essays on our plays of euripide andromache helen · pdf filevi p refa ce agreement with the...

CAMBRIDGE UN IVERS ITY PRES S WAREHOU SE,

C . F . CLAY,MANAGER.

iLtm‘

oun : FETTER LANE, E.C .

maggom: 50, WELL INGTON STREET .

lz imig : F. A . BROCKHAUS.gemfi at k : THE MACM ILLAN COMPANY.

B umbag ant! Qtalcu tta : MACM ILLAN AND CO ., LTD .

ESSAY S ON

OUR PLAY S OF EURIPIDE

ANDROMACHE HELEN HERACLES

ORESTES

A . W . [ERRALE Litt.D .

Fellow of Trin i ty Co l lege , Cambridge

CAM BRIDGE

a t the U n iversity Press

QbambrmgtP R INTED BY JOH N CLAY , M .A .

AT THE UN IVERS ITY P RES S.

PREFACE .

HE texts o f Eurip ides to wh ich I refer i n th is vo l ume

are the fo l lowing. For the A rzdroma e/ze and the H era cles,

the o n ly two o f the fou r plays which are i nc luded in the

publ i shed vo l umes o f Pro fesso r Gi lbert Murray, I have used

his ed it ion . For the H elen I use the text o f W . Dindorf i n

the 1 869 ed it ion (with appa ra tu s erz'

c a s) of the P oeta e S eem'

Fo r the Oresles I refer to the ed itio n (and commenta ry) of

MrWedd . I have used a l so the commentary of Mr Hyslop

o n the A ndroma e/ze,tho se of Professo r von Wilamowitz

Molle ndorff and Mr B lakeney on the H era cles,tho se o f

Pa ley on allthe fo ur plays,and o thers . To the commenta ry

o f Mr Wedd I am la rgely indebted .

I t has been my i n tent io n to no t ice do ubts , whether o f

text or i n terpreta t ion,which seem ma teria l to the purpo se o f

my cita t ion ; if i n a ny ca se I have not done so,i t i s by

i nadvertence . B u t do ubts o f ei ther k ind,when they are n o t

fo r my purpo se ma teria l,

I do no t no t ice .

I c i te frequent ly the t ra nsla t ion o f Eurip ides i n verse by

Mr A . S . Way ,a nd apprecia te h igh ly the adva ntage o f being

able to adduce a vers io n so fa i thfu l . I t wi l l na tura l ly be

understood , tha t by tho se c i ta t ions I do n o t pledge myself to

P REFACE

agreemen t wi th the tra ns la to r i n alldeta i l s. Differences or

quest ions not ma teria l to the immed ia te purpo se,

I pa ss here,

as i n the o rigina l text, withou t rema rk .

I n co rrect ing the book for the press , I have received grea t

he lp from my fri end a nd co l l eague Mr J. D . Duff,for who se

pa i n s I canno t be too gra teful . A nd I have a l so to a cknow

ledge,with the spec ia l thanks due from a n unsk i lfu l co rrecto r

the excel lent services o f the U n ivers i ty Press .

A . W . V.

TR IN ITY COLLEGE, CAMBR IDGE.

S eptemaer 20, 1905.

CONTENTS .

INTRODUGH ON

A GREEK BORG IA . A ndroma elze

EUR IP IDES’ APOLOGY. H elen

A F IRE FROM HELL. Orestes

APP END IX

I NDEX

INTRODUCT ION.

Fo u r plays of Eurip ides are d iscussed in th is vo l ume,which may be rega rded a s a sequel to tha t ent i t l ed Eu rip idestile Ra tz

onalz'

st, tho ugh the topics a re for the mo st pa rtd ifferen t .

O f the fo ur plays three,the A n a

’ronza cne

,H elen

H era cles, have been selected , beca use the presen t sta te o f

study and cri t i c ism suggests tha t a fresh d iscuss io n o f themi s wa rranted a nd perhaps necessa ry . The A n a

’ronza clze i s

l i tt le read for plea sure ; a nd i t i s genera l ly agreed tha t theplay

,a s now understood , i s b ad. The H elen

,a s a who le

n o t much esteemed , tho se who prono unce a ny po s it iveopin io n upon i t , agree genera l ly i n th inking i t wea k . I nthe H era cles

,commo n Opin ion awards h igh pra i se to a

po rt ion,which po rt io n however is so i n terpreted a s to

requ ire the suppo s i t io n tha t the rest o f the drama i s wo rsetha n irrelevant ; a nd the who l e has a ccord ingly been dis

m i ssed by some,n o t wi tho u t rea son , a s i nco ns isten t a nd

i nexpl ica ble .

Now do ubtless Eurip ides had fa u lts . He had difli c ulties,and

therefo re fa u l ts,pecul ia r to h imself. The propo s i t io n tha t

‘ the gen ius o f Eurip ides was a t d isco rd wi th the fo rm i nwhich he must be the ba s is o f any rea sonablecri t i c ism upon h i s work . I t wi l l be seen from s om e parts

o f these Essays,tha t , far from d isput ing tha t propo s i t ion , I

conceive i t to have some a ppl ica t ions,wh ich are n o t a t presen t

commo n ly recogn i z ed .

1 S ir R . C . Jebb ; Art ic le on‘ L i tera ture ’

in A Compa n ion to Greek S tu dies,

p . I I 5 .

x IN TRODUCTION

B u t when we co ns ider i n wha t a n age , a nd under wha tj udgmen ts , h i s p lays a tta i ned celebri ty, and when we co ns iderthe s ift ing pro cess

,by wh ich they were reduced to the extan t

number,we may modestly and properly do ubt whether a ny

Of the remnan t c a n rea l ly deserve a genera l blame. I nthese ca ses a t any ra te there is ro om fo r the suggest io n

,tha t

we do no t yet se e to the bo ttom o f the ma tter. A nd i ndeeda t the presen t t ime I hope a nd bel ieve tha t such suggest io ns

o ffered with respect,wi l l be received with pl ea sure.

My bel ief i s tha t,with regard to ea ch o f the three plays

above named,j udgmen t i s a t present emba rrassed by a

fundamenta l m isconcept ion .

The A na’

rofn a cne i s cri t i c i z ed as if i t were an i ndependentwo rk

,a complete sto ry. S o regarded

,i t appears to m e

has lo ng appea red,neither b ad nor go od , but s imply un in

telligible . Bu t wha t if it i s part of a sto ry, a sequel ? Then

to t rea t i t a s an i ndependent who l e i s a s if we were to expounda nd est ima te the Ca trion a o f R . L . Stevenso n

,witho ut

knowing or suspect ing tha t there had ever been such a storya s

The H elen i s est ima ted a s a melo drama,and

,so est ima ted

i s pro nounced,as wel l i t may be , weak . B u t wha t if i t were

a playfu l im i ta t io n of melodram a,i n wh ich the vaga ries

Of Greek tragedy a re del ibera te ly exaggera ted ? Wha t ifthe c ircum sta nces o f the pro duct ion were such , tha t o n ly a

humo ro us theme a nd playfu l trea tmen t were su itable, or evenadm i ss ibleI n the H era cles the poet was i n ea rnest , pro foundly in

ea rnest,with h is purpo se

,wha tever tha t was. This i s evident

but beyond th is we canno t go witho u t enco unteri ng do ubt.Start ing with any presumpt ion , with any wha tever, respect ing

the purpo se of the drama t ist , the reader wi l l soon find rea son .

I do n o t say to abandon tha t presumption , but to questio n i t,to suspend h i s j udgment . And certa in ly i t does no t become

a n i n terpreter to be trenchant , when h is a utho r i s ambiguous ,and appears prinza fa c ie to o ffer s imply co ntrad ict ions . I nth is ca se

,a s in the Ion , the ma i n th ing superfic ia l ly v i s ible i s

tha t,wha tever Euri p ides mea nt , he d id no t mean to be pla i n .

B u t i n such a ca se,the fi rs t co ndit io n o f a n a cceptable reading

i s tha t i t shou ld a cco unt for the ambigu i ty a nd the obscuri ty,

IN TROD UCTION x i

A man,or a t allevents a drama t ist , who co ncea l s h i s mea n ing,

must have a rea son for co ncea lment . Now the current

read ing o f the H era cles, wh ich presumes the rel igio us legend

o f the hero to be the basi s o f the sto ry , i s open , I th ink ,to th is u n iversa l a nd suffi c ien t Object io n , tha t i t do es n o t

a cco unt for the ambigu i ty a nd the Obscuri ty . A drama aboutthe pa ssage o f the Red S e a ,

which wa s mea nt s imply to

i l l ustra te the a cco un t i n Exodu s, m ight have ma ny d ifferen t

qua l i t ies ; but o ne i t wo uld certa i n ly no t have i n i ts , genera lpurpo se i t wo u ld n o t be Obscure . B u t suppo se tha t a ma n

Of som e saga ci ty and orig i na l i ty ,after m uch rea d ing i n the

learned and i ngen io us specu la t io ns o f scept ica l commenta tors

on the Penta teuch ,a fter sad ly d igest ing many co nj ectures

abo ut the po ss ibl e effect o f winds a nd t ides in producing a n

uncommo n Sta te o f the wa ters , were to a rrive (a s he m ight) a tthe conclus io n , tha t , when all i n th is way had been sa id , thedescript io n i n Exodu s canno t rea l ly be a cco un ted for a s

merely a lo o se vers ion o f a na tu ra l i nc iden t : tha t we m ustnecessa ri ly suppo se e ither m ira cl e or el se imagina t io n , and

i ndeed a s ingu la rly powerful imagina t ion,a wi ld a nd lawless

imagina t io n . Suppo se th is ma n to specu la te gravely or

humoro us ly i n h is own m i nd upon the po ss ib i l i ty tha t thewi ld imagina t io n concerned i n the product was tha t o f him

who s l ew the Egyptian ,’

a nd tha t the leader a nd h istorian o f

the I srael i tes,ha ving the strongest m i nd a nd stro ngest cha r

a cter o f h i s age , had a l so a touch o f i n san i ty. Suppo se the

man so specu la t ing to be a po et,a nd to co nceive (a s he

m ight) tha t such a hero,such a Mo ses

,wo u ld be n o m ea n

subj ect for a tragedy . Suppo se the poet so pla ced,tha t h i s

tragedy , if presented to the publ i c a t all, must be exh ib ited onEa sterMonday

,i n the A lbert H a l l

,under the pa tronage o f the

Sta te,a nd befo re a n a ud ien ce compri s i ng n o t m erely m i n isters

o f allk ind s a nd degrees,but studen ts from the Un ivers i t ies a nd

pup i ls from the Scho o l s . Wo u ld yo u expect the play to be

transpa ren t PThe Orestes

,the fo urth play o n o u r l i st

,stands i n a very

d ifferen t po s it io n from the o ther three . The genera l opin iono f readers has pla ced i t

,a s a who l e a nd under some importan t

reserva t io ns , very high . U nder allcri t i c i sms and reserva t ions ,i t i s co nsta n t ly read a nd th is is the rea l test o f apprecia t io n .

IN TRODUCTI ON

A nd therefo re a n expo s i to r, who pro fessed to mod ify funda

menta l ly the curren t concept ion o f the Orestes , wo u ld and

Sho u ld be rece ived with d istrust . I have no su ch pretens ion .

A s to the genera l l in e a nd cha racter o f the play,I differ

n o t a t all from wha t i s la id down , for exampl e, i n the

ed it ion o f Mr Wedd o r so l i t tl e,tha t I have do ubted whetherI had ma teria l a nd gro unds eno ugh for publ ica t io n . B u t on

certa i n po in ts, espec ia l ly i n the la tter part o f the play, therei s

,I th ink

,someth ing o f genera l impo rta nce to be sa id . A nd

I have tho ught i t mo st conven ien t to pla ce these po in ts i n a

co nnected view o f the who l e.

The a ppend ix o f no tes o n the fou r plays has,much o f i t

n o spec ia l co nnex io n with the Essays ; a nd I wo u ld a sk for i t

a d ifferen t co ns idera t io n . I n studying the plays , I havena tura l ly had o cca s ion to co ns ider po i n ts o f deta i l

,which

a re no torio usly d iffi cu l t or obscure ; a nd o n some o f thesesuggest ions have o ccurred to me which seemed worth no t ingfor co ns idera t ion . B u t the quest ion s ra ised in the append ix

tho se o f them which do no t rela te to the Essays, are mo st ly

such as do n o t , i n my j u dgmen t, adm i t a po s i t ive a nswer ;a nd i n the append ix

,SO far as i t do es n o t a ffect the Essays

a genera l per/taps, whether expressed or n o t, is to be understood .

A GREEK BORG IA .

(ANDROMACHE. )

P hoebus de l igh ts to v iew h is lau re l - tree . Tlie Ora cle.

I myse lf have seen the u ngodl y in grea t power, a nd flou rish ing l ikea gre en bay

- tree . Tlie P salmist.

THE purpo se o f th i s essay, as fo reshewn in the I ntroduct ion ,i s to prove tha t the A ndronmc/ze

,a play no to rio us in the

curren t cri t ic i sm o fEuri p ides for i ts fo rm less and un intel l igibl e

construct ion,owes th is undeserved reproa ch to the fa ct tha t i t

i s not a nd does no t pretend to be a story complete i n i tself.

I t i s a sequel, a second pa rt. The fi rst pa rt was probably a l so

drama t i z ed by Eurip ides . B u t whether th is wa s so or no t,the

fi rs t pa rt,a s a sto ry, certa in ly pre -ex isted . The A n a

’roma c/ze

takes i t as known,a nd witho ut i t i s n o more comprehens ibl e

tha n the seco nd vo l ume o f a novel to a reader ignora nt o f the

fi rst.

The s imples t way o f presenting the ma tter wi l l be fi rst to

g ive the preced ing sto ry,so far a s i t c an be a scerta i ned , a nd

the sequel,the extan t part o f the sto ry , so far a s i s necessary

to Show the connex io n . The reader wi l l then be in a po s i

t ion to est ima te the evidence a l l eged,from the extan t play

a nd from cri t i c i sm s upon i t,tha t the play is n ot i n tel l ig ibl e

per se,but requ i res for i ts explana t ion some such a prefa ce as

we have constructed .

Menela us,k ing o f Sparta ,

a t the t ime when with h i s

bro ther Agamemnon he made the famous exped i t io n aga i n st

Troy for the recovery o f Helen , l eft a t home a n o nly ch i ld , an

2 A GREEK B ORGIA

i nfa nt da ughter, H erm ione . By a fam i ly a rrangement th i s

he i ress was prom i sed i n marriage to an hei r even mo re

impo rtan t , her co us in O restes , o n ly son o f Agamemno n , k ing

o f Argo s ; a nd the ch i ld ren were bred in th i s expecta t ion .

B u t towards the end o f the Troj an war, by the dea th o f

A ch i l l es the success o f the Greeks came to depend upon the

a ss i stance o f h is son Neo pto l emus . To obta i n th i s,Menelaus

a po l i t i c,selfish ,

and unscrupulo us man, prom i sed h i s da ughterto

tha t prin ce a l so . She was st i l l far from marriageable age , a nd

the confl i ct o f engagemen ts d id not a ri se t i l l some yea rs la ter.

Mea nwh i l e Troy fel l,and Agamemno n return ing to A rgo s

was mu rdered by h i s w ife C lyta emnestra ; O restes was from

th i s t ime brought up i n Pho ci s , where he fo rmed a c lo se c on

n exion with th e adm i n istra to rs of the o ra cl e o f Delph i ; a

vigo rou s youth , but o f a s ingu larly i nhuma n d ispos i t ion,a t

o nce co l d and fero c io us, he n o t o n ly se t h im self on reach ing

manhood to avenge h i s fa ther a nd recover h i s right,but

encouraged by the o ra cle , a ctua l ly S l ew h i s mo ther with h i s

own hand . The deed exc i ted genera l horror, andO restes became

a n ex i l e o nce mo re. A bo ut th i s t ime Herm ione came Of age ,

a nd Menelau s , who se absence had been pro longed for some

years a fter the fa l l o f Troy , returned to Greece. Bo th Orestes

and Neopto l emus c la imed h is prom i se , a nd there ensued a

contest , i n wh ich O restes wa s completely wo rsted . He

besought h is cous in to fly with him , but She refused . He

tri ed to wo rk upon the genero s i ty o f h is ri va l by p lead ing ‘ the

hardship o f h is po s i t ion’

(v. 974) bu t was ha ught i ly repu lsed .

H e u rged the fa ther to respect the prio r engagemen t ; but

Menelaus , who se obj ect n ow a nd th rougho ut was to sel l h i s

da ughter to the best adva ntage, preferred in the c i rcumsta nces

the a l l iance o f Neopto l emus .

B u t tho ugh the em issa ry o f Delph i wa s thus s igna l ly

defea ted,

‘A po l lo’

cou ld fo resee a nd prom i se a n equa l ly perfect

revenge . With Neopto l emus , a ga l la nt man bu t impetuo u s

and imprudent , Delph i had a l ready a persona l qua rre l ; he

had had the a uda c i ty to demand o f ‘ApOllO’ sa t isfa ct ion for the

dea th o f h is fa ther A ch i l les . By a no ther erro r (wh ich Greek

sent iment wo u l d probably n o t have much reprehended,

ANDROMA CHE 3

though Eurip ides thought o therwise) he had la i d h is domest ic

pos i t ion Open to a tta ck . Cohabi t ing with h is Troj a n captive

A ndromache , formerly wife o f H ecto r, he had become by her

the fa ther o f a boy , and upon h is ma rriage,though he qu itted

h is connex ion wi th the mo ther, he reta i n ed i n h is househo ld

bo th her a nd her son . The j ea lo usy o f h is yo ung wife,who

loved him pa ss iona tely , ro se a lmo st to madness when a fter

some t ime she herself was witho ut a ch i ld ; and the same

c i rcumsta nces convinced Menela us tha t h e had cho sen the

worse barga i n , a nd tha t h is nephew,who

,apa rt from h i s

tempo ra ry d isgra ce,was by farthe mo re important personage of

the two ,wo u ld after allbe the better a l ly. Bu t to repa i r the

m i stakewa s no t ea sy. To remove the ungua rded Neoptolemu s

wa s i ndeed a s impl e ma tter ; and O restes , a ided by the fana t ics

of Delph i,undertook to do th i s

,upon the o cca s ion o f a v i s i t

pa id by h is riva l to the o ra c le for the purpo se o f appea s ing

the o ffend ed god. B u t there rema in ed the appa rent ly

inso l ubl e problem ,how i n a ny to l erable and n o t too scanda lous

manner H erm ione,loving Neopto l emu s to d istra ct ion , cou ld

be fo rced to a ccept for her seco nd husba nd the a ssa ss i n of

the fi rst. The A ndronza c/ze shows wi th wha t co l d -blooded

a nd t ru ly Sparta n i ngenu ity Menelaus a ch ieves th is purpo se , SO

us ing the ci rcumstances Of the fam i ly a nd the cha ra cters o f the

persons compo s ing i t tha t h i s da ughter i s a ctua l ly compel led by

conjuga l pa ss io n to pu t herse lf, whi le yet igno ran t o f her

husband’ s fa te and her own po s i t ion , in to the power of the

dest ined successo r. The a ct ion ta kes pla ce a t the ho use of

Neopto l emus nea r Pharsa l us i n Phth ia ,and commences a t the

t ime when O restes , having k i l l ed Neopto l emus a t Delph i , has

bro ught the news o f h is dea th to Menela us , who has come to

Phth ia from Spa rta for the pu rpo se o fprepa ring and execut i ng

a t the proper momen t his pa rt o f the plo t.‘

The sto ry , i n dextero us combina t io n a nd mo ra l i n terest

on e o f the be st among the exta nt rema i n s o f A tt i c tragedy, i s

man ifestly such tha t,l i ke ma ny o ther stori es excel lently fi tted

for drama t ic purpo ses,i t co u ld n o t po ss ibly be exh ibited

ent ire ly with i n a s ingle play o f the Greek form . If,as seems

mo st probable, i t i s essen tia l ly the invent io n ofEurip ides, then

4 A GREEK B ORGIA

we must necessa ri ly suppo se tha t the earl i er part , the prel im i n

a ri es to the A ndronza clze, wa s the subject o f a preced ing play,

wh ich turned upon the contest o f the r iva l s for the ha nd of

Herm ione,and the determ ina t ion of tha t contest i n favo ur Of

Neopto lemus. We sha l l see tha t for the ex istence of th i s

p lay there i s some po s i t ive evidence . Bu t I wo u ld clea rly

repea t tha t th is,the embod iment o f the former pa rt

i n the shape o f a drama,canno t be fu l ly proved . I t i s

i n my opin ion probable , perhaps someth ing mo re,but i t is

no t certa in . Wha t is certa i n and demo nstrabl e i s tha t the

A ndroma c/ze a ssumes for known , i n some fo rm a nd by some

mean s,a preced ing sto ry having the genera l o utl ine which

we ha ve drawn,and sta rts from the s i tua t io n wh ich we have

ind ica ted , a plo t between Menelaus and h is nephew to t ransfer

the po ssess ion o f Herm ione, a fter the a ssa ss ina t io n o f

Neoptolemu s,to Orestes .

I n co lo u r, c i rcumstances , and chara cters the story ,like o thers

o f Euri p ides , the Orestes for i nsta nce and the I on ,i s essen t ia l ly

‘ modern,

of h i s own t ime,a nd takes from hero i c a nt iqu ity

rea l ly no th ing bu t the . n ames. The genera l fo unda t ion o f i t,

down to the return Of Menela us to Greece,fo l lows commo n

l egend,

and requ ires n o spec ia l expo s i t ion . The cen tra l

po rt ion , from th is po in t to the open ing o f the A ndronza c/ze , is

evidenced for us by the sta tements a nd impl ica t ion s o f the

A na’roma clze i tse lf. I n the extan t pa rt

,the ex ist ing play

princ ipa l i n terest l ies i n the exh ibi t io n o f the refined deprav ity ,probably drawn from l ife, which noble Greek po l i t i c ians co uld

d isplay i n dea l ing w ith a domesti c emba rra ssment. The

methods o f Menela us rem ind o ne strongly o f tho se wh ich

are a ttributed , I pro fess n ot to say wi th wha t j u st ice , to the

nobi l i ty of the I ta l ia n Rena issance,a nd the t i t l e o f th i s essay

has been cho sen from tha t po i n t o f View.

Withou t the fa cts presupposed the A ndroma clze is no t

merely fo rm l ess , bu t un intel l igibl e. I t fa l l s in to a seri es o f

a ct ions no t o nly d isconnected,but ea ch o f them separa tely

i nexpl icabl e . I n part i cu la r the pro ceed ings o f Menela us,

wh ich o ccupy mo st O f the p iece,have as a who l e n o c on c e iv

abl e purpose , no end , adequa te or i nadequa te,to wh ich as a

6 A GREEK B ORGIA

boy to a neighbou r, and has ta ken refuge a t a n a l ta r , which

l ies befo re the en tra nce o f the house a nd compo ses w ith i t the‘

scene o f the play. A t th i s po i n t the a ct ion commences .

Andromache, l earn ing from a Troj an woman , n ow her fel low

slave, tha t Menelaus has d i scovered the boy , persuades the

informant to summo n Peleus , whom previous messengers have

appa rently fa i l ed to rea ch . Herm io ne v is i ts her ri va l a nd

commands her to qui t sa nctua ry , but ma kes no impress io n

a nd returns to the house . Menelaus however by produc ing

h i s young capt ive, a nd th rea ten ing to ta ke h is l ife, i s more

successfu l ; to save the b oy ,A ndroma che surrenders a t

d iscretion,whereupon Menela us dec lares tha t the l ife o f the

ch i ld,though spa red by him

,is st i l l l iable to the sentence of

Herm ione,a nd co nducts bo th h is v i ct ims w ith i n to rece ive

her j udgment. Presen tly he brings them o u t aga i n bo th are

to d ie ; and the execut ion appea rs to be imm i nen t , when

Peleus a rrives . On lea rn ing the S i tua t ion,the aged prince

vio l en t ly upbra id s the i nvader of h is fam i ly, who ,he says

,wi l l

do wel l to depa rt , and take h is barren daughter’

a long with

him. Menela us pro fesses h im self unable to comprehend thi s

i nd igna t ion if his friend ly i ntent io ns are so received,he wi l l

n o t co ntest the ma tter, which c a n be dec ided a t l e i sure here

a fter ; for the presen t he has bus iness a t Spa rta . And

hereupon,withou t commun ica t ing with h is da ughter o r even

re - entering the ho use,he departs as for Spa rta forthwith , whil e

the rescued pa i r, A ndroma che a nd the boy , go away under the

pro tect ion of Peleus . After a wh i le , an uproa r i n the houseappri ses us tha t H erm ione has become awa re o f her fa ther’s

depa rtu re, a nd promptly she herself appears , frant ic w ith terro r

a t the idea Of meet ing her husband,without any suppo rt ,

a fter wha t has pa ssed,a nd eager for i n stant fl ight . A t th is

momen t en ters O restes , nephew o f Menelaus a nd cous in to

the princess . The a cc iden t o f a jo urney ha s brought him,a s

he expla in s , to her neighbourhood , and he has taken the

Opportu n i ty to enqu i re a fter her hea l th . H erm ione, i n a

t ranspo rt o f rel ief, expla in s the pos i t io n O f a ffa irs,a nd b e

seec hes him to pla ce her i n sa fety, to conduct her to her

fa ther. Th is , a ftersome demur,he consents to do for the

ANDROMA CHE 7

sake o f old t imes,rem i nd ing her tha t, though bestowed on a

more fo rtuna te pretender, she had o nce been prom ised to

h im self. Th is rem i n iscence she wa ives a s i nopportun e, a nd

hurri es him o ff, referri ng allquest io ns to the decis io n o f her

fa ther. The news o f her fl ight reca l l s Peleus,who ,

l ea rn ing

tha t O restes i n the moment Of departure has threa tened

mach ina t io ns aga i n st Neopto l emus, is about to send warn ing

to Delph i , when the compa n ion s o f Neopto lemus a rrive.

They br ing from Delph i the body o f the ir ma ster,murdered

there by O restes and o thers. With the narra t ive Of the

murder and the lamenta t ions Of Peleu s the a ction ends .

The prophec ies o f Theti s , mo ther o f A ch i l les , who conc ludes

the p iece,a fter the Eurip idea n ma nner , with an appari t ion

ex ma c/zina,po rtend to Peleus co nso la t ion i n a no ther wo rld

a nd to the son o fAndroma c he (Mo lo ssus) a k ingdom (Molossia )i n th is .

Such i s the a ct io n presen ted . I s i t then—th is i s o u r fi rst

quest ion—i s i t,as - a fa ct , self-expla na tory ? Do we c om

prehend i t as a who l e ? Do the i nc idents proceed on e from

the o ther, a cco unt for o n e a no ther,exh ibi t

,i n the mo t ives of

the a cto rs,a mutua l rela t io n o f ca use a nd effect ? The answer

appea rs to be unan imo us . The who l e,a s a who le

,i s no th ing.

The play,as a who le

,i s wo rth l ess . A recen t ed i to r, refle c t

i ng the common Op in ion , expressly d irects no t ice to cons ider

a tions wh ich ‘ redeem the A ndronza c/ze from wo rth l essness ,’

cons idera t ions wh ich dea l w i th pa rts o n ly,with s ingle

e lements or sepa ra te scenes. Con s idera t ions o f th is k ind we

may find i n abunda nce ; there i s sca rcely a ny po rt ion o f

the play,perhaps n ot o ne importa nt speech

,wh ich does not

exh ib i t proo fs of grea t l i tera ry a nd art is t ic sk i l l . B u t no th ing

o f th i s k ind a ffects the unan imous j udgmen t prono unced

(ex lzypot/zesi) upon the fut i l i ty o f the who l e as a who l e, the

lack o f a sto ry. I t i s agreed tha t the play so conceived is (to

use the very inadequa te term usua l ly appl ied to the ca se)wa nt ing in un ity.

The use o f so m i ld a term i s unfortuna te,and tho ugh

prompted do ubt less by respect forEurip ides , tends rea l ly to do

him a mo nstrous inj ust ice,by concea l ing the eno rm i ty , a nd

8 A GREEK B ORGIA

therefo re the improbabi l i ty, o f the charge thereby a l leged

aga in st h im . A play is properly sa i d to‘ wa nt un i ty ’ when

there i s n o t a ny on e common interest , i n wh ich allthe pa rts

converge,a nd wh ich combines them i n to a who le . Such

a defect may be exh ib ited i n p lays i n wh ich the mecha n ica l

connex ion a nd sequence o f the i nc idents is perfectly clea r , i n

plays wh ich have a story ,a story pla i n a nd s imple. I t is

somet imes found i n the work o f the mo st sk i lfu l a nd ex

perien c ed playwrights , a nd may be a l l eged wi tho ut improba

b ility aga in st a ny o n e . I t is a l leged for example aga i ns t the

Ajax o f Sopho cles , where the interest tu rn s fi rst upo n the

su ic ide o f the hero,a nd then upo n the quest io n whether he

sha l l be du ly buried . These,i t i s sa id

,are separa te in terests ,

and do no t properly compo se a s ingl e theme . Such a cha rge ,whether j u st ified or no t—I agree with tho se who th ink i t i n

th is ca se no t substa nt ia l—i s properly s ign ified by the term‘ wan t o f un i ty .

I t i s not m eant , and o f co u rse cou ld not be a l leged wi tho u t

absu rd i ty, tha t the dea th a nd bu ria l o f Aja x do n o t

make a stor f,tha t there i s n ot between the inc idents a ny

na tura l sequence or necessa ry connex ion wha tever. S o aga i n

a certa i n ‘ wa nt o f un i ty’

may be a ttributed to T/ze M ere/ta u t

of Ven ice,beca use the ma rriage o f Po rt ia and the persecut ion

o f An tonio,though the mecha n ica l l ink between them i s pla i n

and so l i d enough , a re topics n o t very ha rmon iou s in i nterest,

and because ea ch topic i s pursued i n to some developments

wh ich have l i tt le, if any , bea ring upon the o ther. B u t they

compo se a sto ry. The play does n o t l eave u s ignorant of a nyre la t ion between the scene o f the ca skets a nd the scene o f the

tria l , a t wha t i n terva l a nd a fter wha t in c idents the one scene

fo l lowed upo n the o ther,a nd why Po rt ia shou ld be presen t a t

bo th . The ‘ want o f un ity’

do es no t mea n th is . B u t th is,

a nd no th ing l ess , must be the wa nt o f un ity which Sha l l cover

the ca se Of the A ndronza c/ze,if we a re to presume no th ing

which i s n o t sta ted in the d rama . I t presents three i nc idents,

( 1 ) the vis i t of Menela us to Phth ia , (2 ) the vis i t o f Orestes,

( 3 ) the murder o f Neopto l emus a t Delphi, n o t o ne o f wh ich i s

connected a s ca use or effect wi th a no ther. The co i nc idence

ANDROMA CHE 9

o f the fi rst two i s (we are to suppo se) fo rtu i tous, whi le the

th ird is so to ta l ly i ndependent , tha t we need no t a nd canno t

determ i n e (so we are to l d‘

) when a nd by wha t i n termed iary

pro cess i t comes to pa ss . This i s to‘ wan t un ity ’ with

a vengeance ! B u t wha t hypo thesi s co uld be less probabl e

tha n tha t so i nsa ne a method o f compo s i t ion wa s pra ct i sed

a nd a ccepted by the ri va l a nd the a ud ience of Sopho cles ?

Nor are these independent port ions even i ntel l igibl e

separa tely. During the first ha lf o f the play the princ ipa l

agent i s Menela us,who se a ct ion

,so far as appea rs upo n the

sta temen ts Of the play,i s from fi rst to la st un i ntel l igibl e a nd

a bsurd . A man o f ma ture years a nd experien ce takes a long

journey and undergoes much tro ub le,tha t he may i n st iga te

a nd enco urage a yo ung wife to secure her ho l d upo n the home

a nd hea rt o f a husba nd , whom She pa ss iona tely loves , by

open ly murdering tha t husba nd ’s o n ly a nd beloved ch i ld A

pri nce , com ing priva tely in to the terri to ry a nd a lmo st in to the

res idence o f an a l ly,pro ceeds to sei z e a nd execute there th e

sovereign ’s so l e descenda nt, a nd when ca ught i n the a c t,i s

su rpri sed tha t h is fr iend ly pro ceed ing sho u ld move the

a ncesto r to resentment ! A po l i t i c ia n a nd so l d ier lays a

des ign wh ich c an ha rd ly be concea led from tho se who wi l l

certa in ly arrest i t,yet a l lows the d i scovery to be made i n the

mo st obvio us a nd preventabl e way , and a t the first oppo s i t ion

po stpones the afl'

a ir sine die ! A fa ther,having del ibera tely

invo lved h i s married daughter,a ct ing under h is a utho ri ty, i n

a domest ic s i tua t ion o f extreme del icacy a nd peri l , withdraws ,escapes , and d isappea rs wi thou t bestowing upo n her so much

a s a fa rewel l ! There i s n o end to the extravagances a nd

contrad ict ions o f a portra i ture in wh ich n o on e,so far as I am

awa re , pro fesses to find a ny i n terest. I ncredulu s odi : i t i s

i ncred ible and d i sgust ing. Pa rt o f th is i ncred ib i l i ty the

d rama t i st i s a ctua l ly a t the pa i n s to prove. Tha t the murder

o f A ndromache mus t d isgra ce bo th the pri ncess a nd the k ing,

a nd tha t the murder o f the yo ung Mo lo ssus ‘ means ru in to

1 S ee hereafter, and refer to c ommen taries upon A ndroma cne r1 1 5 .

2 I t is c onven ien t to u se this n ame , though i t is no t g iven , and sc arc e ly so muc h asimpl ied , in the play . S ee 1 248 , and the drama tisperson a e in Prof. Murray

s text .

I O A GREEK BORGIA

the wife a nd end less embarra ssments to her fa ther , i s n ot on ly

Obvious but i s expla i ned to the conqueror of Troy by the

Trojan capt ive, A ndroma che

And the c h i ld’s dea thTh ink ye his sire sha l l ho ld i t a l i t t le t h ing ?S o vo id of man hood Tro y proc la ims h im n o t.

Nay, he Sha l l fo l low du ty ’s c a l l , b e proved,By de eds, of Pe le us wort h y and A c h i l les.

H e sha l l t hru st fort h t h y c h i ld. Wha t p lea w i l t findFor a n ew spo use —Th is lie the sa in t l y sou lOf th is pu re t h ing shrank from her wic ked Lord

Who sha l l wed su c h ? Wil t keep her in t h in e ha l lsSpouse le ss, a gre y -ha ired widow ? O t hou wre t c h ,S eest n o t the floods of ev i l b u rst ing o

’er t hee l?

She expresses ama z emen t a nd a lmo st comm i sera t io n tha t

these and o ther such cons idera t io ns sho u ld escape the in

telligen c e Of such . a personage. How i s i t po ss ib le for us to

suppo se tha t they do escape him ,o r tha t he is pursu ing

wha t he rea l ly bel ieves to be the interest o f his daughter

as wife to Neopto lemus ? Or how c an we imagine tha t, if

rea l ly po ssessed by such a del us io n , he , the m ighty k ing o f

Spa rta,wi l l qu i t the pursu i t o f h is purpo se

,a nd th is with

apparen t i nd ifference,for a few h igh wo rds from such a n

oppo ser a s Peleu s Bu t the a cme o f the incomprehens ible i s

rea ched in h is departure,when

,plead ing a vague bus iness a t

home , he qu i ts the scene—a nd i s heard o f n o mo re . For th i s

pro ceed ing we a re shown n o mo t ive wha tever. He i s i n n o

danger,and wha t i s more, he Shows n o a la rm . H is beari ng

towa rds Peleus i s coo l,contemptuous

,and provo ca t ive . Nor

i s i t even suggested to him—how cou ld such a suggest io n b e

made withou t a bsu rdity — tha t he sho u ld lea ve H erm ione,

and leave her wi tho ut no t ice o f h i s i n tent io n . The Old k ing,

i n the v io lence o f h is i nd igna t ion,b id s him ‘ take h is daughter

away’l’

; bu t tha t even th is i s n o t serio us ly mea nt,a nd tha t

1 A ndr. 3 39 fo l l . (Way) . The play everywhere assumes tha t Neop to lemus isno t an un fa i thful husband (eve n if this a c c usa t ion were to the purpose) and tha this fide l i ty c ould be establ ished . In 346 r eéo era t , be will inform lz imself ofthe fa c ts (Kiehl , Murray) seems a be t ter reading than a nd puts the

po in t more c learly.2v . 639, v. 708 .

ANDROMA CHE I I

Peleus expects . n o effect from i t,appea rs from h is own

behaviou r bo th immed ia tely a fterwards ‘ , a nd aga i n a l i tt l e

la ter, upo n hearing o f Herm io ne’

s fl ight”. Mo re tha n th is ,i t i s someth ing l ik e a physica l impo ss ibi l i ty, tha t such a

personage as the King o f Spa rta Sho u ld va n i sh a t a momen t’

no t ice a nd witho ut a ny prepara t ion , commencing a jo urney of

many days in such a manner tha t h i s depa rture i s no t

d iscovered t i l l he is beyond rea ch o f reca l l . I n every a spect

the th ing is purpo seless,i ncred ible, a nd S i l ly.

And to i ncrea se o u r perplex i ty, i t appears tha t the por

tra itu re of Menela us i s suppo sed by the a utho r to have , a t

l ea st ind irect ly, a po l i t ica l a ppl ica t ion , gra t ifying to A then ia n

prej ud ices aga in st the Spa rta n cha racter. The speech of

A ndromache , beginn ing

0 ye in allfo l k’s eyes most loa th ed of men ,

Dwe l lers in Sparta , sen a tes of trea c hery,P rin c es of l ie s, weavers of webs of gu i le ,Thou gh ts c rooked, who lesome n ever, dev iou s all

A c rime is yo ur suprema c y in Gree c e “

i s a lways and necessari ly so understood . Bu t if the Menela us

o f the play is such a s he i s n ow made o u t to be,stupid a nd

cowa rd ly,without fo res ight , sense, or firmness

,a sort o f

imbeci le or id io t , where i s th e po i n t o f the sa t i re ? If the

k ings o f Spa rta or the Spartans genera l ly had resembled th is,

thei r power a nd po l i cy wou ld no t have exc ited i n their

adversaries tho se feel ings o f detesta t ion and fea r to wh ich

Eurip ides appea l s .

The v is i t o f Menela us o ccup ies mo re tha n ha lf the p lay.

The vis i t o f O restes , fi l l i ng one scene,th

ough m o re intel l igib le,

i s scarcely more sa t i sfa cto ry. The gist o f i t i s tha t Herm io ne,

by the a rriva l o f her co us in,i s enabled to o bey the prompt ing

o f her terro r a nd to fo l low her fugit ive fa ther. The obvio us

object io n here is the extravagan t employment o f the fo rtu i to us .

I n the conduct o f a story,co i nc idences

,with in rea sonable

l im i ts,may n o doubt a nd must be suppo sed , a nd wi l l read i ly be

a v. 747 fo l l . w . 1 047—1 069 ; see e spe c ia l ly v . 1 060.

w . 445 fo l l .

1 2 A GREEK B ORGIA

a ccepted if a suffi c ien t in terest depends upo n them. I n the

Oedipu s Ty ra nn u s, i t i s a co i n c idence tha t the dea th o f the

k ing’

s suppo sed fa ther i s a nnounced to him wh i l e he is

i nvest iga t ing tha t o f h is rea l fa ther ; and s i nce th i s i s necessa ry

to the developmen t o f a mo st adm i rabl e a nd exc i t ing intrigue,

i t i s very wel l . I t i s a co i nc idence,bu t a n adm i ss ibl e co i n

c ide n c e , tha t Medea , having on e day i n wh ich to fi nd a

fri end who wi l l g ive her refuge, i s v i s ited by such a fri end

upo n tha t day . B u t the vis i t o f O restes go es p la i n ly beyo nd

bel ief. He i s the o ne ma n i n the worl d who co u ld be

suppo sed l ikely to a ss is t Herm io ne in l eaving her husba nd ’s

house. H e i s jou rney ing (so he tel l s u sl) to Dodona , a t the

end o f Greece,and find ing h imself by th is a cc iden t i n Phth ia

pays a ca l l,a s we shou ld say ,

of enqu i ry. And he meets

H erm ione , eager for fl ight,a t the very doo r ! Whether the

scene redeems,by its i n teres t a nd truth to na ture

,th i s d ra ft

upon ou r credu l i ty,I sha l l no t d iscuss . The movemen t o f i t

i s prec ip i ta te , a nd the mo t ives,o n the s ide o f O restes , obscure .

We shou ld doubt to wha t i t wi l l l ead , wh ich wou ld be a very

proper effect, if we had the mea ns o f d ivin ing, or were a fter

wards to ld . Bu t as we never are to ld , and H erm ione a fter

th is episode i s n o t hea rd o f aga i n,the scene rema i n s hung

up as i t were, without developmen t a s witho u t prepa ra t ion , a

fragmen t .

The th i rd port ion of the play , a powerfu l narra t ive o f the

mu rder o f Neopto lemus , with a s l igh t drama t i c framewo rk,i s

w ithou t fa u l t , if cons idered apart , bu t to the sto ry, a s a who l e,

i t contributes no th ing. A t wha t i n terva l of t ime,and a fter

wha t i ntermed ia te events , the mu rder fo l lows ( if i t do es fo l low)upo n the pro ceed ings a t Phth ia , i s a ctua l ly suppo sed by cr i t ics ,as we rema rked befo re, to be an open quest io n a nd o f i n ter

dependency,upon th i s hypo thes i s

,i t is need less to speak .

Such is the construct io n,if the word is a ppl i cable

a ttributed to the A na’

roma c/ze o f Eurip ides . Upon the ex

terna l evidence aga i n st such a n a ssumptio n I Sha l l n o t i ns ist,

though I co ns ider i t proh ib ito ry.

‘ O f allplo ts a nd a ct ion s

the epe isodic ,’ says Ari s to t le

‘are the wo rst. I ca l l a plo t

1v. 885 .

14 A GREEK B ORGIA

i n c lude such a‘ plo t ’ a s i s a tt ributed to the A ndronza clze

compris ing events be tween wh ich no connexion and no

sequence is even a l l eged , a n event A a nd a no ther event A I

(we must no t ca l l i t B ,for th is a t l ea st suggests sequence),

wh ich are se t down sepa ra tely, S ide by S ide, witho ut so much

a s a given o rder i n t ime, and which the reader may a rrange

or n ot a rrange as he plea ses . To say of such a plo t,tha t the

sequence o f i ts episodes i s ne i ther necessa ry n or probable,’

tha t i t i s ‘ stretched beyo nd i ts capa ci ty,

’ wou l d be cri t i c ism

fu ti l e and sho rt of the ma rk . B u t A risto tl e igno res and by

impl ica t ion excl udes such a

ca se,no t imagin ing

, as we may

na tu ra l ly suppo se, tha t i t cou ld ever o ccur. Nor does i t nor

cou ld i t occur ; i t i s an o ffence to which there i s no tempta t io n .

A s im i la r i nference, perhaps even stronger i n its bea r ing upo n

Eurip ides,m ight be drawn from the s i l ence of A ri stophanes .

B u t such a priori cons idera t ions , however cogent , are o f

l i ttl e impo rta nce i n view o f the fa ct , wh ich I n ow propo se to

prove,tha t the p lo t or sto ry of the A ndroma clze i s no t tha t

wh ich ha s been suppo sed . And i n pa rt icu la r, a s a fi rst step

i n the a rgument,I Sha l l prove tha t the play does no t profess

to co nta i n the sto ry ent i re, but presumes the sto ry, wha tever

i t was, a s known befo rehand to the specta to r or reader. A s

th is po in t i s o f the u tmo st importance, bo th for th is p lay a nd

for the genera l h i sto ry o f A then ian d rama,I ask l eave to

expla i n forma l ly the na ture o f the proo f.

The proo f does not depend upon a ny subj ect ive j udgment

respect ing the suffi c i ency or i n suffi cien cy for a rt i st ic pu rpo ses

o f the facts given i n the play, respect ing the goodness or

badness, i n sho rt , o f a sto ry suppo sed to conta i n tho se fa cts

and tho se o nly. If the fa cts given i n the A ndron za c/ze c om

po sed i n themselves an excel lent sto ry, i t wou ld st i l l be certa i n

a nd demo nstrable, tha t n o t the play, bu t someth ing externa l

a nd prio r to the play,i s suppo sed to put us part ly i n

po ssess io n o f tho se fa cts . A nd for th is rea son . The facts

a ctua l ly given are n o t d isc lo sed e ither ( I ) i n such an o rder,or

(2) i n such a manner,tha t the i r rela t io ns c an be understood .

The la st scene , and the la s t scene o n ly,revea l s certa i n fa cts

a s lia r/ing pre-existed from a time before t/ie beginn ing of tbe

ANDROMACHE I 5

play . They are even then revea l ed in such a manner tha t

thei r pre- ex istence , before the beginn ing o f the p lay,canno t

be a scerta i ned wi tho ut reviewing the who l e,witho ut a retro

spect wh ich a reader (as experience has amp ly pro ved) i s n o t

l i kely to pursue,and a specta to r cou ld not pursue . Y e t one

a t l ea s t o f the preced ing scenes i s o f such a cha ra cter,tha t a

reader or specta to r o f i t , if n o t then acqua i n ted with the pre

ex ist ing facts,must (and a ctua l ly do es) to ta l ly a nd i rretrievably

m i sconceive and m i sunderstand i t. These phenomena compel

u s to the inference tha t sonzetlzing ,these pre - exist ing fa cts a t

l ea st,i s a ssumed by the drama t i st as a lready given to the

specta to r from some sou rce externa l to the drama .

The facts revea l ed i n the fina l scene,or ra ther upon a

compari son o f the fina l scene with the who l e d rama , are

( I ) tha t some t ime , some days , before the beginn ing o f the

play Neoptolem u s has be en murdered a t Delph i

(2) tha t O restes was then a t Delph i , a ss ist ing i n the

mu rder.

We wi l l take them i n o rder .

( I ) The corpse o f Neoptolemu s, ca rried by h is a ttendants

from Delph i , a rrives a t h is home, the p la ce o f a ct ion,s imu l

tan eou sly wi th the seco nd entra nce o f Peleus ‘ . The who l e

t ime from the beginn ing o f the play to th is po i nt i s covered

by two summon ings a nd two com i ngs o f Peleus, plu s the t ime

(say ,twenty m i nutes) which m ay ela pse a fter the d isa ppea r

a nce o f Menelaus before H erm ione l earns tha t he i s go ne .

Neglect ing th is add it ion,a nd confin ing o u r a tten tion to

Peleus,i n the fi rst scene We se e a messenger despa tched to

summon him from h is house i n the town o f Pharsalu sfi. I n

the fo urth scene he a rri ves,a nd depa rts aga in to return home “.

H e i s reca l l ed by some person , o r persons , who tel l h im tha t

H erm ione has fl ed,but tel l him no th ing

,and therefore know

no th ing,abou t O restes , a nd no th ing d ist in ct abo ut Menelaus

s laves (we may suppo se) belonging to the ho useho ld o f

Neopto lemus,who go i n stant ly for the old k ing

,as they

1 w . 1047—1069.

2I 6, 2 2 , a . 83 .

3 w . 547—765. 17 . IO6O .

16 A GREEK BORGIA

na tu ra l ly wou ld , when fi rst she a ttempts to ru n away ‘.

The pla ce where they find h im,a nd from which he retu rns

canno t be more d istant, and is probably nea rer, tha n Pha rsa l us .Now Pha rsa l u s i s c lo se by . The town a nd the res idence o f

Neopto l emus have ‘ common pa stures’

; a S lave-woman may

and do es get to the town and back befo re her absence i s

d iscovered by a wa tchfu l m i stress Peleus,a grea t -gra nd fa ther

and shaken wi th age ,pa sses a nd repa sses witho u t d iffi cu l ty

and i s appa ren tly supposed to wa l k‘1. No exa ct d ista nce i s

prescribed,bu t Pha rsa lu s i s c lo se by. If we put i t an hou r

o ff (wh ich i s too much ), three or fou r hours wi l l cover the

a ct io n up to the second entrance of Peleu s ; a nd a lmo st a t

the same momen t comes the party from Delph i . Now the

play a ssumes a s a n essent ia l cond it ion,wha t Eurip ides and

every one el se knew for a fa ct, tha t Delph i is far away, a long

journey. Neopto lemus there i s u tterly o u t o f rea ch . The

vis i to rs from Pha rsa l u s, o n a rr ivi ng there,spend three days "

before approa ch ing thei r bus iness , i n indu lging thei r cu rio s i ty

wi th a v iew o f the strange pla ce . The journey was i n truth

about s ixty m i l es , mo s t o f i t th ro ugh mounta i n ra nges ; a nd

such a concept io n , no t precise but approx ima te, wo u ld be

co nveyed by the mere names of the pla ces to a publ ic who,

as we may se e from the h isto ry of H erodo tu s and o ther

evidence,knew wel l eno ugh the genera l fea tu res o f thei r l i tt l e

co un try. The compan ions o f Neopto l emus , mere persona l

a ttenda nts , a re few,perhaps n o t more than the necessa ry

five‘

,so few a t any ra te tha t they do n o t even deta ch a

messenger, but allreturn together, bringing the co rpse. Tha t

such a jo urney must ha ve o ccup ied no t three hou rs, bu t

someth ing n ea rer three days , i s n o ma tter o f ca l cu la t ion , but

obvio us , a concept io n a r i s ing necessa ri ly wi th the p ictu re o f

the fa cts . I t i s therefo re a da tum o f the play,tha t the

mu rder precedes the begin n ing o f the a ction by a period

i ndefin ite but certa in ly counted i n days .

I t may be wo rth whi le to po i nt o u t, i n v iew o f the way i n

1v. 8 23 .

2 S ee prec ed ing referen c es.

3v. 1086.

4 The n arra tor of the murder and the bearers of the c orpse .

ANDROjl/[ACHE 1 7

which the drama a nd its sto ry have been trea ted , tha t the

quest ion o f the fo rego ing pa ragraph , the quest ion when the

murder happened , lia s not/ting to do wit/i t/ze movemen ts ofOrestes. The preva l en t a ssumpt io n to the con tra ry

,a nd the

no tes wh ich i t i s the custom to write upo n a n . 1 1 1 5—1 1 1 6 ,

betray upo n th is po i n t a confus io n surpri s i ng , though , as we

sha l l see , no t i n expl icable.

Bu t secondly , we lea rn in the fina l Scen e tha t a t the t ime

of the murder O restes was a t Delph i a nd took part i n i t .The fi rst ha lf o f the narra t i ve i s ch iefly o ccupied with

exh ibi t ing his presence a nd a ct iv i ty as l eader.

Thy son’s son ,

an c ien t Pe le us,is n o more ,

S u c h dagger- t hrusts ha t h he rec e ived of men

O f De lph i an d t ha t stranger1 of Myc ena e .

Agamemn on’s son passed throu gh the town

And wh ispered deadl y h in ts in ea c h man’s ear.

wa s Orestes’ slander proved of m igh tIn the hoarse murmur from the t hrong ,

‘ He l ies !He ha t h c ome for fe lon y . ’ On he pa ssed, wi th inThe temp le -fen c e , before the ora c leTo pra y, a nd was in a c t to sa c ri fi c eThen rose wi th swords from amb ush sc reened by ba ysA troop aga in st him : Klytemnestra

’s son

Was of t hem , weaver of th is treason -web 2

By th is tro op , with the favou r a nd a ss istance o f the

Delph ia n mob , Neopto l emu s i s sla i n .

I t is therefore a fa ct of the sto ry, a nd we by the la st scene

are i nfo rmed , tha t O restes, when he a ppea rs i n the play,a t

the t ime when he consents to conduct Herm ione to Menela us,

has a ctua l ly come from the pla ce of the mu rder, and knows

tha t her husband i s dead . B u t—and here is the vi ta l po i n t

1 ‘The ir a l ly ’ would b e n earer the sense .

