu1 here
the end is the opposite of what we expect of the willing-sacrifice
theme.
7) Developing a novel situation with inner suspense of its
own: Oedipus Tyrannus, Andromache, Oedipus Coloneus.
8) Combining two or more previously unconflatcd myths
about the same characters: Philoctetes, Prometheus, and probably
the Trachiniae and Heracles.
U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES
COGSMVbai?
?f™*N $'R9C!dLATIpN DEPARTMENT
+ ^02 Main Library
LOAN PERIOD 1
HOME USE
ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS
Renewals and Recharges may be mode 4 days prior to ,he due dof
Books may be Renewed by calling 642-3405.
DUE AS STAMPED BELOW
FORM NO. DD6,
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY
BERKELEY, CA 94720