2 w . 1 073—1 1 1 6 (Way). H ere aga in i t ma t ters n ot whe ther we render the

idl y deba ted w . 1 1 1 5—1 1 1 6, (51! Khv'

ra ttw'

rjo‘

rpa s Téxos sis fiv d l/v TOPOG

unxavoppdcpos, as abo ve , ormake them (with some) mean mere ly tha t Orestes wa s‘the c on triver of allth is.

’ H is presen c e is shown by the who le narra t ive , and hisac tua l part in the ac t by 1121 . 1 074

—1075 , and v . 1 242 (xepbs) . S ee Mr Hyslop’

no te (ed i t ion of Ma cm i l lan , Nor are the deba ted verses rea l ly ambiguous ;the n a tura l mean ing of Jay sis flu (c f. 61 4) c anno t b e a fl

ec ted by wha t fo l lows.

1 8 A GREEK B ORGIA

the d ia logue a nd rela t ions between O restes and Herm ione are

such,tha t the drama t i st

,s ince he i ntends O restes to have th is

knowledge,must a l so i n tend tha t the rea l s i tua t ion o f Orestes ,

h is pa rt i n the mu rder a nd knowledge o f the murder a s an

a ccompl i shed fa ct , sha l l be known to the a ud ience when they

wi tness the scen e o f the abduct io n . The co ntra ry is in c o n

c e iva ble,never has been suggested , a nd never wi l l be by a ny

o ne . Wha t i s now suppo sed by cri t ics is tha t , a t the t ime of

the abduct io n,the mu rder i s rea l ly futu re . Th is , as we have

seen,i s impo ss ible and if the murder i s then pa st

a ud i ence must be suppo sed then to know i t . O therwise n o t

o n ly must they m i stake the who l e spi r i t o f the scene, but they

must be irretrievably deceived as to the fa cts .

Agamemnon ’s son and Klytemn estra’s I ,

My n ame Orestes : to Ze u s’ora c le

B o und, a t Dodon a . S e e ing I am c ome

To P h th i a , good i t seems t ha t I en qu ireO f my kinswoman , if she l ives and t hrives,Herm ion e of Sparta . Thou gh she dwe l lIn a far land from u s

,She is allas dear1 .

These are l i es,the jo urney to Dodona and allthe rest .

B u t the aud ience,if no t previo us ly i nformed o f the murder,

must take them,as readers now do

,for tru th

, a nd s im i la rly

throughout the scene must a l together m i sconceive the bea ring

o f everything wh ich Orestes says or do es . For such a

decept ion Of the a ud ience there i s n o conceivable mo t ive ; i t

i s no t a ca se i n wh ich Eurip ides c a n have mea nt h is purpo se

to be a nd rema i n,so far as concerns the thea tre

,ambiguous .

Even if the a ud ience were a fterwa rd s,in the la s t scene

effectua l ly en l ightened and undece ived,they co u ld o n ly say

‘ Then plea se le t u s have the abduct io n over aga i n , now tha t

we are i n a po s i t io n to understa nd i t. ’

B u t i n truth the resu l t wo u ld be d ifferen t a nd far wo rse ;for as the play stands

,specta to rs o f i t never wo u ld apprehend

the true fa cts a t all, a nd even readers have bu t a poo r chance .

The fina l scene does , i t i s t rue , d isc lo se the fa cts , a nd makes

them certa i n,bu t on ly upon a retro spect o f the who l e play ,

1 w . 884 fo l l . (Way ) .

ANDROMACHE 19

a compari so n o f wha t we are fina l ly to l d wi th wha t we have

seen alla long. Bu t there i s a part icu la r c i rcumsta nce, wh ich

does now a ctua l ly prevent readers , a nd even students , from

gra sp ing the s ign ifica nce of the fina l d i sc losure and i ts rela t io n

to wha t precedes , does a ctua l ly prevent them, even with the

boo k i n hand,from mak ing the necessa ry retro spect a nd thus

a rriv ing a t the truth . A t the end o f the abduct io n -scene, and

when Herm ione has l eft the stage (we wi l l cons ider th is

po in t hereafter ), O restes a ctua l ly descr ibes the plo t aga i ns t

Neopto l emus, but speaks o f the murder as future

S u c h to i ls of doom b y th is hand woven for h imWith m urder-meshes rou nd h im steadfa st -stakedAre drawn : t hereof I speak n ot ere the t ime ;

B u t, when I strike , the De lph ian roc k sha l l know 1 ,

with mo re to the same effect . Now when we have once

perce ived and l ea rned tha t the murder, when these wo rd s are

spoken,i s i n fa ct do ne

,we a l so i nsta ntly perceive

,tha t these

wo rds give u s no rea son for th ink ing o therwise . Being where

he i s,a t the ho use o fNeopto lemus , O restes co u ld no t poss ibly

describe the murder as done, and done by him . He must

refer to i t,if a t all

,as future . Nay mo re , i t i s o n ly the pa s t

fa ct wh ich (as we sha l l see ) makes cred ible,i n the c i rcum

stances,such a revela t io n o f wha t i s sa i d to be future. If the

murder were sti l l to be a ccompl i shed , wou ld O res tes give

th is wa rn ing o f i t i n Phth ia ? A s to the futuri ty he l ies o f

course,as througho ut the scene he l ies . B u t if

,n o t being

o therwise i nfo rmed,we ta ke th i s speech

,when we hea r i t

truth,the subsequen t d isc lo sure , made a s i t i s

,produces no

en l ightenment,bu t o n ly a sense o f confus ion . We feel

i ndeed,every o ne feel s

,a d iffi cu l ty. B u t even studen ts have

no t been able to se t them selves righ t ; a nd i nstead o f

co rrect ing by the d isclo su re the ir in terpreta t ion o f the ah

duct ion - scene, have ei ther abandoned the story a s un intel l igi ble,or wandered O ff i n to unava i l i ng a ttempts to make the fina l

scene squa re w ith the a bdu c tion s c e ne as misread , to ma ke

the fina l Scene a l so mea n tha t the murder,a t the t ime o f the

1 w . 995 fo l l . (Way) .

20 A GREEK B ORGIA

a bduction , was future. When students do th is , wha t wou ld a n

o rd ina ry reader do , and wha t co u ld a specta to r ?

O nce mo re therefo re, i t is certa i n tha t from some externa l

sou rce the specta to r or reader o f the play is suppo sed to lea rn

befo reha nd th is much a t l ea st , tha t , befo re the a ct io n opens,

Neopto l emus has been mu rdered by O restes a t Delph i .

B u t we canno t rea sonably stop a t th i s po i n t, or suppose

tha t the externa l so urce gave j ust th is fa ct a nd no mo re. I t

i s bu t ra t iona l , i t i s n ecessa ry , to suppo se tha t the i nfo rma t ion

given by the externa l sou rce (s ince there was one ) wassuffi c ien t to make the who l e p lay in tel l igibl e. We know n ow

why O restes comes to Pha rsa l us , and why he i s ready to take

away H erm ione. Bu t how ha ppens i t tha t , a t the very

instant when he presents h imself, H erm io ne, the pa ss iona te

lover o f Neopto l emus , i s ready to be taken away ? How c an

O restes a nt ic ipa te th is ? Why does Menela us pu rsue a co urse

o f conduct wh ich has and must have th is resu l t,which c an

have n o o ther, a nd which , a part from the resu lt,i s w ithou t

sense or purpo se ? These th ings a l so the externa l source

must have expla i ned , by info rm i ng u s from the fi rs t tha t

Mene la us is c o -opera t ing wi th O res tes.

Wha t i s the mo t ive o f th i s a l l iance the play itself expla i n s ‘.

Herm ione, on ly ch i ld o f the k ing o f Sparta,was o rigina l ly

prom ised , we a re to l d , to O restes , on ly son o f her uncl e

A gamemnon , k ing o f A rgo s —a fam i ly a rrangemen t a lmo st

d icta ted by the ci rcumstances,

To buy the necessa ry help of

Neop tolemu s,as representa t ive o f A ch i l l es , a t Troy, Menelaus

contra cted his da ughter a lso to him,and no twi thstand ing the

inferio ri ty of the ma tch ’ preferred the la ter engagement to

the earl i er,beca use O restes , befo re the return from Troy

made h imse lf for the t ime impo ss ible by mu rderi ng h is mo ther

C lytaemnestra . The ma rriage,though the husba nd loved the

w ife and she ado red her husband,was from a wo rld ly po in t

o f view a fa i l u re, pa rt ly from domesti c embarra ssments, bu t

ch iefly beca use i t was ba rren . With t ime,a nd the pers i stent

suppo rt o f the o ra cl e a t Delph i , the hei r o f Agamemnon had

1 S ee the pro logue , the abduc t ion -sc ene , and the murder.

2 S ee an . 1 47—1 54, 209—2 1 0, and the behaviour o fMene laus pa ssim .

22 A GREEK B ORGIA

to o u r play the fi rst i s worth less , a n abstra ct,no t even c orre c tl

of the ex i st ing d rama . B u t the seco nd,suppo sed (bu t th is i s

uncerta i n) to represen t i n some way tha t of the A l exandrian

scholarAristophan es, conta i n s on e sentence wh ich looks anc ien t

and po ss ibly i nterest ing , beca use i n itself i t has no c lea r mea n

i ng 7-6 88 Spa/t a rc

fiv Sevrépwv, the play (A ndronza c/ze) i s o ne

o f the second plays .’ This ha s been ta ken to s ign ify tha t i t i s

second-ra te,one o f a c la ss i nferio r i n a rt ist i c meri t. S ince the

wri ter of the a rgumen t , as i t now stands , proceeds to pra ise

c erta i n deta i l s (5 Wpdk o'

yos‘

a admis It ale iihdvyws eipn/Lévos‘

it i s probable, perhaps certa i n , tha t he understood the preced ing

wo rds as deprecia to ry ’ . B u t then they ca nno t be h i s wo rds,for

he takes them unna tu ra l ly. A‘ seco nd p lay

i s no t the same

th ing a s a‘ second - ra te ,

a nd no on e surely wo u ld o f his own

mo t io n put so s imp le a mean ing i n such inappropria te a nd

un in tel l igib le terms . Nor c an we a ccept a no ther suggested

i n terpreta t ion,tha t the play was seco nd i n the compet i t ion .

Tha t, if i t was so,wo u ld be expressed i n the regu la r a nd

na tu ra l fo rm,by saying tha t ‘Eurip ides was seco nd wi th the

play .

Now these a nc ien t prefa ces , a s they come to us , no t

unfrequently Conta in no tes (which are i ndeed the best.

pa rt o f

them) o l der tha n o u r copies , o lder even tha n the bu lk o f the

prefaces,no tes n o t i n tel l igible except by reference to no tes

wh ich have perished ; such for i n sta nce i s the wa p’

Sérép cpn et-ra t 7) p vdon oufa i n the prefa ce to the Eu ni en ides o fAesc hylu s,

S ign ifying ‘ the sto ry o f th is drama is no t found i n e ither

(Sopho cles or‘ This play is a second play

o f the second plays’

has the appea rance o f such a no te. Wha t

are‘ seco nd plays

? Wha t c a n they be , except plays Wh ichare sequel s , plays preceded by a first

? The no te may refer

to a l i s t , d ist ingu ish ing tho se o f the plays conta i ned in some

co l lect io n wh ich were known or conj ectured to be sequel s ;a nd i t may po ss ib ly s ign ify tha t the A ndroma clze i s one o f them.

1flamhis éflovheéero Ku rd. (Tfis fidva -

rou, p era r euwa p évn 7 611

Mevéxa ov. For the last sta temen t there is no ev iden c e , and i t is inc onsisten t withthe story . Androma c he in the play a ttributes to Herm ione (w . 39

—42) apart from

Mene lauson ly the ‘ desire ’to ki l l her. Even éfioékero xraveiv, aswe sha l l see , wou ld

no t b e c omple te ly true . The p lan and the origina l ac t ion be long who l ly to Men e laus.

1" Cf. Hippolyti [typot/zesis s. f.

ANDROMA CHE 23

From the same hand comes , we may guess , a l so the next

cla use o f the argument . ‘The pro logue i s c lea r a nd appropria te

i n sta temen t ,’

6 n pdk oyos o a ¢é39 rea l. ez’

flvivyws eipnp évoe1. The

person,who a ctua l ly wro te or framed the argumen t a s we

have i t,to ok th i s to refer to the ‘ pro logue

spoken by

Androma che i n o u r play ; for he adds ,‘A l so the elegia cs 2 i n

the lamen t o f Androma che (a re and then no tes o ther

po i n ts a s good or‘

no t bad .

B u t tha t a ny ma n , no t copying

a no ther bu t express ing na tura l ly h is own op i n ion , sel ected

the Eurip idean pro logue (so ca l led) for except io na l pra i se , i s

a th ing ha rd to bel ieve or understa nd . The speech o f

Andromache is certa i n ly nei ther obscure n or, so far a s i t goes ,i nappro pria te i t g ives the necessa ry fa cts

,so fa r a s they are

known to Androma che. B u t i t scarcely pretends to d rama t i c

meri t,or any meri t o ther than mecha n ica l , and to no te i t for

on e o f the better parts,a th ing except iona l ly commendabl e i n

Euri p ides , is i rra t iona l . The‘ pro logue ’ commended

,i n the

first i nsta nce , as‘ cl ea r and appropria te i n sta tement ’ must

surely have been the wo rk o f some o ne i n whom such an

a ch ievemen t wa s commendabl e. Now if the p laywas rea l ly a

sequel , we c an understand th i s. Divo rced by a cc ident,or the

needs of representa t ion,from i ts predecesso r, i t wa nts a

logue’

pro perly so ca l led, a l i tera ry i ntroduct ion i n verse , l i ke

tho se o f Roma n a nd modern t imes . Somebody wro te one , and

i t i s to th i s tha t the no te rea l ly referred,recommend ing i t as

usefu l and giv ing i t the o n ly pra ise tha t i t cou ld deserve .

Un luck i ly, n o t being by Euri pides, i t wa s no t a lways copied

with the play,a nd we have n ow to ma ke i t

,i n verse or i n

pro se,for o u rse lves . S im i larly, pro logues were wri tten to the

R/zesu s3 .

Further there i s rea son to th in k tha t we know the name

o f the pro logue -wri ter—Demo c ra tes. A t l ea st th is wo u ld

expla i n wha t has n o t been expla in ed,the extrao rd ina ry sta te

men t, right ly or wrongly a ttributed to Ca l l ima chus,tha t o u r

1 No te the absen c e o f a c onjunc t ion , indic a t ing tha t this c lause was no t

orig ina l ly mean t to qua l ify the pre c eding c lause Ta apaa a rd‘

m aevrépwu . If i twere , we should expec t a ‘ but

bé,an d

, or u évrm. In fac t , there is orwas no

c onnexion be tween the two remarks, as the a sy ndeton properly indic a tes.

2 {f t 639 m l7 6. éAey eTa. —é‘rt H ermann,é‘on c odd .

3 Hyp . R/iesi.

24 A GREEK B ORGIA

play ‘ was superscribed Democra tes ‘ " A ssured ly there is

m i sundersta nd ing here, if i t i s impl ied tha t the‘ superscript ion

s ign ified either the t it l e o f the play or the name of the

drama t ist . B u t if‘ Democ ra tes

was a utho r o f a pro logue

sometimes prefixed , the superscri pt ion o fhis name was i n such

copies proper a nd necessa ry, a nd may ea s i ly have crept

withou t r ight in to o thers .

Bu t s tronger and stead ie r tha n these broken l ights from

withou t i s the evidence i n the play itself,the a l l u s ive

retro spect in wh ich O restes describes to Herm ione the

c ircumstances o f her ma rriage to Neopto l emus ". No t on ly

i s the na rra t ive so summary tha t a thea trica l a ud ience,

una cqua in ted w i th the facts,cou ld sca rcely fo l low i t with

in terest,bu t upo n exam ina t ion mo re than o n e po i n t wi l l be

fo und un intel l igibl e. ‘ I came to Phth ia ,’ says Orestes

‘t/zoug /i

disobedien t in tlzis to My inju nc tion ,with the purpo se o f

a ss ist ing thee to When d id Herm io ne fo rb id O restes

to come ? Aga in s t any commun ica t io n between them S i nce

herma rriage we have presumptive a nd even conc lus i ve evidence

i n the who l e p lay a nd part icu la rly in th is scene. Does Orestes

o n ly pretend the proh ibit io n If so,wha t i s h is mo t ive

1 Sc ho l ium to Andr. 445 6 66‘

Ka t axos ém ypa tpfival gbncn‘

rfj Tpay tpét'

Anaoxpdrnv. I t w il l further e xpla in why this remark n ow appears in c onne x ionwith a subj ec t to whic h i t is no t a pparen t ly re levan t , the da te a t which the p la ywas wri t ten . The observa t ion tha t ‘

the times o f the play c anno t b e simp lygrasped

(eiMxpwd’

Js 6? 1 009 7 00 d na‘

ros xpévous our ( o n Wafie’

v sc ho l . ib. )referred , when i t was o rig ina l l y made , to the times of the a c t ion

,the in terior

times (no t the da te o f c omposi t ion) , whic h in the p lay i tse lf are not easy to begrasped , as modern sc ho lars have too muc h reason to know . I t was in c onnexionwith this tha t ‘Democ rate s

was orig ina l ly men t ioned , be c ause his pro logue o f

c ourse made the times, the suc c ession of even ts,c lear. The scho l ium impl ies a

m isunderstand ing—The c onj ec tura l subst itu t ion o f Ttu oxpdmv for Amu oxpdmu in

th is sc ho l ium ,and the dependen t c onj ec tures c i ted , bu t no t affi rmed , by Prof.

Murray (in his n o te o n the drama tisperson a e) seem more than haz ardous.

iflwov 66 a ds p e’

v or} oéfiwu émo rohds,

ciior ep évdt’

dws, N'

wéu tbwv o"

w 7 6 11 56 .

By the order of the words the n ega t ive of; fa l ls upo n o'éfiwv, disregarding , and the

en em i es (whic h may or may no t mean a‘message

) must be a c ommand n ot to

c ome ; and £26'

vdtboins Ari-

you impl ies the same .

ANDROMACHE 25

co u ld an a ud ience comprehend i t,a nd how i s i t tha t a pla in

fa lsehood , rela t ing to herself, do es n o t surprise Herm ione n or

awake in her a ny susp ic ion

Presently we a re to l d tha t,when O restes humbly besought

Neopto lemus to res ign h is c la im upo n Herm ione ,‘ he not on ly

was i n so len t a bo ut the s laying o f my mother, but made the

go ry-visaged fiends a reproach aga in st mel !

’ Why ‘aga i nst

nze’? To whom el se but the murderer shou ld the Furies

o f C lyta emnestra be a repro ach ? The express ion impl ies a

concept ion o f O restes and o f the Furi es d ifferent from any of

the various views wh ich Euri p ides presen ts elsewhere , i n the

Orestes for example and the Ip/zigren ia in Ta nrica ’. I n bo th

tho se plays the Furies are i ndeed a n i l l us ion,i n the o ne a n

i l l us ion o f fever and i n the o ther o f ma n ia ; but i t i s the

murderer who imagines a nd ‘ sees’

them . Imagina ry, unrea l ,they must a lways have been i n Euripides but i t wa s a goo d

varia t ion of the wel l -wo rn theme to a ttri bute the superst i t io us

imagina t ion to o thers,who fa nc ied or saw

’ the ma tri c ide so

pursued , wh i le he, impervio us to vu lga r bel iefs a s to common

feel i ngs,confro nted the genera l horro r with genu ine co ntempt .

Such an O restes, and on ly such a n one ,cou ld repud ia te ‘ the

reproa ch o f the Furi es ’ i n the la nguage o f o u r play and the

tra i t i s in keep ing with h is chara cter i n th is story . A s we

sha l l see,the Orestes o f the A ndroma c/ze c a n sca rcely be

suppo sed to have known either fancy or fear. B u t then , if the

a ud ience are to understand the to ne o f hi s a l l us io n , they mus t

know his m i nd,and must have seen how he bore h imself in

the scenes to wh ich he refers .

These and o ther l ike touches confi rm us in the co ncl us io n

tha t the a ud ience,a s wel l a s Herm io ne , must be a cqua i n ted

with the subj ect o f these rem in iscences , a nd tha t wha t we have

here is a summa ry,from o ne a spect

,o f a forego i ng play”. I t

represented the co ntest for the hand o f Herm io ne , and the’

1 6 5’

flu bflpwrijs ei’

s r’

éufis wrrpos ¢6vov‘

rds 0'

a iu a rwr obs 0661s du etbffwv éju oi.

The form 6,q (no t not ) is n ec essari l y empha t ic .

2 Of the Electra we c a n hardly speak in th is c o nne xion , sin c e in tha t p lay thea c t ion o f the Furies is on l y pred ic ted in the fina le , and any c on c ept ion o f i t isadmissible .

3 S ee a lso Append ix , n otes on v . 1 03 2 , v . 1 1 5 1 .

26 A CREEK BORGIA

t r iumph o f Neopto l emus over h i s opponent, o f which tri umph ,a s O restes here repea ted ly rem inds u s

, the A ndroma c/ze

exh ibits th e reverse 1

Soon as to Gree c e re t urn ed Ac h i l les’ son ,Thy fa ther I forga ve ; t h y lord I pra yedTo se t t hee free . I p leaded m in e h ard lo t,

t ha t I m igh t wedFrom frie nds indeed, b u t sc arc e o f stra nger fo lk,B an ished a s I am ban ished from m ine home

I n the hes ita t io n or dec i s io n of Menela us “, i n the re la t ions

o f the r iva l s to ea ch o ther and to the bride, we see , part ia l ly

bu t suffic ient ly,very apt ma teria l for a Eurip idea n drama .

The interview, i n wh ich H erm ione fo rbade O restes ever to

v is i t her future home,must have b ee n a scene i n tha t drama ;

and s ince, i n n ow consen t ing to be her conducto r,he tel l s

her tha t ‘ her s i tua t io n i s i t wo u l d seem tha t o n the

fo rmer o cca s ion i t wa s he who besought her,but va i n ly

,to cut

the kno t o f h is d istresses by a n elopemen t. The Herm ione

o f the second pa rt wo u ld certa i n ly have refused such a pet i t io n ,a nd tha t with no l i tt l e a speri ty. A t the clo se o f such a play

the disc omfited ma tri c ide,i n cu rs ing the o ra cl e wh ich had

enco uraged and betrayed him (as he do es a lways o n the

Euri p idea n stage but n o t a lways exactly i n the same vein 5)wou l d be conso l ed as i n the Elec tra a nd the Orestes, by a

dens ex ma c/zina,probably A po l lo h imse lf. This personage , a

mere piece o f thea t re-mach inery , wou ld play the regula r part

o f h i s k ind by sketch ing the futu re . B u t wherea s mo re

common ly,as i n the Orestes a nd the Ip/zzjgen ia ,

the dei ty o f

the mach in e o ffers o n ly a l egenda ry sequel,i nd ifferent or

even co ntrary to the Eurip idean sto ry with wh ich i t i s

on . 98 2 , 1 007 e tc .

on . 97 1 fo l l . (Way). The words omi t ted The fa te tha t Iza u n ted me are a

modifi c at ion o f the origina l (file 1ra p6V‘

ra balnova ) and sc arc e ly in chara c ter.

3 Tha t Mene laus re turn ed to Gree c e be fore the marriage o f H ermion e is no tsta ted in the An droma c /ze

, but tha t was the c ommon l y rec e ived c hrono logy (seeEurip ides

Orestes) , and i t g ives a S i tua t ion for the story o f the c ho ic e be tween histwo prom ises so muc h be tter drama t ic a l l y tha t we may fa irl y presume i t .

‘17rrpt1re 1

s b ars 1n5a 71 . 98 2 .

5 Orestes 285 e tc . , Iplz . T. 77 , 570 e tc . , Elec tra 1 1 90.

ANDROMA CHE 27

fo rma l ly connected , here he wo u ld prom i se the sequel ex

hib ited i n the second play. O restes sho u ld yet have h i s

revenge. Delph i would i tsel f provide him with place, t ime ,a nd oppo rtun ity formak ing away with on e who had i nsu l ted

bo th her obed ien t servant a nd her pa tron -

god . A nd Menela us ,repent ing o f h i s treachery

,Shou ld h imself devise a nd a ch ieve

the means whereby the d iscarded nephew sho u ld recapture‘ h is lawfu l bri de 1

’ herse lf help ing,for h i s better sa t isfa ct ion ,

a nd praying to be taken . With th i s , or someth ing l ike th is ,we are ready to fo l low the A ndroma c/ze .

When we l earn,i n the Euri p idea n pro logue, tha t Neop

tolemu s has gone to Delph i,a nd Menela us a rrived i n Phth ia ,

we know tha t the revenge o f Orestes has come ; when we

hea r tha t Menelaus i s a l rea dy a t stra nge work i n the house ,we know tha t the revenge i s pa rtly executed , tha t Ne optolemu s

i s dead and O restes has come forh i s bride. And ou r cu rio s i ty

i s h igh ly exc i ted ; for so cl ever a vi l la i n is Men ela u s,tha t n o t

on e specta to r i n ten thousand co u ld d iv ine h is plan,or

perce ive how the po s i t io n o f the s lave co u ld bea r upon the

a bduct ion of the m i stress . A nd o ther po in ts are myster ious .

A ndroma che has co ncea l ed her ch i ld and has taken sanctua ry ;why have these th ings been perm i tted ? Menela us i s re

spect i ng the sanctua ry,though even A ndroma che has doubts

a bo ut the suffi c iency o f i ts pro tect io n 2 ; i s th i s h is piety ,or

wha t i s i t ? Peleus l ives c lo se by, yet he has n o t i n terfered .

Th is la st quest io n indeed we a re a l ready better able to

a nswer than the i nno cen t A ndroma che , who canno t u nder

stand why, tho ugh she has sent severa l t imes for the head of

the fam i ly, there i s n o wo rd o f his com i ng ". S he su ppo ses

the m essengers negl igent o f her in terests . S ince the concern

i s tha t o f Peleus and Neopto l emus and the who l e house,her

explana t io n wi l l n o t ho ld,as She hersel f afterwards recogn ises

return ing to the even less tenable suppo s i t io n o f neglect i n

Peleus ‘ . However she has n ow the chance to send a no ther

summoner, who , as we guess, i s l i kely to be mo re successfu l .

1 Andr. 100 1 .

3v . 79 fo l l .

8 A GREEK B ORGIA

Peleu s wi l l of co u rse be summoned if and when the c on

spira tors cho o se , a nd no t befo re ; bu t we are given rea so n to

suppo se tha t they des i re i t now. For Menela us , who knows

where the yo ung boy i s a nd ha s go n e to se i z e him,has

announced the in ten t ion o f putt ing him to dea th i n the

heari ng o f a Troj a n woma n devo ted to Andromache ‘. —5I’ oA ndroma che She o f course repo rts i t , and conquering a terro r

n ot the less pa thet ic beca u se we c a n perce ive i t to be mis

taken , undertakes a l so to repo rt i t to Peleus. O u r i n terest i n

the v ict ims o f these ma ch i na t ions i s heightened by the ex

qu isite song w ith wh ich A ndroma che con so les her lonel iness

( the elegiacs adm ired by the a utho r o f the Greek a rgument) ,a nd by the dread wh ich the m ighty La cedaemon ians are seen

to i n sp ire , even i n the Phthiote women (the Cho rus) , who n ow

bring her the ir sympa thy a nd advise her to subm i t. I n the

momen t o f express ing their fea r o f H erm ione,they are

su rpri sed by Herm io ne herself, between whom and Androma che

pa sses a scene fu l l o f i n terest .

I t i s pit iable tha t crea tures so i n capabl e o f defence, and so

unhappy, sho u ld be co unters i n so dead ly a game . The pa s t

and presen t sufferi ngs o f the one,the ho rribl e shock wh ich

awa i ts the o ther; the i r to rturing re la t io n to on e a no ther, a nd

complete mutua l m i sunderstand ing, un i te to mo ve o u r c om

pa ssion . Herm io ne , a dependent being, i s dom i na ted by two

feel ings , confidence in her fa ther and pa ss ion for her husba nd .

Her pride i n Menela us , her sense o f impo rta nce as h i s he iress ,her co nvict ion tha t allthe wo rld i s or shou ld be obed ient to

him and her, are d isplayed in her fi rst wo rds,when she s i lences ,

to her own destruct ion , a ny po ss ibl e remonstrance from‘

women o f Phth ia :

W' i t h bravery of go ld a bo u t m in e h eadAnd on my form t h is pomp of bro idered robes,H i t h er I c ome —no g ifts be t hese I we arO r from Ac h i l les’ or from Pe le us’ hou se ;B u t from the La nd La c on ian Sparta - c rown edMy fa t her Men e la us wi th ric h dowerGave t he se , t ha t so my tongu e shou ld n ot b e t ied.

To you I render an swer in t hese words 2.

1i f . 68 , v . 72 .

21 47 fo ll. (Way) .

30 A GREEK BORGIA

Crou c h low a ba sed , and grove l a t my kn eeAnd sweep m i ne house , a nd spri nkle wa ter dewsThere from the go lden ewers wi th th ine h and,And wh ere t ho u a rt

,kn ow l.

Here,i n her firs t speech

,befo re the hea t o f confl i ct has made

her qu ite mad,i s he r rea l m i nd . Wha t she expects i s

,if we

may use a pla i n term ,to bu l ly her r iva l

,to aba se her, for the

t ime,i n to the mere s lave

,which as yet she ha s never been .

Ki l l her She da re no t ; she canno t even threa ten i t witho u t

unsaying her wo rds ; a nd the chi ld she wo u ld fa in no t mo l est,

if she cou ld fi nd a ny o ther way to her wi l l . H ere,i n her fea r

o f her husband , is the a ssa i lable po i n t for A ndroma che,and

the o n e way i n wh ich the scheme o f Menela us, tho ugh u n

suspected, m igh t have been cro ssed . If A ndroma che wou ld

have ca lm ly pressed upo n the da ughter but a l i tt l e of the

p la i n tru th about Neopto lemus wh ich she a fterwa rds expounds ,a s va in ly a s compla cent ly, to the fa ther 2, Herm ione m igh t

have been sca red in to o ppo s ing her fa ther,or a t l ea st (wh ich

wo u ld have been enough) i n to man ifest ing her rel ucta nce .

Bu t A ndroma che never once touches upon th is vi s ible and

vibra t ing cho rd . Nor must we m iss the fa ct tha t th is is d ue ,if we may n ot say to a fau l t i n Androma che , yet to a dulness ,or a lack o f sen sib i l i ty . Eur ip ides a lmo st never ta kes s ides ,never presents tha t mere o ppo s i t ion of good a nd b ad which

n a ture eschews . A ndroma che n o mo re understands Herm ione

tha n Herm ione her, and is, so far a s she c an be, no t l ess unj ust .

A ndromache is a woma n (there do ubtless are such) who does

no t know wha t love i s,who has never fel t i t , and perhaps

never cou ld . I n the lectu re upo n co nj uga l j ea lousy,sens ible

enough i n pa rt but to ta l ly i noppo rtune,which she reads to the

yo ung queen,she makes capita l o f the fa ct tha t her a ffect io n

for Hecto r had been who l ly free from j ea lousy :

Ah dear, dear He c tor,I wo u ld take to my h eart

Even t h y leman,if Love tripped th y fee t .

Yea , often to th y ba stards wou ld I ho ldMy breast , t ha t I m igh t g ive t hee n one offen c e 3 .

This may or may n o t be a n ado rable sent imen t , and

1vv. 1 6 1 fo l l . (Way).

2vv . 3 1 9 fo l l . 3

vv. 22 2 fo l l .

ANDROMACHE 3 1

Eurip ides may ormay no t have approved i t ; but i t i s ne i ther

connected nor compa t ible with the pa ss ion o f love . And

a cco rd ingly Androma che is so far from conceiving wha t the

feel ing o f Herm ione for Neopto l emus rea l ly i s,tha t She

descri bes i t,i n wo rds which o ne da res n ot tra nsla te, as

ba r-And ria Ae’

xovs‘

,a nd l i ken s Herm io ne to her mo ther Helen I

Tha t Herm ione receives the admon it ion,term i na t ing as i t

does i n th is stupid insu l t,with a pro tes t mo re o f grief tha n o f

a nger—‘Why take so proud a tone ? ’ —is a n a ston ish ing

proo f o f her s ingu la r and fa ta l openness to every k ind o f

i nfluence. A nd when A nd roma che a seco nd t ime,a nd wi th

even less relevance ‘,c ites the pa ramo u r o f Pa ris as a reproa ch

aga in st the wife o f Neopto l emus,we ca nno t be surpri sed tha t

the o utraged gi rl furio us ly c lo ses the interview,a nd goes ,

beyond sa lva t ion,to her fa te ’ .

Menela us soon comes with the boy Mo lo ssus—it i s c on

ve n ien t to use th is name , tho ugh there i s no c l ea r a utho ri ty

for i t i n the play 3—and i s the pri nc ipa l figure o f the next two

scenes,i n wh ich he executes h is des ign . The perfo rma nce

a s wel l a s the concept ion , j ust ifies the terro r, n o less tha n the

detesta t ion , wh ich he a nd the name o f Sparta are sa i d to

i n sp ire . The urgency of the o cca s io n,the improbabi l i ty

and i nd ign i ty 4 o f the pa rt wh ich he has to play, never d is turb

for a n i n sta nt h is progress to the m ark . We soon unders tand

now why Andromache has been suffered to ta ke sanctuary.

I t g ives Menelaus n o t o n ly a presentabl e pretex t, which o ther

wise m igh t have been hard to find,for pro ceed ing aga i ns t

Mo lo ssus,but a l so the o ppo rtun i ty o f mak ing H erm ione,

to allappeara nce, specia l ly respons ibl e for condemn ing the

boy to dea th . The k ing prom ises to spa re him,if the

mo ther surrenders herself ; and he keeps h i s prom ise, i n the

1v. 249, where xou

u pSawmeans‘a t the farthest distanc e ,

’i.e .

‘ however l i t t leto the purpose .

2 The words a t the end o f the sc en e (v. 2 72) obaels y vva u cbs pdpu ax’

éfnbpnxé

111 1) IKaKfiS'

7 00061 611 éoyu eu dvdpcbn otsxaxbv are c ommon l y m istransla ted . The lastverse means ‘when she is ev i l ; so far (and so far on ly) are we an evi l to mankind .

To make Andromache say tha t women as su ch are ev i l would b e c on trary to herfee l ings and c hara c ter. v . 3 53 is iron ic a l .

3 S ee vv . 1 243—1 249, whic h suggest i t . 4

v . 366.

3 2 A GREEK BORCIA

t reacherou s fa sh ion to wh ich the Greeks had be en but too

wel l a ccu stomed , by referring the fa te of Mo lo ssu s to the sepa

ra te dec i s io n of the princess . S ince the Spa rtan s were

st ick l ers for the fo rms o f rel igion , and had recen t ly (but, asthe A then ians held , d isho nest ly ) urged aga i ns t A thens the gu i l t

o f v io la t ing sanctuary l, i t is po ss ib le to th ink tha t Menela u s

rea l ly feel s the scrup le wh ich he fo rma l ly sa t i sfies . B u t th is

i s no t my impress io n the scruple, l i ke everyth ing in Menela us ,i s a tri ck , bea ri ng upon h is true purpo se and successfu l i n its

obj ect . All through the scene the i ro ny o f the S i tua t io n

cont i nues to work , no tably when Androma che,i n the speech

a l ready often ment ioned , expla i n s to the sho rt- S ighted fa ther

how he i s ru in ing allchance for h is da ughter o f happiness

with Neopto l emus ’ , and the o ther women po i n t o u t to him

how much better he m igh t u se h i s influence in appea s i ng h i s

daughter’

s unfo rtuna te jealou syf’ ! H is plaus ibi l i ty

,cons idering

the na tu re o f h i s pretences, i s a dm i rable .

Woman,t hese are b u t trifles

,allunworth y

Of my sta te roya l—thou say ’st it—and of Gree c e .

Yet know, when one ba t/i set b is bea rt on a uglzt,

M ore tita n to take a Tray is t/zis to li im .

I S t an d my da ugh ter’

s c hamp ion , for I c ou n tNo trifle robbery of marriage -righ t .Nough t e lse a w ife may suffer ma tc heth t h is.

Losing her h usband, she do t h lose her l ife .

Over my thra l ls her lord ha t h c la im to ru le,

And over his l ike righ ts have I and m in e .

Wa i t ing the a bsen t if I order n ot

M ine own t h ings we l l , weak am I, and n ot wise 4

I t i s allsheer non sense , as an explana t io n o f h is suppo sed

desi re to take the l ives of A ndromache and Mo lossus,and

even the sneers i n i t (such as wa iting t/ie a bsen t) are trans

pa ren t to the specta to r. Y e t i t so unds l ike self-decept ion ,a nd cou ld n ot ra i se any suspic io n o f the true facts and the

rea l i ntent . The pa tho s o f the mo ther’s self-surrender i s

obviou s,being indeed on e of the few po in ts i n the play

wh ich the current i n terpreta t io n leaves intel l igible ; and

1 Thu c yd ides I . 1 26—1 27 .

2v . 3 1 9.

' 3v , 42 1 .

‘1zv . 366 fo l l . (Way ).

ANDROMA CHE 33

though o f subo rd ina te interest,i t serves to feed the emo t ion s

o f fea r and ha tred aga i n st the deceiver.

I t shou ld be no t iced i n pa ss ing,however

,tha t Andromache

here as befo re , is sca rcely less imprudent than unhappy , andShows

,go od woma n tha t she i s

,the same i nexpugnable

concei t o f her own wisdom ,which appears in her trea tment

o f Herm ione. The tone o f superiori ty,i n which she enl ightens

the suppo sed bl i ndness o f Menela us,wo uld be dangero us

i ndeed if he were rea l ly bl ind ; a nd when she i nsu l ts the

man,who

,as She th inks

,has her fa te a nd tha t of her ch i ld i n

h i s hands,wi th the foo l i sh a nd po i n t less epigram tha t he may

perhaps prove as z ea lous for h i s daughter as fo rmerly he was

for h i s wife

b u t on e t h ing in t h y n a tu reI fear—’twas in a woman

’s qu arre l too

Tho u d idst destroy the hap less Phryg ian s’ town 1

when o ne hea rs th is , on e c an but say i n excuse tha t she

seems,poo r woman

, to have Helen , as i t were, on the bra in .

A t the clo se of the scene Menelaus ta kes h is pri soners

i n to the ho use,o stens ibly i n o rder tha t the fa te o f Mo lo ssu s

may be referred to the dec is ion o f H erm io ne . We say

o stens ibly, beca use there is no th ing, except the word o f

Menelaus (wh ich i s no th ing), to pro ve either the inten tio n or

the fa ct. I t i s Menelau s who anno unces the proj ect , a nd

afterwa rds decla res the result z ; we no t ice tha t nei ther A ndro

mache n or H erm io ne ever refers to a scene wh ich,if i t had

rea l ly o ccurred , was not l i ke ly to be fo rgo tten by either a nd

we may therefo re a ssume with co nfidence tha t Menela us , i n

th is ma tter,does no t give h is daughter fa i r play. From wha t

we know of her m i nd i t i s mo st improbable tha t,if rea l ly

co nsu l ted,she wou ld have ta ken upo n herself a ny pa rt of

the crime,or even have a l lowed the k ing to proceed further

without a pro test . She has n o t the courage for i t,nor, to do

her j ust ice,the cruel ty. He o n the o ther hand says and does

eno ugh to make her seem gu i l ty in the fi rst degree bo th to

o thers 3 a nd , as we sha l l see , to herself. To give her at th i s

1v . 361 . vv. 43 1

444 , v . 5 1 8 .

3v . 489 .

34 A GREEK BORGIA

moment the chance o f i n terference wo u ld be a n erro r o f

which he is certa in ly to be a cqu i tted .

When a fter a n i n terva l he l eads o u t the m i serable pa i r a s

for dea th , the i r appea ra nce is a lmo st immed ia tely fo l lowed by

tha t o f Peleus, a co i nc idence wh ich co u ld scarcely su rpri se

the specta to r,even a t fi rst s igh t. I t is certa i n tha t Menela us

does no t i n tend execut ion , and wi l l n o t appro ach i t u nti l he i s

sure o f being stopped . To cut the thro a ts o f the woma n a nd

the boy wou ld doubtless have been ind ifferen t to him ,perhaps

ra ther agreeable,i n i tself ; but i t co u l d n ot be done withou t

comprom is i ng the freedom o f Herm ione,which i s essen t ia l to

his purpo se ; a nd as he tru ly says,

‘ wha t a man wants a t the

momen t i s mo re impo rtan t to h im tha n the capture o f

H is part i n the plo t n ow runs smoo th ly to the fina l stroke .

Peleus,an honourable a nd nobl e man

,bu t o f vio l en t temper

i n h i s best days ’ , a nd n ow long pa st the age o f self-contro l 3,

has n o chance a t all,a nd s imply p lays into h is adversa ry ’s

ha nd , unpa ck ing h i s hea rt i n extra vagan t i nsu l ts‘,wh ich he

h imself d isproves ‘ , a nd fut i l e threa ts,which give Menelaus

exa ctly the lea d wh ich he expects . Menela us is allh imself,

provo ca t ive an d pla us ib le , res ign ing the s laves wi th ind ignan t

a cqu iescence , and ma i n ta i n ing witho u t embarra ssmen t the

prepo stero us do ctrines o f domest ic law,upon which b e pre

tends to have pro ceeded “. If he boggles a moment over

expla i n ing the necess ity o f h is i nsta nt depa rture for Spa rta 7

(here to the specta to r h is pla n becomes fina l ly cl ea r), he

promptly recovers h imse lf,and a ctua l ly d isappears w ith some

d ign ity . The figure o f the old,old m an

,utterly u nconsc io us

o f the stroke wh ich has o rpha ned him ,a nd o f the spo rt wh ich

he is a ffo rd ing , but pursu ing with pride h is imagina ry tri umph,

has i n the h ighest degree tha t st ing ing pa tho s , n o t tragic , n o t

tea rfu l , bu t cruel , which Eurip ides w ie ld s supremely. On e

touch o f i rony may be quo ted as giving the i nnuendo of the

1v . 368 .

2v. 68 7 .

3vv. 642, 678, 728, e tc . vv . 590 fo l l .

5vv. 703

—705 .

S ee a lso v . 678 .

6v . 585 and passim .

7v . 73 3 é

‘orn yap 7 1s 06 u pda te ] 7 1s Prof. Murray

rightly marks the hesi ta t ion .

ANDROMACHE 35

who l e. Pel eus, l ike Androma che, has h is wo rd to say abo ut

Helenforsook

Thy love , a nd from t h in e ha l ls we n t reve l l ing fort hW it h a yo ung ga l lan t to a n a l ien l and.

Ye t for h er sake t ho u ga theredst t ha t hu ge hostOf Greeks, and ledde st t hem to I l i um .

Thou sho u ldst h ave spued her fort h , h ave st irred no spear,

Who hadst fo und her v i le,b u t le t her t here a b ide

Yea, pa id a pri c e to ta ke her n e ver ba c k.

B u t n o w ise t h us the wind of t h ine h eart b lew .

Na y, man y a ga l la n t l ife h ast t ho u de stroyed,And c h i ld less made grey mo t hers in t he ir h a l ls

And wh i te -ha ired sires ha st robbed o f n ob le sons

My wretched self am on e,who see in thee,

L ihe some foulfiend, A chilles" mu rderer 1 .

S o spea ks the grands ire ofNeoptolemu s—to the a ccompl iceof Orestes . A nd the Cho rus celebra te h i s v icto ry : he to o , as

they remember with pride,had been i n his yo uthfu l days a

c onquero r o f Troyz.

The sc en e which shows the d i stra ct ion of the deserted

H erm ione , though fu l l o f na ture , a nd i n the‘ spoken ’ pa rts

un impea chable,i s open i n the lyric part to a n obj ect io n

to uch ing no t so much the drama t is t as the l im i ta t ions o f

A tt i c form a s fixed by A eschylus. Shakespea re , though he

co u ld n o t have bettered the co ncept ion , wou ld have been

better served i n the presenta t io n o f i t . The mus ica l,sym

metrica l , opera t i c mo u ld , for Eurip ides in evi table , su i ts wel l

eno ugh w ith a h igh pa ss ion , such as tha t o f Androma che a nd

Mo lo ssus i n fa ce o f dea th 3 , but n o t with a pa ss io n l ike tha t

o f H erm ione. A naughty,consc ience- stri cken ch i ld (a nd

Herm ione a t the moment is very nea r th is) i s n ot a c on

ven ien t subj ect fo r stan z a s . B u t the substance o f the scen e

i s adm i rable. I t i s a m erit , n o t a defect, tha t the young wife

exaggera tes bo th her o ffence a nd her da nger. I n va i n do es

her wa i t ing-woma n a ssure her tha t Neopto l emus wi l l forgive “,

a nd tha t mere prudence wi l l restra i n him from pun i sh ing ‘.

Conscience ca nno t so a rgue,a nd the conscience o f Herm ione

1vv . 602 foll . (Way) . vv. 775

—801 , espe c ial ly 789 fo l l.3vv . 501

—544 .

5vv . 869

—8 75.

36 A GREEK B ORCIA

i s i n the imagined frown of the m an tha t she loves . Abandoned

by her gu ide and encou rager , she knows tha t her heart is

gu i l ty o f alltha t he d id , a nd o f more ; and she i s in n o moo d

for favo u rable d ist inct io ns . She devi sed ,’

she p lo tted tho se

dea ths which she d id undoubted ly des i re 1 , a nd if her husband

k i l l s her,i t wi l l be n o mo re than she deserves ’ . Even her

fa ther she wi l l no t a ccuse o f a nyth ing bu t the desert io n , and

she makes the best o f tha t 3 for he i s st i l l her on e co nce ivable

refuge from the a nger o f Neopto l emus . And i n th is mo o d

O restes takes her.

The i nterv iew between them i s the a cme o f the drama .

O restes , who ,a s we have inferred , i s a l rea dy known to the

a ud ience from the preced ing pa rt , su rpa sses even Menelaus i n

the qua l i t i es wh ich make vi l la i ny form idable . H is nerve i s

a sto n ish ing. H e i s i n extreme da nger . Menela us has o f cou rse

gu afds“, and c an pro tect h im se lf o therwise aga i n st surpri se.

B u t Orestes must come a lo ne to the house of h is v ict im : he

i s a pi lgrim to Do do na,

a nd the lea st appeara nce o f d istrust

wou ld destroy his a ssumed cha ra cter. How much t ime he

has befo re him for the a ch ievemen t o f h i s pu rpo se,we do no t

exa ctly know,n or probably do es he ; but we c a n guess

proves to be the ca se , tha t i t i s n ot mo re than enough . The

un cle and nephew had, for the i r who l e opera t io n , wha tever

t ime the u nburdened a ssa ss i n m ight ga i n upon the bea rers o f

Neopto l emus i n the journey from Delph i ; bu t how l i tt l e was

th is,a nd how much of i t i s go ne ! Nor does the eagernes s

o f H ermione make the pa rt o f the abducto r ea sy ; because

they a re under ho st i l e observa t ion,a nd he

, on pa i n o f de te c

t ion , must a ppea r co ns idera te . Though he h imself prompts

her confess io n 5,he must seem to pause upon it 6 and when

she thereupo n brea ks in to a lo ng rambl i ng p lea o f‘ evi l influ

he must b ear i t o u t,a nd pretend to be co nvinced ’

a nd morally ju stify h is co nsen t to be her gu ide, no t fo rgetting

to no te (s ince i n his future a ccoun t o f the bus iness She i s to .

1vv. 806 , 9 1 2 and pa ssim .

2vv . 920, 92 7.

3v. 9 1 8 .

A tragedy-king a lways has. The 61263“ o f v . 7 1 5 are probably H e lo ts in his.servic e ; note a lso the p l ura l o

tae in v . 753 .

5v. 906, i

you ,‘

you give me a lead .

’S ee vv. 9 1 1 , 9 1 3 e tc .

5vv . 9 1 9 , 961 .

7v . 957 .

38 A GREEK B ORGIA

specta to r of the play co u ld suppo se tha t the Peleus whom we

see a nd hea r d id,i n the wo rl d where the scene pa sses , rea l ly

ma rry a merma id en ; and h is futu re a s a merma n,however

co nso l ing to the sen timen ts o f a vu lgar a ud ience,has no th ing

to do with the future o f Menela u s a nd O restes .

This a t l ea st is unc lo uded . We se e wel l enough , a nd the

ep i logue ind ica tes ‘,tha t upo n Delph i wo u ld fa l l wha tever

sca nda l personages so powerfu l,i n a n i n tr igue o utwa rd ly so

obscure,m ight n o t be abl e to prevent. How Herm ione took

her dest iny we do no t know ; bu t th is is certa i n , tha t n e ither

her fa ther n or her husba nd wou ld be tro ubled abou t her.

They a t l ea st , we may a ssume , l ived happi ly ever a fterwa rds,and remembered the day o f her abduct io n a s on e o f the

plea sa ntest tha t ever they spent .’

A8t’

/cws e t’

-re, I n

wichedness y e prosper, says Androma che a t the height o f her

pa ss ion “,and sums the impress io n o f the play. I t i s pa rt of

thei r pla n and of thei r tr iumph (for the i r v i l la iny i s a del ica te

v i l la i ny,the product o f an age no t l ess refined tha n co rrupt), to

escape n ot o n ly respons ib i l i ty but even censure . O restes

h imself so unds the expected no te 3 ; a l ready we hea r i t sa i d

tha t Neopto l emus,who da red to demand sa t i sfa ct io n o f Apo l lo

for the dea th o f Ach i l les , rece ived but h is due from the of

fended god and from the Delph ian peopl e , a nd tha t H erm ione

fled with good ca use from her unfa i thfu l hu sba nd,nay ,

Peleu s turned her o u t o f doo rs ‘ . If the Phthiotes,en l ightened

by sufferi ng,make a stride towa rds a holder theo logy

, a nd

compla i n tha t the judge of huma n vi rtue has shown h im self

impla ca ble a s the ba sest of men 5,not every on e even in A then s

was ready for so mo dern a view and a t the anger o f Phth ia

La ceda emo n co u ld a ffo rd to la ugh .

The emo t io n provoked by such an i ssue is certa in ly no t the

tragic emo t io n , but i t i s no ne the less who l esome or l ess

powerfu l for tha t. No th ing ismo re superfluo us tha n to compla i n

tha t th is or tha t el ement i n the play is not tragic . No th ing

i n i t i s tragic,n or o ught to be. The curren t commen ta ries

find ing in i t no th ing rea l ly i n tel l igible except the pa tho s o f1v . 1 24 1 .

2v. 449.

3vv. 999, 1002 .

vv . 709 , 962 , 993 .

3v. 1 1 6 1 .

ANDROMA CHE 39

Androma che , exaggera te tha t el emen t, a nd d ispra ise alltha t

does n o t co ntribu te to i t,tha t i s to say ,

n ine- tenths o f the

p iece . Even A ndroma che i s n o t,properly speaking

,a tragic

figure. A pa thet ic figure she i s : her pa st i s pa thet ic, her

morta l a nd ma terna l fea rs are pa thet ic but i t i s a necess ity o f

the S i tua t ion tha t she sha l l no t now a nd a ctua l ly suffer a ny

i nj u ry a t all; a nd th is,with the l im i ta t io ns

,n o t to say the

l i tt l eness,o f her cha ra cter a nd temperament

,excl udes the

po rtra i tu re,a nd properly ,

from the Sphere o f tragedy. Nor i s

Peleus , tho ugh in his presen t su fferi ngs more pa theti c tha n

Androma che,a tragic figure. Bo th perso nages

,i n the i r rela t io n

to the essence of the story , are a fter allmere puppets i n the

successfu l game o f the Spa rtan s bo th,a nd Peleus especia l ly ,

are necessari ly spo t ted wi th ri d icu le ; an d the ir wo es , under

th i s co lo uring, exc ite no sen t iment mo re profo und tha n may

be soo thed "

away by the fa iry- ta l e o f the thea tr ica l goddess ,a nd d ischarged with an ea sy tear.

Bu t fo r allth is, the p lay is n o t i nferio r i n species to tragedy ,n or sha l lower. I t m igh t a s wel l be ca l led deeper

,if e i ther

compa ra t ive had mea n ing. I t wou ld be su rely a ch i ld ish view

o f the wo rl d a nd o f art,wh ich wo u ld exc lude from repre

sen ta tion 7 6 dSi/cws e z’

rrvxe'

iv, the pro sper ity of the wicked , i n

allthe unrel ieved incis iveness of i ts fo rm idable truth . The

th ing i s a fa ct , an d to co ns ider its ca uses for a whi le i s a menta l

a nd mora l exerc ise n o t l ess pro fi tabl e tha n fa sc ina t i ng. F irst

among these ca uses Euri p ides pla ces , and with rea son,the

po ss ibi l ity o f such chara cters as tho se o fMenela us a nd Orestes ,in wh ich the extreme degree o f unscrupu lo us selfishness i s

un ited n o t on ly with in tel l ectua l power but with qua l i t i es

wh ich m ust be ca l l ed mo ra l—se lf- comma nd,self- co ntro l , the

a ccura te subord i na t io n o f means and fa cu lt ies to the des ired

end . To see th is po ss ib i l ity we ha ve but to loo k abo ut u s, and

the A ndroni a che powerful ly inc i tes u s to the observa t io n . A s

a seco ndary ca use we have the fa u l t o r the imprudence o f the

adversa ry , aga inst whom vi l la iny has to opera te . I t is the

fa l se po s i t ion o f A ndroma che in the house o f Neopto lemus ,crea ted by Neopto l emus h im self, which a lone lays him open

to the des ign o f h is enem i es ; fo r which rea son the s lave

40 A GREEK B ORGIA

m i stress, though i n n o sense the princ ipa l figure o f the group,

no t improperly gives the t it le to the piece, beca use she i s the

mechan ica l ful crum o f the in trigue. The obvious mo ra l,n ow

happi ly o u t o f da te among o urselves but v i ta l to a soc iety o f

s la ve-ho lders,i s sha rp ly enfo rced by the Cho rus ‘ .

No t o u t o f da te,and no t l ess i nterest ing beca use Open to

co ntroversy , are the a ssau lts wh ich the po et d irects aga i ns t

two spec ies o f so c ia l i n st i tu t io n,wh ich a re a lways wi th us

and wh ich he evident ly detested , the m i l i ta ry a nd the rel igious ,o rra ther

,if we may be a l lowed a n ana chron ism more apparen t

than rea l , the ecc les ia st ica l . These, says Eurip ides i n th is play ,are m ighty a ss i sta nts i n the pro speri ty o f the wicked : m i l i ta ry

inst i tut ions , beca use i t i s o f their essence to put power in a

S ingle hand”, which may (and th i s i s a mere truth) be in somerespects mo st unworthy of the trust ; rel igio us in sti tut ion s ,beca use thei r power

,though fo unded upo n a mo ra l superiori ty

su rvives corrupt io n,a nd genera tes the viru len t po i so n o f

fana t ic ism s. Bo th these el ements o f so c iety Eurip ides saw i n

a pecu l iar fo rm a nd i n a d i sadvan tageo us l ight . Spa rta,the

m i l i tary sta te, and Delph i , the nea rest approx ima t ion i n H el la s

to an ecc les ia st ica l sta te, compo sed together the co re o f the

m ighty powe'

r banded aga in st A thens,or ra ther

,Euri p ides

wo u ld have sa id , aga i n s t huma n i ty . Now Menelaus wo u ld be

no th ing wi tho ut Spa rta , n or O restes witho ut Delph i . I t does

no t therefo re fo l low ,and the co ntra ry m ight be shown

,tha t

the drama t i s t was bl ind to the vi rtues ei ther o f m i l i ta ry or o f

rel igio us devo t io n . B u t these a re no t here h is theme . To

d iscu ss the charges wh ich he makes or i ns inua tes wo u ld take

us beyond the bounds o f l i tera ry or art ist ic cri t i c i sm. I wi l l

o n ly say for myself tha t I find i n them a po rt ion o f truth

wh ich,however i t sho u ld be qua l ified by o ther cons idera t ions ,

canno t be d i sa l lowed but by prej ud ice.

H igh ly s ign ificant , from a h isto rica l po in t o f v iew,i s the

connex io n wh ich Euripides tra ces between the co nquest o f

1vv . 464

—493 .

3vv . 693 fo l l . and the re feren c es to Sparta passim .

3 S ee the who le narra t ive vv. 1 085 fo l l . , a horrible, p i c ture of De lphi on its

worst side , probably no t un true so far as i t goes ; a nd c ompare the simi lar p ic turein the I on , passim .

ANDROMA CHE 4 1

Troy a nd the corrupt io ns o f Hel la s . The impress ive ode

which fo l lows the abduct io n of H ermio ne l, a ssoc ia tes c lo sely

with the Greek victo ry bo th the a l l ian ce between ‘Apo l lo ’

such a vi l la in a s O restes, a nd the genera l t r i umph o f m i sch ief

a nd vio l ence, wh ich the play presents to us . The Cho rus spea k

mo re tru ly a nd pertinently than they yet know,when they say

tha t from co nquered Troy wa i l i ng for ch i ld ren a nd rape o f

wives have come to the co nquero rs a l so . Not o n thee a lo ne,0 Troy, n o t on th in e a lone have l ighted cruel pa i ns : Hel la sha th ta ken the plague ; a nd from the fi elds o f Phrygia the blo od

ra i n ing bo l t o f Dea th has pa ssed to fields wh ich war wa sted

no t —a transpa rent pa rable o f the po et ’s own t imes , when the

victory o ver Pers ia,a nd the co nsequent expans io n o f Greek

po l i t ics, had l ed from stage to stage o f restlessness u p to the

deva sta t ing struggle o f the Pelopo nnes ian war. Menelau s

co ntends for the oppos i te v iew o f the contempo ra ry evo l ut ion2,wh ich a l so had someth ing to say for i tself, a s Euripides i s

ca refu l to Show . For a m ighty agi ta to r o f mank ind , which

he was,he was strangely l i tt l e o f a pa rt i z an .

As i n these oppo sed reflex ions,so i n the who l e sto ry

,i t i s

the fifth cen tu ry tha t we have before u s. The k ingsh ip o f

Menela us i s i ndeed ra ther tha t o f hero i c than o f h isto rica l

Spa rta bu t th is i s an i no ffens ive a na chron ism . Neither p lo t

n or characters have a ny t incture of a nt iqu i ty, and when

H erm ione in her pa ss ion o fflight cri es o u t for the wings ofA rgo ,

fi rst pa ssenger between the Cya nea n shores the thea trica l

convent io n m ight wel l provoke an i nvo l unta ry sm i l e . The ma i n

i ntrigue produces so vivid an impress ion of fe ality ,tha t on e

ca nno t bu t wo nder whether i t had n o t som e ba s is o f c on

tempo ra ry fa ct . Tho ugh the dea th of Neopto l emus a t Delph i

seems to have rested i n some way upo n a nc ien t trad it ion ‘ ,the co lo uring and connex io n here given to i t are spec ifica l ly

Eurip idean ; The frame of the p lay, wha tever ma teria l s may

be used,must be substa nt ia l ly the po et

’s own wo rk .

1vv . 1009 fo l l . ; espec ia l ly the c on c l usion of the ode. 2

vv . 68 1 - 684.

3v. 865 .

‘1 This po in t is obsc ure , and for the purpo se of the Andromache not worthinvest iga t ion .

42 A GREEK B URCIA

Of the chara cters Menela us is the mo st e labora te and

i n terest ing, tho ugh tha t o f O restes o ffers tan ta l iz i ng gl impses ,wh ich i n the fo rego i ng pa rt had probably been mo re fu l ly

developed . Menela us i s a s i n ister perso nage a nd no t ea s i ly

to be forgo tten . The dec lama t ions o f Peleus about h i s

cowa rd ice are extra vagance,self- refuted

,refuted by h i s h isto ry

a nd by wha t we o u rselves see o f the ma n . Tha t i n the

Troj a n field he d id n o t o ften su l ly h is magn ificent a rms 1 i s

l i ke ly enough ; fight ing i s no t commo n ly the bus iness o f a

comma nder i n ch ief, and certa i n ly Menela us wa s n o t the’

to risk h imself without necess i ty . B u t l ike Sco tt ’s Lo u i s X I

he i s ‘ brave eno ugh for every usefu l a nd po l i t i ca l purpo se.The essence of h im i s an i n tense

,co ld

,rea sonable ego i sm .

‘ Wha t a man wa nts —to quo te once mo re h is i l l um i na t ing

wo rds i s mo re to him tha n the capture o f a ny Troy .

He i s

o ne to whom supreme gifts o f birth , pla ce, m i nd , a nd fo rtune

a re S imply means for ca lm ly gra t ifying h i s des i res. He plunged

the wo rld i n to ten yea rs o fwar s imply beca use,having ma rried

the mo st bea u tifu l o f women , he d id no t choo se to be robbed

o f her. I n the same sp i ri t he treads in to dust the l ife of his

son - in -law and the hea rt o f h i s daughter,S imply because he

does no t choo se to sit down with the lo ss o f a ma tr imon ia l

specu la t io n wh ich ha s gone wro ng. He sees the way to h is

w i l l w i th unerr ing j udgmen t,and pursues i t wi tho ut a qua lm .

Such i s 6 (385q e z’

rrvxa'

iv,a nd he is wo rth co ns idera t ion .

Upon the meri ts o f the p iece , as a work o f l i tera ry a nd

drama t ic art , i t wou ld be impert i nen t to enla rge. There are

th ings wh i ch must n o t be pra i sed . A cted with any rea so nable

sk i l l,i t wo u ld rivet a ttent ion thro ughou t ; nor is there a page

wh ich does no t deserve a nd repay m i nu te study. Whether

the sensa t io ns to be derived from i t a re conven ien tly

descr ibed as‘ plea sure

’ i s a po ss ib l e bu t no t a pro fi tabl e

quest ion . They a re sensa t ions o f wh ich a lmo st allma nk ind

are capable , and which alltha t are so wi l l des i re to repea t and

to enco urage .

1vv. 6 1 6 fo l l .

EUR I P IDES’

APOLOGY .

(HELEN )

If we shadows have offen ded,

Th ink bu t th is,a nd allis me nded.

SHAKESP EARE.

R ICH but weak , bri l l iant and yet ba ffling— these a nd such

l ike are the epithets which have recen t ly been appl ied by

sympa thet ic readers to the stra nge p iece in wh ich Eurip ides

celebra tes,or pro fesses to celebra te , the vi rtue o f H elen .

H ere we have a problem ( let i t be sa id a t o nce) d iffering

a l together i n the na ture of the d ifficu lty from tha t wh ich

arises i n the A ndroma che,or aga i n from tha t wh ich meets

u s i n the I on or H era cles. The I on i s on the fa ce o f i t

ambiguous,and any a cceptable expla na t ion must a cco unt

among o ther th ings,for the ambigu i ty. The current exposi

t ion o f the A ndromache i s n o t defect ive bu t nul l . Wha t i t

l eaves unexpla ined i s j ust everyth ing , the story , the mean ing,the ma i n l ines o f the p iece. I n the story o f Helen allis a t

l ea st superficia l ly c l ea r ; a nd though we must no t therefo re

a ssert tha t n o do ubt Sho u ld be ra i sed , yet ne i ther do I i ntend

to ra i se any . Wha t ba ffles us here i s the s ingu la r qua l i ty

of the play,the fa ct tha t i n sp iri t a nd tone i t i s u n ique i n

the drama o f Eurip ides (and i ndeed o f A thens , so far as

known to u s) and the quest ion why th is d ifference sho u ld be.

If th i s quest io n may be a nswered , we sha l l be so far the

better o ff, even though we sho u ld conc lude tha t a complete

understanding o f deta i l s i s i n this ca se no t to be expected .

We sha l l a t l ea st see mo re when we know wha t to look for.

44 EURIP IDES ’ AP OL OG Y

Le t us fi rst a scerta i n where the S ingu la ri ty l ies . Even

Pa l ey,who evident ly enjoyed the play

,a nd commen ts i n the

right spir i t upon ma ny pa rts o f i t,do es no t perhaps suffic ient ly

mark its pecu l iari ty as a who l e . Eurip ides here takes, i n the

cho i ce and trea tmen t o f ma teria l , prec i sely the co urse which

everywhere el se he ca refu l ly and even pa i nfu l ly a vo ids .

I nstead o f the fam i l ia r rea l i t i es o f common experience,

‘ the

th ings we ha nd l e a nd with wh ich we l ive,

he sudden ly gives

u s,for the fo unda t io n and essence o f h i s sto ry

,the u tmo st

extravagance o f imagina t ion,and i n troduces i nto the very

hea rt o f the a ct io n a stupendo us m i ra cl e,which ta kes pla ce

a lmo st before o u r eyes . Habitua l ly he el im i na tes wha tever i n

trad it ion was m a rve l lo us , or a t allevents reduces i t to a mere

fo rma l s uppo s i t ion , which we a re a t l iberty to va ry wi thout

a ffect ing the substa nce o f his theme. Thus he perm i ts h is

Medea to say , i n a cco rdance wi th the A rgo na ut ic legend,

tha t she del ivered ja so n from fire - brea th ing bu l l s a nd o ther

superna tu ra l mon sters ; bu t he uses th is suppo s it io n , for the

purpo se of his drama,o n ly so far a s i t s ign ifies tha t she

sa ved her lover from terribl e da ngers . Ord i na ry a nd n ot

m ira cu lo us dangers wou ld serve equa l ly wel l to produce the

Eurip idean s i tua t io n a nd the bu l l s a re preferred or adm i tted

o n ly i n order to spa re bo th d rama t i st a nd reader the t ro uble

o f an unfam i l ia r invent io n . I phigen ia came to Ta u ric a (so

she suppo ses) by d ivi ne conveya nce ; bu t so far as the play

o f Eurip ides is co ncerned,a ny co nveyance wou ld do ,

a no n -m i ra cu lo us conveya nce wo uld be ma n ifest ly preferable.

S im i la rly the gods of the popu lar rel igio n,a s a genera l ru le

e i ther do n o t a c t upon the sto ry a t all,or a c t o n ly a s c o n

ve n tion al suppo s i t ions , a cco unt i ng for effects which are i n

them selves o pen to o ther explan a t ion . The deba te between

a Po se ido n a nd a n A thena a t the open ing o f the Troades

i s a po ss ible,but n ot a n i nd ispensabl e

,fo unda t ion or pre

l im ina ry for the munda ne fa cts which tha t p lay presen ts or

a nt ic ipa tes,fa cts equa l ly rea l a nd equa l ly a cceptable to the

imagina t ion whether the ex istence o f Po seido n a nd A thena

be suppo sed or no t suppo sed . B u t i n H elen the a ston ished

reader i s in troduced by Eurip ides . to a wo rld of wh ich

appea l ing e i ther to the imagina t io n or to the feel ings. The

wo rks which the Greeks cla ssed a s traged ies have i n genera l

the common cha ra cter,tha t they do ma ke such a n a ppea l .

Here A eschylus,Sopho cl es , a nd Eurip id es are a t one .

Differing a s to the k ind o f suppo s i t io ns wh ich they a sk us

to make , and the k ind o f feel ings which they endea vo ur to

exc i te,they agree i n th is , tha t something i s to be suppo sed ,

a nd to be gra sped by the imagina t io n as fi rm ly a s po ss ibl e,something i s to be felt , as fu l ly and pro found ly a s the

drama t is t c a n make us feel i t . Bu t th i s sto ry i s i n the fi rst

p lace too fanta st ic to be serio usly suppo sable,and if i t be

suppo sed , is i n tri ns ica l ly i ncapable o f exc i t ing any ser io us

emo t ion . I t is i n these respects o n a par with the sto ry o f

A M idsu mmer N ight’

s Dream (a compari son wh ich formore

rea sons tha n o n e we may co nven ient ly bea r i n m i nd), a sto ry

a cceptabl e o n ly upon the understa nd ing,decla red befo rehand

i n the ca se o f A M idsu mmer N ight’

s Dream by the very t i t le ,tha t no th ing so l id or substant ia l i s to be expected .

Whether the ca rd ina l m i ra cle o f the phantom Helen and

i ts a sto unding d isappea ra nce co u ld by a ny trea tment he

made cred ib le to the imagina t io n,we need not specu la t ively

enqu ire . Wha t i s certa i n i s , tha t Euri p ides does n o t so trea t

i t. Never for a n i n stant do the personages o f the drama

exh ibi t the sort o f emo t ion wh ich such an event must be

expected to exc ite . They nei ther spea k n or behave as if i t

were rea l . A S ingle quo ta t ion wi l l sett le the po in t . Wherethen is the evilthing which wa s sen t to Troy instead of y ou

a sks Theo clymenus o f H elen when he has been info rmed

tha t Menela us has d ied a t se a . The clou d- imag e , y ou mea n ,

she answers ; it va n ished in to a ir. Ah s ighs the

am iabl e prince, a nd a h Troy town , destroy ed for n ought

and then witho ut a no ther word o n the subj ect they settle

the deta i l s o f a funera l ceremony for Me nelau sl. We do no

d isrespect to the a utho r o f such a d ia logue, but conce ive o n

the contra ry tha t we are fo l lowing h is c lea r d irect ion , when

we say tha t i t reca l ls no t even the m idsummer n ight’s d ream ,

but a no ther famou s dream ,which I need n o t spec ify

1v . 1 2 1 8 .

HELEN 47

which the c a t a sks wha t became o f the baby.

‘ I t turned

i nto a pig.

’ ‘ I tho ught i t wo u ld,

says the c a t,a nd c lo ses

the inc iden t by va n ish ing . Or aga i n we may find a standa rd

for compari son in Eu rip ides h imself. Very much in the same

to ne and with the same persua s ive terseness do es H era cles,

i n a play wh ich we a re to d iscuss hereafter , na rra te to

Amphitryon h is experi ences in H ades ‘. I n tha t ca se a nd

i n th is,the manner o f narra t io n , coupl ed with the qua l i ty

o f the th ing narra ted , impo se upo n the reader, if he ha s

a ny respect for the a utho r,a pla in d i lemma . Either the

drama t ic speaker is to be supposed i n sane, or el se the who l e

presenta t ion i s to be taken as i n sane,i n the sense tha t i t i s

purely fanta st ic. I n the ca se o f Hera cles we Sha l l conc l ude

for the fi rst a l terna t ive ; i n tha t of H elen and Theo clymenus,

who are certa in ly n o mo re insa ne tha n a ny body else, we are

driven to the seco nd . No t a bit more co nceivably rea l , i n

re la t ion to the m ira cle, i s the beha v io ur o f the old man

servant by whom the d isappea ra nce o f the pha ntom i s

repo rted to Menelaus . No sooner does he gra sp the fa ct

tha t h is ma ster has s imu ltaneo us ly d iscovered the genu ine

wife,tha n the who l e tremendo us a nd world - sha ttering event

allthe seventeen yea rs of fut i le b lo odshed a nd m isery,pa ss

away in to the ba ckground o f h i s contempla t io n,a nd he fa l l s

to plea s ing med ita t ions o n the domest i c pro spect ; i t wi l l be

l ike hav ing the m i stress ’s wedd ing-day over aga i n ; he

remembers runn ing bes ide the carriage 2 ; a nd th is a l though

ma ster a nd m i stress a nd servan t and all,if the s itua t ion as

given i s to be taken seriously,a re a t th is momen t i n in stan t

danger o f dea th . Upo n one co nd i t io n on ly cou ld such a

picture give plea sure,a nd tha t i s tha t i t Sha l l be first agreed

between us a nd the pa in ter,as i t i s agreed when we a re

prom i sed a Midsummer Night ’s Dream ,

’ tha t the who l e th ing

Sha l l be capric ious a nd nonsens ica l . B u t the quest io n to

which we are then bro ught , a nd to which every pa th i n

Eurip ides’ play wi l l l ead us ba ck , is th is . How i n h is ca se

was i t fo re- known to his aud ience tha t th is pa rt icu la r t ragedy

eracles 607—62 1 . 2 He]. 7 1 1

—73 3 , 744

—757 .

was to be a j est ? Where does the j es t l ie,a nd wha t i s the

na tu re o f i t ?

The a l l ega t ion s o f the sto ry , even if a ccepted a s fa ct,cou ld n ot be the ins trument o f evok ing emo t io n or sympa thy

o therwise tha n i n a so rt o f humo ro us a nd sa t iri ca l preten ce.

I nner co ntrad ict io ns and mo ra l i ncompa t ibi l i t ies meet us

everywhere, the momen t we take the a utho r a t h i s wo rd .

The ma noeuvres o f Zeus,H era

,and Aphrod ite are here a s

petty as tho se o f Obero n a nd Tita n ia ; a nd the tremendou s

co nsequences , exceed ing the wo rst wh ich ma nk i nd is sa id to

have suffered from th e qua rrel s o f the Shakespea rean fa i r i es,

wo u ld be h ideous , if we fa ced them a s a n imagina ry fa ct .Doubt less i t is po ss ibl e, o n ly too po ss ibl e

,to conceive with

fo rce,or even a ctua l ly to bel i eve

,tha t

As fl ies to bo ys,so we are to the gods ;

The y ki l l u s for t he ir sport .

B u t upo n such a ba s i s the o n ly type o f drama wh ich c an

be to lerably bu i l t i s a drama l i ke King Lea r, gloomy, terribl e,a nd bi tter. I t wo u l d be a bl under monstrous , d isgra cefu l ,and su ic ida l , to fo und upo n i t a drama l i ke th i s H elen

,where

the a ct io n pro ceeds to a happy a nd fo reseen concl us io n with

sca rcely a h itch , a nd certa i n ly w itho ut ever a ro us ing a grave

apprehens ion , where we a re co nstant ly i nv i ted to sm i l e a nd

no t o nce compel l ed to weep . Aga inst Oberon a nd Tita n ia

we do no t revo l t , n o t even when they tel l u s tha t b l ight a nd

fam i ne are the fru i t o f the i r l i tt le i n tr igu es , becau se O beron

and Tita n ia by thei r very names pro cla im themselves no ught :

they are symbo l s to which no on e does or ever d id a ttac hgany

serious mean ing. Bu t Aphro d ite a nd H era were i n the days

o f Euri p ides symbo l s o f awfu l s ign ifica nce, to which Eurip ides

h imself elsewhere pays the homage o f a s i ncere a nd pers i sten t

ho st i l i ty. If the Aphrod i te o f H elen i s to b e'

iden tified with

tha t A phro dite whom he pa i n t s a nd condemns i n H ippoly tu s,or the Hera o f H elen with tha t H era whom he derides a nd

decompo ses i n H era cles, then h i s Helen o ffends gro ss ly aga i n st

art, sense , and ma nners . How d id h i s a ud ience know, wha t

from the very beginn ing he seem s to a ssume them to know,

HELEN 49

though he does no t say i t and i n the thea tre had n o mea ns o fsaying i t , tha t for the no nce the symbo l s are vo id and the

story pha nta sma l,tha t he , the traged ia n , i s for th is t ime

j ust playing a t tragedy, a nd is en t it l ed to allthe priv i leges o f

parody and the com i c Muse ?

A nd if the theo logy, so to ca l l i t , o f the play is ba ffl i ng,st i l l more d isco ncert ing and pa ra dox ica l is the mo ra l i ty.

O u r sympa thy i s a sked for a fa i thfu l a nd virtuo u s wife,

re - un i ted to her husba nd a fter long sepa ra t io n a nd unmeri ted

d isgra ce ; yet a sto ry i s cho sen,i n wh ich the a l leged fa cts

destroy the who l e mora l fo unda t io n upon wh ich such a

sen t iment must repo se . F i del i ty i n a spo use i s adm i red

and va l ued beca use i t i s prec io us to the o ther spouse. If

fa i thfu l wives and unfa i thfu l were equa l , ca eteris pa ribu s, i n

the estima t io n o f husba nds,they wou ld be equa l for all

purpo ses ; the conj uga l bond wou ld no t be a respectabl e

th ing,a nd wo u l d n o t i n fa ct ex ist . A nd the same i s true for

a part icu la r ca se . Why Sho u ld we rejo ice , a nd how c an we,because a virtuo us woma n i s given ba ck to a man

,who l i ked

her a s wel l witho ut the v i rtue Ye t such i n th i s sto ry i s the

absurd po s i t io n o f Menela us a nd Helen . Ten yea rs Menela us

fought to po ssess , a nd seven yea rs he has po ssessed , a Helen

d iffering from h is true wife i n th i s , a nd i n th i s o n ly, tha t she

was the pa ramou r o f Pa ri s . For seventeen years he ha s

igno red th i s c i rcumsta nce, and behaved as if h i s na tura l,

proper,and o n ly des i re wa s to get the fa l se H elen ba ck to

Sparta . He never even says,wha t h is a cts empha t ica l ly

deny,tha t the mo ra l defect o f the im i ta t io n has given him

a ny concern . When the d iscovery o f the rea l woma n opens

the pro spect o f exchange, does he gra sp a t i t ? O f co urse

no t. He trea ts the rea l s to ry, the sto ry o f the subst i tut ion , as

s imply d isproved by the ex i stence o f the fa l se woma n , refuses

a ny fu rther i nvest iga t ion , and i s a ctua l ly return ing to the

beloved phantom ,when he i s a rrested by the news tha t i t ha s

gone ‘ . The o bvious fa ct , tha t to such a husba nd , to such

a Menela us,no th ing but a co rpo ra l d i st i nct ion between the

two Helens wou ld be s ign ifi ca nt , and tha t no such d i st in ct io n1vv . 546 fol].

50 E URIP IDE S ’ AP OLOG Y

ex i sts,i s a ctua l ly brought o u t with lud icro u s completeness

a nd empha s is . I n a n ea rl ier scene the true Hel en has

observed tha t,if she co u ld but meet her husba nd , she co u ld

prove her ident ity by ‘ s ign s wh ich they o n ly knew 1.

sid ering tha t her do uble i s a crea t ion of H era,th i s co nfidence

seem s quest ionable,a nd i t proves fa l la cio us . I n va i n does

she exh ib i t to Menela us a priva te ma rk (someth ing, i t wou ld

seem,l i ke the mo l e o f Imogen ) , an d rem i nd him tha t i n the

requ is i te knowledge o f her perso n ‘n o one , n o o ne i s h i s

The d ivine im i ta t ion , a s m ight be expected,i s

n o t wi thou t the mo l e ; and Menela us , who ca nno t be the

husba nd o f two,con t i nues to sha ke h i s head ;

‘she i s l ike

oh certa i n ly l ike,bu t—the d ifficu l ty i s

,tha t he has a no ther ’ !

And so to the o ther he go es . After th i s,how is i t po ss ibl e to

take ser io us ly the rapture w ith wh ich , when n o cho i ce i s l eft

to h im ,he sa l utes the recovery o f the o rig ina l br ide ? The

sen t imen t o f such a scene i s u nreal,

and if ta ken for rea l ,wou ld be d isgust ing. I t is po ss ible o n ly if pro ffered a nd

rece i ved as a humo ro us mo ckery ; a nd of th is Eurip ides,

who se ma stery o f sent iment is supreme,must ha ve been

perfect ly awa re . He i s p laying with h i s subj ect,exa ct ly

a s if tha t were wha t h i s a ud ien ce wou ld expect from him .

B u t how sho u ld they expect i t, a nd,n o t expect ing, how were

they to understa nd

I t was sa id above tha t Eurip ides c la ims in th is p lay the

l iberty o f parody ; a nd th i s is t rue n o t loo sely bu t l i tera l ly.

For the play is a cen to o f pa rod ies , a nd the ch i ef obj ect o f

pa ro dy is Eurip ides h imself. The H elen con s i sts o f a S i tua t ion

and a movemen t , bo th depend ing upon the suppo sed‘per

sec u tion o f the hero i ne by the tyra n t Theo c lymenus. Duri ng

the fi rst pa rt she i s , or ra ther i s suppo sed to be, i n sanctua ry ,

v . 290.

v . 578 oxéipav 7 1s, 05 662, rfs En i .e . rls éxelvov, of; 6d ,

6 0¢ tbrep6s 601 11: i} o r) 52; where o o¢>6s n uos (n euter) sign ifies acgu a in ted with (a

ma tter) . So read , for r! o ov 66? rfs éori o ov o o¢ ubrepos ; The a c t ion expla ins.

Tha t oxéyba t , [ooh (c f. Aesc h. Cho. refers to some th ing part ic ular, is shown bythe c on te xt ; the ge nera l resemblan c e Mene la us has a lre ady admitted (v . and

n o te a lso the appea l to his spec ia l knowledge .—Wyttenba c h

’s c orrec t ion 7 6 6

0062-13 607 1 0017 o oocbrepos g ives the same sense . but not so we l l .

HELEN 5 1

having put herself under the pro tect ion o f the decea sed

Pro teus,by tak ing up her abode in h i s tomb o r chapel befo re

the pa la ce ga te . I n th e second part , she,with Menelaus ,

dece ives Theo clymenus in to abett i ng her escape . The sanc

tu ary reca l l s the A ndroma che,the escape has a c lo se pa ra l l e l

i n the Iphig en ia in Ta u rica,with th i s d ifference i n ea ch ca se ,

tha t wherea s the riva l scenes are pa thet i c,a nd exh ibi t rea l

d istresses and terro rs , these exh ib i t no th ing but the pretence .

Tha t a vo l um ino us wri ter shou l d repea t h imself is n o t su r

pri s i ng ,but surely i t i s odd tha t he Sho u ld repea t h imself i n

th is way . O f the escape part icu la rly we may say tha t , if th i s

part o fH elen had survived as a n a nonymous fragment,a nd no

externa l i nfo rma t io n abo u t i t had existed , the Eurip idea n

a uthorsh ip wo u ld certa i n ly have been d i sputed , and with

rea son,o n the gro und tha t Eurip ides co u ld ha ve n o mo t ive

for produc ing so wea k a copy of h is Iphigen ia . I n bo th ,a Greek woma n escapes by sea from a barba ria n ma ster

ca rrying o ff with her i n o n e play her husband, a nd i n on e her

bro ther. Bo th , i n o rder to rea ch the sea,pretend tha t th is is

necessary for the perfo rmance o f a rel igio us r i te . Bo th a lsopretend a ffect ion for the tyrant . Bo th are suppo rted by

a Cho rus o f fel low- capt ives . I n bo th ca ses there i s even tua l ly

a fight , i n wh ich the ba rba rians are bea ten, O restes i n the

o ne ca se,Menela us i n the o ther

,having first pro cla imed his

i den tity. I n Iphigen ia , O res tes surpri ses the ba rba rian s by

h is a th let i c v igou r i n ca rrying h i s s i ster on boa rd ; i n H elen,

the Greeks i n a body pro duce a s im i la r effect by ca rrying

a bu l l ; a nd so on . There are even verba l parallelsl, and a

resemblance thro ughout o f language a nd thought mo re o bvio us

to percept io n tha n to a na lys i s . In sho rt,the episodes a re i n

e xterna l fea tures as l i ke a s they wel l co u ld be .

B u t i n sp ir i t a nd emo t io na l effect on e i s rea l,the o ther

a semblance . The peri l o f I ph igen ia a nd her compan ion s

i s ce rta in , h ideous , a nd despera te. The k ing o f Ta u ric a

pra cti ses huma n sa crifice a nd pun ishes wi th impa lement .O restes a nd his fri end are a ctua l ly u nder sen tence o f dea th .

1e .g . Iph . Ta u r. 1 386 65 was (u a iira t) , H el. 1 593 13 yfis

(Awrlonara ), to the respec t ive c rews.

52 E URIP IDES ’ AP OL OG Y

Even if the Greeks sho u ld get to sea,the c i rcum stances are

such tha t they m ust a lmo st certa i n ly be ca ught ; and above

all,they do no t get to sea . They fa i l ; they a re driven on

sho re ; a nd the appa l l ing ca ta strophe i s evaded on ly by

a thea tri ca l m i ra cl e i n no way a ffect ing the t ragic exc itemen t

o f the sto ry . Theo clymenus , the k ing o f Egypt, i s such

a‘ tyra nt

as we m ight expect o n the stage o f Mr Gi lbert .

He has a profo und respect for the memory o f h i s virtuo u s

fa ther, a nd a n avers io n (for wh ich he blames h imself) tocapi ta l p u n ishmen tl. H is who l e cr ime

,so far as appea rs ,

i s tha t he i s paying unwelcome a dd resses to a ma rried

woman,fo rmerly entrusted to the pro tect io n o f h i s fa ther

who ha s hea rd nothing of her hu sba nd f or seven teen y ea rs ;

tha t he has supported h i s su i t (so she says) with inso l ence2 ’

and tha t he has proh ibited vi s i to rs from her co untry (from

wh ich pra ct ica l ly i t seems n o v is i to r ever comes) under the

threa t o f dea th . U nch iva lro us conduct th is i s , n o t i n goo d

ta ste , a nd i n a pio us ma n h ighly blameable ; but where i s the

t ragedy ? H is behavio u r to He len,wha t we see o f i t

deco rous and even gentl e ; he is even po l i te a nd sens ibl e

eno ugh to express regret fo r the a l l eged dea th o f Menela us

tho ugh i n a way fortuna te, he says , for h i s own wishes3. He

suppo ses,a nd surely wel l m ight suppo se i n the c ircumstances

tha t she m ay prove n o t i nco nso lable ; bu t h is o n ly presen t

suggest io n i s tha t she sho u ld n ow cea se to ma ke an apa rtmen t

o f the ma uso l eum “, a reference to he r seclus ion wh ich , be i t

observed , she herself compla i n s o f a s‘a j est . ’ I t i s she, and

not he , who ,trea chero usly o f co urse, propo ses tha t he sho uld

wed her i n her tea rs 5 ; a nd the fa ct tha t he a ccepts th is

propo sa l , as a kn ight o f Pro vence wo u ld do ubt less n o t have

done,is rea l ly the so l e v is ibl e fa u l t i n a c t o f wh ich the tyra n t

i s gu i l ty. No vio lence is even impu ted to him ,a nd i n deed he

ma kes i t c lea r tha t he seeks the hea rt a s wel l a s the hand , and

vv . 1 165 , 1 1 7 1 . v . 785.

v . 1 1 97 , oaaév‘

r t xalpw o'

ois 7167 06 , 7 81 6’

JTvxCJ, om i tted by some bec ause i t‘ breaks the st i chomythia .

Bu t th is is right . After th is verse there is a dec ent

pause ; then Theoc l ymenus resumes.

v . 1 2 28 ,“r ibs or

’w; 1 625’

é‘r’

0110706 1 : rd¢ov ;3v. 1 23 1 .

54 EURIP IDES ’ AP OL 0C Y

says ) tha t , tho ugh she l ikes Greeks herself,she a ctua l ly

shakes her fi st i n the’

fa ce of a Greek begga r (Menela us) andwa rns him tha t he wi l l be i n da nger o f h i s l ife if he ha ngs

abo ut. Tru ly does the tyra n t'

observe tha t h is people presume

upon h is l en ity . No t a prince in allthe rea lm o f opera cou ld

have better rea son to say so . We hea r from Helen herself

tha t Theoclymen us , i n h is o ffens ive propo sa l s , has n o t a s ingle

supporter ; all the pa la ce , except the k ing, are friends to

A nd ver i ly so i t proves . With the perm iss io n o f the

k ing’

s s ister, and with the pra ct ica l conn ivence o f his subj ects

genera l ly,the escape i s so a rra nged a s to sa crifice the l ives o f

some fifty inno cent and helpless Egypt ia ns 2,—a no ther fea ture

o f the sto ry ,be i t no t iced i n pa ss ing

,wh ich wo u ld be repu ls ive

if i t were n o t to o s i l ly. However so i t is,a nd the ma ssa cre i s

du ly reported by a survivo r. The tyra n t i s rea l ly furio us,

d raws h is swo rd , a nd threa ten s to k i l l h is trea cherous s is ter

w ith h i s own ha nd . B u t n o t even n ow wi l l the gua rd ian s

o f h i s v i rtue perm i t him to do a ny such‘ i nj u st ice.

’ The

bysta nders 3 th row themse lves in h is pa th,ready to d ie i n

the ca use o f r ight,a n a c t o f hero i sm which

,a s the despo t

ne ither receives n or even ca l l s for any a ss i stance,a nd a s we

happen to know tha t he wo u l d ca l l i n va in , do es n o t somehow

seem so peri lo us a s to requ ire the d ivine in terven t io n by wh ich

i t is promptly rewa rded . From fi rst to la st ‘ j ust i ce ’

has all

the ca rd s i n her hand ; a nd one c a n o n ly wonder, as we sa id

befo re, why she co ndescends to chea t.

A s for the decept ion i tself, the meri t o f which ,as a s troke

o f wit and co urage , i s suppo sed to supply the ma i n i nterest of

abo ut 600 verses , a ho l lower bus iness c a n ha rd ly be imagined .

Rega rd ing i t as serio us melo drama,allfi nd i t, with Herma nn ,

langu id a nd Eurip ides i s good enough to l et u s se e why th is

‘ No th ing ,

’ says the co ncl us ion “,‘ is mo re usefu l to ma n

vv . 3 1 3—3 1 4.

3vv . 1022 , 1 069 fo l l. , 1 267 , 1 380, 1 4 1 2 , 1 526 fo l l .

vv . 1 627 fo l l . Who the speaker is, whe ther the leader o f the Chorus, or (asClark suggested , and Pa ley agrees) aman -servan t of the king , makes no difl

eren c e ,

though I th ink Clark right . No te the masc ul ine singu lar BoOAos (by , v. 1 630, and

dpxbnea fl’

, ob xpa-rofinev, v . 1 63 8 , a pro test sc arc e ly app l ic able to a c tualS laves.

The 600o of v . 1 64 1 may we l l mean on l y ‘subjec ts of a quee n .

v . 1 6 1 7 .

HELEN 55

k ind tha n a rea sonable d istrust . ’ And no th ing therefore,we

m ight add , l ess exc it i ng to ma nk ind tha n the decept ion o f a

do l t . I n the decept ion o f the k ing o f Ta u ric a by Iph igen ia,

tho ugh the tri ck as a tri ck i s no th ing very clever a nd the

i n terest is amply secured o therwise,st i l l the Greek woman i s

i nvent ive , and the savage is n o fo o l . Thoa s has n o rea so n tosuppo se tha t h is new captives a re i n terested i n I ph igen ia

she i n them ; he do es n o t know tha t they have a Sh ip ; he

a ssumes (a nd the even t j ust ifies h im) tha t escape is i n a ny

ca se impo ss ib le ; a nd he a l lows them,upo n a pretext n o t

unplaus ible , to go down to the bea ch . B u t Theo clymenu s

starts wi th the susp ic io n tha t the vis i to r comes to carry o ff

Helen ‘ . He i s a ctua l ly to ld tha t the v is i to r is ‘a compa n io n ’

o f Menela us,a survivo r o f the sh ipwreck in wh ich he peri shed

whom some sa i lo rs ’ a cc identa l ly p icked up ’, a nd th is he

a ccepts witho ut enqu iry. H e i s asked to furn ish the pa ir

with a sh ip , beca use Greek rel igion (so they say ) requ ires

a funera l ceremo ny to be performed,for the benefi t o f

Menela us,a t a c onsidera ble dista n ce from the la nd 3 . H e

consents,a nd ( tha t Helen may retu rn the sooner) he prom ises ,

una sked , tha t the ship shallbe swif t“. H e i s to ld tha t sh ip and

crew must be under the command o f the stra ngerwho i s to‘ celebra te the funera l ,

a nd tha t he mu st mahe this perfec tlyclea r. H e gives the order cheerfu l ly ‘

o nce,twice , and

A nd with all th is we are to adm i re ( i t i s suppo sed) the

c leverness o f the Greeks in o utwi tt ing h im a nd effect ing

a n esca pe.The sense o f fut i l i ty in these scenes i s strengthened by the

m i sappl ica t io n o f a co nvent io na l fo rm ,the d ia logue in a l terna te

verses (stichomy thia ), and by the abuse o f ‘ drama t ic iro ny.

The d ia logue i n a l terna te verses, a n art ific ia l bu t usefu l type,i s ma n ifest ly mo reor les s serviceable a ccord ing a s the s i tua t io n

requ ires deve lopmen t , a progress io n from stage to stag e a nd

from po i n t to po in t. For scenes o f d iscovery, a s i n the

Oedipu s Ty ra nn u s‘,where the truth emerges bi t by bi t ,

i t i s adm i rable. The scene in wh ich Io n exam i nes Creusa

vv . 1 207—1 2 1 7 .

3vv . 1 266 fo l l .

vv . 14 1 4 fo l l . 3 O. T. 1 1 49 fo l l .

upo n her knowledge o f the suppo sed to kens o f his birth ,co u ld n o t be better shaped tha n in the terse symmetrica l

quest io n a nd a nswer,ea ch ma rk ing a new turn i n the invest i

ga t ion ‘ . Even in c i rcumsta nces n ot so spec ia l ly favo urable,

i t has advantages , i n fix ing a nd gu id ing the a ttent ion,so lo ng

a s there i s someth ing to look for,someth ing to come o u t .

The lo ng a nd desu l to ry co nversa t io n,i n wh ich Ion a nd

C reusa ,the orpha n boy a nd the son less mo ther, become

gradua l ly in terested in ea ch o ther ‘,or tha t i n wh ich Menelaus

a scerta in s the who l e despera te s i tua t ion o f h i s nephew

O restes 3,—these stra i n the i nstrumen t

,but a sympa thet i c

specta tor wo u ld ha rd ly have them reca st . Bu t i n the‘ decept io n ’

of Theo clymenus th i s trea tmen t approa ches the

gro tesque. We know exa ct ly wha t i s go ing to happen . The

a rt less scheme o f the mo c k funera l ha s been evo l ved befo re

( i n a l terna te co upl ets) between Helen a nd Menela us“

. B efo re

i t c a n even be propo unded to Theo clymenus , he , odd ly enough ,plays up to the adversary’s game, by ra i s i ng the quest ion ,wh ich i n terests h is p iety

,whether Menelaus has had any

funera l “ ; and h is des i re tha t the ri tes sha l l be o f the proper‘Greek ’ so rt proves sca rce ly less keen than tha t of Helen

herself. The th ing i s thu s given away ; yet we have 50 mo re

l in es i n a l terca t io n , the who le o f wh ich come to th is,tha t

Theoc lymenus wi l l do wha tever he is a sked . And to make

th ings mo re na tura l , the part of Helen is fi l l ed with pondero us

ambigu it ies , i n wh ich the a ud ience,bu t n o t Theo clymenus ,

are to perce ive the mean ing, tha t Menelaus is no t rea l ly dead .

We allknow tha t the A then ia ns loved th is so rt o f i rony , a nd

tel l ing i t o ften i s ; bu t i t was a ha z ardo us bus iness,ea s i ly

ove rdo ne . And here i t i s tu rned , so to spea k , c lea n in s ide Ou t.

OE. m by 53. va bs 7ro i} d ea'

rw é’

c oXa ;

EA . 6'

7rov dk on o,M evék ewe Bé p rj

Theoclymen u s.

‘ And where d id the man l eave the wreck o f

h is sh i p ? ’

H elen .

‘ There where I hope i t may peri sh , and

1 [on 1 406 fo l l . 3 [on 264 fo l l .3 Orestes 385 fo l l . ‘1

1 03 2 fo l l .3v . 1 22 2 .

6v . 1 2 1 4.

HELEN 57

Menela us no t ! ’ Wha t c a n Theoclymenus say to th i s crypt i c

exclama t ion but peri shed ’

(axwx’

n eivoq) ?

A nd wha t i s the use o f thus rubbing in , wha t we perce ive o n ly

too wel l , tha t Helen’s ta le a nd be havio u r are n o t na tu ra l , and

tha t the b l i ndness o f Theo clymen us must be wi lfu l ?

From the k ing’s o rder, obta i ned in th i s h ighly probable

manner,tha t the d isgu ised Menela us shall be put i n comma nd

o f a sh ip , flow consequences momen tous to the topsy- turvy

k ingdom . The tyrant , never obeyed befo re o r a fterwards,i s ,

i n th is bus iness obeyed to perfectio n . He has o rdered‘a swift ’ sh ip

,a nd h i s agents la unch ‘ the best sa i ler

o f h is

fleet ‘ . He ha s d i rected them to take o rders from Menela us ;a nd a cco rd ingly, when o ther Sh ipwrecked Greeks appea r,suffic ien t i n number to man the vesse l , a nd when Menela us

i nvi tes allthese strangers to ‘ take pa rt i n the funera l ,’

Egyptians,tho ugh ‘ susp ic io us

’ dec ide after del ibera t ion tha t

they canno t obj ect , s i nce the roya l command was abso l ute

a nd clea rly covers the ca se. ‘ I t was tha t command o f yo urs ,says the repo rter to the mona rch

‘ which ca used the who l e

One c an on ly say tha t , if the Egyptia n language

had a wo rd for P inafore , th i s surely must have been the name

o f the sh ip .

We sa id o f the decept io n tha t a ho l lower bus iness c a n

ha rd ly be imagined . If any c a n , i t i s tha t o f the sanctuary,the hardsh ip o f Helen in being fo rced to i nhabit the tomb or

chapel o f k ing Pro teu s . This i s the ma i n fa cto r in the fi rst

pa rt o f the a ct io n,as the ‘ decept io n ’ i s i n the la tter pa rt.

Here aga in we have i n appea ra nce a va ria t io n upon a commo n

theme of Greek drama . For obvious rea sons an a l ta r wa s

a favouri te property o f tragedy, and the s i tua t io n o f

suppl ia nts a nd fugi t ives a favouri te o pen ing, from th e

Da na i d s o f Aeschylu s alldown to the Theba ns o f Sophocles ,a nd the A rgi ves , Hera cle ids, A nd roma che

,Amphitry on etc . , o f

Eurip ides h imself3. Nearest to H elen i s A ndroma che , where

the so l i ta ry woman , a n oppressed fo re igner,the na tu re and

po s i t io n o f the sanctuary, a mauso l eum befo re a mans ion ,

1vv. 1 2 72 , 1 4 1 3 , 1 53 1 .

2vv . 1 53 7

—1 553 .

3 Aesch . S uppl. , Soph . Oed. T. , Eu r. S uppl., Heracleida e , A ndr. , Heracles.

58 EURIP IDES’

AP OL 0C Y

the Cho rus o f fr iend ly women - vi s i to rs,a nd o ther tra i ts

,o ffer

a pa ra l l e l wh ich no o n e co u ld m i ss . B u t here aga i n,if we

a ttend to the a ct io n presented,we se e tha t the in terest i s

given away,i s t rea ted i n such a fa sh io n tha t i t d isso lves i nto

a mo ckery . The suppl ian t i n sanctua ry must be ipso nomin e

a pri so ner : the d istresses o f th e po s i t ion,the expo sure

lo ne l iness, ri sk o f sta rva t io n,a nd the rest , alldepend upon

the essent ia l po i n t,tha t the fugit ive is co nfined to th e

pro tect ing pla ce . The A ndroma che or the H era cles wi l l supply

i l l ustra t io n s passim , if wa n ted . Now co ns ider the co nfinemen t

o f H elen . For a few scenes, the hunted ha re abides i n her

fo rm,wh i le vis i to rs

,on e o f them a Greek voyager

,suppo sed

upo n the a l l ega t ions to be stri ct ly excl uded from the co untry,repa i r to her

,converse w ith her freely, a nd depa rt n u

cha l l enged . The co nversa t ion ra i ses do ubts and a nx iet ie s

abo ut the fa te o f her husba nd ; a nd i t i s suggested to her

tha t there i s a perso n i n the ho use (Theonoe, the k ing’

s S i s ter)who may o r must be able to re l i eve them . A nd thereupo n

no t o n ly her fri ends i n a body, bu t She herself, the fugit ive i n

san ctuary, g o pea cefully indoors to enqu ire l—a movemen t

espec ia l ly co nspicuo us i n a Greek tragedy , beca use the

withdrawa l o f the Cho rus , a nd an empty scene,is a th ing no t

commo n . I n thei r absence comes Menela us , who ,recogn i z ing

Hel en when she re -en ters,tri es to preven t her retu rn to the

chapel . She, for the momen t , a ctua l ly suppo ses tha t the‘ imp io us ’ Theo clymenus has se t a spy upo n her !

‘Wha t !

An she exc la ims i n i nd igna nt ho rro r. However,she struggles ba ck to her sea t o f sa fety , a nd having rea ched

tha t ground ,

’ su rveys her a dversa ry and d iscovers her m i s ta ke ;and the bus iness o f the recogn it io n pro ceeds a cco rd ingly “.

When , a fter long a nd l ei su re ly ep isodes, i t becomes necessa ry

to the Greeks’ plo t tha t He len sho u ld go i ndoo rs aga in , i n

o rder to make up as a mo u rner,she go es unha rmed ; wh i l e

Menelaus, who a sks whether he sha l l go with her o r s i t qu iet

here a t the i s to l d to rema in,for ‘ the tomb a nd h i s

swo rd wi l l pro tect him .

As a s i tua t ion for t ragedy, th is

co u ld ha rd ly be surpassed by Mr Puff. Wha tever the1vv. 306

—385;

2vv . 54 1 , 550, 556.

3v. 1083 .

HELEN 59

suppl ia nt may say ,the fa ct

,the staring fa ct i s

,tha t her

‘ i nhabita t io n ’

o f the ma uso l eum i s vo l un tary and fi ct i t ious ;the ‘ ma ttress ,

which (a la s !) she keeps there‘,i s a n empty

symbo l ; a nd the S O - ca l l ed sa nctuary,which She qu i ts a nd

en ters whenever she choo ses,i s a retrea t abo u t as pa infu l a s

a . summer-ho use.

And so i t i s w ith allparts o f the m a ch inery. Wherever

we lo ok,we seem to fi nd dummy levers

,spri ngs o f pla ster,

a nd wheels tha t canno t revo lve. Ta ke yet o n e more lea d ing

theme,the omn iscience o f Theo noe. This personage

k ing’

s ma iden s ister, is the goo d fa iry, we may a lmos t say the

goddess,o f the story. Her superhuman inte l l igence

un iversa l knowledge of ‘allth ings tha t are a nd are to be ’ i s

a sserted i n terms tha t m ight have co nten ted Apo l lo or

Ammon . She is a l i v ing o ra c le. The wo rl d co nsu lts her,l i ke Apo l lo ,

abo ut the fo unda t io n o f co lo n ies . No th ing c a n

po ss ibly be h idden from her ‘ . She fo retel l s the approa ch o f

Menelaus a nd knows when he comes . H er so l emn co nsen t

ha s to be obta i ned befo re anyth ing c a n be a ttempted aga i nst

Theo clymenus ; a nd he, i n h is o n e i nsta nt o f pu z z l e, ra ther

tha n suspic ion,abo ut the manoeuvres o f Helen

,i s promptly

rea ssured by the suggestio n tha t Theono e must know “. I n

Sho rt,her omn isc ience is the key- sto ne o f the arch . And yet

i t i s igno red , as wel l as a ssumed,with the mo st impuden t

caprice . With Theono e for a compa n io n a nd fri end , Helen is

nevertheless ignora nt , Speak ing broad ly, o f everyth ing tha t

has befa l len the Greeks s ince she wa s removed from them ,

and n ow,seven years a fter the ta k ing o f Troy

,l ea rns th i s a nd

the intermed ia te h isto ry, i n the play, from a Greek voyager “.

Nor i s the strangeness , or ra ther the absurd ity, o f th is

s i tua t io n a l lowed to escape o u r no t ice . Teucer, the info rmant,canno t say wha t has become o f Menela us ; he has n o t

rea ched home and i s suppo sed to be lo st “. Presen tly Helen

bewa i l s th i s uncerta i n ty to her fema l e friends . ‘

Bu t why he

uncerta i n ? ’ i s thei r very na t ura l observa t ion . ‘ Why not

W 797—799

vv . 1 3 , 1 44 foll . , 3 1 7 fo l l . , 530, 8 1 8 fo l l . , 922 , 1 1 98 , 1 227 and passim .

v . 1 2 27 01106211 Ja c obs, for oar/222 ). 3vv . 107 fo l l . 5

vv . 1 23 fo l l .

consu l t Theo no e ? From hery ou willhnow every thing . Withsu ch a n informa n t a t home

,why looh elsewhere ‘ ? And to

Theo noe , as we ha ve a lready seen,they a cco rd ingly go . We

m ight fo l low th is ma tter further,but for

the immed ia t e

purpo se need n o t. We have a l ready eno ugh to expla i n the

fa ct,tha t a play, which i s trea ted l ik e th is , somehow fa i l s to

a ro use i nterest. I t i s n ow seldom ed i ted,and hard ly ever

read ( I speak from observa t io n) except i n fragments or for

s tr i ct ly ph i lo logica l purpo ses ; a nd we c an o n ly wonder,

fi rst,

how the poet h imse lf,with the l i tera ry power wh ich he

exh ibi ts,n o t o n ly before a nd a fterwa rds bu t i n bi ts o f th i s

very wo rk,c a n have been bl i nd to the su ic ida l fa u l ts of the

concept ion a nd,st i l l mo re, of the execut io n ; and second ly,

how a piece, wh ich impresses u s ma i n ly as‘an unsuccessfu l

a t tempt to tri umph aga i n wi th a plo t l i ke tha t o f the Ta u ric

Iphigen ia’—the s ummary o f a recent cri t i c—shou ld ever

have had suffic ien t celebri ty to find i ts way ,a long with tha t

very Iphigen ia ,i n to the compa ra t ive ly sma l l select io n o f

Eurip ides wh ich has been preserved .

Bu t i t i s t ime to Show ,wha t is to be the o utcome o f these

cri t i c i sm s. ‘Wha t escape,

my reader wi l l a sk o f me,as

Menela us a sks o f Helen i n the play, when she propo ses tha the Sha l l pretend to bri ng the news o f h i s own dea th ‘,

‘ wha t

escape or remedy do es th is prom i se to you and me ? For the

no t ion,as such

,i s somewha t sta l e .

h V l Aa wrnp ta s 36 TOUT GXEL 7 1. z2c a nos ;

Xf A f I

11 a a cornsfya p Ta) Ka

tya) 7 6 1260 7 1. 7 1 9.

I n a tragedy such cando u r seems ra ther crude ; bu t th is , study

wo u ld a l ready be to o long, if i t were to end in merely

Sha rpen ing a nd accen t ing a l i tt l e the common opin ion , a s

represented by Herma nn,tha t the H elen o n the who l e i s

tame .

The tra i ts above ind ica ted , a nd o thers o f the same k ind ,wo u ld ha ve a d ifferen t complex io n , if we cou ld suppo se, a s

I have suggested i n the I ntroduct ion , tha t the‘ tragedy ’

a j est,a refined and de l i ca te mo ckery of serious drama

1vv . 306

—3 29.

2v . 1 055.

62 EURIP IDES ’ AP OLOG Y

a remo te i s la nd . The play was o r igina l ly addressed,as the

connex io n wi th the Thesmopho ria wou ld imply a nd the text

shows,especia l ly to women . The purpo rt o f i t i s a playfu l

apo logy o n the pa rt o f Euri p ides to the fema le sex,for the

a l leged o ffence tha t he ‘ never exh ibi ted a woman o f virtue .

This t ime a t l ea st,as he po in ts o u t to them

,th i s ca nno t be

sa id,s ince he has proved and pra i sed the virtue

,no t mere ly

o f a woman,but o f the mo st no to rious sca nda l to her sex :

he has rehabi l i ta ted Helen .

The poet S tesic horu s had long befo re apo logised,n o t to

the sex but to Helen herself, a s a personage by some suppo sed

immo rta l a nd d ivin e , for the popu la r l ibels upo n her cha ra cter,and had forma l ly co ntrad icted them i n a famo us po em . Tha t

Euri p ides fo l lowed th is lead , a nd bo rrowed from S tesic horu s

some pa rt of h is idea (we know n o t how much n or does i t

ma tter) , i s u n iversa l ly and right ly suppo sed . His rea so n for

do i ng SO was, tha t he a l so,i n his own humo ro us way ,

mak ing a n apo logy.

The evide n c e , I have sa id , i s bo th externa l and i n terna l .

A s the interna l evidence i s of a k ind wh ich , so fa r as I know ,

has n o t been observed,a nd which very l ikely do es n o t o ccu r ,

i n any o ther wo rk o f H el len ic a nt iqu ity, i t may be c o n

ven ien tly i n troduced by a pa ra l l e l example from o u r own

l i tera ture ; where the facts , which m ight have been inferred ,i n the absence o f o ther evidence, from the o rigina l do cumen t ,happen to be a l so given by trad it ion a nd no to riou s . Milto n ’s

Comu s was compo sed , we know , to be perfo rmed by the

fam i ly o f the Ea r l o f B ridgewa ter, Pres iden t of Wa les, a t

h is res idence,Lud low Ca st le. Its meri t a nd celebri ty h ave

ca used and perm i tted i t to be o cca s iona l ly perfo rmed by

o rdina ry compan ies,i n publ ic thea tres

,a nd to common

a ud iences ; but i t i s from the c ircumstances o f the o rigina l

represen ta t io n tha t the p iece derives i ts p la n a nd cha ra cter .

Now tho se c i rcumstances happen to be reco rded for us in

extra neous a nd a uthent i c documents . They are a l so i nd ica ted ,though imperfect ly , by wha t we may ca l l the sem i - extraneous

evidence of the stage- di rect io ns . B u t suppo se tha t we had

no th ing but a ba re text o f the spo ken pa rts , su c h as o u r

HELEN 63

a ctua l tex t o f Euri p ides ; and suppo se , as i n tha t ca se we

may wel l suppo se, tha t we not on ly had n o record o f the

fi rst performance , bu t d id n o t even know by extra neo us

evidence tha t such a manner o f perfo rmance was po ss ibl e .

Shou ld we be condemned to igno ra nce o f the fa ct tha t the

o rigina l c i rcumstances o f productio n were pecu l ia r,a nd im

portant to the design ? Certa i n ly n ot. From the ba re

text we m ight have proved th is ; beca use the p iece conta i n s

th ings which a re irreleva n t to the drama tic story . These

th ings,i n common fa i rness to the a utho r

,must ha ve been

suppo sed re l eva nt i n some way to the pu rpo se o f h i s work,

a nd expl icable by someth ing ; which someth ing, s ince i t i s

n o t the d rama t i c sto ry,m ust

,from the na tu re o f the ca se

have been sought i n the c i rcum stances o f the product ion .

For example,the pro logue info rms u s tha t

Nep tu ne, besides the sway

Of every salt flood a nd ea ch ebbing stream,

Tooh in by lot’twixt h igh a nd n ether jove

Imp erialru le of allthe sea -

this ile

The grea test a nd the best of all the ma in,

H e qu arters to his blu e-ha ir’d deities ;

A nd allthis tra ct tha t fron ts the f alling su n,

A noble peer of michle tru st a nd power

H a s in his charg e, with tempered awe to g u ide

A n old a nd ha ughty na tion, prou d in a rms °

Where his fa ir ofllspring n u rst in prin c e l y loreAre c om ing to a t tend t h e ir fa ther’s sta te

A nd n ew- en tru sted sc ep tre bu t t he ir wayLies t hroug h the perplext pa th s of t h is drear woodAnd here t he ir te nder age m igh t suffer peri lBu t t ha t b y qu i c k c ommand from sovran Jove

I was dispa tc ht for t he ir defen c e and gu ard ;And l isten why .

which brings u s to the true m a tter o f the sto ry,to Comus and

h is enchantments , the Lady, a nd so o n . Now to th i s sto ry

allthe sta tements here d i st i ngu ished by i ta l i cs are irreleva n t .

I t i s no th ing to the story tha t the home of the wanderers

is on an isla nd : the scene m ight be la id , as far a s the story

i s co ncerned , i n the m idd le o f A s ia ; i t is no th ing, tha t the

pla ce is s i tua ted towa rd s the west o f tha t i s la nd ; or tha t the

ma ster o f the house is a noblepeer, a nd go vern s wi th en tru sted

sceptre an old n a tion . All th is i s concerned with Ludlow

Ca stle, the Ea rl o f Bridgewa ter, a nd the Pres idency o fWa les,

with none o f which concept ion s the drama t i c story,as such

has a ny concern wha tever. A nd from th i s and o ther l ike

phenomena a ca refu l studen t of the ba re text m igh t ha ve

i nferred in substance every th ing abou t the o rigina l product ion

wh ich i s s ign ifi cant for the proper apprecia t ion o f the wo rk

a s a who l e.

The H elen i s a pa ra l l el ca se,where the externalevide nc e

is equa l ly strong ( for A r i stopha nes i s a witness n o t l es s

a uthent ic tha n Lawes) a nd the i nterna l evidence,if n ot

stronger , i s much mo re sa l ien t a nd stri k ing.

F i rst then,the o rig ina l product ion of the p lay was a sso

c ia ted n o t wi th the thea trica l contest a t all,bu t with the

Thesmophoria,the fest iva l of the Mo ther a nd the Ma id

(Demeter a nd Koré) ce lebra ted by women i n the a utumn,

abo ut the end o f O ctober. There are i n the play many

m i nor i nd ica t ion s o f th is c ircumstan ce,to wh ich we wi l l return

hereafter ; but the pri nc ipa l mark i s th i s . On e o f the cho ri c

odes ‘ , on e on ly,in stead o f t rea t ing

,l i ke the odes i n traged ies

genera l ly a nd l ike allthe o ther o des in th is,topics a ri s i ng

ou t o f the sto ry a nd the drama t i c s i tua t io n,i s o ccup ied

ent i rely with na rra t ing the legend of the Mo ther a nd the

Ma id,a nd commend ing the rel igious perfo rmances ba sed

upo n tha t legend . I t i s a n exqu is i te po em,the l i tera ry gem

o f the piece ; bu t i t ma kes n o pretence o f a r i s i ng o u t o f the

drama t ic s i tua t ion , and i s , a t l ea st i n prima f a c ie appea rance,

so abso l u tely i rreleva nt to the sto ry , tha t some readers have

a ctua l ly suppo sed i t to be a n i nterpo la t io n , a piece from

el sewhere,impo rted by some a cc iden t i nto the text No t a n

i nciden t of the sto ry is ment ioned in it , n or (by name a t l ea st

a nd i n a n i n tel l igibl e way ) a ny o ne of the drama t ic person

ages . -It a ppea rs i n sho rt to be fra nk ly extraneous . The

a ttempt has o f co u rse been made to t ra ce a connex ion 2 ; but

if th is a ttempt were mo re successfu l than i s common ly1vv. 1 301 fo l l . 2 See the no te

on this ode in the Appendi x .

HELEN 65

tho ught,i t wo u ld be no th ing to the presen t argumen t ; i t

wo u ld prove a t mo st tha t the poet ha s found a pretext for

impo rt ing into h i s play a topic wh ich no one co u ld expect .

Pretext or no pretext , the th ing i s a ma n ifest impo rta t ion .

I t s urprises a nd perplexes allreaders, a nd must a fortiori have

surpri sed a nd bewi ldered a n a ud ience,un less they were i n

some way provided with a rea so n for i t .

Now th is phenomenon is w ithout a pa ra l l el,so far as

I am aware,i n extan t Greek drama . Bu t

,wherever i t may

o ccu r,there i s but on e way o f a cco unt ing for i t . The topic

o f the ode,s ince i t i s n o t na tu ra l ly suggested by the sto ry

must have been suggested,a nd impera tively requ ired,

by the

on ly o ther co nd i t ion with wh ich the a uthor co u ld have a ny

concern,tha t i s to say ,

the circum stances o f the represen ta

t ion . I t must have been necessa ry ,for some pla i n rea so n

wh ich every specta tor co u ld in stantly u nderstand,tha t Eu rip

ides o n th is o ccas io n shou ld pay homage to the legend a nd

wo rsh ip o f the Mo ther a nd Ma i d . Le t us on ly imagine wha t

we Shou ld feel,as Specta tors

,when we were expect ing the

usua l d rama t ic or sem i - drama t i c ode , the Chorus went o ff

upon a n elabora te na rra t ive for which we had no co nceivable

We sho u ld perhaps no te,s ince the rela t ion between

chorus a nd drama i s somet imes d i scussed ra ther loo sely,tha t we have here n o concern with the quest ion , how much

pa rt and wha t k ind of part the Cho ru s a s a cto rs shou ld have

in the a ct io n . The Cho ru s i n H elen has a t l ea st as much

part in the a ct io n as usua l,perhaps n o t l ess than in a ny extant

drama,except of co u rse tho se of A eschylus. Nor are we

concerned with the use o f i rreleva nt i n terl udes a s a sy stem .

This,which has been pra ct i sed

,wo u ld be a defens ib le a nd

perha ps inevitabl e exped ien t,if we were to suppo se tha t

i nterl udes o f some sort were a perma nent necess i ty o f the

drama t i c form. B u t the quest ion i s,whether, i n a system

o f rel eva nt interl udes,a playwright wo u ld abruptly introduce

one not rel evant . Why sho u ld he ? A nd how,if he d id

co uld he expect the comprehens io n o f h is a ud ience ?

We sho u ld a ssume then, p rima fa c ie, i n fa i rness to

66 EURIP IDES’

AP OLOG Y

Eurip ides, tha t h i s play, a s a perfo rmance,had some c lo se

and obvious connex io n with the wo rsh ip of Demeter and

Ko re. The sea son of the Thesmopho ria , the grea t A then ian

fest iva l o f these deit ies, wo u ld suggest i tself, I th ink , as the

mo st probable o cca s ion,tho ugh o f co u rse witho ut externa l

test imony we shou ld no t be j ust ified i n fix ing on th i s

pa rt icu la r fea st .

We may no te however a t o nce,tha t the purpo rt o f the

play,i n i ts la rgest a spect , i s very wel l su i ted to a fest iva l of

women , a n o cca s io n spec ia l ly devo ted to the ho no u r o f tha t

sex ; and further, tha t the drama t i s t ma kes a po i n t o f th i s .

I n bidd ing fa rewel l to h i s a ud ience,he ta kes cred i t wi th them ,

a nd espec ially with the women,for the benefi t conferred upon

them by h i s defence o f Helen . H elen was the no to r io us

sca nda l o f her sex" ; but Eurip ides , develop ing the pa radox ica l

h i nts of the poet S tesichoru s, here presents her as a supremeexample o f conj uga l fidel i ty. And he cla ims cred i t for th i s

w ith the women .

‘May ye be happy,’ says the la st spea ker

a ddress ing the women o f the Chorus a nd the company

genera l ly ,‘May ye be happy in the excel lent d iscret ion of

H el en , a thing whichfor ma ny women is not possible2 !

s ible i t is , as the humo ro us modesty o f the express io n s ign ifies ,for mo st women , i ndeed for all, a nd for all men to o

everybody except the specta to rs,as such

, o f th i s pa rt icu la r

p lay. To find happiness i n the vi rtue o f Helen i s a plea sure

reserved for tho se who wi l l a ccept the pa radox which the

drama t ist here defends . For these indeed,the p lea sure wou ld

be common to all; a nd s ince the drama t i st lays stress upon

the happiness and a dvantage a ccru ing to women,a nd i ndeed ,

if we take him stri ct ly, wo ul d appea r to Spea k of th is On ly,

1 Eu r. Orest. 1 1 53 , A ndr. 2 1 8 , 2 29, e tc .

2 Hel. 1 686 tax! xa fped’ '

E7\éuns ob’

y ek’

eby eveo‘

rd‘ms I7 11 11141 771 , 8 r ohha is év

y uva tgiv 0131: £11 1 . Tha t the address 15 gen era l , not restric ted , l ike wha t prec edes,to the Twin Bre thren , appears by the abrup t c hange of number : the Twins are

addressed ( 1 684) in the dua l. And indeed , as addressed to them , the referen c e to

women would b e po in t less ; i t po in ts to the sexof the Chorus. There is no exc usefor transla t ing as if the n euter 6 referred to 7 11 1611 171 : the proper and n e c essaryan tec eden t is 1 6 xalpew 0611 6 110. mi nib us

—To the c horic ‘tag

’ whic hfo l lows, and to the c onnex ion of the passage genera lly, we sha l l re turn hereafter.

HELEN 67

we m ust na tura l ly suppo se tha t he had rea son for th is, and

tha t h i s bus iness o n th is occa s ion lay ,for some pla in cause

with the in terests o f the fema l e sex i n pa rt icu la r . Such

a cause i s provided by the a sso c ia t ion , i nd ica ted by the ode,

between the play and the wo rsh ip of the two goddesses,a nd

wou ld be spec ia l ly obvio us if the perfo rmance was co nnected

with the fest iva l of wh ich women were the on ly proper and

officia l celebrants,the fest iva l o f the Thesmopho ria .

And now comes i n A ristopha nes . Whenever and where

ever H elen may have been fi rst rec i ted,i t came

,we know ,

eventua l ly to be exh ibi ted publ icly,i n the thea tre , and

a t the D io nysia .

Now in the yea r next a fter tha t i n which Helen wa s so

exh ib ited to the publ i c, A r istopha nes bro ught o u t the Thesmo

phoria e u sa e, the Celebra n ts of the Thesmophoria , which refers toH elen as recent

,a nd conta i ns two scenes of burl esque

,on e ba sed

upo n H elen a nd the o ther on A ndromeda,a l so a Eurip idean play

o f the yea r befo re. The subject o f the comedy i s a profana t ion

of the Thesmophoria by Euripides. Hea ri ng tha t the women ,a t thei r pr iva te mystery

,i n tend to devise some pun ishment for

h i s pers i sten t defama t ion of the sex by the exh ib it ion of bad

women on ly,Eurip ides reso lves to defen d h imself aga i nst th i s

cha rge,a nd

,being u nfitted for a fem i n i ne d isgu ise, employs

a k in sma n as h is advo ca te . The advo ca te,who se apo logy

is o f co urse sa t iri ca l,i s detected

,a nd the s itua t io n i s developed

with gusto . Tha t th i s p lo t had some ba s i s i n fa ct, we m ight

a lmo st infer from A ri stophanes h imself ; for h is Eurip ides

i s a ss i sted in the bus iness by the traged ia n Aga thon , who

furn ishes advice and properti es for the ma ke-u p ; and th is

conj unction of the poets savo urs strongly of some l iterary

enterpri se,in wh ich Eurip ides had been princ ipa l a nd

Aga tho n in some way pa rt ic ipa nt .

How then stands the ma tter a s between the H elen and the

Thesmophoria z u sa e ? On the one hand we have a play of

Euripides,which

,o n the face o f i t

,i s a sso c ia ted by some

externa l c i rcumstance wi th the wo rsh ip o f Demeter and Koré,

a nd which , on the fa ce o f i t , cla ims, in a humorous manner,

the approva l and gra t i tude o f women for the defence (under

68 EURIP IDES’

AP OLOG Y

d ifficu l t ies) o f the fema le sex, a nd for the presen ta t ion , i n a

somewha t su rpri s ing fo rm ,of a s ingu la rly virtuous woma n .

No soo ner does th is p lay, by exh ibi t ion in the thea tre, become

genera l ly known , and su i table as a subj ect for thea tric

a l l us ion , tha n Ari stophanes,a t the fi rst opportun ity

,pro duces

a burlesque,i n which Eurip ides is represen ted as m i s us ing the

Thesmophoria,the grea t fest iva l o f Demeter a nd Ko re

the pu rpo se o f defend ing h imself aga i n st the cha rge o f never

exh ibi t ing a virtuo us woma n a nd i n th is burlesque he takes

consp icuo us no t i ce of the H elen . Surely, if o u r observa t ions

co uld be ca rr ied no further than th i s,we sho u ld a l ready have

rea son to suspect tha t these fa cts ha ve a connex io n,a nd tha t

the externa l c i rcums tance, which orig ina l ly d icta ted these

pecu l ia r it ies o f the H elen , was an a sso cia t ion wi th the fest iva l

o f the Thesmopho ria . There are,a s we Sha l l see hereafter

o ther consp iri ng i nd ica t ions of th is i n the Eurip idea n play

i tself ; bu t we wi l l pro ceed for the presen t to a seco nd

externa l c i rcumstance , forwh ich a l so we have the confi rma t io n

o f Aristophanes.

If the play was o rigin a l ly des igned for rec i ta t ion a t the

sea son of the Thesmophoria ,i t wou ld fo l low, I th ink , tha t the

recita t ion was a priva te a ffa i r. S o far as I am awa re, there

i s no rea son wha tever to suppo se tha t the c ivic thea tre,the

o n ly thea tre,was used a t tha t fest iva l ; or tha t d rama t i c

perfo rmances such as the H elen,or i ndeed o f any k ind , fo rmed

part o f the Thesmopho r ia proper,the mysteri es o ffi cia l ly

then celebra ted by women a s pa rt o f the c iv i c rel igion . The

rec ita t io n of H elen,if des igned to ta ke pla ce a t the sea so n

and i n ho no ur o f the Thesmophoria , must have been a

domest i c rec ita t ion,given under priva te pa tronage a nd a t

a pri va te res idence. There i s no th ing i n th is to surprise us ;o n the contrary i t wou ld be , as we Sha l l se e herea fter , extra

o rd ina ry and scarcely cred ib le, i n the c i rcumstan ces o f the

t ime,tha t d rama t ic p ieces Shou ld n o t have been o ften

c i rcu la ted a nd tried in th i s way . The best, bu t o n ly the very

best,eventua l ly rea ched the thea tre. I n the thea tr ica l form

o f co urse they were preserved and o f the priva te origin l i t t le

o r no th ing c an be seen i n them , or co u ld be, un less there were

70 EURIP IDES ’

AP OLOG Y

o f them may have been st imu la ted by h is successfu l exampl e ;but perhaps

,if a Strabo

,a Mela

,or a Pa usan ia s had written i n

the fifth cen tury B .C., h is no t ice o f the i s land wou ld have

comprised some such no te o n the name . I t d id not, so far'

we know,give ri se to a ny cu l t or l egend common ly a ccepted .

The sto r i es are ment ioned by tho se,and tho se o n ly

,who are

compel led to ment io n the i s la nd .

Now the p lo t o f H elen,so far from requ i ri ng a reference to

th is i l l ustrious lo ca l i ty,wou ld na tu ra l ly and a lmo st necessa ri ly

exclude i t. A cco rd ing to th is p lay , the H el en who sa i l ed to

Troy,the on ly Helen who co u l d be bro ught, by a ny pla us ibl e

l i cence o f suppo s it ion,to Macr i s , was merely a do uble ’

of the

hero i ne,a pha nta sma l im i ta t ion

,who se sepa ra te wa nderi ngs,

up to the day upon which she a rrives i n Egypt a nd va n ishes ,a re

,as Eurip ides h imself ind i ca tes ‘ , a topic wh ich h i s theme

do es n o t i nc l ude. And if i t were necessa ry (but how sho u ld

it be to ment io n the i s la nd a nd a cco unt for i ts a l terna t ive

name,the obvious th ing was to fo l low the usua l deriva t ion

mu ta tis mu ta ndis,and to say tha t the phan tom Helen , with

Pa ri s,rested there. B u t why no t ice the is land a t all?

Ne ither the p la ce nor i t s a sso c ia t ion s were genera l ly in

teresting ,or commo n ly no t iced . Why no t l et i t a lone ?

A nd now l et u s see wha t Eurip ides a ctua l ly do es . I n the

genera l b less i ng, bestowed a t the clo se by the Twi n B rethren,

H elen rece ives the prom i se Of d ivine ho no urs ; and then we

read th is 2

The place to which H ermes removed thee first from

he sto l e thy perso n to preserve thee from Paris,

the long 3 sent inel - i s l e tha t flanks the A t t ic sho re,Sha l l hen

fo rth bea r among men the name ofH elene’

,beca use i t rece ived

thee when from thy home so sto len .

06 -3’

pw e’

v a s wpwra Ma tafbos 7 0x09

27 11 5727 779c

m) Tb h am-dv e’

u Bporoi’

e n enxija era i .

Tha t i s to say , H ermes , when he co nveyed the rea l Helen

thro ugh the a ir from Spa rta to Egypt , d id no t make one

1vv . 765

—77 1 .

2v . 1 670.

re-raii ému , a l lud ing to Ma cris.

HELEN 7 1

fl ight o f i t,but l ighted wi th her fi rst upo n Ma cri s alia s

Helene.

To c lea r the substance,I have om i tted in the tra nsla t io n

a deta i l o f wh ich the sense i s d i sputed . Completed , i t wou ld

run thus : ‘ The place to which H ermes removed thee fi rst

from Spa rta (his j o u rney began from the ma ns ions o f the

when he sto l e thy person etc. The pa ren thes is expla i n s ,I take it

,wha t (heaven knows) requ i res an explana t ion , why

the god did n ot fly stra ight on from Spa rta to Egypt,why

there was a ny‘ first s tage ’ i n the jo urney a t all. He had

a l ready flown (we are rem i nded) from the top o f heaven to

Spa rta,befo re he p icked up Helen

,so tha t the fl ight thence

to the i sland,with the woman

,made a l together enough for o ne

s tretch ; to Egypt d irect wo u ld have been too far ! The

extravagance o f such an explana t ion,a nd the l ight to ne o f i t

a re qu ite i n keep ing with the rest,and su i table

,as we sha l l

see hereafter , to the genera l purpo se. B u t the pa renthes i s i s

a t allevents a deta i l ; l et u s cons ider the substance o f the

story .

Andfi rst, the sta tement comes as a n utter surpri se. The

j o urney from Sparta to Egypt has been a l ready descr ibed by

Helen in the pro logue,witho ut h int o f d ivergence or pa use :

Hermes.took me , h idden in etherea l fo lds o f c loud , and set

me here i n the ho use o f Next,the sto ry i s

nonsense,n o t coheren t or a cceptable even a s a fable : the

is land is n o t o n the way to Egypt,not nea rer tha n Spa rta

i tself. Thirdly ,between the hero i ne a nd the is land i t makes

n o a pprec iable l ink Helen was o nce i n i t for a fewm i nutes ;therefore i t (ra ther than Pha ro s, say , where she l ived ,a cco rd ing to the p lay, seventeen yea rs) sha l l hencefo rth hear

he r name

To a cco unt for th is fanta st i c excurs io n there i s but one

fa irway . I t must have been necessa ry , for some pla i n , bro ad ,impera t ive rea so n wh ich allthe a ud ience wo u ld comprehend ,tha t Eurip ides on th is o cca s io n Shou ld do or pretend to do ,wha t i n genera l n o one d id

,tha t i s , pay some rega rd to . the

ins ign ificant i sla nd a nd i ts apocrypha l story. The is land1 dn dpa s 1 63V Ka i

obpa vbu 66111 1011 .2v. 44. S ee a lso vv . 24 1 fo l l .

7 2 EURI P IDE S’

AP OLOG Y

must have been a da tum,as Ludlow Ca stle wa s for Mil ton

when he compo sed Comu s, tho ugh o f course n o t necessa ri ly

for the same rea so n . The i s la nd , a nd a specia l i n terest o f the

a ud ience i n the i s land , must have been an ax is,as the sea son

o f the Thesmopho r ia wa s a no ther,by wh ich the l ines o f h is

compos i t ion were regula ted . Upo n tha t suppo s i t io n we c a n

understa nd h im . The conj unct io n o f i dea s was n o t prom i s i ng.

The i s land bo re a name infamo us to woma nk i nd,a nd was

tho ught o f, when tho ught o f a t all, as the scene o f the mo st

no to r io us o f adu l teri es . The fest iva l was sa cred to the sex

a nd to ma rriage . To exh ib i t the h istori c Hel en a t such

a t ime wou ld have been to comm i t rea l ly the o ffence o f which

Eurip ides was fa l se ly a ccused , a preference for the portra i ture

o f fem i n ine v ice. The d i l emma prompted the happy and

witty exped ien t o f improving on the apo logy o f S tesic horu s.

The rea l Helen wa s no t v ic ious , but a paragon o f wifely virtue .

The vic io us woman was no woman,but a mere pha ntom.

B u t on ly the vic io us pha ntom then c an have vis i ted the is land

No t a t all, says the drama t is t cheerfu l ly. A poet i s no mo re

bound by logic, than m i ra c les by rea son . The true Helen

d id come to Helene,was bro ught there by Hermes ; on e

sca rcely knows why, but so i t was.

Why the i s land , though n o t i n the l ea st in terest ing, so far

as appea rs , to people i n genera l, sho u ld have been in terest ing

to the specia l a ud ience o f H elen, th is a l l us io n wo u ld no t tel l

u s. Many ca uses o f such in terest wou ld be conceivable.

I t wo u ld be eno ugh , for example, if the pa tron or pa tro ns o fthe o cca s io n were proprieto rs of the is land . B u t a n obvious

hypo thes is , and one which we sho u ld properly tes t before

seek ing a ny o ther, i s tha t the is land , a ho use o n the i s land,

was the pla ce o f the o rigina l rec ita t ion . The sea son o f the

Thesmopho r ia , abo ut the end of Octobe r, the perfect ion o f

the sou thern a utumn,when worsh ippers i n the open a ir co u ld

keep up their ceremon ies thro ugh the day - bright ho urs o f

the ful l -moo n ‘ , was a t ime when a house i n the is la nd m ight

wel l be o ccupied . We sho u ld enqu ire then next,whether the

1 Hel. 1 365 fo l l . , with n o te in the Append ix . For the offi c ia l c eremon ies see

M iss Harrison , P rolegomena to Cree/e Religion , pp. 1 20 fo l l .

HELEN 7 3

play”

exh ibi ts any evidence tha t an i s land,a nd a ho use on

an i s la nd,was specia l ly co ncerned i n the compo s i t io n a nd

product io n o f i t.

We sha l l n o t have to look far. The pro logue,Spoken by

Helen,open s thus : Th is p la ce is Ni l e

,river o f fa ir ma idens

which,i nstead o f heaven ’s ra i n

,mo istens

,when the wh ite snow

m elts,the so i l a nd fields of Egypt . Pro teus , whi l e he l ived ,

was k ing o f th i s la nd,having h is dwel l ing in the is la nd o f

Pharo s , tho ugh lo rd o f Egypt ‘. H e ma rr i ed on e o f the sea

ma idens , Psama the,when she qu i tted the co uch o fA ea cus

bega t two ch i ldren to th is ho use,a b oy ,

whom he (beca usehe

2had l ived p io us ly all h is days) named (but i n va i n )

Theo clymenus,

a nd a happi ly - born ma iden,named Eido

(Bea uty)3,a s her mo ther

s j ewel,when She wa s a babe ; but

s i nce she came to age ma ture for ma rriage,they have ca l l ed

her Theono e,beca use she had the d iv ine knowledge o f all

th ings tha t are and tha t are to be’

,having rece ived th is

pri vi l ege from he r gra nds ire Nereu s . And I myself come o fa co untry n ot witho ut fame

,Sparta

,a nd so we pro ceed to

the history o f the hero in e and the fo unda t io n o f the play .

Now th i s pa ssage,l i ke tha t wh ich was c i ted above from

the pro logue to Camu s,bri st les with po i n ts and sta tements

for which the drama t ic s to ry fu rn ishes n o rea so n or expla

na t ion wha tever. We wi l l ta ke here o n ly two of them . Why

do es the drama t i st suggest tha t the ho use o f Pro teus,the

house o f h i s p lay,l ies in the i s la nd o f Pha ro s “ ? A nd why

does he choo se for h is k ing o f Egypt the name o f Pro teus ?Le t us n o t o n ly a sk these quest ion s

,but i ns is t on finding

pla i n and sa t isfa ctory a nswers . The scenes o f the drama do

1v . 5

tb dpov 11 6V oc’

xé’

wvfia ov, Ai‘y b‘

rou 5’

de a f.2v . 9 Oeoxhbyu evov dpa

, 61 1 62) a éflwu

[Slow 617711 67 11 6 .

The subje c t of 61 77v 6 is the fa ther, Pro teus : the c onduc t of the boy c ould not b e

yet known . 67} sign ifies tha t, a c c ord ing to He len , the hopes of the p ious fa therwere d isappo in ted . 87 1 , beca u se, is e xpla in ed by Oeoxhbnevov, whic h is to b e read

as in inverted c ommas,and c onstrued as equiva len t to 61' (bx/671.11 06 Oeoxkbu erov.

The me tre o f v . 9 is rough , but should no t be suspec ted . S ee n otes on the playin the Append i x .

3 OrEidos, as the Ms. : Ma tthiae .

4 v. 5 , c ompared with vv . 8, 46, 68 , 460 . S ee a lso the Append ix .

74 EURIP IDES’

AP OL OG Y

not take pla ce o n the i s land - ro ck of Pha ro s,n or i n any i s la nd

a t all. The scen e i s la i d a nd the k ing’s ho use sta nds,as the

fi rs t l ine o f the play impl ies , by the Nile,tha t . i s to say ,

on the

ma i n la nd o f Egypt, m i l es away from Pha ro s . The s ingle

l ine o f the pro logue wh ich says tha t the decea sed mo na rch ,‘ though lo rd o f Egypt

,dwel t i n the i s la nd o f Pha ro s

’ i s,

I bel ieve , the so l e reference to ‘ Pha ro s’

or‘ i s land wh ich the

p lay co nta i n s . Tha t a k ing o f Egypt Sho u l d l ive on Pharo s ,wo u l d be

,a s the turn o f the phra se suggests

,suffic iently

surpri s ing , even if we suppo se , wh ich we sha l l ha rd ly do ,

tha t Eurip ides fo resaw a nd a nt ic ipa ted the fo unda t ion Of

A l exa ndria . Tha t the pa la ce o f th i s p lay i s no t there , i s

abundant ly a nd consistent ly proved . On e v i s i to r arrives a t

‘ the fields of N i l e " ; o thers,befo re they a rr ive

,have wan

dered ‘

allabo ut the country 2,

’ wi tho ut suspect ing tha t the sea

s urro unds them , or tha t they have landed on a mere ro ck .

The roya l do cks o f Egypt a re clo se to the pa la ce " , a s

a ssured ly (unless Eurip ides a nt ic ipa ted A lexa nder) they were

n o t to Pha ro s . The cave, i t i s t rue, i n wh ich a who le sh ip’

company o fmo re than fifty persons find perfect co ncea lmen t so

long a s they choo se “,wo u ld sca rcely be found

,we may doubt ,

i n Egypt proper ; bu t ne i ther wo u ld i t be found in Pharo s

o r a ny where el se . I t i s a mere frea k o f imagina t ion , but

ind ispensable to the story,a nd need ing n o o ther excuse.

The c i rcum stances genera l ly agree with the open ing i n laying

the scene in Egyp t, by the N ile ; a nd the i s la nd , a s such , has n o

more to do with the story than Engla nd , qu a i s land , with thestory o f Comus . On ly the i ncons istency o f Eurip ides is far

grea ter than tha t o f Mi lto n for i n Camu s, tho ugh to the sto ry

i t makes n o d ifference tha t the encha nter’

s wood is o n an

i s land,a t l ea st there is no rea son why it shou ld n o t be ;

wherea s i n H elen,if we rea l ly try to pla ce o urselves on

Pha ro s , the sto ry becomes unwo rkable . Why then , when

Eurip ides ha s fi rst pla ced h is scene where i t rea l ly l i es , o n

the ma i n land o f Egypt and bes ide the Ni l e , do es he n ot l eave

1v . 89 Nethou 7 015066 y ba s. vv . 597

—598 , 408

—432 .

3vv . fo l l . vv . 424 , 1 53 2 , 1 53 7 fo l l .

HELEN 7 5

i t there ? Why insert a verse by wh ich , for the fi rst and la st

t ime,i t i s suggested tha t the house o f Pro teu s

,the ho use

o f the drama,i s on the ro ck or i s la nd o f Pha ro s ?

If we say tha t Pha ro s i s wa nted beca use i n the Ody ssey i t

is the home o f Pro teus, we o n ly go from ignotum to ignotiu s.

For why aga i n , i n the name o f common sense,Shou ld

Eurip ides pretend tha t the personage o f his s to ry is a Pro teus ?

The Pro teu s of Homer,and of o ther poets , i s a m i ra cu lous or

d ivine perso nage,a wi z a rd o f the se a ,

who pa stu res a flock o f

sea l s,a nd tran sfo rms h imself a t plea sure . Menela us in the

Ody ssey consu l ts h im a s a wi z a rd ; a nd the ma rve l lous en

co unter i s l a i d in Pharo s beca use, a s the ep ic sto ry no tes ‘, i t

was a day’s sa i l away from ‘ Egy pt’

; a nd probably i t had

l i tt l e traffi c,u nt i l i t was t ra nsfo rm ed by the Ma cedon ia n

engineers . Allwh ich are excel lent rea so ns why Eurip ides

Sho u ld name h is perso nage n o t Pro teus,bu t anyth ing ra ther.

Nei ther i n the perso n , n or the pla ce, n or the inc iden ts o f the

s tory,i s there the lea st resembla nce. The Pro teus o f

Eurip ides,the la te k ing

,was a ppa ren tly n o t a prophet

when he l ived ; for we are expressly to l d , as if to proh ib i t

a ny such no t ion , tha t the superna tura l w isdom o f h is da ughter

Theono e came n o t from her fa ther but from her ma terna l

gra ndfa ther ‘ . Menela us i n Euri p ides does n o t come to Egypt

for the purpo se o f co nsu l t i ng Pro teu s , o r o f co nsu l t ing a ny

body. The who le scenery, c i rcumsta nces , a nd fa cts of . the

Homeri c episode are no t merely i rrelevan t to the drama o f

Euri p ides,but incompa t ible . Apa rt from the name Pro teus

the p lay makes n o a l l us io n to the epic ; a nd sho u ld we import

i nto i t rem i n iscences o f Homer,we sho u ld make nonsense .

Why then d id no t Euripides ca l l the k ing by some o ther

n ame,a ny o ther

,a nd d ism iss bo th the Homer ic wi z a rd a nd

the Homeric isla nd from a work wh ich ha s no th ing to do

with them ?

The truth is tha t th is pro logue betrays , l ike the pro logue

to Comu s,bu t much mo re ma n ifest ly

,the i nfluence of in c on

s i sten t requ iremen ts . The drama t is t,for some rea so n o r

1 0d. 4. 3 54 fol l ., where ‘Egyp t’

apparen t ly means the N i le (D iet . Geog , s. v .

Pharos). 2vv. 7, 1 5 , 1 003 .

76 E URIP IDES’

AP OL0C Y

o ther, i s n o t free to co nsu l t o n ly the requ iremen ts o f h i s

sto ry. Mil ton was bo und to p la ce h i s encha nted woo d near

the sea t o f a n Engl i sh nobleman and vice-gerent,nea r

L udlow Ca st le, tho ugh i n truth it is n o t there a nd no th ing in

the sto ry wou ld l ead us to suppo se so . Eurip id es , tho ugh his

scene i s n ot la id on a n i s land,must h int

, a t alleven ts o n ce ,tha t i t i s

,and tho ugh h is k ing of Egypt is n o t Pro teus , must

give him tha t n ame. I n the ca se of Mil to n we know the

rea son i n tha t o f Eurip ides,if we wo u ld understand him

must find i t o u t. Why he m us t have a Pro teus , we sha l l see

herea fter ; why a n i s land,we may a lready guess . If his play

was des igned for rec i ta t io n i n Ma cri s,a t a pa rt i cu la r ho use i n

M a cr i s , if i t n ot o n ly co nta in s domest i c a l l u s ions,bu t i n two

most impo rta nt perso nages represen ts the success ive ho use

ho lders,if the who l e wo rk

,i n som e o f its mo st s ign ifi can t

a spects,i s rela ted n o t to Egypt a t allbut to Ma cri s

,and if i t

requ i res tha t we figure o urselves to be , no t on ly for som e

purpo ses i n Egypt a nd a t the pa la ce o f the Egyptian k ing ,but a l so for o ther purpo ses i n Ma cr i s a nd a t the house of the

represen ta t ion— then we c a n understa nd why the pro logue

sho u ld hover,a s i t do es

,between two i n congruous concept io ns ,

and i n pa rt i cu la r why Pha ro s,here a nd here o n ly

,Sho u ld

make i ts irreleva nt appea ra nce . The sto ry ta kes pla ce by the

banks o f the Ni l e ; but no sooner has the a uthor sa i d so tha n

he retra cts i t,a dd ing tha t neverthe l ess we are i n an i s la nd ,

the i s la nd o f Pha ro s . Why ? Beca use i n a n i s la nd somehow

we are to be ; a nd Pharo s (bes ides Open ing the way to a no ther

i n nuendo which we sha l l u ndersta nd present ly) wa s a t l ea s ta n i s la nd

,a n Egyptia n i s la nd

,and o ffered

,as such , a l in k

o f tra ns la t ion between the two pictures o f the place, wh ich the

a utho r must i n some way combine.

And n ow comes i n aga i n A r istophanes . The Celebra n ts ofthe Thesmophoria n o t on ly ba ses i ts plo t upo n the o rigina l

o cca s io n o f Helen,but co nta in s a scene of pa rody ‘ , i n wh ich

the personages o f the comedy tempora ri ly a ssume the pa rt s

and spea k,i n travesty

,the language o f the Eu rip idea n play.

1 Thesm. 855—9 I

78 EURIP IDES ’

AP OLOG Y

wha t Euri p ides m ea nt . An excel lent po in t,if there was rea so n

to a scri be the idea,tho ugh no t the language , to Euri p ides , bu t

o therwise po i n t less a nd irreleva nt. The Euri p idea n play and

pro logue expla i n i t . Euri p ides do es,for his purpo se, iden t ify

the land o f N i l e with the is land o f Ma cri s ; h is scene i s bo th

a t o nce ; and therefo re , says A r i stophanes , he m igh t a s wel l

have to ld u s tha t h is ‘Egypt ’ was compo sed of a n ot black

rock n ay , may we n o t say tha t he a ctua l ly has to l d u s so ?

We tu rn then wi th in terest to the plo t a nd personages o f

Eurip ides,to see whether a nd where they show tra ce o f a n

a l l us ive purpo se . O f the p lo t , the c on fiding o f a wife to the

care o f a pio us ho useho lder , h is long pro tect io n o f her,the

wo o i ng o f her by h i s unwo rthy so n , the defea t of h i s son a nd

rest i t ut ion o f the wife by the p iety a nd fidel i ty o f h i s da ughter,

we may say with appa ren t certa i n ty tha t i t ha s n o domest i c

reference. Apart from the improbabi l i ty o f such a co inc idence

between a sto ry a ttributable to Helen a nd tha t o f a house

where,a s i t happened

,a H elen was to be represen ted

sto ry i s i n some respects such , tha t the mere poss ib i l i ty o f

a domest ic reference wo u ld have been enough,on e wo u ld

suppo se,to forbid the cho i ce o f i t . B u t we ca nno t say the

same o f the person s , or n o t o f all.

Theo clymenus indeed , the son,and Menela us

,and even

H elen,are n o veh ic les for compl imen t ; but Theo noe, the

prophet i c da ughter,seems ma de for i t . Her

‘ d ivine intel l igence ’ governs allthe a ct ion

,and yet she stands i n a

m anner o uts ide o f i t. She appears o nce,i n a lmo st super

human d ign i ty ‘ , to rece ive homage a nd d ispense fa tes,a nd

then ‘ withdraws into whi le the rest co nt inue,a s

befo re , to work o u t thei r d est iny wi th in the l im i ts o f’

perm i ss ion . She is the rea l queen of the place, the true

represen ta t ive of her fa ther, the m istress for whom her s lavesare ready to d ie “, a nd who overru les a s she p lea ses the wi l l of

the so -ca l led ma ster “. A woma n o f i n te l l ect, adm i red for her

virtue bu t spec ia l ly for her wisdom,wea l thy, unma rr ied

reso lved to ma in ta i n her i ndependence,i n Sho rt, a

‘ V i rgin

v . 1 023 .

vv. 998 fo l l. , 1 627 fo l l .

HELEN 79

Q ueen —such i s Theo no e ; and a mo re su i table pres iden t

for the perfo rmance o f H elen one ca n no t imagine. He r

decla ra t ion tha t ‘she wi l l , if po ss ib l e — tha t is, o f co urse, if

her bes iegers wi l l by a ny mean s . l et her keep her ma iden

cond it ion for has perplexed modern readers,who ha ve

propo sed to om i t i t,a s i ndeed they have co nven iently sig

nalled,by s im i la r propo sa l s

,severa l o f the mo st s ign ifican t

beca use extra - drama t ic,pa ssages in the piece. H er reso lve

not to wed has certa i n ly no th ing to do with the story but to

the a uthori ty o f the rea l woman i t was vita l . Now i t i s j u st

Theo no e o f whom the pro logue speaks as if she were rea l ly

no t the drama t i c figure,but somebody else. We a re to ld tha t

tho ugh they ca l l her ’ Theo no e for her w isdom , tha t was n o t

her name. Her name was Eido’

s (or cho sen beca use o f

her i nfa nt bea uty . Why are we to l d th is ? No th ing comes

o f i t . I t do es no t i l l ustra te e ither the story or the a l leged

re la t ions o f the drama t i c fam i ly. S o far a s these a re c on

cerned,i t wo u ld have been na tura l to suppo se tha t the

gra nd -da ughter o f a prophet ic deity , the destined rec ip ien t

o f h is gift ‘,had the properest o f names from the fi rst. Y e t

the sta temen t must surely have some purpo se . We must

a ccept i t then , we ca nno t bu t a ccept i t, i n i ts p la i n mean ing,tha t Eido she was. Tha t she had been a lovely baby was

doubt less cert ified by trad i t io n ; a nd we a re l eft to presume,

though her persona l appea ra nce i s o f n o importa nce to the

play, tha t she had n o t, a t a ny ra te no t iceably,bel ied her

infa nt prom i se . Her po s i t io n as m i stress o f the ho use and

successo r to her fa ther i s o f first- ra te importa nce to the p lay,

a s we Sha l l se e . I t i s qu i te po ss ib le tha t the pa rt o f Theono e

was rec ited by the m i s tress herself.

I f Theono e has a persona l appl i ca t io n,so has ‘ Pro teus . ’

She is essent ia l ly h is representa t ive . The sp iri t o f the dea d

fa ther, the domest i c worsh ip o f him,h i s p iety a nd loya l ty

securi ty o f h is prom ises,a nd h i s da ughter’s fidel i ty to the i r

u tmost obl iga t io n “,a re n o t importa nt o n ly to the plo t, bu t

1v . 1 008 r etpdo ona t 66 WGpOéVOS Mvew def, om i tted byEindorf and o thers.

1)v . 1 1 52601 M SS .

,E1616 Ma tthiae and la ter te xts. 3

v . 1 5 .

‘1 S ee the part of Theonoe , espec ia l ly vv . 1 003—1 016, and the p lay passim.

80 EURIP IDES ’

AP OL OG Y

a re ho nou red by a no t i ce wh ich ha s rece ived,l i ke o ther extra

drama t ic to uches , the s ign ifican t s tamp o f cri t i ca l exc is ion ‘ .

H elen ha s en trea ted Theono e to hono ur her fa ther’s pledge,by restori ng the wife o f Menela us to the lawfu l c la iman t.

H elen has appea l ed to the fa ther’s grave. Theo noe confirm s

th is appea l her fa ther i n a sense i s there , and the tomb wou ld

be insu l ted,if she refused to do wha t he wo u ld have do ne .

Then,lo ok ing up, she adds wi th sta rt l i ng so l emn i ty ,

Ay i ndeed , payment o f such a bo nd i s po ss ible for allof

m ank ind,bo th for tho se wh ich are below and tho se wh ich a re

a bove . The m ind of the dead , though i t l ives n ot, ha th yet a

consc ience immo rta l,when i nto immo rta l ether i t ha th pa ssed .

l h 3 V A In alf

ya p 7 60128 ea 7 12

7 6 vep 7 ep01 9A I A I f AKa i. c

wmfiev 77 12 17 1 11 civdpafl ro ts'

o vovs

A I A I 3]

7 111 11 n a 7 9a vov7 wv C37 p ev ou , 7 11 1071 771) 6 exe cf 3 I l I

a 9a va 7 ov, et c a fia vcwov a idep 671 77 60 121 12.

This ‘ very rema rkable pa ssage ’

(Pa ley) a rrests the a ttent io n

o f every reader ; and‘ why i t sho ul d be cons idered an i n ter

pola tion by Dindorf’

is,with allrespect to Pa ley

,perfect ly

c lea r. The thri l l i ng no te o f genu ine rel igio us feel ing i s d is

co rda nt with the tone o f the d rama,a nd spec ia l ly with the

l ight,i rreveren t way i n wh ich the establ i shed dei t ies , Aphro

d ite and Hera , are trea ted i n th is very scene a nd by the same

spea ker". I f the Theono e o f the stage were a lone concerned,

Dindorf wo u ld be r ight i n h i s exc i s io n . B u t i t i s Eido who

here Spea ks , the fr iend of Eurip ides , who had i ndeed a rel igion ,n o t tha t o f Hera a nd Aphrod i te

,bu t the cu l t of her fa ther

Pro teus and the bel ief i n the immo rta l so u l .

The fa ther’s name was P rotea s, a nd with the Pro teus o f

the Ody ssey ,the sea -

god , he had perhaps th is S l ight but rea l

connex ion,tha t the resemb lance o f the names may have led

him to ta ke a name for h i s pretty da ughter o u t o f the same

epic chapter for the sea -

god had a da ughter ca l l ed Eido thoe “,o f wh ich ‘ Eido s ’ wa s the appl icable pa rt . He had been a

pra ct i t io ner in med ic ine,and a dea ler i n d rugs , herbs , etc . , i n

1vv. The d igression is ma rhea

’a s su ch by in v . 1 0 1 7 .

2 66 7 2M S .3vv . 8 78—89 1 .

“1 Od. 4 . 366.

HELEN 8 1

sho rt a n apo theca ry, a nd’

his wea l th was probably a cqu ired in

th is way . This fa ct , abo u t which Eurip ides i s na tura l ly

S i len t,i s suppl ied by A ri stophanes , who se pa rody o f H ele n i n

the Thesmophoria e u sa e‘ tu rn s a lmo s t en t i rely o n the name

a nd profess io n o f‘ Pro teus .

Mnesilo c hu s, the detected ad

voca te o f Eurip ides a t the Thesmopho r ia , is a capt ive i n the

hands o f the women . Eurip ides a ttempts a rescue,to cover

which en terpri se Mn esilo c hu s a ssumes the part o f H elen and

the poet tha t o f Menela us . Mnesilo c hu s, a s we have seen,

gives the open ing o f the H elen ,but w ith a varian t read ing

‘ This pla ce is Ni l e, r iver o f fa ir m a i dens , which , i nstea d

o f heaven ’s ra i n , gives mo i stu re to Egypt’

s wh ite so i l, a stone

as bla ck as a bla ch dose.

The women a re for the moment myst ified . B u t present ly

comes Menelaus , Sh ipwrecked , a s i n the rea l p lay, but a l so

sea -sich,a nd with a heada che :

‘ A so l i d ho use ! M ight the po ssesso r of i t be such a

on e as sho u ld rece ive voyagers weah from the roching of the

sea i n sto rm a nd sh ipwreck 2

‘ To Pro teus i t belongs ,’ repl ies Mn esilo c hu s-Helen .

‘ P roteu s ?’ says Eurip ides -Menela us with surprise .

‘ Ah poor unhappy ma n,

puts i n o n e o f the women,

‘ he

is tel l ing yo u fa l se , tha t he is. P roteas has been dead these

t en years . ’

Menela us however pers is ts ; he learns from H elen with

ama z ement , a s i n the play ", tha t he has rea ched Egypt , and

then a sks whether P roteu s (sic ) i s a t home or abro a d .

‘ The s ickness,’

says the interrupter of the d ia logue ,‘ must be sti l l i n yo u r head ! Yo u have been to l d tha t

P roteas (sic ) i s dead , and yo u ask whether he is a t home

Allth is fenc ing over Pro teus a nd Pro tea s is wa rra nted , as

i ndeed , to have a ny po i n t , i t must be , by the p lay itself3

The do ubt abou t the true appel la t io n,which the Ari sto pha n ic

1vv . 850

—924. S ee above , p . 77 .

2 Cf. H el. 68 ; I t need sc arc e ly b e sa id tha t n e i ther the Teuc er nor the

Men e laus of Eurip ides offers a mode l for n or/ 7 191 Rani/ aura s.

3 Hel. 460—465.

82 EURIP IDES ’

A P OL OG Y

Menela us expresses broad ly and fa rc i ca l ly, i s h in ted del ica tely

by h i s Eurip idean pro to type . Pro teus it i s tha t dwel l s here,’

says the keeper o f the doo r. B u t presently Menela us a sks ,And th is y ou callhim,

i s b e with in the ho use

0612 iv bvondgets (A nd i t is wo rth

no t ice tha t , i n the scene where Theono e appea rs ‘ , her fa ther,though ment io ned i ncessant ly, is n o t o nce named by any o f

the in terlo cutors nor i s she . The pseudonyms , commo n else

where”,wo u ld there have been d isco rda nt with the respectfu l

a l l us ions to the rea l man a nd the sent iments a ttribu ted to the

rea l daughter.) The reference to‘ bla ck do ses

a nd the

suggest io n tha t Menela us i s seek ing a do cto r,revea l the

pro fess ion o f the househo lder ; a nd i t i s no t i ced aga i n,when

Menela us a nd H elen recogn i z e on e a no ther : O n e mo re l ike

H elen than yo u ,lady , I never saw.

Nor I on e more l i ke

tha n yo u to Menela us—a t least ou t of a herb The

suggest ion i s ( i t i s probably true and may have been known )tha t the a cto rs a t the ori gina l performa nce o f H elen ,

dependants o f ‘ Theo no e ,’

had some o f them served i n the

d ispen sary. They d id very wel l , i t seems , cons ideri ng ‘ .

The burl esque Helen te l l s the burlesque Menela us,tha t

the old woma n,

’ the ce lebrant o f the ofli c ialThesmophoria ,

who keeps in terrupt ing, i s‘ Theonoe

,da ughter o f Pro teus. ’

1vv . 865

—1029.

2vv . 1 52 , 460, 542 , 787, 1 1 66, 1 3 70 ; 859 a nd passz

3 Thesm . 9 1 0 (Hel. 564) 67 811 6? Mevéh ecp o"—8o a ‘

en 7 631, 145151011 . The i’

was a herb : 7 6. (pm means the p la c e where i t is so ld .

4 I c a nn o t th ink tha t we should b e c on ten t to see here an a l lusion to the fa c tor a l lega t ion tha t the mo ther o f Eurip ides, who is made by the c omedian to

person a te Mene laus, so ld vege tables (schol. ad Wha t ha s tha t to do with theHelen ? Un less Eurip ides rea l ly played Mene laus, a supposi t ion forbidden (to say

no thing more ) by his age , i t is poor fu n to suggest tha t he would not make a

good one . And why should a man make a worse Men e laus, be c ause his mo therso ld vege tables ? Besides ex hypothesi Aristophanes

’a c tor is n ot here masked as

Eurip ides. H e is got u p to look l ike ‘a Men e laus ou t of a herb-Shop ,

’a Chemist ’s

assistan t with a taste for thea tric a ls. The scholia (and we too) some t imes supposeAristophanes to b e very dul l . I t should b e observed tha t the authors of the

scholia had not here , and do n ot pre tend to have , any tradi t ion : Pro teas was an

A then ian who had been dead a long t ime’is the ir no te on p réa s

67 17 66m .

HELEN 83

The a nger wi th wh ich the A then ia n lady rej ects th is in

s i nua t ion,a nd pro cla im s her fu l l t i t le, i nc lud ing the deme ,

Critylla ,daughter o f A n tithe u s, of Ga rgéttu s,

’ suggests ,wha t the s i lence of the pro logue to H elen confi rms

,tha t

Pro tea s and h is fam i ly had n o pretens ions to birth ‘. H is pride ,and the pri de o f h i s da ugh ter a fter him , was tha t h is wo rd was

his bond,tha t he ‘ pa i d h is prom i se,

’ the pri d e o f an honest

tradesman ‘ . H ence the Spiri ted encom i um which Helen,

when She wou ld move the daughter to keep the prom i se o f

the fa ther by resto ring her to Menela us,pronounces upo n

honesty in the a cqu isition of wealth : For G od ha teth vio l ence,

a nd biddeth allto take wha t may be taken lawfu l ly, but n ot

i n the way o f plunder. Wea l th n o t honest i s no t to b e

touched . For as heaven i s common to allma nk i nd,so i s

ea rth , where in they shou ld so fi l l thei r ho uses,as tha t they

neither keep n or sei z e wha t belongs to a no ther.’ 3 Allth i s

obvious ly exceeds the drama t i c s i tua t io n , a nd ha s a c cordingly

been ma rhed for exc ision . The truth is tha t , l i ke the do ctri n e

o f Theo no e on the obl iga t io ns o f the dead ‘, i t properly refers

n o t to Pro teus but to the rea l Pro tea s, the ma n o f bus iness.H e was a merchan t o f A thens , but we have n o rea so n to

suppose him a c i t i z en ; h is art o f med ic ine,bo th a s sc ience

a nd trade,he wo u ld have stud ied abroa d

,i n Egypt probably

for on e pla ce. Ari stopha nes wo u ld have ca l l ed the who l e se t

Egyptians,a nd te l l s u s so :

A re y o u a Greek,lady

, or a

woman o f th i s co untry —‘ A Greek . B u t I too

wou ld a sk,a re you

? ’ The l ines are Eurip ides , wo rd for word ‘ ,but amo ng the ‘ do ses ’ a nd

‘ herbs ’ they ha ve a d ifferent

effect .

A bou t the mo ther o f Eido the pro logue says l i tt l e ; but as

alltha t l i tt l e i s superfluo us to the sto ry , wh ich has no th ing to

do with her, we must suppose i t to represen t the true fa cts,

a nd to be inserted for the sake o f the rea l woman . H er

1 The word 667 €Vfi$ , as used in Hel. 1 0, has no thing to do with ped igree . I t

denotes mere ly a sa t isfa c tory c hi ld.

2 H el. 939 fo l l . , 1009 fo l l . , and the p lo t of the p lay pa ssim.

3vv . 903

908 , om i tted by Dindorf. 4vv. 1 01 3 fo l l . S ee above , p . 80.

5 H el. 56 1-

84 EURIP IDES ’

AP OL OG Y

name,Psama the, wa s i n co nven ient ; for the nymph o f tha t

name, a cco rd ing to the gra ve test imo ny o f Hes iod ‘, was

un i ted no t to Pro teu s but to A ea cus . Eurip ides expla i n s pro

forma tha t she ma rried Pro teus a fterwa rd s 2. The o n ly

th ing we hea r abo ut her—bu t th i s is worth no t i ce—i s tha t herda ughter

’s wisdom,tha t i s to say ,

her i nte l l ectua l gifts a nd

l i tera ry ta stes,is express ly tra ced to the mo ther ’s s ide. She

was probably an a ccompl ished hetaera,a word fo r which we

may be conten t to have no Engl i sh equ iva l en t,bu t wh ich

described a co nd it ion perfect ly honest a ccord ing to the no t io ns

of the fifth century B .C.,the co nd it ion indeed of mo st women

who took pa rt i n wha t we ca l l ‘ so ciety.

Theoclymenus the

son, a r id icu lous personage a nd i nd ispensable to the sto ry

presumably a mere fict io n .

Mo re abo ut the rea l persons a nd externa l s i tua t ion m ight

probably be seen in A r istopha nes or i n Euri p ides,if we knew

i t,as the o rigina l a ud iences d id , beforeha nd bu t we wi l l n o t

n ow a ttempt a nyth ing beyond the o utl i ne. I wi l l no te on ly

o ne strangely perplex ing pla ce i n H elen,where the po ss ibi l i ty

o f an extra - drama t i c reference sho u ld be con s idered . When

the Egyptia n o a rsmen,who take the ga l ley o u t to sea for the

pretended funera l o f Menela us,d iscover tha t he and h i s

compan ion s are rea l ly bo und for Argo s,on e o f them excla im s :

‘ The exped it ion i s a tri ck ! L e t us go ba ck to A x ia . Y ou

(to the heleu ste‘

s) ca l l the d i rect io ns, and you ( to the helmsma n )turn the t i l ler .’

n a i 7 66’

6277 6 ,‘ 66A109 zj va vnxnpiw

7rd vrxéwnev xék eve 0 15,

s 0 7 pe'

Now abo ut th is Axia the pu z z l e is, n o t merely tha t the

pa rt icu la r wo rd o ffers n o mean ing,bu t tha t apparent ly n o

co nceivable wo rd wou ld fi t in . I t ca nno t wel l form a cla use

by itself“ ; the fo l lowing cla use (nék eve 0 15) refuses a ny

1 Theog . 1002 , c i ted by Musgrave .

2v . 7. Ala rm? Musgrave , 12l 01; M S.

3 Hel. 1 590. 2514 7 is reported as the read ing o f the MS .

4 So Hermann ,wdxw r héwy ev, but p la in ly this wil l not do .

86 EURIP IDES ’

AP OLOG Y

i s no th ing l ike th i s i n co l d-blooded cruel ty ‘ . Y e t n o a ttempt

i s made,nor o n the l in es o f the H elen cou ld be made , to

presen t i t as such a necess i ty . The dece iving o f Theo

c lymenus,so le ca use o f the ma ssa cre

,i s a mockery, and a

need less pretence. The sa i lor’s own narra t ive

,a s we have

seen a nd sha l l see aga in,has tra i t s, bo th preced ing a nd

fo l lowing the ma ssa cre,a t which we are compe l led to laugh .

B u t nevertheless, there stands the ma ssa cre i tself, the v io l en t

s laughter o f fifty inno cent men . And to ca rry o u t the no t ion

o f a n escape , to im i ta te i n appea rance the Iphigen ia in

Ta u rica ,someth ing o f the k ind m ust o ccu r .

The drama t i st had then,so i t seems to me , the mo st

powerfu l mo t ive co nce ivabl e for mak ing us remember j ust

here,j ust when the ma ssa cre i s to be rela ted , tha t th is , between

him a nd u s,i s l i ke allthe rest

, n o t serio us ; tha t we are no t

rea l ly and tru ly to imagine a ny such th ing. H e owed th is

a bso l utely to h imself, h i s a ud ience, and h is art.

Ye t how co u ld i t be do ne ? I n on e way o n ly : by dropp ing

a l together for a momen t the drama t i c fi ct ion , by insert ing a

to uch o f pure burlesque. We expect to Pha ro s . ’ Now for theextra - drama t ic a spect o f ~ this play ,

‘ Pharo s ’ i s Helene ; i t

s ign ifies H elene,a nd no th ing else

,i n the o n ly pla ce where

it o ccurs ‘,a nd the house on

‘ Pha ro s ’ is the house, n o t o f

Theono e,but of Eido . I bel ieve tha t Eurip ides del ibera te ly

put i n here the name e i ther of the house i tself,o r o f the

pla ce,some kno t o f cabins

,where i t lay ; a nd tha t therefore

we have n o rea so n for rej ect ing Ax ia .

O f co urse the effect

wo u ld be purely com i c , bu t no th ing Sho rt o f th is wou ld save

the s itua t ion,a nd j ust ify the impo rta t io n o f such a n i n c iden t

a s the ma ssacre . For th is purpo se the fa l se,or ra ther true

name wo u ld na tura l ly be brought in with pa use and empha s i s

a fter wh ich the ma ssa cre m ight pro ceed witho ut danger o f

o ffence to the most suscept ible.Le t us n ow su m up briefly the pri nc ipa l fa cts i n the

externa l c i rcumstances o f Helen . Among the women o f the

Euri p id ea n c irc l e,the ra re bu t n o t unknown vo ta resses o f

l i tera tu re who are ma rked i n theM edea ",was a wea l thy ma iden

1 Iph . T. 1 3 2 7—1 3 78 .

2v. 5 ; see above , pp . 75

—78.

ed. 1084.

HELEN 87

la dy,named Eido . H er fa ther Pro tea s , a respectable a nd

successfu l man i n a l in e wh ich wa s then bo th pro fess ion a nd

trade,d ied i n the early part o f the decade 42 1—4 1 1

a nd she inheri ted h is fortune. She owned property and

had a res idence,which she o ccup ied a t the favourable sea son ,

i n the i s land o f Ma cri s or H elene’

; and she was plea sed to

d iscover,or to imagine, tha t her i s land had a roman t ic

a sso c ia t ion with Helen the hero i ne . B eing,as a woma n ,

specia l ly in terested in the Thesmopho ria,She propo sed to

celebra te tha t fest iva l by a drama t i c perfo rma nce or rec ita

t io n,to be then given a t her i s la nd-home . Eurip ides was to

compo se the p lay. He had the fel i c i to us tho ught to combine

these da ta by adopting, from the apo logy o f S tesic horu s, the

pa radox tha t Helen had been a model o f cha st i ty, a nd

presen t ing th i s p ictu re,i n a so rt of mock -t ragedy

,ha lf sport

a nd ha lf ea rnest, a s a playfu l defence,a ddressed to the sex,

aga in st the rid i cu lous cha rge of h is detra cto rs,tha t he never

exh ib ited a good woma n .

A k insman of h is , Mn esilochu s,

a nd the traged ian Aga tho n , a ided,or were i n some way

concerned,i n the product io n . The da te may be put between

420 a nd 4 1 5. The Iph igen ia in Ta u rica was a l ready written,

a nd known in priva te c i rc les ; a nd tha t p lay, with the

A ndroma che, suppl ied the chief fea tures for im i ta t ion . When

the Iph igen ia had been produced publ i cly a t the thea tre ,the H elen

,a lready no to rious, though

‘ new’

i n the o ffic ia l sense,fo l lowed i t

,probably i n the yea r 4 1 2 ,

a ccompa n ied by o ther

plays,presumably o f the usua l tragic stamp. I n the next

year (4 1 1 ) A ri stophanes burl esqued the who l e pro ceed ing i n

the Celebra n ts of the Thesmophoria .

O rigina ted thus, the H elen n o t o n ly adm i tted a playfu l

trea tment , but adm i t ted no o ther. To the fa l se and perverse

cha rge in quest ion , Eurip ides wo u ld n o t have made any seriou s

a nswer,nor wou ld h is fr iends , women or o thers , have bo rne

tha t he shou ld . The very t it l e, when co ns idered wi th refer

ence to the o cca s ion , ca rried with i t the s ign ificance o f a

pa radox ica l purpo se ; a nd if any mo re prepa ra t ion were

des irable,i n a priva te c irc le i t co u ld be suppl ied . Befo re

1 Aristoph. Thesm. 8 76. Of c ourse we c anno t press the ‘ten years ’ exa c t ly .

88 EURIP IDES’

AP OL OG Y

the p iece rea ched the thea tre,i ts l i tera ry cha racter was for

l i tera ry people a l rea dy fixed ; and the probable or certa i n

igno rance of the ma ny, to whom allplays were merely shows,

was i n th is ca se,as i n allca ses, un impo rta nt .

The concept ion of a drama ser io us i n form ,bu t in rea l i ty

del ica tely se lf-cr i t ica l throughout, was o n e tho ro ughly c on

gen ia l,if a proper o cca s io n co uld be fo und , to Eurip ides

na tu ra l ben t. H e o ccas iona l ly succumbed , a s we know,to

the tempta t io n o f putt i ng cri t i c i sm i n to grave works , the

Elec tra for i n stance and the P hoen issae,a nd shows every

where a‘grea t i n terest i n techn ique. The H elen ,

i n po i n t o f

structure, i s a subtle exh ibi t io n o f b ad techn ique, des igned

to amuse a l i terary soc iety fam i l ia r with a century o f drama

and steeped i n cr it i ca l j udgments,the same j udgmen ts o f

commo n sense wh ich were summed and fo rmu la ted long

a fterwa rds by A ri sto t le . Everyth ing i s irregu la r a nd j us t

wrong. The myth i s extra vaga n t ; the fabu lous elemen t i s

made prom i nent , a nd put in to the very hea rt o f the a ct ion .

The sent imen t i s spu rio us,the mo ra l i s twisted . The pa tho s

sm i les,the mo t ives flag ,

the m a ch inery ha l ts, and the s i tua

t io ns j ust never come o ff. I t does n ot fo l low , and i s no t the

fa ct,tha t the play, wh ich , l i ke A M idsu mmer N ight’s Dream,

i s fu l l o f loo se and careless bea ut ies,con ta i n s no th ing gra ve .

The pra i se o f co nj uga l fidel i ty,for example

,i s no ne the less

genu ine beca use to ta ke H el en as a n i l l ustra t ion o f i t i s

pa radox ica l a nd absu rd . The denuncia t ions o f war‘ are

who l ly wi thou t irony. B u t o f so l emn ity there i s no th ing,except a few to uches vi s ibly extra -drama t i c and domest i c ‘

and o f ho rro r or t ragic p i ty n o t the fa i n tes t tra ce wha tever.

The who l e p iece im i ta tes tragedy c lo sely , but by compa ct

between a utho r a nd a ud ienc e never a tta i n s the l ine .

To understand or expla i n such a wo rk completely i s for

us now pla in ly impo ss ib le. O u r ma teria l s and o u r fa cu l t ies

must be i nsuffi c ient . To ta ke bu t o ne po in t : we ha ve n o

plays o f Agathon . A spec ia l re la t io n between th is poet a nd

the apo logy o f Eurip ides i s i nd ica ted , tho ugh n o t expla i ned ,

- 1 e.g . vv. 1 1 5 1 fo l l .2 Prin c ipa l l y vv. 903 fo l l . , 1 0 1 3 a lready no t ic ed .

90 EURIP IDES ’

AP OLOG Y

Now why is th is absurd pa ssage introduced ? There i s n o

d rama t i c po i n t i n exh ibi t ing Menelaus as a brute,nor is tha t

des ign pursued genera l ly i n the p lay : he i s a mere stage

puppet,wi tho ut a ny defin i te cha ra cter a t all. Or why sho u ld

i t be expla ined with such empha s is,tha t Theo no e wi l l no t

a l low vio l ence ? O f co u rse she wi l l no t,but why bri ng

i t o u t ?

The pa ssage reflects a cr it i c i sm, a v iew which must have

been widely held,a nd supported by respect ing the

[p /zzge/zia z

rz Ta u rica . Allth i s pa rt o f H elen,i nc lud ing these

scenes , runs para l l e l wi th the Ip/z zgeizz'

a . I t i s [phzgem'

repea ted,with allsorts o f amus ing or suggest ive d ifferences .

Now the [pb zzgem'

a presents a problem o f a estheti c n ot un l ike

the fam i l ia r quest ion abo u t King L ea r,‘whether Co rdel ia

m ight no t have been suffered to escape dea th,

’ whether the

who l e tragedy wo u ld no t have been d readfu l enough witho u t

the cumu la t ive a cc iden t by which she peri shes . Sent iment

has often sa i d yes ; sound j udges , I bel i eve,say n o . The

Euri p idea n quest ion was,a nd i s

‘whethe r I ph igen ia m ight no t

a nd sho u ld n o t,have been made toforbid t/ze mu rder of TIzoa s.

The [pfizge/z z'

al i s perhaps the mo st gha st ly story imaginable,

no t so much for the fa cts,though these a re h ideo us , as

beca use there i s n o one,no on e a t allamong the princ ipa l

cha ra cters,with whom o ne c an fu l ly sympa th i z e . O f the

three v ict im s two, Orestes a nd Pylades , have been gu i l ty o f a

revo l t i ng a nd (a s Eurip ides pa i n ts i t) an i n excusable mu rder.

One is cra z y, the o ther stup id a nd obst ina te . Thei r enterpri se

i s a n a c t o f supersti t ious robbery,a so rt o f pi ra t ica l p i lgrimage ;

a nd i t i s moreover, a s they m ight have known i t to be, hopelessfrom the fi rst. Ea ch o f them ha s fine qua l i t ies , but p i ty for

the i r fa te i s embi ttered by d isgust a nd contempt: There

rema i n s I ph igen ia , a bea ut ifu l,mo st p i t iable

,a nd i n ma ny

respects loveable figure. B u t the bus iness through which she

i s dragged is so b ad,tha t the loya l ty o f the specta to r i s sorely

tri ed . A nd she nearly k i l l s i t,a s I have rema rked elsewhere 2,

when she has the cha nce to fo rb id the murder of Thoa s ,

See E u ripides t/ze Ralz'

on alzlrt, p . 1 66. z'

é. p . 1 94 .

HELEN 9 1

upon i t, i t o n ly a s no t pra c tic ablel.

Thoa s i s a savage , i n every sense o f the word . B u t the Greeks

o f the play are savages too ,and are the aggressors . To k i l l

Thoa s co u ld serve n o purpo se ; and the propo sa l to do i t is

s tupid,bruta l , a nd o n ly too l i ke the pu z z l e-headed propo sa l

o f Menela us to k i l l Theo clymenus,saving tha t i n the mad

a nd m i serable Orestes we ca nno t la ugh a t i t. To I ph igen ia

the ba rba r ian k ing has been much k inder tha n her own people

he rega rds her,a nd she professes to rega rd him ,

with some

th ing l ike afi'

e c tion . Merely as a woma n,she m ight be

expected to abom i na te a fut i l e assa ss ina t io n . B u t the tens io n

o f her bro ther’

s peri l , and all the a ppa l l i ng terro rs o f the

moment , m i s l ead her heart and he r j udgmen t . O restes a sks

if the mu rder be pra ct icable . A nd I phigen ia shudders , but

says o n ly tha t i t i s to o grea t a ri sk. I t is,

I th ink,na tura l ;

i t i s perhaps necessary to the truth o f the p icture . B u t i t is

heart -rend ing, ho rribl e ; a nd sent imen t cri es to the drama t i st,‘

For pity’s sake

,l et her say tha t eke Ming mu st nol be ! I n

th is wel ter o f crime and fo l ly,give u s a t l ea s t o ne gl impse

o f sens ib i l i ty a nd sense. ’ Now i t may be a ssumed tha t‘Theonoe,

’ the rea l woman,held

, as a woman , with th i s

sent imen t ; a nd tha t i s why Eurip ides i ns i sts on the po in t ,tha t i n a plo t co ntro l led by Theono e there ca n no t be a

murder o f Ki ng Theo clymenus. Abou t I ph igen ia and Ki ng

Thoa s he probably adhered to h i s own View.

O ther such observa t io ns wi l l o ccur upon a compari son

o f the two plays , a nd may be fo l lowed up with pro fi t . B u t

how uncerta i n must be o u r i nvest iga t ion,how ma ny c lu es

we must m i ss , even with the help o f the [pnzgen ima nd how

m any more,beca use we ha ve lo s t the i nd ispensable a ppara tus !

A ndmoreover, such th ings need to be comprehended insta n ter

they are ha lf- spo i led if they m ust be expla i ned . A c om

mentary on H elen,such as co u ld n ow be made , wo u ld be very

long, a nd I fea r i t m ight be very du l l . B u t taken super

fic ially ,the ‘ tragedy ,

if we start o n the right l ine,i s even n ow

fu l l of i n terest . We must be co nten t here to no te witho ut

system some sca ttered po i nts i n the o rder o f the i r o ccurrence .

For mark ing the co nnex ion o f the performance with the1 Ip/z . T. 1 020—1023 .

92 EURIP IDES ’ AP OL06 Y

.Thesmopho r ia,the a utho r rel ied ch iefly on the independen t

ode ; a nd i ndeed n o o ther efli c ie n t way was open,the sto ry

as such having no t the remo tes t afli n ity to tha t fest iva l . B u t

i n the sem i -d rama t ic pa rts o f the work there are m i no r

a l l us io ns,especia l ly i n the pro logue. A r istophanes

,i n the

prayer wi th wh ich h i s Celebra n ts open the ir pro c eedingsl,

names the de it i es o f the fest iva l a s fo l lows : ‘Demeter a nd

the Ma id,Pl utus

,Kalligen eia ,

Ko u ro trOpho s, Hermes , a nd

the Chari tes or Gra ces .’ The five subo rd ina te powers , as

here gro uped,ma ke a t ra nspa rent a l lego ry

,compris ing wha t

mo thers wo u ld des i re fo r happiness i n the i r da ughters , wea l th ,happy b irth , reari ng , a nd educa t ion

,and fina l ly a fo rtuna te

co u rt sh ip,deno ted probably by the conj unct ion o f H ermes

a nd the Gra ces 2. Allo f them are i n troduced by Euri p ides .

The play pro per begins 3 with a compa ri son o f the ho use o f

Ki ng Pro teus to tha t o f ‘ Pl utus,

a compl imen t to the a ctua l

house o f the rec i ta t ion . The pro logue begins wi th an a l l u s io n

to Kalligen e ia , Fa ir-birt/z

,a n impo rta nt Thesmophoria n per

somage,a do uble

,as i t wou ld seem

,o f Ko re the Ma id . Thi s

wo rd o ffered d ifficu l t ies to a compo ser o f iambics,bu t i s

suggested by an i ngen io us tu rn . The N i l e i n the fi rst verse

i s described as kallipa rt/z en os,r iver o f fa i r ma idens , an epi thet

which has na tura l ly provoked quest io n “,being ne i ther usua l

nor s ign ifica nt to the story. The exp la na t ion,I th ink

,i s th i s .

Allwa ters as such are xovporpo’

cfio a, breeders of the ch i ld ren

whom they feed . Eurip ides wo u ld if he cou ld,have ca l l ed

h is river n a k k uyevdiv 7ra p9évwv Tpocpov or the l i ke. This being

i nadm i ss ib le , he has pu t ha lf the impo rta nt ep i thet, kallig'

here, a nd completed i t by eu -

g enes pa rt/lim os (v. bringing

i n a no ther pa rt/zen os (v. 6) a s a l i nk to the e ar. To a

Thesmopho ria n a ud ience allwo u ld be perfect ly c lea r. I t i so f course arra nged , i n the c i rcumsta nces o f the ho use

,tha t

the girl o f the fam i ly,Eido

,sha l l have allthe compl iment.

The son , Theoclymenus , having n o rea l pro to type,i s d isowned

a s unsa t i sfa cto ry.

1 l sm . 295.

2 Cf. Plutarch , Com‘

ugalia P ram, prooemim n

, c ited by Orelli, on Hora c e ,

3v. 69 Hkoérov yap olxos (isms rpoa ecxdo

a t.4 S ee Pa ley ad lac .

fi rst appea rance,i n troduces h imself with a superfluo u s

reference to the h isto ry o f h i s gra ndfa ther Pelops,i n to which

i s impo rted,st i l l more art ificia l ly , a n obscu re legend wh ich

seem s to have been connected i n some way with Deo or

Demeter ‘ . The i rrel evance is so ma n ifest,tha t some have

propo sed exc is io n ; but wha t wa s the mo t ive o f the in terpo la

t ion ? The pa ssage i nd ica tes ra ther tha t the a uthor had

rea so n for h itch ing h is work , upo n however sl igh t a pretext ,on to the l egend o f the Earth-Mo ther.

I n the pro logue (v. 36) we are to l d tha t the Troj a n war

was engra fted by Zeus o n to the qua rre l o f H era a nd

A phrod i te wi th a double purpo se , to rel ieve mo ther earth o f

excess ive popu la t ion , a nd to make known ‘ the m ight iest i n

Hel la s . ’ The fables a re commo npla ces,bu t n o t rel eva nt to

th i s drama ; a nd the fa ct i s tha t bo th have a n ew tu rn here .

The first i s thrown in for the sa ke o f the Thesmopho ria,to

which the pro logue makes o ther a l l us ions . The seco nd

prepares u s for a n amus ing twist la ter on . The m ight iest i n

Hel la s ,’

who se fame the war wa s to serve,was

,i n common

a ccepta nce , A ch i l les . Bu t nei ther pro logue n or play has

pra i se for th is hero 2; a nd H elen here pro ceeds (v. 49) as if the

compl imen t were in tended for her ‘ unfortuna te husba nd,

a s genera l o f the H el len i c ho st. Presently (v . 393 ) Menelaus

caps th is , by appropria t i ng,‘ witho ut boa st

all the glo ry

to h im self a nd Agamemno n , espec ia l ly h imself, o n the gro und

tha t beyond quest io n my fo rce wa s the la rgest’

The episode o f Teucer (vv. 68 who a rr ives on th i s

part i cu la r day , but independent ly o f Menela us,to consu l t

Theono e,a s a n o racl e

,o n the proj ect o f fo und ing the co lony

o f Sa lam i s i n Cyprus , is ma in ly a compl iment to the wise

queen o f the ho use, but a l so serves the mechan ica l function o fi nfo rm ing H el en upo n Greek a ffa i rs

,a nd thus provid ing top ics

1vv . 3 86

—389, with the remarks of H ermann , c i ted by Pa ley . H ermann

would c orrec t the passage so as to n ame Deme ter, but th is is n ot c learl yn e c essary . As i t stands, i t imports tha t Pe lops, no t Tan ta lus, gave the famousbanque t to the gods, and was advised to do so by some one no t named ,

whom weshould suspec t , from o ther forms o f the story , to b e Deme ter. The avo iding of

the name may b e in ten t ion a l , a myst ic d isc re t ion . Nauc k om i ts2 And see the sl ight ing referenc e in vv . 98

—99.

HELEN 95

for the mus ica l lamenta t ions which fo l low,as wel l as a n

occa s ion for the prepo stero us appea l o f Helen to the lady

with in for the complet ion o f Te u c er’

s repo rt ‘ . The impuden t

carelessness o f the inc iden t a s a d rama t ic device,i ts utter

un l ikel ihood and i rrelevance , must be intent iona l , a nd i s

po i n ted probably a t someth ing beyond o u r knowledge . Bu t

we c an apprec ia te the c l imax , when Teucer, having done

wha t he i s wa nted for, i s to ld by He len (v. 1 5 1 ) tha t, as forgett ing to Cypru s , solvitu r n a viga ndo (vi

-h ove a ria-69 u np a vei) ;a nd tha t he had best go a t once , for the k ing o f Egypt

i s by way o f putt ing allGreek vis i to rs, when he ca tches them ,

to dea th ,for rea sons ‘ which I do n ot expla i n

, a s i t wou ld

be o f no serv ice to y o u .

Teucer thanks her k ind ly (xa k é’

M a ), gives her h is bless ing , a nd ta kes h imself o ff.

A t v. 255, we have a n o ra t ion from Helen wh ich must

perplex us,if we suppo se tha t the a ud ience were i n tended

to keep their gra vi ty.

"Women my fr i ends,

she begins,

wha t a fa te has been m i n e ! Was I n o t from my mo ther’s

womb a wo nder to ma nk i nd ? Never did woma n of H ellas,or

of tne world, p u tforth leer ofi'

sp ring in a wfiite skell; y et so, tuey

say ,did L eda c on ceive me of Z eu s. A wo nder indeed i s my

l ife,and such have my fo rtunes been .

’ We co rrect th i s (after

Badham ) by om i tt ing the sen tence i n i ta l i cs , which goes

certa in ly to the very edge o f burl esque. B u t tha t i s the

purpo se . Eurip id es do es bu t exaggera te,del i ca tely and

humo ro u s ly,a flaw i nheren t i n drama ba sed , l i ke the Greek ,

upo n myths . The ma tter wi l l scarcely bear the stra i n o f

exh ibi t ion to the eye . When Deia n ira i n the pro logue to

the Tra chin ia e,as a vis ibl e woman

,tel l s u s how the r iver-god,

her su i to r,beset her fa ther’s ho use i n changing fo rm o f bu l l

a nd snake a nd man,we a re a lready nea r to danger ; nearer

st i l l,when Creon info rms Oed ipus tha t the Sph inx ,

with her

r idd le a nd depreda t ions,so absorbed the a tten tion o f Thebes

tha t the m urder o f the k ing was d isrega rded 2. Keep such

th ings in the ba ckgro und , says A r is to t le, registering the

pra ct i ce o f commo n sense ; a nd Eurip ides,

as wel l as

Sophoc les , d id so with rigo ur and vigou r. B u t i n H elen we1 S ee above , p . 59.

2 Soph . 0.T. 1 30.

96 E URIP IDES ’

AP OLOG Y

have bro ken wi th commo n.

sense,a nd may enjoy the s ingu lar

specta cl e o f a woma n deplori ng to her compa n io ns the

prod igious fa ta l i ty—tha t she was bo rn in an egg !

A t the c lo se o f the same speech , tragedy dema nds a no ther

c orre c tion l. To d ie wel l or nobly (xa k c

bqfla veiv) i s a tragicdes i re ; but

n ot qu ite so to die like a bea u ty ,the sense preferred

by Helen , who ,a s we no t iced o nce befo re

,i s more co nsc io us

o f her cha rm s tha n in th is p lay any o ne else i s . Wha t su ic ide ,she a sks

,i s most fi t forher ? Hanging i s ugly ; and then she

is (as she choo ses to a rgue)‘

a s lave,

and for s laves to hang

themselves i s thought no t proper. She incl ines to the swo rd ,— and do es no th ing.

This speech conta i n s the famo us verse “ 7 a Ba pfidpwv ryc’

SofiXa n évra WM‘

W évés, Ou tside of H ellas,alla re sla ves bu t tlze

on e ma ster. I t i s po i n ted here a t the tyra nn ica l power o f

Theo clymenus, abou t wh ich we know wha t to th ink a nd

I suspect tha t i t i s quo ted from some o ther play, where i t was

rea l ly appropria te. H elen ’s impo ss ibl e wish,tha t her fa ce

co u ld be ‘ pa i n ted o u t l ike a picture,and drawn aga i n less fa i r 3

shou ld be compared with tha t o f the ca l umn ia ted H ippo lytus “,consc io us o f i n no cence but bo und by h i s prom i se n o t to prove

i t,tha t he co u ld look in to his own eyes .

No th ing wi l l better

show wha t so rt o f a‘ tragedy ’ th i s i s. H i ppo lytus touches

the very spring o f tea rs but wha t man or woma n,having a ny

sense o f humo u r,co u ld weep with such a H elen ? When she

laments 5 tha t her j ewel , her infan t Herm ione, mu st be gett ing

to‘ grey ha irs

,a nd st i l l no lzu sba nd,

how are we to fo rget,

tho ugh she chooses to igno re,wha t so rt of a ma rriage she ha s

fo und herself? If her sto ry were rea l, a nd she had a

' rea l

sense o f i t,she ought to pray

tha t her ch i ld m ight never

m a rry a t all. The s i tua t ion i s a sa t ire on the wo rds,and

such is the i n tent io n . I n the ho use o f ‘ Theono e,

’ grey ha i rs

a nd n o husba nd wo u ld n o t pa ss for a descri pt io n o f m i sery 6

The who l e speech i s a th ing to sm i l e over, and do ubt less has

vv . 299-302 are omi tted by Dindorf, a fterH artung.

v . 2 76.

3v . 262 . H i

pp . 1 077 .

5v . 28 2 .

6 S ee v. 1008 , and supra pp . 78—8 7 .

compa n ions are gua rd ing,

u nder c ompulsion ,my ma r i ta l

r ights’

51) 3,

dvrpov p vxois

Kpuxjra s fyvva Z/c a lea /«Bu n dvrwv éu oi

iip‘g’

a a a v ij/cw,7 0159 re wepck ek eipnévovs

qbihwv (v cia orew Til'

y/c a'

a a s‘ Xéx

The crew were apparen t ly o f op in io n tha t the capta i n’

a nx iety to keep his lady wa s a m i stake, a nd tha t ano ther

Pa ri s wou ld best put a n end to thei r d ifficu l t ies .‘ Ever s ince I to o k Troy Town

,I have been wa nt ing to

get the L i bya n co a st there i s n o t a pla ce so lonely

a nd unvi s i ted,bu t my sh ip has been there . And every t ime I

a pproach home,I am blown o ff aga i n

,an d n o t once have had

the wind tha t wo u ld bri ng me to Such i s the

s imple expla na t io n wh ich a ccounts for seven yea rs ! Ta l es of

adventure,rea l ly des igned a nd fi t to exc i te in terest, do o ften

m ake demands upon ou r bel i ef,which in the aggrega te wo uld

sta rt le u s ; bu t i t i s n o t u sua l for the narra tor, i n th is cand id

man ner, to presen t the a dd i tion .

B u t the cream o f the scene,from the contempo ra ry po i n t

of v iew,wo u ld be the pa ssage 3 i n wh ich Menela us

,having

learned tha t there i s i n the house a Helen,da ughter o f Zeus

fo rmerly o f Sparta,but res iden t here s ince the exped i t io n to

Troy, pu z z les over the po ss ibi l ity o f reco nc i l i ng these fa cts

wi th the ex i stence o f h i s phantom compa n io n .

‘ Two Troys

a nd two Spa rta s—perhaps ; two Helens very l ikely ; bu t

a no ther Zeus ? A n Egyp tia n of t/za t n ame it’ ? Wel l

,never

m i nd ; there is surely but o n e M en ela u s,a nd t/zis name wi l l be

a sure pa ssport to chari ty.

’ I t i s the very image o f tha t

mechan ica l ra t iona l i sm , the trans la t ion o f l egend into

commonpla ce by suppo sed co i nc idences o f name,thro ugh

wh ich the better m i nds had pa ssed a nd pa ssed o u t : the

j uggl ing w ith xpios-Kpios

, Bope’

a s-B opéa s, ra fipoq-Ta fipos,

Bpéxos-Bpaxiwv‘

, men ca l led Hermes,women ca l l ed Sph inx ,

1v . 424 .

2v . 400 .

3vv . 483 fo l l . Pa ley strikes the right no te .

S ee H era cles 1 53 , and the essay on tha t p lay hereafter.

HELEN 99

a nd sh ips ca l led Pega sus . Eurip ides had made use o f i t h imself for by -ends ‘ ; but a s a system

, to o ne who had tho ught

o u t h is H era cles,i t wa s detestable i n i ts i rra t io na l pedantry

and he tramples cheerfu l ly u po n the fa l la cy o f the who l e

method . There are people st i l l to be fo und who do n o t

understand the weight o f cumu la t ive co i n c idences,a nd who

m ight pro fi tably med i ta te w i th Menelaus .

The re - entrance o f the Chorus and Helen 2 takes u s ba ck

to the ora cu la r function o fTheo noe , who se response is reported .

Menela us i s no t dead he is wandering st i l l,bu t wi l l arr ive

‘ when he a tta in s the end o f h is tro ubles 3 .’

The o ra cle i s

gua rded,a s a n ora cl e shou ld be . B u t certa in ly we need no t

suppo se i n th is ca se a ny defect o f knowledge . The in telli

gence o f Theo no e , a s a huma n i ntel l igence,i s sound

,which i s

necessary and sufficient for the compl imen tary purpo se o f the

cha ra cter ; but her superna tura l qua l i ty i s , a s for the same

purpo se i t o ught to be,a pretence a nd a ca rica ture. Up to

th is po in t the drama,whi le a ssum ing tha t she must have

known allthe pa st,shows a l so tha t i n fa ct she d id n o t. She

now is fo und to know o f the presen t exa ct ly wha t a ny one

m ight know,who wa s n o t bound to respect the fl imsy

hypo theses o f the play. Menelaus i s com ing ; o f co urse he

i s . Nowhere else but i n th is Egypt co u ld h is presence, with

h is remarkable wife a nd h is fifty compa n ion s concea led i n

a cave,be a secret . A nd wha t o f the future ? Wil l he get

sa fely o u t o f Egypt ? He len was ‘so plea sed to know him

sa fe a t presen t tha t she absta in ed from press i ng tha t

Mo st co nven ien t for the o ra cl e,a nd,

strangely eno ugh , exa ct ly

how X uthus behaves when co nsu lt ing the Pyth ian ora cle i n

Ion . Ha ving lea rned tha t he is fa ther o f a son,

‘ for the joyo f tha t

,he d id n o t ask who was the mo ther5.

He wou ld have

po sed the prophetess if he had, no t ( i n tha t i nsta nce) because

she d id n o t know,but beca use she d id “. Bu t i n a genera l

way ,such an emo t iona l d isturbance i n the consu l ta nt, a nd

1 H ippo]. 3 38 . S ee Prof. Murra y ’s text .2v . 528 .

3v. 534 ijEGw—dra v wnu d

rwv hdfiy‘

réhos.

vv . 53 5-

5 [on 54 1 , repwels 7 0177 0 xe’

nc fipéjunu .

5 S ee E u ripides t/ze Ra tionalist, a nd my ed i t ion of the p lay .

100 EURI P IDE S’

AP OLOG Y

a rrest o f the enqu iry a t a su itable po i n t, was usefu l to o ra c les ,espec ia l ly so i n stori es a nd plays ; a nd we may a ssume tha t

the a ud ience o f Helen were no t unfam i l ia r w ith the pheno

meno n . The superna tura l powers o f Theono e rece ive o ne

o ther i l lustra t ion , perhaps st i l l mo re impress ive. When the

mutua l recogn it ion o f the spouses , with va rious lo ud and

long developments , has ta ken pla ce in fro nt o f the house , and

when Menelau s has re c e ived ~a sketch of the fam i ly a nd i ts

i nfa l l ibl e m i stress , —the doo r i s a t la st ope n ed l. Ah " shrieks

H elen , alli s lo st : Theo no e Menelaus , fly—butwha t a va i l Present or no t presen t

,s/ze knows tna ty ou lza ve

a rrived.

After alltha t has pa ssed,if we may so say ,

o n the

doo r- steps , th is proo f o f supersensuo us percept io n must c o n

v ince the mo st scept ica l ! B u t the truth is , tha t , o n the A tt i c

stage,the fo re - co urt o f a ho use does somet imes seem a lmo st

sa cred from human observa t ion . I n the Elec tra o f Sopho cles “,the raptures of the recogn i t io n between O restes a nd Electra ,

pa ss ing a s i t do es i n fu l l v iew o f C lyta emnestra ’s pa la ce, are

s i l enced,by so unds from the doo rwa y

certa in ly n o t too soo n

for probabi l i ty . Between th i s modera te a nd effect ive employ

men t o f the thea tri ca l da ta,a nd the gro ss abuse o f them i n

H elen,lay do ubt less , i n the d rama t i c reperto ry

,a many-shaded

sca l e o f no n -observa t io n , qu ite suffic ient to tes t a nd i l l ustra te

the superhuma n a cuteness o f Theo no e. Theo c lymenus , when

undeceived a t the la st , sum s up o n th is po i nt very j ustly 3 :‘ She saw Menelau s in the ho use

,a nd she never to l d me !

Never aga i n sha l l she impo se o n a man with her d ivina t io n .

With the entra nce o f Theono e (v. we str ike in to

a scene d ifferen t from alltha t precede a nd fo l low it i n th i s

respect , tha t the ma i n sen tim en t o f i t i s ser io us,but extra

drama t ic , pert inent n o t o n ly,or pri nc ipa l ly

,to the persons o f

the drama, but to the rea l h i sto ry and rea l feel ings o f the

m i st ress o f the ho use,who i s represented (or represen ts

herse lf) upo n the stage . The respect o f P roteu s’ daughter

for the memory o f P roteu s, the fidel ity o f P roteu s to h i s

vv . 1 3 22 fo l l .év 66pm ; opwa a Mevéxewv 06x eim! pm .

Torydp ofir or'

dhkov dv6pa. 506 60 6 11 1 1 u a vr e uu a a w .

102 EURIP IDES’

AP OLOG Y

he dares no t adm i t i t) tha t the o ra c le , wh ich sen t him to h is

doom,wa s e ither igno ra nt or trea chero usly ret icent , strives

w i th ho l low fa l la cy to convince h im self o f wha t has become

h i s la st hope , tha t i t wa s h i s return to Hel la s , a nd only tha t,

which was n o t express ly revea l ed to h im ,though the god (o f

cou rse) fo resaw a nd impl ic i t ly prom i sed i t ’ . B u t the v irgin o f

Delph i,a la s

,fo resaw no th ing bu t wha t a ny o ne m igh t have

fo reseen,tha t she wa s send ing he r co nsu lta nt to dea th . The

virgin o f Pharo s i s d ifferent ly m inded , a nd her l im i ta t ions a re

ma tte r o nly for sm i l es ; but her scope o f v is io n i s exa ctly

tha t o f Apo llo ,nei ther more n o r l ess .

When we come to the p lead ings o f Hel en and Menelaus ,a certa i n d ist inct ion is , I th ink , to be o bserved in the to ne o f

the rheto ri c. Unrea l i ndeed the who l e a ffa ir i s i n th is way ,

tha t the resu l t i s a fo rego ne co ncl us io n . Theo no e , by wha t

we ha ve heard a lrea dy,is comm i tted to the support o f Helen .

H er pretence o f an Oppo s i te i n ten t ion gives a cue for entrea ty,

but ca nno t begu i l e the specta to r i nto a nxiety. Nor has the

plea o f He len the no te o f genu ine pass ion . When she

d iverges i n to the top ic o f probity i n the a cqu is i t io n o f wea l th ,we feel i ndeed tha t she i s go i ng o u t of her drama t i c bri ef ;but we do not feel

,a s we sho u ld if the l i ke o ccurred in the

grea t speeches o f Medea , Phaedra , Creusa ,or I ph igen ia

,tha t

the d igress io n i s a ba tho s ; on the co ntrary i t ri ses , a nd the

sudden subl im i ty o f it 3 i s the mo st impress i ve th ing i n the

declama t ion . The rest i s j ust a n im i ta t io n o f t ragedy,but

far a s I see , i t i s a gra cefu l im i ta t io n . No th ing in i t i s

appa rently mea nt to be r id icu lo us , nor sho u ld we expect th is .The s itua t io n o f H elen

,a s suppo sed i n th is p lay

,has an

absu rd s ide,when we th ink o f her Menela us

,bu t has a l so

a serio us s ide . H er sense o f unm eri ted obloquy,a s such

i s n o t rid icu lo us,nor even

,as such

,her conj uga l a ffect io n ;

1 Iph . T. 10 1 5 dr a ura

Evvfieis els ?v véa rov élu rlf'

w Aa fiei’

S ee E u rip ides the Ra tion al/st, p . 1 80, no te . The pa ra l le l wi th H el. 8 77 ,

ofa fia vbarov oi'

xa b’

a i’

rrofi nevei‘

s, is in favour of the varian t Xa eel‘v in Iph . T.

1. c . ,though if Xaflei

v be read,the purport of tha t passage , and the re la t ion of the

o ther to i t , is st i l l substan t ia l ly the same .

2v . 892 . S ee Paley

s n o te .3vv . 906

—908 .

HELEN 103

a nd these topics,espec ia l ly the firs t a nd the better

, a re here

hand led wi th a plea s ing bu t n o t agita t ing tenderness

For t here is n on e b u t ha te t h He len n ow,

Through H e l la s c a l led forsaker o f my lordTo dwe l l in go ld-a bound i ng Phryg ian ha l ls.

B u t if to Gree c e I c ome, in Sparta sta nd,

Then he aring, se e ing, t ha t b y h eave n’s dev i c e

The y d ied, n or wa s I tra i tre ss to my friends,The y sha l l re store me un to v irt ue ’s ranks ;I sha l l be tro th the c h i ld n on e n ow wi l l wed ;And

,le av ing t h is my b i t ter home lessne ss,

S ha l l I enjoy the treasu res in my home1.

Eurip ides i s mo re mus ica l tha n th is,but such i s the su b

sta nce ; and ma n ifestly i t is n o t the genu ine language o f a

huma n crea ture ground between the m i l l s to nes o f a ma l ic io us

Fa te . I ndeed o ne must n o t afli rm witho ut reserve tha t i t i s

n o t rid icu lo us ; the end o f o u r quo ta t ion i s ba tho s , a nd c a n

ha rdly be mea nt fo r a nyth ing e l se . This much we may say :

Helen i s gra vi ty i tself, if we compa re her with Menela us .

H e ri ses to the o cca s io n l ike a man a nd a so ld ier,a nd

del ivers a n exqu is i te t irade . To make the effect qu ite sure,

Theo no e (or the Chorus?

) i s made to express curio s i ty a s to

how he wi l l come o ff ; a nd he h imself a t the concl us io n

appea l s for appla use, expla in ing the rheto rica l princ ip les o f

h is success

H ow’

s tha t ? With te ars, taking the woman ish l ine ,I had been p i te ous, bu t n ot v igorou s.

S la y,if t ho u wi l t ; I sha lln o t die d isgra c ed.

B u t ra ther let my speech persu ade ; for so

S halt than he ju st a nd 1 shallg et my wife

vv. 926 fo l l . (Way) .

vv . 944—946 are g iven to the Chorus by the trad i t ion , but Mene la us’ open ing

sounds l ike a rep l y to Theo noe herse lf. S ee no te in the Append i x .

3vv. 99 1 fo l l . (A . \V. V . )

r! ra frra ; 6axpéo ts e’

s rb Ofihv rper éu evos

éhewbs fiv av uahhou i) dpa a rfipws.

Kreiv'

,él59 e Gua xhe cfi s yap 06 Krevei

ihkbu y e u évroz rois e’

uois r emou héy ots,iv

59 Gwala Ka i 6dua p1'

£7 6: Xdflw.

For T! ra frra ; Wha t of that ? Wha t do y ou th in hi

of tha t ? c f. v . 8 73 1 1 rdud , was

e‘xec , Gea rla u a ra ; The rendering Why (say ) this ? is adm issible in i tse l f, but doesno t fi t the c on te xt .

104 EURIP IDES’ AP OL OG Y

And the Cho rus crown the effect by the appropria te rema rk

Thou , lady , art the u mpire of the plea s,And may t h y sen ten c e sa t isfy u s all.

With such prefa ce a nd commen t,the mo st genu ine eloquence

wou ld no t move us . As for tha t o f Menelaus,i t i s a n

a dm i rable spec imen o f the ora tory wh ich is no t tragic,but

ha s i n allages been pro ffered and taken for t ragic by im

perfect ta ste ; in short , i t i s a ran t . This i s the way i n wh ich

the o ra to r ra i ses,as he co nce ives

,the d ign i ty o f his appea l to

the dead,tha t i s

,to the prom i se o f the decea sed Pro teus

O Hades, on t h y c hamp ionsh ip I c a l l ,Who hast we l c omed man y dead

,for H e len ’

s sakeS la in b y my sword : thou hast them for thine hire.

O r g ive t hem ba c k w i t h l i fe’

s bre a t h fi l led aga in ,O r t hou c on stra in t h is ma id to show her wort h yO f a good sire , a nd render ba c k my wife 1

H ere i s a grand bo l d hand l ing o f big idea s ! Here is some

t h ing to humble Aeschylus’

C lyta emnestra a nd her cry to the

fiends o f H el l ,

Fu l l man y a su p, m in e ofl'

ering, h ave ye lapped ?

Dea th reta in ed with a fe e o f co rpses to plead the so ld ier’s

ca use ! Dryden , in h i s drama t ic style,wo u ld have po unced

upo n the co ncept io n with del ight . No El i z abetha n,no t the

grea test, co u ld have been trusted to rej ect i t . There are

l ike th ings i n Hugo . And do ubtless there were many l ike

th ings i n Carc inu s a nd i n the innumerable young traged ia ns

o f whom we hea r from Aristophane sg; po ss ibly some th ings

n o t un l i ke in wo rks o f the Three,to which t ime a nd chance

has been k ind . B u t i n Eurip ides,a s we know h im

,th i s

i s the style o f a ma n who i s go ing m ad “. The big idea ,

the big wo rds,have n o re la t io n to the fa cts o f the ca se

a nd the na tu ra l feel ings o f the persons co ncerned ; a nd th is

m ight pa ss fo r a defin it ion of ra n t. Even better, tha t i s to

say ,mo re del ica tely a nd exqu is i tely b ad, is the exo rd ium ,

1vv. 969 fo l l . (Way).

2 E am. 106.

‘1 H era cles 565—573 .

rad; o xa r a a rdé’

wa r 8s

vexpcl) 3 11"

éffis 7 9331

rri Sea n ‘s ra

deriva rov dNyoq a o i, $ 67 09 Be 095 rra rpi

where perhaps e'

Eijq, side hy side,in a row

,i s the wo rd tha t

mo ves us mo s t. B u t a s for‘ Theono e ,

’ wha t o n e ch iefly

d ivines is, tha t the sett ing o f the Iph igen ia in Ta u rica ,with

i ts ‘ blood - s ta i ned mo uld ings ’ and‘ fri ez e o f had

made he r,a s i t m ight

,a l i tt l e s ick . To the subl im i t ies o f

Menela us,who i s n ot i n the lea st danger

,she m ight l isten

qu ite comfortably

oi) «yap vane? rrjvS

o z’

ire a i/ryfy ovoq d e’

dXXo e 0138659 °

(DOC e’

) a ti)’

(irrdfop cu ,

Sr I 9

60 my 7rpos‘

o u covs‘ Su vau ed ,

( 1a rrpos vexpovs.

ri ra fira ,

I wi l l c arry her awa y,

If to my hom e I c a nno t,t hen to the dead !

H ow’s

The brief a nd obvio us decis io n pro nounced by the lady

i s no t iceable o n ly for the sk i lfu l i n troduct io n o f the extra

d rama t i c to u c hesfi, espec ia l ly the gra ve and tender l i nes

before quo ted,which

,by reproving gent ly the sou l less

ph i lo sophy o f Menela us , a nd rem i nd ing us tha t no t allo f

the dead,

nor h is true self, i s i n h is grave , gua rd the

scene from the po ss ibi l i ty o f appea r ing to trea t l ightly the

re la t io n between Pro tea s and Eid0 °

ii 8’

(ilu tpi

“mi/1 8 90 rgfifi’

u e t8t’

e ts rra rpi,

finiv 38’

a ijrc’

mu fidos‘ . (ESL/c a irn} vw c’

ei In ) (iWOSaia w ° xa i yap {iv xeivoqBh érrwv

Sw/c ev ( in 001. é'

xew, ra v’

ry Se a e'

ze a l. rydp r id - c c r ein / 8

a r i r o is r e vep r ép o c s

tea lr o iqd fi e v rrii a 'w dvfipw’

rro cq' 6 11 009

r d’

m xa rfia vévrmv {if n év o u’

, y v aiu nv 8’

xe cd9d v a r o v

,e is a

ddv a r o v a iee'

pn re a aiv .

This scene,which co nc l udes, a fter the departure o fTheo no e ,

with the a rra ngemen t o f the esca pe,i s sepa ra ted from the

1 Iph . T. 69—75 .

2 vv. 1008 , 1 01 3—101 6.

HELEN 107

next by the ‘ n ight inga l e ’

ode ‘,which may be so ent it l ed

from the invo ca t io n o f the mus i ca l b i rd with which i t begins .

The three odes o f the H elen present the same para l le l to th e

Iphigen ia in Ta u rica ,wh ich go verns allthe la tter a nd l arger

part o f the play. Fo r the ‘ n ight inga l e’

ode we have there

the ‘ ha l cyo n’

ode 2, o f which the open ing uses s im i la rly the

mela ncho ly c ry o f the se a -bi rd . A no ther pa i r take thei r

subj ects from two voyages,o ne

3 fo l lowing th e sh ip o f Orestes

from Greece to Ta u ric a ,the o ther tha t o f Menelaus from

Egypt to Greece ‘ . The th ird a nd mo st rema rka ble pa ir are

the Pyth ia n ode i n the earl ier play 5 , a nd the Thesmophoria n

ode “ i n the la ter. I n the a rra ngement o f the three re

spect ive ly there i s th is d ifference,tha t the voyage- ode o f

the Iphigen ia refers to the pa st,a nd therefore comes first

tha t o f the H elen refers to the future a nd comes la s t . O ther

wise the rela t io n o f the pa ra l l e l o des to the plo t wi l l be fo und

i n allrespects s im i la r. S o a l so the o ther lyri ca l port ions o f

the p lays pa ir o ff,the lamenta t ions o f H elen (a nd Chorus)

wi th tho se o f Iph igen ia (and and the recogn i t ion

o f Menela us wi th the recogn it io n o f Orestes”. Th is para l le lism grows na tura l ly o u t o f the rela t io n be tween the wo rks

but has some in terest for i ts bea ring o n a compa r ison between

the Pyth ia n ode and the Thesmopho rian . There are strik ing

resembla nces . Bo th a re purely narra t ive po ems , lyri c l egends

complete i n them se lves a nd no t necessa ri ly dependent upo n

the scenes amo ng which they a re pla ced . Even in po i n t o f

a ctua l d isconnexio n from the drama,the Pyth ian ode (o f

which I have given a fu l l study e lsewhere ") has some a na logy,tho ugh but l i tt l e , to the Thesmopho r ian . Th is may sugges t

the quest io n,whether there wa s in the c ircumstances of the

Iphigen ia a nyth ing to a cco unt for a digress io n into the l egend

of Delph i . I t may be so ; but a t present I find n o suffic ien t

rea so n for the suppo s i t io n . The Pyth ia n ode , tho ugh it c a n

be deta ched from its play ,is by n o mean s i rrel eva nt to i t .

1v . 1 107 .

3 Iph . T. 392 .

1 flel. 1 45 1 .

6 H el. 1 30 1 .

7 Hel. 1 64, Iph . T. 1 23 .

8 H el. 625, Iph. T. 8 2 7 .

9 Eu ripides the Rationalist, p . 2 1 7.

108 EUR IP IDES ’ AP OLOG Y

Demeter and Ko re have no mo re to do with the H elen,i n i ts

d rama t i c a spect,than wi th juliu s Ca esa r. B u t Apo l lo and

Delph i a re the theme o f the Iph igen ia ; and though the

Pyth ia n ode i s no t exa ct ly the so rt o f piece which in i ts pla ce

we sho u ld expect , yet , witho ut extra -drama t ic hel p , we may

very wel l u nderstand why i t i s wha t i t i s. Mo reover (and

th i s i s impo rtant) the Pyth ia n ode i s n o t rela ted,a t l ea st

pla i n ly , to a ny pa rt icu la r r i te, fest iva l , or sea son i n the ca lenda r.

I t c elebra tes ( i n a fa sh io n) the pra i se o f A po l lo as po ssessor

o f the grea t o ra cle,but co nta i n s no appa ren t reference to a ny

pa rt icu la r ceremony. The Thesmophorian ode ce lebra tes no t

merely the goddesses but the i r wo rsh ip, a nd concludes with a

descript io n o f ri tes . Further (and th is i s a lmo st dec is ive)Iphigen ia i s a wo rk which co u ld n o t

,unless by way o f

del ibera te in su l t, have been a ssoc ia ted spec ia l ly with a Pyth ia n

ceremony ; the sto ry, as shaped and co lo ured by Euri p ides,

i s d i sgra cefu l a nd deroga to ry to the o ra c le,more so tha n

enough (o ne wo u ld th in k) for prudence , witho ut a ny such

exa spera t ion as a Pyth ian fest iva l wo u ld supply. Even the

Pythia n ode i tse lf, with alli ts gra ce,i s i n substance sa t iri ca l

a nd wo u ld have sca nda l i z ed such a perso n a s A eschyl us .

B u t the H elen,a s a story

,i s i n n o way a nt i - thesmopho rian ;

i t i s s imply n on—thesm opho ria n ; a nd the wo rk i s too l ight

a nd humo ro us to have,a s a who l e, a ny tru ly rel igious bea r ing

wha tever. The Thesmophoria n ode i s exa ctly su itable to

such a n o cca s ion . There i s no rea l re l igio n i n i t , no gravi ty

or pa ss ion ; i t i s a po et’

s compl imen t to the poet ry and

popu la r fea tures o f the l egend a nd the celebra t ion,tha t and

no th ing mo re. Bu t as such a compl iment i t i s perfect a nd

witho u t drawba ck,more bea utifu l even tha n the Pyth ia n ode ,

a nd free from the suspic ion o f a sneer. All these c on

s idera t io ns wo u ld yield a t once to po s i t ive evidence , i nterna l

o r externa l , tha t the o cca s ion o f the Iph igen ia wa s Pyth ian .

H i therto I have fo und n o evidence ; and I do no t co ns ider

tha t the rela t io n o f the Pythia n ode to the p lay o ffers even a

p rima fa c ie gro und for suspect ing tha t such was the ca se.

The resembla nce o f the two poem s i s to be viewed

ra ther i n th i s way . The chori c ode - or stasimon has a lways

1 10 EURIP IDE S’

AP OLOG Y

‘ n ight inga l e ’

ode there i s j u s t the externa l resemblance o f

the open ings , but n o more . The p iercing pa tho s o f home

s ickness in the ha l cyon ode be longs na tu ra l ly to the Chorus

o f the Iph igen ia ,Greek ca pt ives who rea l ly feel the i r ex i l e

and who se fa te is n o t the l ea st tragic part o f tha t terrib l e

d rama . The Chorus o f H elen,tho ugh fo rma l ly s im i la r i n

po s i t ion , a re o f c o u rse . n o t a l lowed to feel a nyth ing i n pa r

t ic u lar ; a nd the ‘ n ight inga l e’

ode,a s l ight t issue o f myths

a nd mora l i t i es , may be rega rded a s l i tt l e more than a veh ic le

for the mus ic . On e po i n t in i t may be no t iced a s a proo f

o f fin ish in workmansh ip. The s ingers rela te,briefly but with

the a ssumptio n o f fu l l knowledge, the wreck ing of the Greek

fleet o n the'

way from Troy, by a fa l se bea co n ma l ignant ly

l ighted o n the ro cks o f the Capheride s‘. Now no t o n ly i s i t

impo ss ible, a cco rd ing to the presuppo s i t io n s of the play, tha t

they shou ld know a ny i n c iden t o f the Greeks’

return,but we

have a ctua l ly been rem i nded tha t they do n ot know th is

pa rt icu la r i nc ident ; fo r i t i s ment io ned , but n o t re la ted,by

Me n ela u sg, when he decl i nes genera l ly , and doubtless with

d i scret ion , to rela te to h i s wife h is a dventures duri ng the

p eriod when h er pl ace wa s suppl ied .

‘You r a nswer

’ says

H elen hersel f with o pportune reco l lect io n,

‘ i s better tha n my

quest ion .

S o i t i s bu t the effect i s tha t ne i ther she n or her

c ompa n ions get i nforma t ion abo ut ‘ the beaco n s o f Eubo ea .

I n some wri ters th is co n trad ict io n m ight pa ss for a n overs ight,

tho ugh the a cc ident i n tha t ca se wo u ld be odd. B u t Euri

p ides wa s,as the n a ture o f h is work requ i red , punct i l io us

about such th ings 3 . If he had wa nted h is ode to agree with

the play, i t wou ld n ot ha ve consp icuo us ly d isagreed . As a

fa ct , he wishes to deta ch i t , a nd to show tha t the Chorus here

a re mere s ingers , performers o f an i n terl ude, who se drama t i c

persona l i ty , so fa r a s they ha ve a ny , i s i rreleva nt. The de

t a c hme n t i s prepa ra tory to the i r complete a nd necessary

independence i n the nex t ode, the Thesmophorian . I t i s

however probab le tha t the obvio us device o f a n i ndependen t

s tasimon had been used befo re, when the pri va te rec i ta t io n

1 Hel. 1 1 26—1 1 3 1 .

2 H e]. 767 .

3 S ee espe c ia l l y the Hera cles, d isc ussed hereafter.

HELEN 1 1 1

of plays was co nnected wi th some spec ia l o cca s ion or c ircum

stances ; and we sha l l present ly no t i ce a tra ce o f th i s,which

survi ves i n the publ ic vers io n o f the M edea .

With the depa rture o f Theo no e,and the commencement

o f the p lo t for escape , the story lo ses all tra ce o f gravi ty,a nd proceeds with a ccum u la t ing extra vaga nce through the‘ decept io n ’

o f Theo c lymenu s to the foreseen end . The dis

c u ssion o f pla n s between Menela us a nd Helen 1 i s c lo sely

s im i la r to tha t between Orestes a nd I ph igen ia 2,with th i s

d i fference,tha t the o n e s i tua t io n i s despera te , the o ther

dangerous o n ly i n pretence. The very form betrays the

o ppo s i t ion,the sha rp a l t erna t io n o f verse and verse being

exchanged for l e i su rely co uplets . The wi ld a nd savage

propo sa l s o f Orestes,o ffspri ng o f h i s cra z y m i nd a nd tortured

nerves,make on e sh iver, but have , a s we saw3

,qu ite a no ther

effect when propo unded with ca lm stupid ity by Menela us .

We have no t i ced too before “, tho ugh i t deserves to be no t iced

aga in , the sheer fa rce o f h i s contemptuous commen t o n the

origi na l i ty o f H elen ’s device,tha t he shou ld pretend to be the

repo rter o f h is own dea th .

‘ Bu t wi l l tha t bri ng u s o ff ? ’ says

he . The story,as such , i s somewha t s ta le 5.

’ I t was i ndeed,

having been cla ss i ca l i n tragedy a t l ea st s ince the Choephori,nea r fi fty years, a nd we know n o t how lo ng befo re, a nd

hav ing been repea ted do ubt less do z ens o f t im es with less

excuse a nd sk i l l tha n i n the Elec tra o f Sopho cles . I n the

Tauri c dram a th is cliche’ i s ca refu l ly a vo i ded . I ph igen ia has,o r suppo ses herself to have

,rea sons for bel ieving O restes

dead , unt i l she l earns from h imse lf that he i s a l ive ; a nd i t i s

th i s true in tel l igence which,with some fa lse add i t io n

commun ica tes i n the decept io n to Ki ng Thoa s “. B u t i n

Helen ,wha t we wan t a nd get i s the mo st threadba re impo sture

wh ich the repertory suppl ied,resusc ita ted i n ci rcumstances

wh ich make i t po s i t ively rid icu lous . AllHelen ’s i nven t io ns ,with their a ssumpt ion o f l im i t l ess credu l i ty in the dece ived ,have the same tra nsparen t cando ur

,a nd are a ccepted by

2 Iph . T. 1 0 1 7 fo l l .4

6 Iph . T. 1 1 83 fo l l .

1 1 2 EURIP IDES’

AP OLOG Y

Menela us with the same sneer i ng a cqu iescence ‘ . She has

her revenge,however, when Menela us ca rr ies h is a ffecta t io n

o f du lness so far a s to ask,who i s to be the pretended repo rter

o f his dea th . You she repl ies 2, wi th pardo nable sha rpness ,for th is po i n t , tho ugh no t expl ic i tly ment io ned a t the o utset ,i s p la i n ly impl ied , a nd Menela us ha s shown a l ready tha t he

th inks i t o n ly too obvious “. You —And yo u must say ,tha t

you were the o n ly o ne o f Menela us ’ sh ipma tes to esca pe,

a nd tha t y o u saw h im d ie.’

Though it i s nevertheless

a ssumed 4 tha t the plo t i s to in c l ude somehow the who l e o f

h i s crew,a nd i ndeed i t mus t do so i n o rder to succeed . Bu t

thro ugh th i s and th ro ugh everyth ing the go ds o f the topsy

turvy pa ntheo n are j ustly rel ied upo n to pu l l the ma ch ine.B u t the best po in t i n the d ia logue, the best wh ich with

ex ist ing l ights i s apprec ia ble, i s the co nfidence o f Menela us i n

the wind. Helen i s na tu ra l ly a nx ious abo u t th is : ‘If o n ly

we have a speed ing wind to o u r sa i l,and the sh ip may run

‘ I t will," says he ,

‘ for the Powers wi l l end my t ro ubl es“;

a nd doubt less he spea ks w ith knowledge . The geography

o f Greece a nd the framewo rk o f Greek legend were such,tha t

‘ the speed ing wind ,’ wh ich a nno unces tha t the H ec u ba has

rea ched i ts c lo se “, must o ften have favo ured a t the destinedho ur the personages o f tragedy, who , however the i r adventures

m ight be va ried by the compo ser o f the moment , had

genera l ly a n i n exora bl e appo i n tmen t wi th Fa te for the

u l t ima te a ccompl i shmen t o f the i r trad i t io na l escapes , home

com ings , and so forth . We hard ly da re conj ecture how o ften

th i s d rama t ic ga l e must have blown to o rder, befo re , i n the

Ta ur ic enterpri se o f O restes—it fa i l ed . There, a t the very

momen t when a cco rd ing to rel igio us expecta t ion the Powers

e.g . v. 1 067 rofir'

a t? xa ropOo’

v. 1077 6 00’

real y e ¢daxe 61a ¢ 1ryeiv ,a.dpar

Arpéws r hemy $01! 7 01 161, Ka i Ga vévo'

v . 105 1 (Aéywv), v . 1056.

4v . 1069.

v . 1 074 EA. u bum y oz

Ru h/ nt 1rvoa 2 y évowro xalvet’

os 5p6u os.

ME. ( a ra t '

ardu o us yap da tum/es r a éa ova i y ou .

6 H ec . 1 289 ; se e a lso Soph . P hil. 1 465 fo l l .

1 14 EURIP IDES’

AP OLOG Y

‘H elen .

”he excla ims , with sudden reco l l ect io n ‘ , ‘H e sha l l

i s,if he c an bu t be ca ught .

He looks i nto the

sanctua ry, which is appa rent ly now c lo sed,but proves to be

empty ! S o the grooms are ca l led o u t aga i n for pursu i t , a nd

there are a few m i n utes o f co nfus io n”, term ina ted by Helenherself

,wa l k ing qu iet ly o u t o f the house

,bu t elabo ra tely

go t up, a cco rd ing to her agreement with Menela us 3,as a

mou rner for Menela us decea sed . The who l e bus in ess i s

u ndign ified a nd com i ca l .

A propos of the compa ri son between the entrance o f

Theo clymenus a nd tha t o f H i ppo lytu s , we sho u ld no te tha t i t

i s a ctua l ly i nd ica ted by a s imple bu t s ign ifica nt fea ture i n the

scene. As i n the Hippoly tu s, so here, the two goddesses , upon

who se conten t io n the plo t turn s or i s suppo sed to turn,

are represented by images . There the Oppo s i t io n is between

Aphrod ite a nd A rtem i s , here between A phrod i te a nd Hera ,the fi rst oppo s i ng and the la tter promo t i ng the return o f

Helen to Hel la s . Tha t Aphrod ite and Hera are a ctua l ly

represented,appea rs from the d i rect ion o f Theono e tha t the

escape sha l l commence with prayers add ressed to them ,a nd

the co n tra sted prayers wh ich H elen addresses a cco rd ingly ;i n the wo rd s wh ich precede her prayers she speaks o f the

two oppo sed incl ina t ion s as v is ibl e “. Theono e i s made to

d ispa rage Aphrod ite , i n compari so n with Hera ,i n wo rd s 5 of

wh ich the respectfu l i ro ny strongly reca l l s tha t o f H ippo lytus

1v . 1 1 73 Ka i VUV 1ré1rva /.ta t ¢ a vepbv r im).

i s The d¢ ix0a t Ka i hehnfiéva t

firm Khorra'

E7\évnv. Gaveira t tin y e 67) hncpblijminor.

dhh’

tbs é'ouce, a dvra 5ta 1re 7rpa

yu t-‘va.

e t‘

lpmca . rifiuflov“

yap Keuds M7 000"

2vv. 1 1 80—1 1 83 .

3v . 1 087 .

4vv . 8 78 fo l l . , 1024 fol l . , 1 090

—1 1 06. The last passage , I th ink , makes the

po in t c lear. No te rc’

bu in v. 1 024, and fikérrw in v . 1090.

5 Hel. 1006 i) Kiln-

pt ; (if 1101

H ews uév e i’

n, a vpfléflnxe 6’

019611 71400.

Compare the who le sc en e in H ippoly tu s vv . 58—1 20, espec ia l ly v . 1 1 3 rip» «the be

Kfirpw e‘yt’u xalpew hé'yw, n o t ing tha t fl ew: efn is, for a god , equiva len t toM7 01 xalpe tv.

HELEN 1 1 5

i n compa r ing her with Artem i s under s im i la r c i rcumstances .The absence o f Artem i s therefo re cou ld n ot fa i l to strike

specta tors fam i l ia r wi th the H ippolytu s, a nd lends po i n t tothe return o f the unsuccessful sportsman . The two vi s ib le

go ddesses,Aphro d ite a nd Hera , are o f course the cho sen

pa trons no t o f Theono e but o f Theo c lymenus,the nom i na l

ma ster o f the house, who as a lover hopes for thei r support i n

h is woo ing o f Helen .

Allth i s leads up excel lently to the deception,with i ts

tra i l ing fac i l i t ies and transpa ren t conundrum s . No th ing in

the fri end ly sa t i re,d irected in th is p lay upon the weaknesses

o f A then ia n tragedy,is better deserved . AllAthen ia n c om

po s i t ions a re penetra ted by the Greek and spec ia l ly A then ia n

ta ste for dexterous verba l ambigu i ty. I n tragedy the hab i t

o f irony,o f ma king po i n ts impercept ib le (ex hypothesi) to the

a ud i to rs o n the stage bu t i n te l l igibl e to the a ud ience,was

fort ified by the a lmo st superhuman fa cu l ty o f Aeschyl us,n o t

o n ly for managing ambiguo us la nguage,but for ma in ta in ing

tha t impress ion o f so l emn i ty ,which preven ts the specta to r

from consu lt ing h i s experi ence,a nd ra i s ing the question ,

whether the d ia logue wo u ld a ctua l ly wo rk as suppo sed .

Bo th his grea t successors , a nd do ubtless o thers,pro fi ted by

the lesso n in thei r own ways ‘ . B u t such iro ny i s a peri lo us

tri ck ; a nd allthe Three,i n my opin io n and, I suppo se , tha t o f

mos t readers,somet imes run i t fine. For i n stance , when

Amphitryo n is d irect i ng the tyrant Lycus in to the ho use

where Hera cles , whom Lycus bel i eves to be dead , i s wa i t ing

to s lay him ,the dece iver i s made twice to i n s ist i ron ica l ly o n

the certa i nty tha t H erac l es ca nno t ha ve come to l ife aga in ‘.

The a ud ience are suppo sed to enjoy thei r superiori ty o f know

ledge,a nd perhaps they m ight ; but i s i t ‘certa i n tha t none o f

them wo u ld a sk h imself, why a dece iver shou ld so und th i s

warn ing,a nd wha t wo u ld be i ts n a tura l effect upon the

deceived ? Wha t the th ing cam e to i n the hands o f bunglers

we see i n the dec ept io n o f Theo c lymenus . The si tua t io n

1 S ee eg . the ambigu ity o f tbuxijs ( ‘ their l ife ,’ ‘my l ife

) in M ed. 968 bu t thesubj e c t is too fami l iar for i l lustra t ion .

2 H . F . 7 1 7—7 1 9.

1 1 6 EURIP IDES’

A P OLOG Y

i s such tha t a ny ambigu i ty wha tever i n the behaviou r o f

Helen must betray the secre t o f her unna tura l a nd fanta st ic

propo sa l s. To preserve a ppea ra nces a bso l u tely wo u ld be her

only chance, if cha nce there were . And yet a t every turn she

must be lett ing u s see tha t Theo c lymenus do es n ot see tha t

she says tha t Menela us ‘ ha s n o t peri shed ,’ ‘

has n o t been

buried,

’ ‘

is here present ,’ ‘ i s to go where she wou l d have him ,

ha s the garb o f her husba nd ,’

was the o n ly A cha ea n among

the Greeks o f her husba nd’s ship " ! And when she ha s

i nv i ted Theo clymenus to ‘ ma ke her h i s wife now a nd here ,’

a nd when he , by an embra ce, has i n a ma nner done so , we

c a n wo rk o ffa fresh se t o f iro n ies2 abo ut ‘ burying her husba nd ,’

witho ut the lea st apprehen sio n o f his do ubt ing , a ny mo re tha n

we do,whether we m ea n the old hu sba nd o r the new ! The

h igh -wa ter ma rk o f th is fo o lery i s her mysterious dec lara t io n

abo ut the ‘ dea d Menela us

I ( I 3 I v 3(pik e ? t

yap ea rw , a s war ea rw,e u a a m

To the a ud ience th is mea ns wha t i t says , tha t she lo ves h im,

who ever he i s,for being here . Bu t wha t sho u ld i t mea n

to Theo clymenus ? On e c a n stra i n o u t some o ther sense o r

senses wh ich a reso l ute commenta to r c a n put on i t. She gives

i t as a reply to the suggest io n,tha t the lo ss o f funera l r i tes to

he r husba nd is no grea t ma tter fo r lamen ta t io n ; a nd i t i s

a ppa rent ly to be a ccepted by Theo c lymenus in the sense tha t

the dea d be he wha t he may , i s dea r to her so long a s he is in

this world.

’ Wel l , s ince the Greeks d id u se here a nd there for

this world a nd the other respect ive ly,the in terpreta t io n i s

po ss ible . B u t wha t c a n be more absu rd,a s a device fo r

a vo i d ing susp ic ion,than such a ri dd le ? Theo clym enus gives

i t u p,a sk ing i n bewi ldermen t whether ‘

alli s s tra ight abo ut

th i s mou rn ing’

; a nd though , being a foo l,he i s promptly

1 v. 1 207"

Ehhnv,’

Axa u’

bv eIs fé/ t ovs r éa et . ‘A c haeans ’ here , if distingu ished from

‘H e l len es ’ as the emphasis suggests, denotes the rul ing rac e , the

kingly fam i l ies, and the verse may sign ify , with the usua l c umbrous simpl ic i ty ,tha t the man presen t is Mene laus himse lf. Bu t i t n eed n o t.

2vv . 1 23 1

—1 23 2 , 1 23 7, 1 239, 1 2 76—1 278 , 1 285

—1 289, 1 399—1 409.

3v. 1 2 25.

1 1 8 EURIP IDES’

AP OLOG Y

sensa t iona l repo rt. Here the text has susta i ned some inj ury,

the na tu re o f wh ich i s worth co ns idera t ion . The scene open s

abruptly wi th a co uplet ,

iii/ as, rc’

L xdxta r’

dis Ka iv’

dxouc’

ry arrju a r’

f e’

u oi) rdxa‘,

o f wh ich the fi rst verse i s a fa l se a nd very la te insert ion The

suppo s i t ion 3 tha t i t fi l l s the pla ce o f a genu ine pa ssage om i t ted

by a cc iden t does n o t seem probabl e . How sho u ld such a n

a cc iden t h i t exa ctly the beginn ing o f a scene,l eaving in ta ct

to the la s t verse the ode wh ich precedes ? Wha t is wa nti ng

is n o t verses but stage -d irect ion s . The a rriva l o f the sa i lo r,

the emo t ion o f the Chorus , the en tra nce a nd ama z emen t o f

the ki ng,are all exh ib ited o n ly by a ct io n or i n art icu la te

exclama t ions,from wh ich fa ct we sho u ld infer tha t there

i s someth ing very sta rt l ing about the man’

s a ppea rance . And

th is i s l ikely. A cco rd ing to h is story,he has barely escaped

fi rst from the swo rd a nd then from the sea,a nd must be

i n a mo st wo efu l p l ight . Now we have a l rea dy rema rked

tha t his story, so much o f i t as is ho rr ibl e,wo u ld be in c on

gru o u s a nd o ffens ive,un les s the a ud ience were suffic ien tly

a ssu red tha t i t i s n o t ser iously meant ‘ . No th ing co u ld serve

th i s purpo se better tha n a to uch o f ca rica ture i n the make- u p ,

a th ing the mo re ea sy beca use the Greek stage was n o t so

fam i l ia r a s tha t o fmodern tragedy and me lodrama with obj ects

v i s ib ly h ideo us . O ne such effect we have had a lready ; for the

gha st ly to i l ette o f H elen the mo urner,exh ib i ted in the m i dst

o f the k ing’

s hunt,co u ld n o t fa i l to be gro tesque”. A no ther,

I th in k,we have here. The sa i lo r must be the grimmest

o f figures,ba ttered a nd bru i sed a nd l iv id . To ma ke such

a figure pa thet ic wo u ld perhaps be n o t impo ss ibl e , but ea s ier,a nd here mo re proper

,to make i t a l i tt l e rid i cu lo us . Let i t

come o n abruptly ; l et the women fi rs t a nd then the k ing

sa lu te i t i n appropria te to nes ; l et i t address the pri n ce i n the

true style o f a t ragic appa r i t ion,a fter a so lemn pa use but

1v . 1 5 1 2 .

2 The fa lse quan t i ty be trays a wri ter ac c ustomed to sc an by ac c en t .6 Dindorf. p . 84.

5vv . 1 08 7 , 1 1 84

—1 1 90.

HELEN 1 19

witho ut a ny i nvo ca t ion , How stra nge a ta l e o f wo e tho u a rt

to hea r !’—a nd we sha l l have the best po ss ibl e i ntroduct io n

to the humo u rs a nd horro rs o f the na rra t ive . A s usua l,

compariso n is cha l l enged,a nd a sta nda rd for est ima t ing the

effect i s furn ished,by the Iph igen ia ,

where the correspo nding

personage,the na rra to r o f the pa ra l l e l sto ry

,i s marked with

ugly a nd fo rm i dable wo unds, to wh ich he ca l l s a ttent ion ‘

a c i rcumsta nce wh ich , however proper to tha t p lay, must ha ve

provoked cri t ic ism i n A then ian a ud iences . Here a l so the

H elen appea rs to have pursued its purpo se, to convert i n to

extra vaga nce,by exaggera t io n

,wha tever i n the techn ique of

drama curren t opin ion had no ted for dangero us . O f the

na rra t ive we have a l ready sa id enough 2. Every part o f i t i s

humorous a nd absu rd,except the ma ssa cre

,which by its

na ture does no t adm i t such trea tmen t . Th is,be ing n everthe

l ess i nd ispensable , i s summari ly reduced to the proper l evel

of unrea l i ty by the prel im i nary a l l us ion to‘A x ia .

As for the D ivin e Twins , who appea r a t the c lo se, they

have th is d isadvantage , as compa red wi th_

the huma n per

son ages, tha t the gods o f the Eurip idean fina l e a re,as a ru le

beyo nd the rea ch o f parody. To be mo re fut i l e and unrea l

tha n the A thena o f the Iphig en ia wo u ld be impo ss ibl e . B u t

there is humo ur in the Twins nevertheless . Very ca nd id a nd

sa t isfa ctory is the ir co nfess ion , tha t the ir promo t ion by Zeus

to the rank o f gods has n o t enabled them to i n terfere with

fa te, o rwith the superio r dei t ies who‘ were plea sed tha t the

th ing shou ld be a s i t was3 . ’ Such wa s the s imple ph i lo sophy

o f the Greek pan theon . The pecu l ia r o cca s io n o f Helen gives

to the epi logi z i ng dei t ies (who do ubtless d ispensed for the

no nce with a ma ch ine) the unusua l opportun i ty o f referri ng

to the externa l c ircum sta nces o f the representa t io n , as when

they expla i n the new name o f the i s la nd Ma cris . The isla nd

o f the blest ’—s ingu la r n o t plura l t—wh ich is prom ised a s

a habita t io n to the ‘ t ra vel led’ Menela us

,i s Ma cri s alia s

Helene i tself,to which Menela us ,

’ being o ne of the dependants

o f ‘ Theo noe,

a nd having come, a s Ari stopha nes says , o u t o f

1 Iph. T. 1 366.2pp. 54, 5 7, 84 , 1 1 3 .

3vv. 1 658

—1 66 1 .

4v . 1 677 ua xdpwv m

ja or.

1 20 EURIP IDES’

AP OL06 Y

the herb - shop,had a ppa rent ly then ret i red . He had probably

travel led , espec ia l ly to Egypt , i n h i s commerc ia l a s wel l as

i n his hero i c ca pa c i ty. S o a l so the l iba t ions and enter

ta inmen t, which Helen , having fin ished her (drama t ic) l ife,i s to share with her d ivine bro thers , a re no th ing else bu t the

fest ivi ty wh ich fo l lowed the perfo rmance a nd i ncl uded the

mo re d ign ified performers ‘ . The less gifted members o f the

compa ny and ho useho l d wo u ld wa i t upon the fea sters a s usua l :

roils 6 157 6 12629f

tp 015 a rm/0130 1. deli/Loves,rain ) 8

dva p iemjrwv p c'

ikk év elow oi wévoc .

Grea t on es the gods m isl ike n o t ; to i ls be long,As more appropria te , to the unre c kon ed t hrong .

B u t the best la ugh is reserved for the end,when the

Cho rus, l eft a lo ne upo n the scene, del iver, with a new and

witty appl ica t ion,the Euri p idea n play- end , or tag , wokk al

u opgba i ro'

iv Sa tu oviwv a nd so forth .

‘ Ma ny a sha pe has

fa te,a nd many a surpri se the gods decree ; expecta t io n

i s n o t a ccompl i shed , a nd for the unexpected Heaven finds

a way . And so has th is a ct ion ended !’ The fu l l h i sto ry o f

th i s fo rmu la,wh ich o ccurs severa l t imes 2 i n o u r co l lect ion

ca nno t tra ce ; bu t i t surely refers , with a certa i n shameless

sarca sm,to the hudd led exped ients wh ich i n allages have

been perm i tted or pra ct i sed i n the thea tr ica l w ind - u p , a nd

spec ia l ly to the pecu l ia r trea tment o f a m ira cu lo us intervent ion,

wh ich wa s requ i red by the po s it ion a nd purpo ses o fEurip ides “.

I n the M edea for i n sta nce,the tag ant ic ipa tes the rema rk o f

A ri sto t l e , tha t no th ing i n the plo t o f tha t p lay j ust ifies or

prepa res us for the fina l rescue o f the heroin e by a n a eria l

cha rio t ; i t i s a‘ d ivine surpr ise .

B u t i n H elen,by the

pecu l ia r cha ra cter o f the play,the po et i s enabled to produce

a new k ind o f surpri se,a nd o n e part icu larly adverse to certa i n

expe c tationswhic h have been ra ised in the m inds o f theCho ru s .

The play compa res a t allpo in ts,a s we ha ve seen , with the

Iph igen ia in Ta u rica,which a lso has i ts su rpri se , but o n e

d ifferen t from tha t o f the M edea . I t co ns ists “, as i n the

1 Z eu s (v . 1 659 and v . 1 669) is Eurip ides.

2 Alcestis, M edea , A ndroma che , H ele n, B a c chae , i th sl ight varia t ions.

13 S e e E u ripides the Ra tion alist, p . 7 7.4 ih. p . 1 68 .

1 22 EURIP IDES ’

AP OLOG Y

imagine therefo re,when ‘ the grea t o nes ’ ha ve pa ssed into

the ho use,with wha t melancho ly gestures

,a nd am id wha t

merriment , the i r i nferiors prepa re to fo l low,i n ton ing i n

a m i no r key (or wha tever was the Greek equ iva l ent) the

fam i l ia r words,

‘ Ma ny a surpri se the gods decree ; expecta

t ion i s no t a ccompl i shed,a nd for the unexpected H ea ven

finds a way . A nd so has th i s a ct io n ended !’

O n the who le,a nd much as we inevi tably m i ss , we c an

perce ive,i n mo st o f the p lay , a confo rm i ty to the humorou s

purpo se o f the Eurip idea n apo logy . The port io ns lea st ap

paren tly su itable are the mus ica l , espec ia l ly the commas, tha t

i s to say the lyri ca l pa rt o f the mutua l lamenta t ions between

H el en and the ha ndma idens upo n thei r firs t en trance ‘. A t

l ea st I do n o t here find i n the words genera l ly a nyth ing

inco ns isten t with gravi ty. B u t the spiri t o f the p iece by no

mea ns requ ires tha t the so rrows o f the hero i ne sho u ld be

a l together rid icu lous . Po ss ib ly there wa s a to uch o f paro dy i n

the mus i c . A nd even the words presen t a t alleven ts one

pa ssage wh ich i s n o t o ffered for adm i ra t ion . H ere i s a not

unfa i r t ransla t io n o f i t . Hel en s i ngs

Ah , m a iden of Arc ady, happy, Ka l l isto , art th ou ,O fo u rfoo t-pa c ing th ing who wast Ze us

’s bride !

B e t ter by far tha n my m o t her’s is t h y lot n ow,

Who ha st c ast the bu rden of h uma n sorrow a side ,And o n l y n ow for the sh aggy l imbOf the bru te wi th tears are t h y fierc e e yes dim .

Yea,happ ie r she whom Artem is drave from her c ho ir,A stag go ld -a n t l ered

,Merops

’T i tan ia n da ugh ter,

B e c a use of h e r bea u ty ,—bu t m in e wi t h the brands of desireHa t h e nkind led Da rdan ia n P ergamus

’ru in -

pyre ,And ha t h g iven the Ac hae an s to sla ugh ter2.

This i s A lexa ndria n poetry , n o t A t t i c,l earned

,frig id

ho l low a t the hea rt. The priestess o f Ta u ric a i n the pa ra l lel

pa ssages do es no t thus i l l ustra te herm i ser ies by m iscel la neo us

mytho logy”: The a ppeara nce o f such a pa ssage , as a sequel

to the absu rd conversa t ion wi th Teucer,a nd a prel im ina ry to

1vv. 1 79

- 25 1 and 3 30-

3 85 .

2vv. 3 75

—3 85 (Way) .

3 Iph . T. 1 43—23 5 .

HELEN 1 23

the prepo stero us consu l ta t ion o f Theo no e,s ign ifies (a nd on e

i s gla d to know it) tha t Euri p ides was a l ive to the pecu l iar

dangers besett ing drama ba sed upon m i n strelsy . I t wa s n o t

for every on e,a s he saw

,to fo l low A eschyl us w ith success

i n h i s

id) c yeia qudpo u a o'

wepéBa Xov qu ip o i n repo cpépov Oé/t a s

deolyk vxziv r’

dfyé’

wa nXa ulu rirco v c

irep‘

u oi Bé p c’

u vet axwyu’

m dugbrj/c e i 60pi1

This i s perfect,bu t po i sed in i ts perfect ion upo n a s l ippery

verge . Euri p ides may ha ve thought tha t , even in some plays

o f h igh no te a nd pa ssages Of s ingu lar bea uty,the a l l ia nce o f

pa tho s with erud it io n had go ne qu ite far enough " .

The pri va te o rigin a nd priva te rec i ta t ion o f the H elen i s

a fa ct wh ich sho u ld n o t su rpri se us . I t wa s proba bly n o t

even except iona l . I t wou ld have been stra nge , a nd scarce ly

cred ib l e, i n the c i rcumsta n ces o f the age , tha t such reci ta t io n s

sho u ld n o t have been common . The number o f plays c om

po sed about th is t ime a t Athens wa s enormo us . Ari stophanesc a n scarce ly find a figure sufficient : more than ten tho usa nd ,

tha t i s, tha n infin i ty ,i s h is phra se fo r the traged ies wh ich the

yo ung me n were a t work upo n 3 . The Opportun it ies o f publ ic

exhib i t ion were i nfin ites ima l . Wha t then becam e o f thesefa sh ionable compo s i t io ns ? We c a n sca rcely suppo se tha t allo f them were wri t ten to be kept i n the desk . Read ing

,s i len t

a nd so l i tary read ing,was but a recen t ha bi t

,a nd readers st i l l

few. Rec ita t io n had been a nd was st i l l the no rma l ma nner

in which l i tera tu re c ircu la ted among allbu t pro fessed students .

I n these ci rcum sta nces i t wo uld have been strange indeed , if

traged ies had n o t been priva tely performed or recited . Evenfo r the very few compo sers who co u ld rea ch the thea t r e a nd

1 Aga in . 1 1 46 (Dindorf) . Cassandra speaks : ‘ Alas, for the fa te o f the

music a l n ight inga le ! Her did the gods c lo the in a winged form ,and gave her a

swee t and a tearless passage of dea th . Bu t I must b e c left in twa in by the stee l ’ssharp edge .

2 S ee Soph . A n t. 8 23 .

3 Frags 89 u etpa xéhhta

rpa y tpaia s rrotoiivra wheiv i) u vptds.

1 24 EURIP IDES’

AP OL0G Y

thea trica l fest iva ls,priva te perfo rma nce o f some k ind was an

o bvio us method o f experimen t ; a nd o ne wo u ld suppo se ra ther

tha t ma ny ormo st traged ies pa ssed thro ugh i t . O ne tragedy

o f the t ime we have (a ttributed , perhaps wro ngly, to Eurip ides)which ca nno t have been in tended , o n e wo u ld suppo se, for the

thea t re—I mea n the Rhesu s. The Greek prefa ce to tha t play

s peaks indeed o f i t s be ing reco rded a s genu ine i n the didu s

c alia e’

; but if th i s mea ns (tho ugh perhaps i t need n o t) tha t an

exh ib it ion o f i t i n the thea tre was reco rded,one wo u ld a lmo st

do ubt the fa ct . The a ct io n pa sses i n the n ight ; a nd tha t i t

wa s perfo rmed in such c ircumsta nces a s tho se o f the c ivi c

thea tre a nd fest iva l i s sca rce ly bel ievable ; a t allevents th is

canno t have been the orig i na l i n tent ion . Nor i s it l i kely , i n

tha t age , tha t the compo ser tho ught on ly o f readers . For

pri va te rec i ta t ion or perfo rm ance a su i tabl e t ime a nd

a rrangemen t co u ld be cho sen ; and i t wo uld be interest ing

a s a va r i ety. Bu t a pa rt from th is except io n there i s much i n

exta n t tragedy,espec ia l ly tha t o f Euri p ides

,which suggests

the influence o f domest ic rec i ta t ion . Fo r ma ny,perha ps

a ma jori ty, o f h i s plays , the fo reco urt o f a house , or the spa ce

i n fro n t o f i t , wou ld be a scene n o t merely as go od a s tha t o f

the thea tre , but i n ma ny ways better. O f co urse a play, which‘

obta i n ed a Cho ru s’

a nd rea ched the d ign i ty of exh ibi t io n ,wo ul d genera l ly need some reca s t ing or reto uch ing to fi t

i t fo r the pecu l iar co nd it ions o f the A then ia n thea tre ; a nd i n

th is pro cess tho se fea tures,if a ny there were , which the piece

derived from the c i rcumsta nces o f i ts o rig i n , wo u l d d isappea r ;a s they seem to have d isappea red fo r the mo st part , but , a s we

sha l l present ly see,no t completely

,from the publ ic vers io ns

preserved to u s,i n allca ses except tha t o f H elen .

B u t i t is a fortuna te or a j ud ic iou s cho i ce wh ich has

preserved to us o n e play o f Euri p ides wh ich,by the na tu re o f

the ca se,co u ld no t undergo a ny ma ter ia l change i n be ing

tra nsferred from priva te perfo rm ance to the publ ic i ty o f the

D ionys ia . The H elen i s so i n t ima tely co nnected wi th the

ho use o f ‘ Theo no e,

’ tha t i t co u ld no t be d isengaged from i ts

o rigin,but

,when demanded by the genera l curio s i ty

,had to be

g iven a s i t was made . We are thus rem i nded of the impo rta nt

1 26 E URIP IDES ’ A P OL06 Y

a t Athens,i s an exa spera t i ng a bsurd ity . Fo r a Medea

murderess o f her ch i ld ren , o ne s ingl e confida n t wou ld be

to o much ; a nd the c o - opera t ion o f fifteen ca sua l v i s i to rs i s

n o t a wh it the l ess o utrageo us beca use,tempted or forced by

the cond it io n s o f h is t ime,Euri p ides con sented to a u tho r i z e

it, and to i n troduce, for the sake o f the thea tre, o ther el emen ts

n o t l ess unfortuna te .

The play wi l l bea r n o Cho rus ; a nd for a domest i c per

forma n c e none wo u ld be necessa ry. For th i s purpo se,an

empty stage wo u l d be a suffic ient sepa ra t io n between the

scenes ; or if a n i n ter lude were des ired,i t m ight be best

d el ivered by a s i ngle vo i ce . On e such i nterl ude, un iqu e i n

the exta nt l i tera tu re,a ctua l ly su rvives ‘ . I nstead o f an ode

bea ring upo n the a ctio n a nd des igned for a band o f per

fo rmers nom i na l ly engaged in the a ct io n,we have a n u n

b roken rec i ta t io n,to ta l ly n on -drama t i c i n them e and ma nner

a nd,tho ugh co nnected remo tely wi th the subj ec t o f the play

n o t even a ffecti ng to ha ve a ny rela tion to the plo t . I t was

n ot for fi fteen vo i ces,nor for the l eader o f fifteen

,tha t the

poet wro te

wokk dxcqi782)I

8ta Xerrrorepwv p u'

da w é'

u oXovC I 9 I

tea l. 713009 a t Xa c nAGov u scé’

A AXP’?

ryevea v 977m ; e

pevva u°

V A Q AaMta.

fya p ea rw [.tova a fea t. mew,

c\ A I 0,

77 rrpoa'

ou ik ec o'

o cptaqeven ev

y A I7rda'

aw i u ev o u,7ra vpov Se f

yevoq,I a A cl A 1 1

[n ew eu wok k a cs, evp orqa v ta cos

I AKo tile c

vzrou ova ov ro f

yvva mwv.

I A f/ Irea r. (pry/u Bporwv ocrwes eww

r aw/ra y a rretpo c 72775’

gbureva a vA 1

n a tSa s‘ , 7rpod>épew GLS‘

eérvxia v

ribv Newer/ durum ” .

a nd the rest o f th is s imple a nd tender med ita t ion . Wo u ld

o n e des ire to sit with twenty tho usa nd strangers,whi le tra i ned

a nd h ired vo ca l is ts sho uted th is

1 Med. 1 08 1 fo l l .

HELEN 1 27

xa i. 37) vyc’

tp {th is Biorév 9’

A I a 1 fl st Ia wu a r es a fie ren zo w

xpno ro i r’

vovr”

ei Be xvprja a c

Sa l/1.01 1} oiz'

rwq, d>poi5509 e’

161 18171;

Odva ros‘ wpogbépo w 003,11.d re

fc vwv

wo rds made,on e wou ld th ink , to be wri tten in a lo cked

vo l ume, a n d shown , ra ther tha n read,to a dea r compan ion .

To the twenty tho usa nd the th ing d id come, a s many th ings

have a strange'

fortu ne i n the pro cess o f l ife ; but never for

such a u se was i t p la nned . The o des o f the M edea,the rea l

Odes,are some o f them adm irable compo s i t ions ; but the

co ns ignmen t o f them allto obl ivion wou ld have been a sma l l

pr ice to pay fo r the expu ls io n o f the Cho rus , a nd the

resto ra t io n o f the drama to a ca st a nd sett ing wh ich wo u ld

make the story co nceivable .

Equa l ly unfortuna te, tho ugh necessa ry, was the cha nge

wh ich,as the ex i st ing text

betrays , wa s made, when the play

wa s prepa red for the thea tre, i n the substance and form o f the

fina l e . The de‘n ou emen t o f the M edea , the a eria l chario t i n

wh ich the murderess depa rts,has been a commonpla ce o f

cri t i ca l condemna t ion ever s ince A r i sto t le,a nd do ubtless

befo re . The poet h imself appends on th is o cca s io n his

cri t i ca l tag , wh ich co nfesses tha t‘ the end is no t wha t was

expected " ; a nd i n truth i t i s utterly inappropria te . The

Medea o f the p lay,the inj ured woman

,i s no t a nd ca nno t be

co nce ived as a superna tu ra l perso n,o r the po ssesso r o f super

na tura l powers . No th ing in the a ct io n requ ires the su p

po s i t ion ‘,and the tone a nd co louring excl ude i t. With the

m i ra cles o f A rgona ut i c legend the sto ry has no rea l connex ion .

The play scarcely to uches on them 3,a nd to be cons i stent

shou ld n o t to uch a t all. Aga i n a nd aga in the forsa ken

m i stress is represen ted as help less for every purpose but

1 filed . 1 4 1 5 ; see above p . 1 20.

2 The dea ths of the prin c ess and her fa ther assume n oth ing whic h may no t b e

c on c e ived as the na tura l e ffec t o f an unknown po ison .

3 M ed. 478—482 . Every reader fee ls these rem in isc enc es to be ou t of keep ing .

They, and some o ther sl ight touches, are probably in terpo la ted, though doubtlessby Eurip ides.

1 28 EURIP IDES’

AP OL OG Y

revenge . S o far i s she from command ing the resources o f

heaven,tha t she ca nno t even secure a refuge upon earth bu t

by nego t ia t io n with a scrupu lo us vi s ito r,who se co nsent to

rece ive her i s purcha sed by the prom i se o f med ic i na l a id

to h i s v iri l’

i ty ‘ . ‘ Th is perso nage o ffers the pro tect io n o f

A thens , on the cond it io n tha t , witho ut his a id,she c a n get

o u t o f Co ri nth ; a nd i t i s necessa ry, for the proper defea t o f

her betrayer,tha t she shou l d get o u t. Bu t tha t i n th ese

c ircum sta nces she sho u ld fly away thro ugh the a ir,rece ivi n g

a s a th ing o f co urse,a yo ke o f serpents from her gra nds ire

the Sun , i s a‘ surpri se ’ wh ich the una n imo us j udgmen t o f

cu l t iva ted person s has co ndemned,a nd which Eurip ides h im

self has co ndemned in a dva nce.

To j ust ify i t i s impo ss ible ; but there i s th is excu se for i t,tha t the na rrow and pecu l ia r cond i t io ns o f publ i c perfo rmance

a t A thens were no t cons istent wi th a proper concl us io n,a ny

mo re tha n they were wi th the wo rk ing o f the plo t as a who l e .

The play had o nce a conc l us ion no t i nappropria te,and the

l i nes o f i t are vis ible i n the a l tered form . I n the fina l

d ia logue wi th ja son , a s we st i l l rea d i t,Medea proposes to

ba rg a in with him : she a sks how she i s to p u rcha se a

sepa ra tion ,whereupo n he demand s tha t the bod ies o f the

ch i ldren sho u ld be given to him for buria l ‘ . No th ing comes

o f th is n ego t ia t io n , nor co uld a nyth ing come o f i t a s the

s i t ua t io n i s now represen ted . Medea , spea king from the

secu rity o f her cha rio t, o f co urse refuses the dema nd,a nd ha s

i n fa ct n o rea son fo r i nv it ing i t . Tha t she do es i nvi te i t

i s proo f tha t,as the scene wa s o rig ina l ly conceived

,she was i n

a posit io n n o t o f a bso l u te but o f tempora ry sa fety,no t yet

able to esca pe, but able e ither to gra nt or refuse decen t

buria l to the ch i ldren o f the tra i to r. Tha t the fa ther shou ld

1 S ee the p lay passim,and spe c ia l l y the strange in terview with Aegeus

(vv. 662

2 Med. 1 3 73

MH . a rb‘yev mxpclv 66 fldéw éx0alpw d eder.

IA. u iyv 87 80 «MW 696 101! 6’

dr a kka ‘

MH . 1rd} ; of» ; rt 6pda u ; xdpra. yap xd‘

ytb Gehm.

IA. Gatti/a t rexpobs um roba 6e x01 xha t’

ia a t wipes.

ME . ob 6fir’

,errei a ¢ a s 1 56 67 12) d fiw xepl

1 39 EURIP IDES’

AP OLOG Y

the cond it ions o f art a t A thens,was na tura l ly grea t ; a nd th i s

way o f do i ng i t was perhaps a s go od a s a no ther. Bu t the

M edea cou ld in no way be rea l ly adj usted to the cond it io ns o f

the Dionys ia ; a nd if Eurip ides had known n o o ther co nd it io ns

tha n tho se of the D io nys ia,no M edea wo u ld ever ha ve been

wri tten . I t i s a picture conceived a nd fi tted for priva te

exh ibi t ion , bu t d isto rted , as we ha ve i t , by vio len t exten s ion

to the frame o f the A eschylea n compa ny an d thea tre .

No o ther exta nt tragedy ( the Rhesu s and of co u rse the

H elen excepted) exh ibits th is qua l i ty o f o rigin so strongly

as the M edea,tho ugh there is much in Eurip idea n d rama

genera l ly , for wh ich the c ivi c thea tre do es n o t a cco unt,a nd

the domest i c thea tre,if we may so ca l l i t

,do es . The pa ssage

o f plays through the prel im in ary period o f priva te rec i ta t io n

i s genera l ly importa nt for the h isto ry and comprehens io n o f

Euripides . I t a cco unts for the ex i sten ce o f plays l i ke the

fan ,the Alcestis, and the Hera cles

, plays wh ich , i n thei r

ex ist ing shape a nd as performed a t the publ ic fest iva l,have

the a ir o f a pu z z l e . Mo st readers exper ien ce the impress io n

tha t the [on does n o t work i tself o u t , and tha t the end o f the

p iece,with a grea t pa rade o f el uc ida t io n , l eaves u s n everthe

l ess d isco nten ted and doubtfu l . Th is phenomenon,when

exam i ned , is seen to ha ve a s imple ca use, i n the fa ct tha t the

play propo unds and presses a n enqu i ry,which the co ncl us ion

do es n ot a nswer. The story turns upon a quest ion deeply

a ffect ing the hono ur a nd vera c i ty o f the o ra cl e o f Delph i .

The tone and the trend o f even ts a ppea r thro ugho ut to be

ho st i l e to the o ra cle. Bu t a t the la st momen t a co ncl us io n

favourabl e to the o ra cl e i s abrupt ly impo sed,without , as i t

wo u ld seem , any rea l explana t io n wha tever ‘ . Such a method

cea ses to be mysterio us , when we cons ider tha t we have

no rea son to figure the [on a s compo sed with o rigina l and

exc lus ive rega rd to the D ionys ia . I t must ha ve been ea sy

i n tha t age a nd a t A thens to co l l ect priva te aud iences , who

wo u ld l i sten with perfect compo su re a nd sa t isfa ct ion , whi l e

such a play as the fan ,a sa t ire upo n the pretens ion s o f

Delph i,was played o u t to the end wh ich i s allbut vis ib le i n

1 S ee my ed i t io n , and Eu ripides the Ration alist, p . 1 29.

H ELEN 1 3 1

the extant fo rm . Had th is n o t been so, no play such a s the

[on n ow is co u ld have been adm i tted to the c ivi c thea t re, and

n o a utho r, tak ing tha t l i ne of ho st i l i ty to the publ i c rel igio n,

which was open ly a ttributed to Eurip ides,wo uld have been

hea rd there. To such priva te a ud iences,the fan

,with i ts

proper end ing, a nd witho ut a ny‘ A thena ’ i n the mach ine to

convert i ts na tu ra l impo rt i n to nonsense, wa s fi rst rec i ted ;

a nd so i t was probably rec i ted for some t ime,before the

d iffus ion of curio s i ty, a nd the des ire of the a utho r for the o n ly

e x ist ing metho d o f wide advert isement,l ed to the product ion

o f i t befo re the c ivi c a ssembly. H ere i t was necessari ly produ c ed with a s l ight d isgu ise, j ust eno ugh to avo id lega l danger

a nd to co nten t the uncri t i ca l ma sses . The fewwho lo oked

for mo re tha n a specta c l e were a lready en l ightened by repo rt,

o r, if they were not,cou ld sa t i sfy themse lves by enqu iry.

Some there do u btless were , i n tel l igen t enough to be d i s

sa t i sfied,and yet no t so s i tua ted as to comma nd info rma t ion .

For th is rea so n the method , however necessary in the c i rcum

stances , was d isadva ntageo us ; a nd the rema in s of Eurip ides

show ,if we may suppo se them to be representa t ive

,tha t i t

was except iona l . To no o ther t imes , and to n o o ther so ciety,

wou l d i t have been appl i cable ; and th is i s o ne o f the rea son s

why the wo rks o f Euripides , wh ich have been tra nsm i tted to

u s by publ i c a uthori ty a nd i n thei r pub l ic fo rm,presen t

a s a ttent ive readers genera l ly feel , certa i n d iffi cu lt ies o f a

un ique and pecu l ia r type.

Even in plays wh ich d id no t requ i re d isgu ise,we are

somet imes rem i nded tha t the a uthor d id n o t a lways or

hab itua l ly th ink , if we may so put i t, i n the fo rm s establ ished

by Aeschylus . The phenomeno n i s no torious , a nd so widely

d iflu sed tha t i ts weight wi l l be ra ther d im in i shed tha n increa sed

by part icu la r i l lu stra t ion . B u t l et the reader turn to the scene

o f the P hoen issa e ‘,where Joca sta i n ma terna l ecsta sy caresses

a nd fond les a nd strokes a nd dan ces round her recovered

son ; a nd l et him say whether i t seems l ike ly tha t such a

v is ion wo u ld have presented i tse lf to a m i nd o ccupied by the

fo rms o f A eschylu s a nd the sett ing o f the D io nys ia , the1vv . 30 1

—3 54, espe c ially vv. 3 1 2 fo l l .

1 32 EURIP IDES’

AP OL OG Y

co thurnus and ma sk,the sta tely robe

,the enormo us throng

the po l i t ica l sent iment ,—allthe th ings wh ich made the on ly

proper a tmo sphere for the Orestea,and were congen ia l

,tho ugh

n ot perhaps necessary, to the A n tig one a nd the Oedipu s

Ty ra nn u s.

Even modern l i tera ture a nd so c iety,tho ugh we have

no th ing a na logous to the thea tre o f A thens,o ffer examp les

o f the da ngero us and somet imes d isa stro us pressure o f c ir

c umsta n c es upo n the fo rm s o f a rt i st i c crea t ion,by wh ich we

may hel p o urselves to comprehend how the [on or the M edea

came i nto the exta nt shape . I n sta nces recen t o r contempora ry

wi l l o ccur to every reader, wh ich pro ve tha t a work o f

imagina t io n may be del ibera te ly perverted a nd mut i la ted by

the autho r, bo th befo re a nd a fter publ ica t io n,i n o rder to

ca tch the ta ste or comma nd the a ttent ion o f a wider a nd

a l ess competent a ud ience . I t was Sco tt h imself who,mu r

muri ng a nd pro test ing, but y ield ing to h is publ isher a nd

the certa i n demand of the vu lga r novel -reader,irreparably

damaged wha t shou ld have been a figure n ot i nferio r i n tragic

i nterest to the bride o f Lammermoor, by reca st ing S t Ron a n’

Wellso a s to Spa re the ho nou r o f C la ra Mowbray ; a nd i t

wa s n o t fo r want o f urging tha t he refra i n ed from crown ing

the su ic id e by a ctua l ly marrying the man ia c,i n a happy

co ncl us io n,to her lover. I t was n o t to plea se h imself tha t

Mr Kip l ing pa tched on a bright end ing to The L ight Tha t

Fa iled. And i t i s st i l l the m i s ce l la neo us mob o f the publ i c

thea tre,which

,with i ts s tupid tho ugh i nevi table demand for a

smart fin ish,prod uces the wo rst d isto rt io ns . If the reader

was ever present a t a perfo rmance o f M ademoiselle de la

S ezglz'

ere , a s converted from novel to drama,th i s reco l lect ion

or if n o t th is , some o ther l i ke i t,wi l l suggest

,with wha t

sca rcely suppressed exclama t io n s o f d isplea sure a nd co ntempt

the chario t o f Medea mu st have been rece ived by the few,the

compa ra t ively few, who are aware tha t no t every sto ry i s

suscept ibl e o f a nea t a nd sa t isfa cto ry wind—u p . A nd if we

had o n ly on e thea tre , a na t io na l a nd o fficia l thea tre,ded ica ted

( l et u s say ) to St Geo rge , we sho u ld n o t be long witho ut apara l l el to the A thena o f the fan

,who bestows a pompous a nd

A S OUL’

S TRAGEDY .

(HERA CLE S . )

Fran t i c,he a s tru th rec e ived

Wha t of his b irt h the c rowd be l ieved. SCOTT.

My l ife has c rep t so long on a broken wing .

TENNYSON.

THE t ragedy of H era cles or,a s i t is common ly and

conven ien t ly ca l led,The M adness of Hera cles

,presen ts wi th

s ingu la r sha rpness the fundamen ta l quest io n,wh ich mo re tha n

o nce confro nts the student of Eurip ides —Wha t are the

suppo sed fa cts of the d rama ? I n wha t so rt of worl d a nd

am i d wha t k ind o f experiences are the personages suppo sed

to have l ived,a nd i n pa rt icu la r how

,if a t all

,do these

experien ces d iffer from wha t Eurip ides h imself,o r the average

of his educa ted co ntempo ra ries , would have recogn i z ed as

no rma l or as po ss ib le ? Wha t i n the play is the pa rt , if any ,

o fm ira cl e ?

I t may be, and i ndeed is, a strange th ing, tha t th is po i n t

shou ld be open to doubt . With Hera c les for the hero ,we

m ight expect to find the m i ra cu lous fa cts of the sto ry given

as pla in ly and unm i stakeably as any o ther pa rt o f i t , given as

they are i n the Tra chin ia e o f Sophoc les . There we are

i n troduced a t o nce to a woma n,who has herself been wo oed

by a r iver-god capable o f m ira cu lo us t ra nsfo rma t ion , who has

herself been ca rri ed over a fo rd by a Centa ur ‘, who d i scoursed

wi th the Centaur wh i le he d ied , who ga thered the b lood of h is

dea th -wound,and na rra tes these experiences witho ut the

1 Trach . 555, and the prologue .

HERA CLES 35

l ea st suggest ion tha t they a re surpris ing or abnorma l . And

the who l e sto ry pro ceeds o f co urse a ccord ingly . We do n o t

find Deian i ra observing i ncidenta l ly, tha t the no t io n o f twy

fo rmed or m ul t ifo rm crea tures , the bel i ef tha t such ex ist or

ever have ex i sted , has a lways appeared to her to be a

pern ic io us absurd i ty. Wha t sho uld we say if we d id ? We

shou ld o f co urse ej ect the remark a s the i l l—pla ced j est o f a n

i n terpo la to r. We sho u ld n o t for a n i nsta n t a ccept bo th the

cr i t ic ism and the experi ence a s co nceivable parts o f the same

drama t ic cha ra cter, a nd erect upon th is un imaginable ba s i s

a so—ca l led interpreta t io n o f the so - ca l l ed play. Nor sho u ld

we a l low ourselves to be put o ff wi th the observa t ion , tho ugh

i t m ight wel l appear true, tha t the cri t i c i sm represented the

op in io n o f Sopho cles . The Opin ion o f Sopho c les , we sho u ld

say , has no th ing to do’

with the quest ion,which rela tes

who l ly to the opin io n o f the imaginary Deian ira . Given her

experiences a s re la ted by her,she d id ex hypothesi know twy

fo rmed a n ima l s to ex ist ; a nd to suppo se o therwise wo u ldbe to make the story a nd the drama a th ing of na ught ,i nco nceivable

,un intel l igible

,a nd nu l l . Y e t i t i s prec i sely i n

th is fa sh io n tha t we are to l d to i n terpret ( if the wo rd is

deserved) the H era cles of Eurip ides .

Fo rmy pa rt,’ says Hera cl es

,the hero o f this play,

Formy p art I do n ot h o ld t ha t the gods kn ow u n lawfu l love ; and

t ha t t he y sho u ld m ake prison ers o n e of an o ther I n ever did th ink fit n orwil l deity , if deity indeed

,is withou t alln eeds wha tsoever.

These t h ings are poe ts’m isera b le ta les1 .

No th ing c an be pla i ner . The spea ker rej ects abso l u tely , a nd

o nce for all,such man - l ike superhuman beings, such deit ies

with the pa ss io ns of me n,a s the commo n legend o f Hera cl es ,

with i ts ba tt les o f gia nts a nd inva s ions of H ades , requ ires u s

to a ssume a s pa rt o f the wo r ld a nd o f po ss ib le huma n

experience. The c ircumsta nces , i n which.

he ma kes th is

profess ion o f fa i th , are such (we sha l l se e ) as to excl ude the

po ss ib i l ity of se lf- decept io n,del us ion

,or pretence . We must

understand , and n o o n e has ever a ttempted to prove the

1v . 1 34 1 .

1 36 A SOUL ’S TRA GED Y

co ntra ry , tha t i t i s g iven for the rea l op in io n o f the drama t i c

cha ra cte r presented,a pa rt a nd an essent ia l pa rt o f h is m i nd .

I t fo l lows therefo re,if the sto ry i s to be a s tory, if the play is

a play, if i t has, as a who le,a ny sense wha tsoever, tha t the

experiences o f the hero,as presented and suppo sed in i t , are

a nd have been con s istent with the bel ief wh ich he pro fesses,tha t he has no t had knowledge o f any such crea tu res or

perso ns as Zeus a nd Typhoeus, as Pluto or Cerberus,tha t

sho rt,the legend of Hera cles

,a s commonly told

,is not to be

supposed a s pa rt of the story ,bu t repla ced by some totally

d zfieren t con cep tion of H era cles,a nd of his men tala nd phy sical

history .

To refuse th is i n ference, to evade th is necess i ty, i s to be

led s tra igh t to the con clus ion fo rmu la ted (by Mr Swinburne,if I

am no t m i sta ken) , with refresh ing s inceri ty a nd clea rness,i n the sta temen t tha t th is wo rk

,The M adness of H era cles,

i s ‘a gro tesque abort io n ,

a monster, a chao s,i n wh ich

i ncommun ica ble pa rts are j o i ned or m ixed wi thout d isgu ise

a nd withou t a ttempt (for i t need ha rd ly be sa id tha t there i s

no t ra ce o f such a n a ttempt) a t reco nci l ia t ion . The sta temen t

i s bra c ing i n its frankness,a nd I remember to ha ve rece ived

from i t a sa l u ta ry shock . B u t i t wo u ld be the same th i ng i n

substa nce,a nd i n form ,

allth ings co ns idered,n o t l ess decen t,

to say tha t Eur ip ides i s here no t comprehens ibl e to u s,

—and

to study the drama n o more . Nor i ndeed do the modern

in terpreters escape th is pra ct ica l resu l t. I t i s usua l to pra i s e

the play ; bu t tho se who wi l l exam i n e the la uda to ry references

a nd a l l us ions to i t may sa t i sfy themsel ves , tha t wha t i s mean t

by the play ’ i s i n reality a sma l l pa rt o f i t,l ess tha n a th ird ‘,

wh ich c a n,without much v io lence , be rea d a s co ns istent with

the legend o f Hera c les , the sto ry o f Zeus a nd Hera ,the

gia nts,Hades

, Cerberus a nd so fo rth, a ssumed a s part o f the

fa cts . Allthe rest o f the play, the firs t ha lf and the la st

fo urth or some such fra ct io ns,i s ignored

,is trea ted as n on

ex i sten t,and th is witho ut a ny a ttempt to show tha t tho se

port ions are i ntended by the a uthor to be sepa rable and n on

drama t i c,a n a ttempt wh ich

,if i t were made

,wo u ld certa i n ly

1vv. 763

—1 1 62 , and a few fragmen ts e lsewhere .

1 38 A TRAGED Y.

was no mo re than a man,a nd h i s ca reer no th ing beyond the

l im i ts o f na tu re,how d id the m i ra culous story come to ex ist ?

A nd genera l ly,how d id a ny such sto ries come to ex i st ? Th is

was the emba rra ss i ng problem fo r such wri ters as H erodoru s ‘ ,

a nd for alltho se whom we may ca l l mecha n ica l ra t iona l i sts .A l egend , they sa id , i s a n exaggera ted and m i sta ken vers iono f rea l bu t commo npla ce even ts

,a fa l sehood evo lved o u t o f

true fa cts by rumour, credu l i ty, and ignora nce . Ta ken

genera l ly, th i s theo ry had i n i t e lemen ts o f truth , a nd probably

ca rri ed the a ssent o f the better i n structed i n the fifth cen tury .

Bu t the ra t iona l i s t i c i nterpreters,a s i s the way o f alltheo ri sts

i n the fi rs t stage o f a controversy,n o t o n ly wo rked the metho d

to dea th , but appl ied i t i n deta i l wi th a po verty o f imagina t io nand pueri l i ty o f exped ien t

,which became in the aggrega te

self- refut ing. People o f common sense, however wi l l ing to

doubt whether the ma iden Ore ithy ia had rea l ly been ca rr ied

o ff by a supe rhuma n lover wie ld ing the power o f a B orea s

with capita l B,became

,a fter ma ny repet i t ions of l i ke devices ,

as l i tt l e i n cl i ned to bel i eve tha t she had been blown over

a c l iff by a n o rd ina ry borea s or no rth w ind . The example i s

c i ted as typica l by Pla to i n the n ext genera t ion , a nd i s

d i sm i ssed wi th meri ted i ro ny”. Nor wa s th is type o f

exped ient the wo rst o r the mo st abused . Equ ivo ca t io ns, pun s

upon wo rds a nd espec ia l ly upon names , were adopted , i n

tra cing the genera t ion o f the m i ra cu lo us,with a wea ri some

and i ncred ible profus io n . H era cl es d id n o t stra ngl e the

Nemea n l ion i n h i s arms (e’

v Bpaxioa w). No, but he d id

a ctua l ly capture i t in a sna re (e’

u Bpo’

xo cq). The legend a ro se

(a s i n the game of‘ Russ ia n scanda l

) o u t o f a mis-hea r ing.

The ram of Hel l e was a boa tman ca l l ed Krios, the bu l l o f

Pa s iphae a ga l lan t ca l l ed Ta u ras. A l i tt l e of th is so rt wou ld

be mo re tha n eno ugh . The i nsta nce o f the Nemea n l io n

i s no ted and st igma t i z ed by Eurip ides h imself, who a ttr ibu tes

i t to the vi l la i n o f o u r play “.

B u t however obj ect io nabl e or excessive may have been

th e methods o f the ra t iona l i z ers , i t i s certa i n tha t , a t A then s

1 Murray , H ist. of A n eien t Greeh Litera tu re, p . 1 27 .

2 P haedru s, p . 229.

11 H eracles 1 53 .

HERACLES 1 39

i n the fifth cen tury,educa ted opin ion wa s with them o n the

ma i n i ssue. The h isto rica l rea l i ty i ndeed of H eracles,for

examp le,was for allGreeks of tha t age a n axiom ; a nd for

the ma tter o f tha t, i t is st i l l , I suppo se, the better Op in io n , tha t

h is legend , wha tever o ther el ements i t may embody, i s fo unded

in pa rts upon the ca reer o f a n actua l hero . B u t the rea l i ty o f

the giga nt i c comba t a t Ph legra,or o f the hel l - ho und Cerberus ,

exh ib ited as a pri soner i n bro ad dayl ight a t the Argo l i c town

o f Herm ione,wou ld hard ly have found m ore defenders

the c ircles to who se suffrage Eurip ides appea led,tha n among

o urselves . This being so,the des ire forva riety

,to say no th ing

o f o ther mo t ives,wo u ld prompt a drama t ic a utho r to exh ib i t

the hero i n a na tu ra l i st i c gu ise. Nor cou ld a ny va l i d obj ect io n

be made i n the name o f art ; un less i t i s held tha t fo rt i tude

and benefic e n c e , devo ted to the service o f man, are adm i rable

o n ly if exerc ised upo n a snake with a hundred necks,or tha t

unmeri ted agony cea ses to be pa thet ic,when i t is n o t i nfl i cted

by the revenge of a man -headed horse.

Even the a ctua l specu la t io n s of Herodoru s a nd h is k ind

were n o t wi thout va l ue to a t raged ia n pursu ing, i n h is own

way , essent ia l ly the same purpo se . To tra ce pedant ica l ly the

development o f a na t ura l i nc iden t i n to a superna tu ra l was

none o f h i s bus iness ; but i t su i ted him wel l eno ugh to presen t

such na tura l fa cts,a s wou ld suggest to prepa red m inds the

o rigi n o f the legenda ry tra nsla t ion ; or aga i n,to touch upo n

legenda ry a nd m i ra cu lous inc idents , by way o f a l l us ion , i n

such a manner as to suggest and l ea ve room for the curren t

vers ion of the ra t iona l i sts . Eurip ides frequen t ly does bo th .

Of the fi rst we sha l l see a n i n stance i n the Orestes ‘ , where

a m iracu lous a necdo te from the Ody ssey i s reto l d and reto uched

with persua s ive dexter i ty ; of the o ther we have ma ny ex

amples i n the p lay befo re us.Bu t amo ng the conceivabl e fa cto rs of l egend , among the

many ways i n wh ich th ings m ight come to be bel ieved , tho ugh

they never happened a t all,or a t a ny ra te n ot as they were

rela ted,there wa s one upon wh ich Eurip ides , whether gu ided

or no t by a ny predecesso r , had med i ta ted , as a tragedian , with1vv . 360 fo l l . S e e a lso E u rip ides the Ra tion alist, pp. 1 82—1 88 .

140 A SOUL’

S TRA GED Y

spec ia l and specia l ly j ust ifiable in terest . Tha t the topic o f

m adness a nd menta l aberra t io n was a ttra ct ive to h im,i s no ted

by a ncien t cri t i cs,and is i ndeed obvious . Prima r i ly no doubt

h e was drawn to i t,l ike A eschylus

,Sopho cles , and t ragic

po ets i n genera l,as a mea ns o f pa tho s. B u t stand ing i n such

rela t ion a s he d id to the specu la t ive a nd cr i ti ca l tho ught o f

h i s t ime, he co u ld n o t ea s i ly m i ss the reflexion ,tha t the

imagina t io n of i nsa ne and irregu la r m i nds,a ccepted by the

superst i t io us as a cha nnel o f i n sp i red truth,had probably

been a fert i le so u rce o f revered a nd a ccred ited nonsense.

Tha t he d id n o t m i s s i t we have abunda nt ev idence. The

legend o f the ma tri c id e O restes , for example , i s repea ted ly so

hand led in h is exta nt works,as to co nvey the impress io n

tha t the m i ra cu lou s parts o f i t o rigina ted i n mere i nsa n ity.

I n on e pla ce, the who l e story o f A eschylus ’ Eumen ides i s

n a rra ted,through the mo u th o f O restes , i n such a way and i n

such c i rcumsta nces a s irres i st ib ly to suggest a doubt , how

much,if a ny , o f tha t A reopagit ic trad it io n wa s fo unded on

fa ct,and no t upo n the i nvent io n o f a d isea sed bra i n ‘

S im i la r ly even the m i no r degrees of abno rma l a nd unhea l thy

exc i tement , the fumes o f i n tox ica t ion ‘,the fren z y o f pa i n “,

the t ra nspo rt o f victory “,the sho ck o f sudden grief“

co nfus ion o f s leep “,the wi ldness o f terro r ’ , are ea ch i n turn

presen ted a s co ntri buto rs to the stream o f mytho logy, ima

gin ing impo ss ib i l i t ies , or i nvest ing a ctua l fa cts with the co lo urs

o f superst i t io us dece i t .

These however were but steps o n the ro ad . I t i s i n the

H era cles tha t th i s concept io n i s appl ied upo n the la rgest

sca l e , with mo st sk i l l,mo st i ns ight

,a nd mo st pro fo und ly

tragic effect. Fo r power,for t ru th

,for po ignancy, for depth o f

penetra t io n i n to the na ture a nd h i sto ry o f ma n,th is p ictu re

o f the Hel len i c hero m ay be ma tched aga i nst a nyth ing i n art .

A l tho ugh bo th i n fa ct a nd i n fi ct io n madness i s most

common ly a sso cia ted wi th cr ime,th is co nj unct ion is nei ther

the on ly o ne i n which menta l extravagance i s a ctua l ly fo und ,

1 Iph . T. 939 fo l l . 2 Ale . 83 7 .

3 Hec . 1 205 .

‘1 5 H ippol. 1 1 98 fo l l . ; see 1 1 73- 1 1 84 .

7 Androm . 1 1 47 .

142 A SOUL ’ S TRA GED Y

as pioneer the unc lea red a nd unknown wa ste, peopled i n

rea l i ty by savage bea sts a nd men , and suppo sed to be the

ha un t o f imagina ry monsters yet mo re terrib l e . By the

vu lga r herd , n ay , even by h is nea rest a nd dea rest , the so urce

a nd na ture o f his grea tn ess wi l l be igno rantly m i sconce ived ,and mo st o f allby tho se who a dm ire mo st . O n alls ides he

w i l l hea r h is pra i ses tra ns la ted in to language wh ich he lo a thes

and co ntemn s. H is superiori ty to o thers wi l l be expla i ned

by the fi ct ion o f a d iv ine pa rentage,which to h is better

tho ughts wi l l seem a revo l t i ng bla sphemy. His genu ine

a ch ievements w i l l be en la rged a nd tra vestied by a huge

append ix o f i n co ngruous fa l sehood . A nd wors t o f all,beca use

o f tha t ta i n t i n h is b lood , beca use he i s no t o n ly i n sp ired , bu t

a l so,i n the p la i n a nd gro ss sense o f the word

,beca use

he has h is hou rs o f da rkness a s. wel l as h i s ho u rs of illu mi

n a t io n , he h imself wi l l somet imes lend h i s a utho ri ty to co nfirm

the ta l es wh ich he abhors,wi l l repea t the abom inable nonsense

w ith wh ich h i s ea rs are fed,pro cla im i ng h imself tha t wh ich he

knows he i s n o t,and pa i n t i ng the good deeds

,o f wh ich he i s

proud,with the crude

,d isgust i ng co lo urs o f fo l ly and m i sbel ief.

I n pro cess o f t ime he wi l l become awa re tha t he does these

th ings. Lo ng before a ny on e el se,he wi l l know how i t i s wi th

h im . Self-ha tred and se lf-su spic ion wi l l aggrava te the inner

m i sch ief from which they spri ng. A nd a t la st , upo n the

o cca s io n o f some spec ia l exc i temen t,i n a few moments and

Wi thout a ny effect ive wa rn ing, the th in pa rt i t io n of h is bra i n

w i l l break,and a burst o f crue l fury wi l l exh ib i t the benefa cto r

o f human i ty,for some horrible hours , i n the seconda ry but n ot

l ess genu ine cha ra cter o f a fiend . Such i s the H era cl es of

Eurip ides .

The scene,wh ich i s la id a t Thebes , tha t is to say i n the

terri tory so ca l l ed and i n the immed ia te neighbourhood o f

the seven -ga ted fo rtress,shows a ho use wi th a n a l ta r before i t ,

the presen t home o f H era cles and h is fam i ly, which compr ises

h is fa ther Amphi tryon , his wife Megara , da ughter o f Creon

the la te k ing o f the country, a nd three sons of tender age .

The s itua t ion,wh ich rema i ns pra ct ica l ly u na l tered during a

th i rd pa rt o f the p lay a nd unt i l the a rr iva l o f Hera cles him

HERA CLES 143

self (v . i s des igned to exh ib i t the wide a nd in c om

prehens ible d ivergence of Opin ion,which d ivides the c ity a nd

e ven the fam i ly, respect ing the persona l i ty,chara cter

c a reer o f the absen t hero . With th is top ic bo th d ia logue a ndc ho rus are a lmo st exc l us ively o ccup ied

,the presen t a nd u n

d i sputed fa cts serving o n ly to a n ima te w ith urgency the

i n terest o f the drama t ic deba te. The fa cts themselves are set

fo rth pa rtly by Amph itryon i n a sem i - drama t i c pro logue o f

the usua l Euripidea n type,and part ly in the fo l lowing scenes.

Amphi tryo n , for the murder o f a near k insma n, was ex i led wi th

h is fam i ly from his na t ive A rgo s . B o th he a nd h is son

H era cles have done good service to Thebes in the l i tt l e

c ampa ign s of a prim i t ive c i ty, now aga inst the neighbouri ng

M inyans o f Orc homen u s,o n ano ther a nd famo us o cca s io n

a ga in st the is la nd ma ra uders o f A eto l ia ‘ . The son mo reover ,a s wa rrio r a nd hunter

,funct io ns n o t yet very clearly d i s

c rim ina ted,ha s fo l lowed the ca l l o f duty a nd adventure far

beyond these l im i ts,beyond alll im i ts of common knowledge or

report, a nd has won immense renown by a ch ievemen ts abou t

wh ich , if we put all the co ntrad ictory a ssert ions together,

we may say tha t they have been , a t the lowest est ima te,

uncommo n a nd benefi cia l ‘ . He was rewarded with the ha ndo f the Ki ng’s da ughter

,and the wedd ing was celebra ted by

Thebes wi th un iversa l applause ‘ . B u t th is pro speri ty o f the

house i s pa st. The Argive ex i les,Greek - l i ke

,st i l l p ined for

A rgo s ; and to purcha se restora t io n Hera cles o ffered h i s

services,i n redeem i ng the ea rth from savagery,

to the Argive

k ing Eu rystheus “. O f h is pa s t explo i ts i n the A rgo l id a nd

Peloponnese,which to the Theba ns o f th is play a nd the age

suppo sed a re d i sta nt a nd part ly untravel led regions , h i s

fel low- c i t i z ens a nd o thers ‘ have the same vague, i n cons isten t

n o t ions a s o f h is fo rmer enterprises, some po rten tously ex

to l l ing them,some reducing them to proport ion s modera te

o r even low“. The la test report describes him as having

1v . 60, e tc .

, v . 50, v . 2 20, e tc .

2 Compare the sta temen ts of Amphitryon , Megara , Lyc us, and the Chorus,

3v. 10.

4vv. 1 7—20.

descended i nto the cave o f Ta enarum , i n the extreme so uth ,the reputed entra nce o f the underwo rld , and n o t having

retu rned ‘ . Mea nwh i l e the fi ck le Theba ns have risen aga in st

Creon , have put him a nd h is sons to dea th,a nd ra i sed to the

tyranny on e Lycus,a fo reigner from Eubo ea ,

pretend ing a n

a nt iqua ted c la im to the thro ne . The fam i ly o fHera cles haveta ken refuge a t a publ ic a l ta r i n front o f the house , where ,help l ess a nd starving, they a re beleaguered by thei r enemy ’ .

U nder these c i rcum stances Mega ra and Amph it ryon,the

wife a nd the fa ther , deba te wha t i s best to be done “.

Mega ra i s for immed ia te surrender a nd the d ign ified a c

c epta n c e o f dea th ; Amphi tryo n i s unwi l l ing to res ign hope .

We m ight suspect here ‘,a nd i t soo n after becomes eviden t

tha t there i s more i n th i s than a m ere d ifference o f tempera

men t . Tha t wh ich upho ld s Amph itryon is n o commo n

ca l cu la t io n o f cha nces . H e enterta i n s respect ing h i s son,

with a fa i th pa thet ica l ly huma n i n i ts uncerta in ty “ a nd in

co ns istency,but stro ng enough o n the who l e to a ffect h is

j udgmen t , a bel i ef, wh ich the wife from fi rst to la st s ign ifi ca nt ly

igno res,a bel ief suffic ient , if wel l—fo unded , to j u st ify even

l im i t l ess expecta t io ns . The ca reer o f H era cles , co nceived as

n o t merely wo nderfu l but m ira cu lo us , i s expla in ed by some

a fter a fa sh ion na tu ra l to the popu la r H el len i c theo logy : he

is superhuman,the son o f a god, the son of Zeus. This

no tion , with certa i n parts o f the m i racu lo us b iography from

wh ich i t a r ises,Amph itryon

,wh i le reserving , with strange and

cha ra cter i st ic co nfus ion , an un impa i red a ssura nce of h i s own

fa therhoo d “,nevertheless a ccepts , a nd i n th is despera te hou r

tena cio usly defends . A nd for th is rea son he pers is ts i n the

hope,tha t H eracles , wherever he has gone, may st i l l retu in

o r a t alleven ts tha t i n some way‘Zeus

,the ‘ part-fa ther,

’ wi l l

i n terfere on beha lf o f h is progeny “.

Upo n the same s ide o f the quest ion , or a t l ea st i n the

same sphere o f bel ief and sent iment, s ta nd the company of

1v . 23 .

2vv . 26- 59.

3vv . 60—1 06.

4v . 92 .

6vv. 20—2 1 , and passim .

6vv . 3 , 1 4, etc .

7vv . 25 , 97, etc .

6vv . 1 70 (where no te pepet) , 339, 498 , and Amphitryon passim.

wea kness o f these ‘ mere vo i ces a nd on who se

d ec l i n ing heads the burden o f thei r a n t iqu i ty l ies l ike the

weight o f Aetna o n the gia n t compressed benea th ‘ . We

sha l l see tha t someth ing do es indeed depend upo n i t, some

th ing wi tho ut wh ich the scheme o f the play co u ld n o t have

been ca rr ied o u t i n i ts a ctua l fo rm,and canno t be properly

understood .

These,the old Amph i tryon a nd the aged Cho rus

the champions of the ba n ished Hera cl es , bo th a s man and as

dem igod ; for the Cho rus , a l tho ugh , l i ke Amph itryon but with

a d ifference,they a re ambiguo us o n the d ivine parentage

l eavi ng in th e a l terna t ive “ the do ctrin es wh i ch he con trives to

combine, are even more co pio us a nd stubbo rn than Am

phitry o n h im self i n ma i n ta i n ing the m i ra cu lo us accoun t o f

the hero’

s career .

Upo n the o ther s ide , and i n the extreme,sta nds Lycus

the tyra nt,a coa rse

,vu lga r upsta rt. H e comes ‘ i n i n so len t

tri umph to dema nd su rrender, a nd mo cks the hopes o f

Hera cles’

fa ther a nd wife,n o t o n ly by derid i ng the dem igod “

but by vi l ifying a nd deprecia t i ng the man“. H era cles

says,has gone to Hades

, and o f course wi l l n o more return

than a ny o ther man . S on o f Zeus ! Absurd ! Why shou ld

h is fam i ly expect co ns idera t io n ? Wha t was he ? Wha t d id

he do ? H e may have sna red a l io n or so— a ssert ing fa l se ly

tha t he s lew the bea st wi th h is ha nds ; bu t a fter allhe was a

poo r crea tu re. A fel low tha t fought with bow and a rrows,

the weapo ns o f a cowa rd

I n such sta rt l ing fa sh io n i s flung befo re u s the quest ion

a nd problem o f the play. For,brute though Lycus is

pla i n a s i t i s tha t h is rudeness a nd cruel ty are o ffered for o u r

reproba t ion , i t i s by n o mea ns pla i n , tha t everyth ing abou t

H era cles,which Lycus wou ld deny a nd his opponents a ssert

is true . I t is d iffi cu lt , if not impo ss ible , for us to suppo se so .

1 H er. 1 1 1 .

2v . 639 .

3vv . 3 53

3 54. Af ter the retu rn of Hera cles from H ades they are posi t ive forthe d ivin i ty (696) and adop t a s n ow proved the h armon iz ing view of Amphi tryon

798—809 .

4v . 1 40.

5v . 1 49.

6vv . 1 57

—1 64 .

HERA CLES 147

I n the fi rst pla ce,he is supported a t the present t ime by a

v ictorio us pa rty , a dom ina nt majo r i ty , i n Thebes ‘ , the pla ce

where H era c les has long l ived i n the fam i l ia r a spect o f a

den i z en . We m ay i ndeed wel l suppo se tha t the tone of

Lycus does no t exa ctly represen t h is s uppo rters genera l ly ;but we must st i l l suppo se

,from the i r conduct

,tha t they stand

i n opin io n much further from Amph i tryon . They do n o t,

they ca nno t bel i eve themse lves to have ri sked the vengea nce

o f on e who has a ided , i n ba tt l e aga i n st gia nts , the a rms a ndthunder o f the supreme Dei ty ‘ , a nd who , to say no th ing more

is n o t yet a scerta i ned to be dead . And th is,the i r pra ct ica l

t est imony to the infidel v iew,i s so fa r from i ns ign ifica nt tha t

i t i s a lmo st decis ive. Rebel s a nd i ngra tes they may be ,prod iga l s even some o f them a nd begga rs, a nd bent upon

robbery “ ; but for all tha t they a re‘ many

they must be

hundreds or thousa nds i n number ; they have had every

n a tura l oppo rtun ity o f est ima t ing the l ikel ihood tha t Hera cles

wa s o r i s capable o f sca tteri ng arm ies,crush ing gia nts

, a nd

captu ri ng dragons ; a nd , beyond allpo ss ib i l i ty o f quest ion ,they are no t effect ive ly co nvinced tha t he is.

And i n the next pla ce,upon wha t, fo r wa nt o f a better

term , we must ca l l the theo logica l a spect o f the ca se, upon

the quest io n o f m ira cle , Lycus has a n a l ly i n the bo som o f h is

e nemy. To th is exten t Mega ra herself i s with him . Ad

m i r i ng her husband to the very height o f m a n,she p la i n ly

does n o t ho ld him to be a superna tu ra l person ; and wha t i s

m ore,for some rea so n n o t apparen t i n the scene n ow befo re

u s but pro vok ing cu rio s i ty ,she i s p la i n ly unwi l l i ng tha t h i s

pretens ions to tha t cha ra cter sho u ld be adva nced o r d iscussed .

The sha rp a nd s imple d ifference between Megara and Am

phitry on is exa ct ly no ted by Lycus , upo n h is entra nce, i n

wo rds wh ich are a compend ium o f the en su ing d ia logue and

a key to the po s i t ion ‘ : Yo u fa ther a nd yo u wife o f Hera c les ,

vv. 34 , 543 , 558-

56 1 , 588 fo l l . , e tc .

2vv . 1 77 fo l l .

vv. 569 , 588 fo l l . , e tc . vv . 588—592 are suspec ted of in terpo la t ion , but

o n ly be c ause they emphasiz e a. l it t le tha t aspe c t of the si tua t ion whic h istoo muc h ignored .

4vv . 1 40 fo l l.

I O—2

148 A SOUL ’S TRA GED Y

I wo u ld ask you ,wi th l eave suppo sed , a certa i n quest ion

To wha t hou r do ye seek to pro lo ng you r l ives ? Wha t hope

o r help aga i n s t dea th have ye i n v iew ? I s i t the fa ther of

these boys,who l i es w ith Hades , tha t wi l l , y o u trust , retu rn

How y o u do exaggera te the ca use for lamen t i n yo ur a p

proa c hing dea th , both y ou ( to Amph itryon ) , who ha ve sprea d

through H ella s the va in boa st tha t Z eu s had pa rt in y ou r c ou ch

a nd a sha re in y ou r child,a nd y ou (to Mega ra ), whop rocla imed

y ou rself wife to the noblest of ma nhind .

”And a cco rd ingly

to the w ife in pa rt icu la r ‘ he pro ceeds to address h is a tta ck

upo n the meri ts o f Hera cl es a s a ma n Wha t i s i t to have

k i l l ed a l ion or a wa ter- sna ke ?’

a nd aga i n , ‘ Wha t i s the

d ign ity o f an a rcher —by wh ich he reduces the rank o f the

hero n ot merely to the level o f na tura l power, bu t to a low

pla ce i n the huma n sca l e . Alltha t i s spoken by Mega ra,

a nd st i l l mo re wha t is left u nspoken,co nfi rm s a nd proves his

est ima te o f her sen t iments . Witho ut d i rect ly contrad icting

or cri t ic i s ing,which neither k indness n or decency wo u ld pers

m it, the m i ra cu lo us a l lega t ions o f Amph itryo n,she d isowns

them for her pa rt completely,n ot o n ly by igno r ing a nd

om i tt ing (though th i s i n itselfwo uld be eno ugh) , bu t po s i t ively .

‘ The gods sha l l be my witnesses !’ says Amph itryon “

open ing wh a t he co ncei ves to be the true a nd wo rthy defence

of his son . My husba nd,

’ says Mega ra to Amphi tryon wi th

ha ughty modesty ,

‘ i s glo riou s withou t witnesses.

And she

pro ceeds co ns i sten t ly to expo stu la te wi th the old m an,i n

terms sca rce ly d ist i ngu ishabl e from tho se o f Lycus h im self,

upo n the va n i ty o f expect ing ‘a dea d ma n

to retu rn from

the o ther wo rld “. This she do es withou t o nce deign ing'

no t ice the a l lega t io ns wh ich,if true

,wo u ld obvious ly take

H era c les o u t o f the commo n ru l e , witho ut o nce con s ideri ng

wha t m ight be expected from a jo urney to the o ther world ,if undertaken by such a voyager a s ‘ th e son o f Zeus .’

Such are the part ies to th is staggering a nd en igma t ical

controversy. The two most conspicuous fea tu res i n i t a re

the t i rade o f Amph itryon ‘ , a nd the encom i um or creed “

1 76. vv_

290, 295 fo l l. ; c ompare v .

vv . 348 fol].

tongue,

’ wh ich i s alltha t he now c an l end ‘,—alli s respect ive

to the part o f Zeus , a nd prompted by the impl ied reflexio n,

odd i ndeed bu t p ro fo und ly true to the wo rk ing o f a bo l d

yet superst i t io us m i nd,tha t every wo rd wh ich he c an u tter

gives ano ther seco nd of oppo rtun ity to the A lm ighty.

Such is the outwa rd fo rm of th i s strange,but stra ngely

n a tu ra l o ra t io n . When we turn to i ts substa nce,a nd cons ider

i t a s a n a rgument for the pro fessed thes i s,tha t Hera cles i s

no torious ly a nd demo nstrably superhuma n,we ca nno t but

see a l ready , wha t w i l l appea r aga i n a nd mo re consp icuous ly

when the Cho rus take up the ta l e, tha t the defenders o f the

m i ra cu lo us a cco un t ha ve, i n the way o f evidence,no th ing of

a ny va l ue to a dduce . They answer the infidel to the ir own

sa t i sfa ct ion , beca use they do n ot understand h i s dema nd .

Lycus has taxed the d iv in i ty o f H era cles a s a n‘ empty

a no t io n wh ich , l ike the m i ra cu lous sto r ies upo n

which i t i s ba sed , i s believed a nd reported but not tru e. Now

if i t were true , if such th ings as were rumoured o f Hera cles

had rea l ly o ccurred , how sho u ld such a cha l lenge be a nswered

by such a person as Hera cles ’ na tu ra l fa ther ? How (if fori l l ustra t io n we m ay suppo se the ca se) wo uld i t have be en

a nswered by Deia n ira ,wife to Hera cles i n the Tra chin ia e

o f Sophocles ? Ea s i ly o f co urse a nd co nclus ively,by the

test imony o f her own experience . With her own eyes she had

seen Hera c les wrest l e down a horned and monstro us river

god“. And so sho u ld Amph itryo n a nswer , so i nevi tably

must he , if i n fa ct he had any relevan t experience ; a nd th is

aga i n he cou ld no t be witho u t, if i ndeed the popu la r sto ries

had any fo unda t io n . O ne m i ra cu lo us inc ident a t lea st,bo th

famous and convinc ing, was suppo sed i n a fter- t imes by

wo rsh ippers o f Hera cles to have ta ken pla ce before Amph i

tryo n’s eyes . The d iv ine infant had strangled serpents i n

h is crad l e ; so i t was sa id i n Thebes‘. Why then do we no t

now hea r th is , and o ther l ik e fa cts,from a competen t witness

the fa ther ? Because—wha t o ther expla na t io n i s po ss ibleno such th ings had he ever seen . Wha t we do hea r

,wha t

1v . 2 29.

2v . 1 48 .

3 Soph . Trach . vv . 10 fo l l . , 5 23 fo l l . 4 H'

era cles 1 266.

HERA CLE S 5 1

Amphitryon , i n h is honest u nsuspect ing s impl ic i ty, does

a ctua l ly a l lege as warra nt for h is boa st, serves o n ly to ma rk

the a bsence o f genu ine test imo ny a nd h is i ncapa c ity to

comprehend tha t obj ect io n—comba ts with ‘o utrageo us fo ur

foo t centa urs ,’

for wa rra nt whereof the obj ecto r i s referred

to the forests o f A rca d ia a nd bidden to‘

go and enqu ire of

awfu l co ntests with the giga nt i c o ffspring o f ea rth,

ba tt les o f the gods , o f wh ich we are n o t to l d so much a s the

lo ca l i ty,a nd which we a re to verify by cro ss - exam i n ing such

wi tnesses as the thunderbo l t and chario t o f Zeus 2. No

i nformants are spec ified,nor is i t even ind ica ted tha t a ny

a ccess ible in fo rman ts ex ist. Of m ira cu lo us events i n the

speaker’s home,i n Thebes

,i n Boeo t ia

,i n any pla ce, t ime , or

c i rcumsta nces perm i tt ing h is persona l knowledge,we have

no t on e wo rd . Ye t o f th i s defect he is h imself so perfect lyunco nsc io us

,a s to remark tha t for the true chara cter of

Lycus on e sho u ld gO—where ? Why, where else but to h i s

na t ive Eubo ea ’ ? The s impl ic ity i s a dm irabl e a nd a proo fo f good - fa i th , bu t suffic ient a l so to show tha t for evidence

for gro unds,if there be a ny ,

to suppo rt the m i ra cu lo us stories

abo ut Hera c les as ma tter o f fa ct,we must go el sewhere tha n

to Amph itryon .

We go a cco rd ingly to the Chorus , who ,aswas sa id

,conso l e

themselves i n the suspense o f the supreme momen t by a

mournfu l rec i ta l o f the meri to r io us a nd splend id a ch ievements

n ow to be so i l l repa id , a lyri ca l cano n , as i t were , o f the

labo urs o f H era c les 4. This ode i s h igh ly esteemed , a nd

deserved ly,as a p iece of gra cefu l poetry. B u t if we take

i t for no th ing mo re,if we suppo se tha t Aeschyl us, Sopho cles ,

or any o ther known poet except Eurip ides , wo u ld have

compo sed i t as i t sta nds , or tha t i t may ,witho u t lo ss of effect ,

be detached a s a mere hymn from the scenes to which i t

rela tes,we are i n erro r . L i k e the Speech o f Amph itryon ,

i t is n o t o n ly a n encom i um but a l so a defence and a defia nce .

L i ke Amphi tryo n,the old me n a re a nswering Lycus , a nd

with him all tha t yo unger genera t ion “, who so perversely

1vv. 1 8 1 - 1 83 .

2vv. 1 74 toll. a imu dprvaw Geofs—Atbs Kepa vvbr r

fipbunv ré0p11rrrci. re .

3v . 1 85 .

4vv . 348 fo l l . 6 S ee xdxta ros rt

bv réwv in v . 25 7, v . 436, etc .

1 52 A SOUL’ S TRA GED Y

deprec ia te and so ea s i ly forget the services o f the depa rted

hero . And the pra i se o f the Cho rus , l i ke tha t o f Amph i

t ryo n,wha tever truth i t may co nta in , i s yet , when cons idered

as a n a nswer to Lycus,a s evidence, a nd espec ia l ly a s

evidence for the m ira cu lo us , l iable to the fa ta l obj ect ion tha t

they do n o t understa nd the requ iremen t . They a re i ndeed

resen tfu l ly consc ious tha t the i r story in its deta i l s i s d i sputed ,and they even go so far beyond Amph itryo n as to produce

for on e pa rt o f i t, evidence undo ubtedly proba t ive .

‘ A l so ,

they say ,

‘ the r id ing ho st o f the Ama z ons,who dwel t abo u t

the ma ny rivers o f Maeo tis,he d id a ssa i l

,pa ss ing the I n

ho sp i table S e a , with c omp a ny of c omrades g a thered (were theyn ot ?)from allH ellen ic la nds

,seek i ng a dead ly pri z e

,the go l den

gird le tha t A res’

da ughter wo re ; which famous spo i l o f the

stra nge ma iden H ella s rec eived , a nd My cena e ha th it

A crowd of witnesses,a vis ible memo r ia l

,wha t more c a n the

scept ic a sk ? Certa i n ly no th ing more upon this pa rtic ula r

c ou n t. The exped it io n aga i n st the Ama z o ns i s proved up to

the h i l t—saving indeed the deta i l,to which the evidence do es

n o t go ,tha t the ir queen was the daughter o f Ares . B u t

Lycu s wo u ld demur, a nd readers o f Eurip ides in the fi fth

century wo u ld demur,and we must demur

,when the narra to rs

a ssume tha t,beca use o n e repo rted fea t o f Hera c l es i s pro v

able, therefo re allreported fea ts,of wha tever hind ,

must be

taken wi tho u t proo f for true . The na rra to rs prove wha t i s

cred ib l e,a nd then , with a logic n o t un fam i l iar to us

,dema nd

credence for th ings wh ich are no t. Tha t there have been

Ama z o ns i s a fa ct ; tha t Hera cles i nvaded a nd defea ted the

Am a z on s wo u ld have been gra nted a s po ss i ble,perhaps even

probable,by Thucyd ides h imse lf

,a nd i s

,i n a certa i n sense

adm i tted by h isto ry st i l l . B u t when the na rra to rs a ssert ‘ ,with the same co nfidence

,tha t i n ‘

Ery the ia’

(wherever tha t

was) , i n the dim a nd unknown west, H era cles s l ew a

‘ keeper

o f k ine wi th bod ies three ,’ then a sco ffer, a Lycus , or a ny o f tha t

m u lt i tude who a ppea r to sha re h is opin ions,wo u ld o f co urse

observe tha t Ama z o ns a re o ne th ing a nd a three -bod ied

Geryo n qu ite a no ther ; and they wi l l no te i t for unfortuna te

1vv . 408 fo l l . 2

v. 423 .

1 54 A SOUL ’ S TRA GED Y

éBdu a t’

ov) the mo re fert i l e p la i n below . Readers in the fifth

cen tury were fam i l ia r with bo th co ncept io n s o f the centa ur,a nd with the theo ry tha t the m i ra cu lo us concept ion , tha t o f

Amph i tryo n,was a figment, evo lved by wonder- loving

ignora nce o u t o f the non -m ira cu lous,tha t o f the Chorus .

The ‘ go lden a pple - tree ’

a nd ‘ gua rd ia n serpen t ’ are to be

so ught nea r the dwel l ing-pla ce o f A t la s,

’ wherever tha t wa s‘ ;but the doubters wo u ld scarce ly a ccept an a cco unt o f such

th i ngs from persons who do no t even pro fess to have seen

them . Certa i n ly they wo u ld no t ta ke i t from tho se who,i n

a ffi rm i ng tha t a certa i n m i sch ievo us deer, s la i n by the hero ,

had a go l den head,

’ no te,as if i t were a confi rma t ion

,tha t he

presented tha t trophy ‘a s a n o rnamen t

to the temple o f

A rtem is a t O enoe. Such deco ra t ion s were common ly gi lded ;a nd, before bel ieving tha t the reported ma rve l was a nyth ing

mo re tha n th is,the scept ics wo u ld here a l so wa i t for the

test imony o f some o n e , who had used h i s rea so n and h i s

eyes 2.

B u t here a no ther a nd an Oppo s i te tho ught o ccurs,a

thought for which , as we ha ve seen , many m inds i n the fifth

cen tu ry were prepa red by the trend o f specu la t ion a nd

controversy. The more i t appea rs tha t the story o f Hera cles,

as to ld by h i s contempo ra ry a dm i rers , co nta i n s a la rge

propo rt io n o f fa nta sy,exaggera t ion , a nd fa lsehood , the mo re

we wo nder how such uncerta i n ty co u ld a ri se, how so enormou s

a d ifference o f o pin io n a s tha t between Lycus and the Chorus

co u ld po ss ibly ex ist,whi le the hero o f the sto ry wa s l iv ing a nd

fam i l ia r. We ask who has seen these th ings. B u t there is

on e perso n who must , i t shou ld seem ,profess to have seen

them all: and tha t i s Hera c les h imse lf. Here,i n the incept io n

o f a l egend , was the very problem with which free enqu i rers

i n the age of Euri p ides were gravely if n o t a lways wise ly

1vv- 394

—407 .

2 S ee vv . 3 75 fo l l . , n o t ing tha t dy dkket eeo’

wtakes its mean ing from ay axu a in

the sense of orn amen t. It would appear tha t the skul l was a c tu a l ly shown a t

O enoe ; and tha t the dec ora t ion of i t had suggested the exp lana t ion o f the legend towhic h Eurip ides po in ts. O ther suc h a l lusions would probably be apparen t inthe ode , and e lsewhere in the p lay, if we were suffi c ien tly a c qua in ted wi th c on

temporary fa c ts and l i tera ture .

HERACLES 1 55

busy. I t was Of course open to them to a l l ege del ibera te

decept ion,and they d id ; but the co lo uring of the scene

forbids us ea s i ly to suppo se tha t th is i s to be the so l ut ion

o f the drama t i st , tha t the son o f Amph it ryon a nd husba nd o f

Mega ra wi l l be proved a shameless l ia r. Wha t then i s he ?

We eagerly expect his a ppeara nce,which o ccurs i n the

fo l lowing a c t.

Before we pro ceed to i t, a wo rd sho u ld be sa i d abo ut the

pla ce o f the a ct ion , the house o f Hera c les , which we descr ibed

above ‘ a s nea r but not wi th in the ci ty or fortress o f Thebes .

The use o f the wo rd m ik es (a s i n v . 593 e’

a dcbv 7ré7u v) m ightm i s lead a n Engl ish reader a s to th is

,but the a l terna t ive X96?”

(a s i n v . 598 eia ifltdov Xdo'

va ) shows tha t m ik es here , a s o ften,

means the vyfi, the sta te or terr i to ry o f Thebes

, no t the c ity

i n o u r sense. The d ist inct io n is triv ia l,bu t in th is ca se

importa nt. The c i rcum sta nces a ttend ing the a rri va l o f

Hera c les a nd dea th o f Lycus “, a nd st i l l more the subsequent

a rr iva l o f Theseu s s,a re i nconceivable

,if the p la ce o f a ct io n

canno t be rea ched without pa ss ing the ga tes o f a c i ty agita ted

by revo l ut io n . The house must be so l i ta ry,free from observa

t ion ; nor i s there a nything in the drama i nco ns istent with

th i s necessary suppo s i t io n .

From th is house then Mega ra ,with Amph itryo n a nd the

ch i ldren,now re -enters 4 a tt ired for dea th “. Lycus has been

absen t during th is prepara t ion,and ha s n ot yet retu rned . The

pa tho s o f the s i tua t ion,h itherto a lmo st negl ected in the

dom i nan t i n terest o f H eracles,i s empha s i z ed by Mega ra i n

a lament over the ch i ld ren,which however i s i tse lf so tu rned

a s to keep the fa ther and h is en igma t ic persona l i ty befo re o u r

a ttent io n “. We hea r how the grea t ex i l e wou ld so la ce

h imself by prom is ing to h i s boys a magn ificent future , when

o n e sho u ld have A rgo s and shou ld ‘ dwel l,sovereign o f fa i r

Pelasgia ,i n the pa la ce o f Eurystheus ,

’ the second shou ld be

pri nce o f Thebes,po ssess ing the pla i n s o f h i s mo ther

i nheri tance,whi le the yo ungest wo u ld coax from him the

prom i se o f O ec halia,ca ptu red once o n a t ime by his a rch ery.

p . 1 42 . See v. 543 . vv. 5 1 4—762 . vv . 1 163 fo l l .

v . 45 1 . vv . 3 2 7 fo l l . , 5 25 , 562. vv . 45 1-

1 56 A soa z’

s TRACED Y

The to uch ing human i ty o f the p icture plea ses a t o nce ; but

when we know the sequel and the connex io n o f the who le,we

sha l l rema rk tha t these pa renta l imagina t io ns a re no t more

tender than strange . If i t be true,as a ma ster ha s sa id ‘ , tha t

the i nmo st o f a ma n appears i n h i s day -d reams,i t i s a n

unqu iet a nd a d isqu i et i ng sou l wh ich th is gl impse revea l s .

To fa ncy impo ss ib i l i t ies is somet imes a peri lous pl ea sure ; and

the fa nc ies o f Hera c l es a re n o t a l together i n nocent . O e chalia

he m ight give,or ha rm less ly p lay a t giv ing ; bu t Thebes wa s

the inheri tance’

n o t o f Mega ra but o f her bro thers “ ; a nd a s

for the rea lm o f Argo s,the fam i ly had n o l eg i t ima te hope o f i t

wha tever “. The tra i t wo u ld be i ns ign ifi cant , were i t n o t for

the seque l,bu t we sha l l presen t ly ha ve rea son to remember

wi th p ity tha t Hera cles , i n h is wi lder fa nc ies , loved to suppo se

h imself ma ster o f the pa la ce o f Eurystheus .

Whi le Megara pursues these melancho ly remembra nces ,a nd Amph itryo n yet o nce more a nd for the la st t ime im

po rtu nes the expected Zeus , Hera cles presents h imse lf, safe

but unguarded . The scene wh i ch ensues “ i s the centra l

l ight o f the p lay , i l l um i na t ing pa st a nd future with the same

a brupt and mena c ing fla sh . For here we sudden ly d iscover

(sca rcely wi th more surpri se tha n some o f the a cto rs , though

o n e,we no t ice

,do es no t express a ny ) , tha t the hero i s n o t

ma ster o f h imself,tha t h i s rea so n is n o t pro o f aga i nst exc i te

men t , tha t a t th is cri t i ca l mom en t h i s bra in i s in a co nd i t io n

o f irri tabi l i ty which renders him a lmo st incapable o f a ct ion ,i n short , tha t he i s o n the very verge o f del iri um .

H e appro aches,a nd h is wi fe fl ings herself i n to h is a rms .

I n a rap id co l loquy she a cqua i n ts him with the situ a tio n ,.the

ma ssa cre of her fam i ly,the enemy in po ssess ion o f the town ,

the instant peri l o f herself a nd the rest . The wra th o f

Hera cl es r ises w ith every reply . A nd when all i s to ld,he

bu rsts , i n such a to ne a nd with such looks a nd a ct io n a s we

may im agine,i n to th is

1 V ic tor Hugo , Les Alise‘rables.

2v . 539.

3 S ee , for the re la t ions o f H era c les n i th Argos and Eurystheus, vv . 1 3- 2 1 .

I n the Hera clida e and e lsewhere they are represen ted o therwise .

4vv . 5 2 3

- 636.

1 58 A so c/ 1’

s TRA GED Y

been seen,

if so,the enemy may a ssemble , and

m ay be less sa fe tha n he th ink s‘. Hera c les begins to ra ve

aga i n “, but l ess v io l en t ly , a nd h i s fa ther i ns inua tes , with

preca ut io n “, the obvio us co unsel,tha t Lycus sho u ld be em

t ra pped . The son consents to ta ke the fi rst step i n th is

d irect io n by go i ng in to the ho use, but in a manner wh ich

shows tha t he is st i l l wanderi ng a nd no t awa ke to rea l i ty.

Lycus , Thebes , the present danger, have pa ssed o u t o f h i s

thoughts , which a re o ccupied with an i noppo rtune a nd a

sta rt l ing scruple . H e has been long i n the under-wo rld ,i n ‘ the sun less deeps o f Hades a nd Persepho ne ’

; he must

no t neglect the immed ia te duty o f sa l u t ing the domest ic gods .

Amph itryon c an sca rcely bel ieve h is ea rs : ‘ Yo u have been

there,son ! Rea l ly a n d tru ly ?

’— ‘ Ay , a nd brought up to

l igh t the three-hea ded monster too !’

Did yo u take him by

fo rce, o r d id the goddess give him to y o u—‘ Sei z ed him

Victo rio us ly ; I had seen the Ho ly Mysteri es . ’ And he is

rea l ly now a t the ho use o f Erechtheus ? ’ No ,i n the sanctua ry

o f Chthon ia “ a t And Eurystheus has no t had

news o f you r com i ng up aga i n ?’

No ; I came here fi rst for

news o f home.

B u t why were y o u down there so long ?’

‘ Theseus was i n H ades,fa ther

,and I s tayed to rescue him .

And where i s he n ow ? Go ne Off to h is own co un try ? ’

‘ Go ne to A thens , a nd glad to be o u t from below.

’ Duri ng

these revela t io ns,fa ther and son , the fo rmer a nx ious ly l ead ing

the way and the rest o f the gro up with ba ckward gla nces

keep ing step for step, ha ve drawn nea r to the do o r. Having

fin ished the sto ry Hera c les n ow composed ly en ters,mo ck ing

wi th fo nd rebukes the scared ch i l dren a nd shak ing woma nwho c l utch a t his dress. Le t them come a long i n with him ;

1vv . 588

592 should n ot b e suspe c ted . The la ck o f c on t inuity be tween 592and 593 is the resul t no t of injury to the text , but o f the speakerjs ag i ta t ion and the

hearer’s obst ina c y. 2v . 595 .

3 No te the irre levan c e o f vv . 599—600, 7rp6cf €t7r€ taste , to wha t fo l lows, and

a lso tha t i t is to the irre levan t suggest ion tha t H erac les a t tends, vv. 607 fo l l .Exa c tl y wha t Amphitryon th inks of Herac les’ behaviour, i t is d iffic ul t to say . H e

has sc arc e ly t ime to form an Op in ion . B u t he is c learly bo th surprised and a larmed .

4 Deme ter Chthon ia , an equiva len t or double o f Persephon e .

6 A town a t the e ast end of Argo l is. S ee hereafter.

HERACLES 1 59

th ings are changed for the better s ince they came o u t ;

but why tea rs ? there i s no th ing to cry for n ow ; and why

c l i ng so ? he has no wings ; he i s no t go ing to fly away.

Wha t,they wi l l not l et go ; they ho l d t ighter a nd t ighter !

I t must have been a terri ble sca re, a very,very near th ing

i ndeed . Wel l , he wi l l be the big sh ip, and pu l l the l i tt le sh ips

a fte r him . (A s a fa ct,we must suppo se tha t they are pu l l ing

h im,i n a n ago ny o f impa t ien t d istress .) He i s no t a shamed

to m ind h i s babes . Allmen (he stays a t the la st moment to

a dd th is reflexion ), allmen a re a l i ke here : grea t a nd sma l l,

r i ch a nd poo r, i n loving thei r ch i l dren allmank ind a re k in .

In primary mean ing a nd presen t effect,th i s scene

sho u ld seem ,requ ires n o comm entary. I t i s evident tha t

a ny ma n,grea t or sma l l

,who i n such c ircumsta nces c a n

so beha ve, is for the momen t l i tt l e sho rt of mad ; eviden t

a lso,tha t for wha t i s to come

,immed ia tely o r even tua l ly, the

sta te o f such a man i s da ngero us i n the extreme. And a t

fi rst s ight,or fi rs t read ing

,th i s i s perhaps alltha t we co u ld

here d ist in ct ly perce ive . B u t mo re d im ly we m ight a l ready

perce ive the dawn of a new l igh t upo n the pa st , the first word

o f a terrible a nswer to the problem befo re propounded to us .

Why are people fo und who enterta i n such extravaga nt bel iefs

a bou t H era c les , s ince from the preponderan t d isbel ief, a nd the

fut i l i ty o f the professed evidence, we must suspect tha t tho se

bel iefs a re n o t j u st ified ? We n ow begin to see why. To the

repo rt o f h is recen t adventu res,which H era cl es has here

made,pla in ly n o fa i th i s due or c a n be given . I t canno t be

taken serio usly . The very ma nner o f i t, the o ff-ha nd,trivia l

tone ( I have copied i t to the best o f my abi l i ty a nd i nvi te

compari son with the o rig ina l), so unworthy of the tremendo us

theme, wou ld j ust ify us i n suppo s ing, if the a utho r be pre

sumed to have a ny sens ibi l i ty, tha t the speaker i s n o t fi t to

be hea rd . A nd when we a l so rema rk,tha t th i s prod igio us

vers ion o f the hero’ s descen t in to the cavern o f Ta en arum

i s n o t revea l ed to us unt i l h i s m i n d,wha tever wa s its cond it io n

before,has been ma n ifest ly d i so rga n i z ed by the sho ck o f

a ston ishment and rage,and tha t the o n ly a l l u s ion wh ich

1v. 623 dpa .

precedes tha t sho ck ‘,has no such co lo u r o r suggest ion of i t

but is perfect ly compa t ible with such a concept io n of the

who l e adventure a s commo n experi ence wo u l d j ust ify,—when

we see th i s , we are fo rced to su pp o se , a s ra t iona l and u n

prej ud iced specta to rs, tha t , upo n th is o cca s io n a t allevents,

the rem in iscences o f H era cl es are clo uded,

fluctua t ing, a nd a t

presen t a l together u n trustwo rthy. B u t wha t then o f tho se

o ther rem i n i scences and repo rts , with wh i ch i n t imes pa st he

may be presumed to have o cca s iona l ly nou ri shed the fa i th o f

favou rabl e recip ien ts , such as the do t ing fa ther a nd the

venerabl e as wel l a s venera t ing fri ends ? Wha t was the

sta te o f h i s m i nd , when he re la ted , a s somet imes he a pparen tly

d id,tha t the wa ter- sna kes o f Lerna were allo n e sna ke

bea st with ten tho usa nd necks , tha t a Thra cia n ch ief kept

ho rses who se ma ngers were suppl i ed wi th huma n flesh,tha t

there were ho rse -me n i n A rcad ia , three-bod ied m en i n

Ery the ia ,a nd beyond tha t , if yo u went far, far towards a nd

i n to the sett ing sun , there were—wha t was there no t ? Wha tpart o f these travel s had he rea l ly made

,a nd wha t th ings had

he t ru ly fo und ? The doubt , the suspic ion , which co ver th i s

la st voyage to Ta e n arum ,a re seen , when we reflect , to sprea d

ba ckwa rds over everyth ing wh ich he may ha ve been led to

say o f h imself, especia l ly i n the unguarded freedom o f

i n t ima cy a nd the domest i c c irc le. How much was mo ckery,

how much self- delus io n Alli s u ncerta i n . Even if delus io n

was never imputed to him befo re, a nd if h i s m i ra cles have

pa ssed a t the worst, a s with Lycus,for empty boa sts

,tha t

est ima te , we see , wi l l now ha ve to be revised . Every one

knows tha t there is such a th ing as la tent in san i ty and a

m i nd vo l can ic , who se c louds and mutter ings a re unheeded or

m i s in terpreted un ti l the fa ta l exp lo s ion . Is th is the ca se o f

Hera cles ?

Normust we overlook , wha t , but for the pa tho s and tragedy

of the th ing , wo u ld be l ud icro us , the co l lapse, under a pra ctica l

test,o f tho se h igh co nvict ions , which the fa i thfu l so magn ifi

1v . 524 , if indeed we c an say tha t this a l ludes to Taenaru m a t all. Bu t for the

seque l , the expression és ¢dos uokuSu m ight we l l b e understood as mere ly me ta

phoric alfor a joyful re turn .

’S ee Aesc h . Agamf 504 , 508 , 52 2 (Dindorf) .

1 62 A SOUL ’S TRAGED Y

o f th i s before ; but i s he sure o f i t n ow ? If so,wha t mea n

h is rea l ly ’

and ‘ veri ly ’

No t l ess eloqu erit i s the behaviour o f Mega ra . She, who

i n n o extrem i ty co u ld fa ncy or pretend tha t her husba nd was

mo re tha n the grea test o fmen ha i l s h im i ndeed nevertheless ,i n the na tura l extravagance of re l i ef

,a s a sa viou r ‘

not l ess

tha n Zeus .’ Her trust,her hopes , her speech run before Amph i

tryo n’

s,unt i l the o utbrea k o f her husband

s pa ss io n revea l s him—n o t h im self“. And from tha t i n sta n t she u tters n o t a word

bu t a id s i n trembl ing s i lence to coax him with in the covert o f

the house “. Now as befo re, if the wi fe , i n j udgmen t Of her

h usband,i s mo re rea sonable

,qu icker

,and mo re far- s ighted

tha n the fa ther, tha t may be part ly beca use she knows more .

The coax ing i s a t la st a ccompl i shed,a nd the Chorus rema i n

a lone. They , overcome by unwonted effo rts a nd exci tem en t ,are unable to a ss i s t

,sca rcely able even to comprehend

,a nd a re

co nscio us ch iefly o f the i r own immense weari n ess . The burden

o f age ! Tha t i s the subj ect o f thei r tho ughts . A nyth ing

for youth ! Cursed , cu rsed be age ! A seco nd yo uth— if meri t

co u l d but have been rewa rded wi th tha t ! To age , o nly on e

th ing i s l eft—memo ry , a reco rd ing vo i ce . S ing then they

w i l l,s ing

,if i t were the i r swa n - song

,H era c les v ictorious

H era cl es so n o f Zeus,

’ dead ly to mon sters dread and

pro tecto r o f huma n pea ce “. S o they a re s inging,when

Lycu s wi th hi s guards re - en ters , a nd Amph itryon , wa tch ing

fo r h im from with in , i ssues to d irect h im i n to the trap .

I n a few m i n utes “ the usurper i s trapped , a nd the Cho rus

are h a i l i ng the Resto ra t ion . H is armed gua rd ’, the mark o f

h is funct ion , fo l low him i n to the house a nd share his fa te.

How many they are do es n o t appea r ; but s ince Hera cl es on

h i s s ide c an comma nd,if necessa ry

,the s la ves o f the ho use “

he may be suppo sed , with the advantage o f surpri se, to a ccoun t

ea s i ly for a s many as may be tho ught co nven ien t . The scene

i s brief,i n due propo rt io n to i ts momenta ry in terest

,a nd the

v . 1 50 , and Megara’

s part passim .

vv . 583—636, espec ia l ly v . 626.

5vv . 63 7

—700.

v . 724 . S ee a lso no te on v. 7 29 in the Appendi x .

HERA CLE S 1 63

hymns of the elders ‘ bring us back a t o nce to the rel igiousand specu la t ive quest io n wh ich co nt in ues to ho ld o u r a ttent io n .

Need less to say ,the dea th o f the sco ffer i s for the Cho rus a

d ivine j udgment,a ma n ifest in terven t io n o f the gods

,espec ia l ly

o f Zeus,a nd proves the u tmo st o f thei r imagina t ion s ‘ : the

vis i t o f H era c l es to the lower wo r ld,a nd h is escape there

from , i s now an unquest ionabl e fa ct aye , tha t d id he and

the l egend o f the do ub le pa tern i ty,i n l i tera l crudeness o f

deta i l , ro l l s forth , with o ther p icturesque a nd pa trio t i c fi ct ions,

i n allthe pomp o f renewed a nd tri umphant a ssurance “. B u t

a la s , the true gods or true God , the Power o f Na ture a nd

fixed connex io n o f th ings “,is o therwise m i nded

,a nd return s

to these prema tu re j ubi la t ions a prompt and withering rep ly.

The scene which here opens demands the mo s t ca refu l

con s idera t ion . More tha n anyth ing else i n the play,i t is n ow

l iable to m i sundersta nd ing,n ot from obscuri ty in the presen

ta tion des igned by the drama t i s t , but from a n undes igned a nd

unforeseen defect,with wh ich

,in s tudying a ncient drama

m ust perpetua l ly reckon,—the lo ss o f the a ct io n a nd (if such

ever ex isted ) o f the equ iva l en t stage - d irect ions . I t i s ea sy toimagine wha t problems Shakespea re ( l et u s say ) wbu ld presen t ,if he were pri nted l i ke the P aeta e Scen ic i Gra ec i

,bu t n o t

qu ite so ea sy to bear i n m i nd,tha t such is a ctua l ly the

cond it ion o f Euri p ides . The scene n ow befo re us must appea r

to be no nsense, hopeless ly in cons isten t w ith alltha t precedes

a nd fo l lows it , un less we figure i t a s a ccompan ied by certa i n

a ct ion,which c a n i nd eed be a scerta i ned , by exam i na t ion

sufficient ly carefu l and comprehens ive , from the bare text ,a l though a modern reader, espec ia l ly if preo ccup ied , a s he

wel l may be, by d ifficul t ies o f ano ther o rder , wi l l certa i n ly n o t

d ivine i t witho ut such exam ina t ion .

Le t u s fi rst observe (there i s n o d ifficu l ty so far) , tha t wha t

here pa sses w ith in the house , the centra l i n c ident of the play,i s conveyed to u s

,the a ud ience , twice . F i rst we lea rn i t

i n o ut l i ne (vv . 87 5—908) by crie s and o ther sounds from

with in,with comments by the Cho rus, or the i r leader, without.

1vv . 756

- 8 1 4.

2vv . 770 (7 c ), 805 fo l l .

3vv . 794 fo l l . , 798 fo l l. 4 Alcestis 962 fo l l .

I I—2

164 A TRA GED Y

This pa ssage,ha lf- ru i ned i n the MSS . by non -d ist in ct ion of

pa rts,was eluc ida ted , I bel ieve for the fi rst t ime

,i n the ed i t ion

of Pro fesso r U . von Wilamowitz -Mollendorff, a nd l i t t l e mo re,if a nyth ing

,rema in ed to be suggested ‘. Next (7222. 922—10 1 6)

i t is rela ted to us fu l ly by a n eye-witn ess . The th ing i tself,i n i ts ma i n o u t l i ne

,tho ugh horrible a nd to the a ctors i n i t

a sto und ing , sho u ld be n o surprise to the a tten t ive a nd u n

d istra cted observer o f wha t has pa ssed befo re . The i nsane

exc i temen t o f H era c les , na tura l ly no t a ssuaged but i rri ta ted

by the s laying o f Lycus,breaks o u t a fresh with increa sed

v io l ence i n a new d irect ion . Even the d irect ion has been

fo reshadowed . We have seen tha t h i s mi nd , even in ca lmer

ho urs o f the pa st , has been vi s i ted by the imagina t ion o f

dethron ing and d ispo ssess ing the k i ng o f A rgo s ‘ . We have

seen him , bo th lo ng ago3a nd recen tly“

,ha unted by the v is ion

o f impo ss ibl e fea ts, performed or to be perfo rmed by h is s ingl e

prowess—fo rtresses ca ptu red by his arrows,and ca st les ra z ed by

h is ha nds . And n ow i n a torren t o f del i r i um these lo ng -ga ther

i ng del us ions un ite. After ca st ing the dead enemy o u t o f doo rs”,he a ssembles the househo l d for a ri te o f purifi ca t ion

proceed ing.

(be i t no ted) co ns i stent i ndeed wi th h is stra nge

obtrus ion , when Lycus was st i l l a l ive a nd a t large , o f h i s des i re

to sa lu te the domest ic go ds “,bu t proving i n i tsel f tha t he ha s

no t come to his senses . The fam i ly are st i l l i n extreme peri l

they must be a tta cked soon a nd may be a tta cked i nsta ntly.

Even the Cho rus rea l i z e tha t the ba tt l e o f the good ca use i s

st i l l to be fo ught 7 . To fly or to prepare for res i sta nce i s theon ly a l terna t ive ; and the purifica t ion of the house i s a t such

a momen t prepo stero us . B u t,a s we ha ve o u rselves seen”,

Hera cl es is beyond contro l . However,i t do es cro ss h i s m i nd

(and th i s i s perhaps the mo st subt l e touch i n the del i nea t ion),i t does o ccur to him ,

as he is abo ut to commence the ceremony,

tha t the perfo rmance is prema tu re,tha t someth ing i s to be

done and someone to be fo ught,before the purifica t io n c an be

See the te xt of Prof. Murray . 2v . 462 .

3v . 472 .

4 w . 565 fo l l . 5 S ee the narra t ive w . 922 fo l l .v. 609.

7 w . 8 1 1 - 8 1 4 .

3 M ) . 585- 636.

Ch i ld-m urdering, wi t h w i ld b ou ndings of the fee tGoad him ; the she e ts of m urder’s sa i ls let ou t ,

Tha t,when o

’er A c heron ’s ferry h is own hand

In b lood h a t h sped his c rown of goodl y son s,

Then may he learn how dread is Hera’s wra th ,

And m ine,aga in st him : e lse the Gods m ust wa ne

And morta ls wax, if he sha l l n ot b e p u n ished.

M adn ess. Of n ob le sire and mo ther wa s I born,

Even of the b lood of Ura n u s a nd N igh t,B u t n o t to do de sp i te to friends I ho ldMy powers, n or love to h a un t for m urder’s sake .

Fa in wo u ld I p lead w i t h H era a nd wi th thee,

E’er she have erred, if ye w i l l heed my words.

Th is ma n ,aga inst whose house ye t hrust me on

Nor on the ea rt h is fame less,n or in h eaven .

The pa t h less land , the w ild sea,h a t h he tamed,

And the Gods’ honours ha th a lon e restored,Whe n t hese b y imp io us men were overthrown .

Th erefore I p lea d, dev ise n o m on stro us wrong .

B u t the scruples of the pio us fi end are perempto ri ly

s i len ced by the d ivi ne em i ssa ry : the fiend consents,under

pro test, to compe l Hera c les to the s laughter o f his fam i ly, a nd

the scene conc ludes thus

M adn ess. him—lo,his h ead he tosses in the fearfu l ra c e begun

S e e his gorgon -

g laring e yeba l ls allin si le n c e wi ld l y ro l led !L i ke a bu l l in a c t to c harge , wi t h fiery p an t ings un c on tro l ledAwfu l l y he b e l lows

,howl ing to the fa tefu l fiends of He l l '

Wilder ye t sha l l b e t h y da n c e , a s pea ls my p ipe’s a ppa l l ing

kne l lAy, un to O l ympus soaring, Iris, tread t h y pa t h seren e '

M ine the ta sk in to the h a l ls of H era c les to p l u nge u n seen .

[rl’

s a sc ends,a nd Madn ess en ters t/ze fiala ee

Now wha t is the mea n ing o f th is appa ri t ion ? O f wha t

na tu re are these perso nages , the demo n or person ifica t io n o f

Fren z y and the myth ica l ma id - servant o f O lympus , who

dec la re them sel ves to be the immed ia te a utho rs , a nd Hera to

be the cause, o f the h ideo us a c t which ensues ? Upon the

a nswer to these quest ion s depends the enti re drama . The

a nswer current ly a ccepted is, tha t these personages are rea l ,tha t i s to say , rea l i n the same sense in which any pa rt o f the

1 8 1 5—873

HERACLES 1 67

represen ta t ion is rea l,rea l a s

Hera cles or Amph itryo n,thei r

a ct ions being rea l ly parts o f wha t,for the purpo se of the

drama, we are to suppo se a nd bel ieve to happen . If so

,let u s

agree (there i s n o help for i t) tha t the p lay is‘a gro tesque

abo rt ion,

a nd have do ne with i t. For the play ( let u s reca l l

o nce mo re) i s to lead us presently to the propo s i t ion th a t

t/zere is not a nd ca nnot be a ny sa c/t tnz'

a s deity fia t/ing pa s

stem a nd desz'

res‘. This propo s i t io n i s to be put i n the mo u th

o f a ma n who wo u ld have been able,a cco rd ing to H el len i c

bel ief, to d isprove i t by h is own h i story a nd experiences . If

the drama t is t does n o t mean us to ta ke i t as true for the

purpo se o f h is story,then he mea ns no th ing

,a nd his pla y i s

nought. B u t how c a n we so take i t, or suppo se the a uthor to

ma i n ta i n i t,if he exh ib i ts

,a s a ssumptions essent ia l to h i s

story,the persona l i ty of I ri s a nd the ex istence o f a j ea lou s

Hera Are these then dei t ies inca pable of pa ss io n or des ire ?

Here therefore,a s i n a lmo st every ca se where superhuma n

or superna tu ra l persons are i n troduced in to tragedy by

Eurip ides”,we are compel led to suppo se them unrea l . Bu t the

present example d iffers i n o ne mo st impo rtant respect from

tho se o therwise pa ra l le l . The superna tura l figures o f Eurip ides

a re i n genera l so in troduced , so pla ced in the drama, tha t they

c an,as the drama t ist i n tends

,be dropped o ff. The gho st o f

Po lydorus , who Speaks the pro logue o f the H ec u ba , the Apo l lo ,who pronounces the epi logue o f the Orestes, are superfl uous to

the rea l a ct ion,which i n the Hec u ba begins with the ex i t o f

Po lydorus,a nd i n the Orestes ends with the entrance o f Apo l lo .

I n the ca se o f the H era cles such trea tmen t i s impo ss ib l e, from

the po s i t ion , un ique in the exta nt wo rks o f Eurip ides", which

the appari t io n o ccup ies i n the p lay, imbedded in the centre ,a nd mo rt iced , if the meta pho r i s perm i ss ib le , i n to the a ct io n

wh ich precedes a nd fo l lows . The Apo l lo o f the Orestes

i s no th ing a t all,n o t even a fi ct io n for drama t ic purpo ses “.

I r i s a nd Madness must be someth ing ; a nd yet , if the play a s

11 34 1—1 346.

2 The sing le c erta in e xc ept ion is the phan tom in Helen , whic h proba t regu lam .

Deba teable e xc ept ions are the H ippoly tu s and the B a c clzae .

3 The Rlzesu s be ing doubtful . S ee the essay on the Orestes, hereafter.

a who l e i s to have mea n ing, they ca nno t be rea l . Wha t then

are they ?

To shape the quest io n i s a lready to suggest the answer.

They are,they must be, a vision , the p icture o f some o ne’s

imagina t io n , presented externa l ly for thea tri ca l conven ience ,bu t n o t suppo sed to have a ny rea l i ty o ther tha n tha t o f the

imagin ing m i nd . The dev ice is fam i l ia r eno ugh,a nd o ccu rs

for i n stance, i n Shakespeare’s Richa rd [I]. Tha t p lay is such

i n i t s h isto rica l founda t ion a nd co louring genera l ly,tha t the

i n troduct io n into i t of a personage l ike the Gho st i n H amlet ,

co nvers ing and i n tera ct ing wi th the huma n a cto rs,wo u ld be

fel t as a d rama t ic so l ec ism . Bu t no such o ffence i s ca used, or

d ifficu l ty ra ised , when the gu i lty imagina t ions of the s leeping

R i chard are presen ted by figures tha t move a nd speak . Their

mo t ion,speech

,a nd being a re for the s leeper ; whether they

have any ex istence externa l to h is d reams , whether he wo u ld

st i l l see them if he wo ke,i s a qu est io n wh ich need n o t be

ra i sed , bu t wh ich ,if i t were ra i sed

,m ight be a nswered i n the

neg a t ive witho ut prej ud ice to the sto ry a nd the a ct ion .

If then I ri s a nd Madness be,a s we a re compel led to

suppo se , a dream ,by whom

,so to put i t

,are they dreamed ?

By the Chorus . I t i s express ly i nd ica ted‘

(a nd the i nd ica t io n i s

sure ly s ign ifi ca nt) tha t Madness i s n o t perce ived when she goes

wi th in . Even H era cles i n h i s fren z y never sees, or imagines

h imse lf to se e , the be ing by who se terrors , if the superna tura l

a cto rs a re to be cred ited , tha t fren z y is a ctua l ly produced ‘.

The quest io n becomes then th is : are the Chorus , duri ng the

myth ica l scene, suppo sed to perceive the myth ica l personages

wi th the bod i ly senses , or with the m i nd a nd imagina t io n—tosee them ,

or to dream them ? How,i n the absence o f stage

d i rect ion s, i s th i s quest io n to be put to the tes t ? There i s a t

l ea st on e tes t wh ich , a ccord ing to commo n sense a nd commo n

experience , wi l l be dec i s ive . Tha t wh ich we see ,we c an

171 . 872

—8 73 ; n o te d¢a vroc .2 Compare c are ful ly w . 858

—8 73 with the subsequen t n arra t ive (w . 922

and c on trast the drama t ic trea tmen t in Sophoc les Ajax 1—1 3 3 . If Madness wereto b e c on c e ived as a rea l i ty

,independen t of a perc ip ie n t or perc ip ien ts, the very

n a ture o fher func t ion would require tha t she should a t alleven ts be perc e ived byH era c les.

1 70 A SOUL ’

S TRA GED Y

the del irium , i s the fi rst po in t,after the appa ri t io n

,a t which the

eld ers take pa rt i n a d ia logue, a nd thereby prove them selves

to be awake . A nd here i t i s p la i n tha t they are awa kened

S la ve . 0 eld-wh i te forms of men

A n Elder. Thou c all’st ! Wha t is’t, 0 wh a t ?

S la ve (poin ting ). The horrors t here wi t h in 1A n Elder. No prophe t truer th an IS la ve. Tb e Elders slzriel?) Ah

,c ry, for t here

is c a u se

A n Elder. fa ther’sS la ve . No words c an surpass th e fa c t .A n Elder. How wen t th is woefu l deed, don e , as tho u revealest, b y

the fa ther on h is son s ? Te l l the way of i t . Rec o un t th is horror,

la un c h ed on the ho use b y fa te , the c h i ldren ’s h ap less end.

Every sentence here po i n ts to the same i nference . The

very la nguage of the address, 0 eld-wb ite forms of men ( 13

Xevna ryn

pa a ain a ra ), suggests the s i tua t ion , a nd the po stu re

o f the Cho ru s a t the momen t . There i s n o rea so n to suppo se

tha t th i s is, or co u ld be, a mere equ iva len t fo r fyépo ures, or tha t

old men,as such a nd i n allc ircumsta nces

,co u ld be addressed

age-whitened bod ies . ’ B u t if they are found recumben t

s itt ing or ly i ng u po n the pa la ce - steps,i n a tt i tudes o f unea sy

rest,which expo se the feeble frames a nd the o verflowing o f

long wh ite ha i r a nd long white bea rds , then the a ddress i s

na tu ra l . S o a l so,bu t n o t o therwise, i s the sta rt l ed rep ly ,

Tho u c all’

st ! Wha t i s ’t (a’

va fc aXeZs,u e n

va Bo a’

v S o ,above

all,i s the exclama t ion o f on e

,tha t he fo reboded some ho rri bl e

d i sc lo sure,was sure o f i t

,sure as a ny prophet. If we suppo se

tha t the a ct io n o f I ri s and Ma dness has been witnessed by th e

elders i n a n o rd ina ry manner,has been perce ived by thei r

s enses,a nd tha t they are ,

a s then they must be,n ow co nsc io us

o f having witnessed i t,th i s ta l k o f forebod ing, o f a nt ic ipa t ion ,

i s un inte l l igibl e. A forebod ing ! Wha t i s l eft to forebode ?

A goddess , delega ted by the Q ueen o f Heaven,to l d them i n

the pla i nest po ss ibl e wo rds,tha t H era cles was to be fo rthwith

driven mad , a nd compel led to murder his ch i ldren . They

have seen the demon Fren z y enter the ho use, with the

decla red purpo se o f execut ing th is comma nd . They have in

terpre ted the ser i es of cries , vo ices , a nd other so unds by wh ich ,

HERA CLES 1 7 1

to perso ns so i nfo rmed , the progress o f the t ragedy is s ign ified

in o ut l ine witho ut po ss ib i l i ty o f m i stake ‘ . A nd now, o n

hea r ing o f the ho rro rs with in , they are to ta l k o f thei r

prophet i c sou ls , a nd rece ive as a‘ revela t io n

( a’

p cpa ivecq) the

news tha t the ch i ldren are dea d !

Man ifestly the elders here ha ve no knowledge wha tever,

no defin i te impress ion , o f wha t has pa ssed , except and unt i l

they a re to l d by the slave . O f wha t they may ha ve

dreamed , or ha lf- perceived , they reta i n n o mo re,a s

,common ly

i s the ca se,than the vague sensa t ion , fam i l ia r to dreamers , o f

be i ng sure tha t sometb ing ha s happened . I n the fa ct tha t

o ne o f them ,witho u t prompt ing , describes the invo l un ta ry

murder a s fa te- sen t ’ or heaven - sen t ,’

we may perhaps see a

fa i nt tra ce o f the va n ished vis ion,perhaps

,but n o t necessari ly,

the suppo s i t ion o f a compel l ing power being in such ca ses

commonpla ce a nd i n st inct ive ‘

From the awaken ing we turn to the fa l l i ng a s leep , bu t

wi tho u t expecta t io n o f find ing a no te o f i t i n the d ia logue .

From the na tu re o f the ca se there ca nno t be a ny such no te,for the s lumber o f the aged me n i s o f co urse unprepared a nd

i nvo l un tary. Thei r extreme feebleness , marked a nd a ccented

thro ugho ut 3 for the purpo se o f th is scene, a nd recen tly fo rced

upo n o u r no t ice by the appropria t io n o f a who l e in terlude to

the subj ect “,a cco unts na tura l ly for the inc ident

,which i s

exh ib ited merely by thei r a ct ion . Accustomed to sec lus io n

a nd repo se,a nd exha usted by stra i n o f body a nd m i nd

the fi rs t relaxa t ion o f the stra i n they j ust d rop,a s peopl e

say ,where they sta nd . The rea ct ion i s shown in the c on

cl ud ing verses o f the preced ing ode , by abrupt changes o f

tho ught , a ccompa n ied do ubt less by correspond ing changes i n

1vv . 875

—908 .

2 Ac c ord ing to the c ommon d istribut ion , assumed in the transla t ion of v . 9 1 4,

the Chorus, a fter be ing to ld tha t the c hildren are dead, do d ivine , as they very we l lmay, tha t they have been murdered , a nd by Herac les. Bu t th is d istribut ion is not

c erta in . A possible d ivision would be : X0. 602m ¢6vo¢ . AI‘. M101 66 roxéwv

pes. X0. 15. AP . 013K dv 1 1 : el'

1ro1 x. I th ink th is perhaps pre ferable ,bu t e i ther way i t is equa l ly c lea r tha t now, and not t i l l now, they c ome to the

knowledge of wha t has been done .

3vv . 107 fo l l . , 268 fo l l . , 63 7 fo l l . and pa ssz

m . vv . 63 7 fo l l .

1 72 A SOUL ’

S TRA GED Y

the mus ic a nd a ct ion . To the pro ud hymn o f pra i se and

tha nksgiv ing succeeds the rema rk ‘,tha t Herac l es i s a better

lo rd for Thebes tha n a ba se- bo rn ruler such as Lycus, a

compari so n sca rce ly compl imenta ry to the hero and strangely

defic ien t i n en thusia sm,but expl icable

,if we a l low for the

n a rrow intens i ty o f Greek pa trio t i sm,a nd remember tha t

H era c les i s n o Theban,but i s to rise upon the ext inct ion o f

the true l ine,the m a l e hei rs o f the house o f Creon . A nd wi l l

h e ri se a fter all? Sudden ly a nd somewha t tard i ly the elders

reflect,tha t the ba tt le wi th rebel l ion i s yet to be fo ught

Tha t i ssu e po i nts o u r view to a co ntest o f riva l swo rds , which

sha l l prove whether the go od ca use ha th st i l l the bless ing o f

They cea se ; bu t the mus ic we may su ppo se

to co nt inue , probably thro ugho ut the who l e scene o f the

a ppa ri t ion”,wh i ch i s to be co nceived as opera t ic

,a pa ssage

in rec i ta t ive . Po ndering thei r doubts , they gro up themselves

nea r a nd upon the broad steps wh ich lead up to the ho use ,a nd s i nk down here and there in the sudden s leep o f old age .

Then and no t t i l l then,the ir ch ief

,who plays the dreamer,

betrays his i nwa rd agi ta t io n by a start a nd a cry , See , 0 see !

This fea r which throbs thro ugh me , do ye fee l i t

the ho use I fly, to st iffened l imbs

,away !

Apo l lo save and overhead the form s of h is day - dream

ro l l forth i n to the a ir.

Tha t the vis ion,as a cted

,i s commo n i n i ts deta i l s to ma ny

m inds , i s o f co urse n o t to be suppo sed , a nd wo u ld n o t be sug

gested by the performance . One a lone “,the speaker j ust c i ted ,

1v . 809.

2vv . 8 1 1 - 8 1 4 . The an te c eden t to the re la t ive a (n euter p lura l , zo/z ic /z matter)

is the idea of a l terna t ive and c ho ic e—H era c les or an o ther Lyc us—suggested by theprec eding c omparison . Whe therwe read (pa ir/ 61 (M SS . ) here and 61

,1)a (Hermann )

in v . 794, or, with Prof. Murra y , get e xa c t syl labic responsion by re ta in ing €¢ a vethere and subst i tut ing i t here , do es n ot afl

e c t the sense .

3vv. 8 1 5

This I think on the who le most probable , bu t the d istribut ion o f the passages

(vv . 8 1 5—82 1 , 8 74- 908) is here , as a lways, c onje c tura l . If severa l c /zoreu ta e speak ,

the tota l effec t wi l l b e st il l the same . The a c t ion a lso is of c ourse c onj e c tura l inde ta i l , depend ing on many thea tri c a l arrangemen ts whic h are open to d ifferen tsupposi t ion . B u t allth is is of no importanc e to u s now. The genera l n a ture o f the

si tua t ion is the on l y thing sign ific an t to a reader, and tha t is asc erta inable fromthe te xt .

du c ed by the au tho r, if he had rea l ly i ntended u s to suppo se,

tha t the second a nd fierc er fi t o f del iri um i s sudden ly infl i cted

by a superna tura l i n terpo s i t io n . The t ru e ca use o f the

del i r ium l ies deep in the pa st , i n the inscrutable na ture a nd

o rder o f th ings . I t i s st i l l to be tra ced for us a l i tt l e further

tha n i t has been t ra ced a s yet ; but o ne th ing , we know

a lready,tha t i t is n ot a ttributable to the a rbi tra ry and capricio us

interference o f d iv in e j ea lo usy , to the revenge o f Hera . Hera

herse lf i s no ught,the dream o f do ta rds , and such th ings are

po ets’

m i serable ta l es .

I t wa s o pen however then , i t i s open st i l l , to a specta to r or

reader so m inded , to pu t a no ther va l ue upon the dream,to

bel ieve,with C lyta emnestra i n Aeschyl us ‘ , tha t the darken ing

o f the eye is the en l ighten ing of the so u l , a nd tha t wha t the

elders so beho l d i s i ndeed a gl impse of the sp iri tua l world .

The quest ion has been deba ted from a nt iqu ity to th is day ;the a u tho r o f the H era cles had an op in io n upon i t , which among

o ther th ings i s expressed i n h is play. Freedom to take the

Aeschylean View he wa s forced to l eave, perhaps by the peri l o f

the law,certa i n ly by the fo rce o f t ru th ; for tha t the gods may

be seen in dream s i s a fa ct . Wha t wa s requ ired for h i s own

freedom,fo r the sense a nd po ss ib i l ity o f h is work

,was tha t

the gods o f popu la r im agina t ion sho u ld be vis ible,if a t all

tha t i nner l ight a nd n o o ther. A nd th is he i s carefu l to

secure. To the tragic effect o f th is pa rt icu lar scene,the cho ice

of men ta l i n terpreta t ion is i nd ifferent . Tha t the best a nd

m ight iest of us a re l ia ble to such a n overthrow a s here befa l l s

H era c l es,i s ho rribl e if we a tt ribute i t to the j ea lo usy o f H era

bu t n o t l ess so,if wi th Euri p ides we refuse tha t expla na t ion

a nd allexpla na t ion s , a nd l eave the first ca use an i nscrutable

mystery . B u t to th is tragedy as a who l e , and to the i nterests

o f huma n ity , the cho i ce i s so far from i nd ifferent tha t c om

pa ra tively n o o ther th ing ma tters a t all. To th i s ho ur i t is

i n controversy a nd seems l i kely so to rema in . Euri p ides hadhis opin ion .

And now—to pro ceed with the fa cts—we are shown the

1 E am . 1 04.

HERA CLES 1 7 5

i n ter io r o f the ho use ‘ , the madman a s leep a nd bound,with

h is dead lying a round him . The m isera ble Amphitryo n

en ters,bu t dares n ot appro a ch , unt i l someth ing i s known o f

h i s so n ’s co nd it ion”. A t l ength'

Hera cl es st i rs a nd wakes,

but his senses a nd memo ry are st i l l u nder a cloud . H e sees

the dead , but witho ut recogn it ion . The sight o n ly suggests

to him a pa ss i ng suspic ion tha t he has descended aga i n into

Hades ‘

a s I d id erewh i le ’

; for th is impress io n persi sts . B u t

s ince there i s

n o ro c k of S isyph u s in v iew,

No P l u to,n or his qu e en , D eme ter’s Ma id

he conc ludes to the co ntrary 3 . The tr ivia l tone a nd ch i ld ish

rea son ing jar pa i nfu l ly wi th the theme o f these imaginary

remembra nces,and mo st pa thet ica l ly with the a ctua l ho rrors

o f the scene. A t h i s cry for help , h is fa ther a nd on e o f the

e lders 4 draw near a nd,

find ing him qu iet, venture to relea se

him,and gradua l ly open h i s eyes a nd h is m i nd to the truth .

H is first tho ught is o f su i c ide ; but recogn i z ing, i n a figure

a t th is momen t approa ch ing,his fri end a nd cous in Theseus

he i s d iverted to the des i re o f h id ing h i s shame,a nd flings

h imself with covered fa ce upon the gro und .

The a rr iva l o f the k ing o f A thens bri ngs immed ia tely

to a test the quest ion,if i t c an be suppo sed to rema i n open

whether there is a ny truth i n the m i ra cu lo us story wh ich

Hera cles ha s rela ted during his i n sa n ity,whether he has or

has n ot recen t ly descended i nto Hades . I n th is story

Theseus h imself,we remember, played a remarkable part

being fo und i n H ades by H era c les,bro ught back to l ight

a nd d ism i ssed to A tt ica ‘ . H ere then i s a decis ive wi tness

for or aga in st . The ca use o f h is arriva l is, a s we d ivi ne even

before we are to ld,the news o f the revo l ut io n in Thebes .

1 The brie f re c i ta t ive whic h pre c edes these c ha nges o f sc ene (vv . 1 0 1 7—1028 ) is

a mere rest for the stra in ed a tten t ion of the audien c e . For such a purpose the

mytho log ic a l and a l lusive style is, perfe c t ly fi t . One is scarc e ly expe c ted even to

hear wha t is sa id.

2vv . 1 042

- 1 086.

3vv. 1089

- 1 105.

4v. 1 1 10. H ere

,as indeed throughout , i t is apparen t tha t for this p lay a t all

even ts orchestra and sc en e were und iv ided .

5vv . 61 8—6 2 1 .

1 76 A 5 002'

s TRA GED Y

H e has brought to the a ss ista nce of h i s rela t ives an A then ian

a rmy,now encamped i n the neighbo urhood ‘ . This m i l i tary

in tervent ion,we may observe in pa ss ing , i s for the cou rse

of the a ct io n a n i ngen io us , because s imple and na tu ra l , device.

The A then ia n fo rces a re na tu ra l ly suppo sed by the a ud ience

to keep the Theba n rebel s , who ho l d the fortress bu t have

lo st the i r leader , effi c ient ly i n check . The po l i t i cs o f Thebes,

n o longer requ ired a s ma ch inery,drop qu iet ly in to the ba ck

ground,and we c an a ttend witho ut d istra ct io n to the hero

and to the quest io n o f th e momen t—wha t , if a nyth ing,has

Theseus to tel l u s abou t the jo urney to Hades ?

And wha t i s the a nswer ? Wel l , here i s the stra ngest

th ing in the play, a th ing wh ich , though some phenomena

mo re or l ess s im i la r m ay be fo und i n Euri p ides , wi l l scarcely

be pa ra l l e led from any o ther a u tho r i n the worl d . H ere

i s the th ing, a nd the o n ly th ing , wh ich j ust ified us in cla ss ing

the Hera cles with the [on a nd Alcestis,a s plays wh ich ha ve

the appea ra nce o f a pu z z le . Tbere is n o a nswer to o u r

quest ion,none po s i t ive and c lea r, no ne wh ich co u ld be asc er

ta ined by a mere specta to r, fo l lowing the scene as i t proceeds,having n o previo us knowledge

,a nd unable to revise h i s im

press ions . The o n ly th ing obvious a nd superfi c ia l ly certa i n is,

tha t upo n th i s v i ta l questio n , the part ic ipa t ion or n o n - pa rt i c i

p a tion o f Theseus in the a l leged experiences o f Hera cles i n

H ades,the mo st a tten t ive specta to r co u ld n o t

,from the

specta c l e merely , co l l ect a sure o pin ion . The mo re a tten t ive

he was,the mo re certa i n ly wo u ld he conceive a doubt

reta i n tha t do ubt to the end .

B road ly spea k ing indeed , allthe ev idence is on one s ide,

and tha t the s id e, wh ich , when we have go t and c a n rev i ew

the ent i re drama,when we have hea rd the fina l and co ncl us ive

Opin io n o f Hera cl es upo n the gods o f mytho logy,we know

to be supported by the drama t i st . The who l e persona l i ty

and chara cter o f Theseu s i s , a s we sha l l present ly see,such

as to make unenterta inable the no t io n o f h i s having pa ssed a

t ime o f sojourn i n the fabled wo rld o f the dead . On e m ight

as wel l suppo se such a th ing o f on e’s next - doo r neighbo ur.

1vv . 1 1 63

—1 1 68 .

1 78 A so up s TRA GED Y

o f the drama , and the semblances o f a ffirma t io n wi l l a ssuredly,if exam i ned , be fo und suscept ible of some explana t io n c on

s i sten t with the genera l sen se.

Let u s now look more clo sely a t bo th s ides o f the quest ion ;a nd first l et us cons ider the broad

,a nd i n truth irrefragable ,

ma ss o f evidence tha t the Hera c les and Theseus o f th is p lay

have n o t been in Hades together,tha t nei ther o f them has

been i n Hades a t '

A ccord ing to the sto ry wh ich we have heard from Hera cl es ‘ ,he a nd Theseus

,having emerged together from Hades

,ha ve

recent ly pa rted,a t some pla ce n ot spec ified bu t appa rent ly

i n the Pelopo nnese , to pursue ea ch h is jo urney home , Hera cl es

having for compan io n the captive Cerberus . As we saw,th i s

s to ry was to l d i n such c i rcum stances as a lmost to d isprove

i tself,a nd i n a manner which

,to coo l and fu l ly competen t

hea rers,wo u ld certa i n ly d isprove i t . We may no t know much

abou t Hel l ; but we do know or feel,allo f us

,tha t i t is no t

i n the pro fa ne phra se o f Shel ley ,‘

a c i ty much l ike Lo ndon .

A nd i n the Greek world , a s i n allages,a man who professed

to have travel led beyond the mo uth o f Hades, a nd who

repo rted h is travels exa ct ly a s if they had been made on th i s

s ide,wo u ld s imply have proved , to coo l a nd competen t

hea rers,tha t he had n o t been there . B u t suppo se for a

moment tha t th is monstro us sto ry i s fa ct,wha t sho u ld n ow be

the thought a nd language of Theseus ? Wha t co u ld i t be but

enqu i ry about H era c les ? Wha t has befa l l en him ? Ha s he

rea ched Thebes ? Has he been heard o f ? The danger o f the

fam i ly i s but a n add it io na l rea so n for such enqu i r i es a s to the

fa te and whereabo uts o f their na tura l pro tector. B u t wha t d o

we find ? We fi nd , without su rpri se, tha t Theseus knows

no th ing wha tever of h is fr iend ’s recen t absence,but a ssumes

a s a ma tter of cou rse,tha t he i s wi th the rest o f the fam i ly a t

Thebes . O n heari ng o f the rebel l ion,

‘ I came in fo rce,

he to Amph itryo n,to t/ze a id of y ou r No t o n ly so

from the manner i n wh ich he speaks o f the rumo ur,abo u t

Lycus a nd h is enterpri se,which came to A then s

’ i t i s impossi

ble to suppo se tha t h i s own presence a t A thens requ ires a ny1vv . 607

—62 1 .

2v . 1 1 65.

HERACLEs 1 79

explana t io n,impo ss ible to suppo se tha t he had arrived there

recent ly and barely in t ime, from Hades or anywhere else .

I n alltha t he says , i t i s m a n ifest tha t he has made no recen t

journey, and i s unaware tha t Hera c les has made any so tha t ,merely by h is open ing wo rds

,the m i ra cu lo us n arra t ive

,given

by H era cles in his in sa n i ty, i s i nsta ntly a nd fina l ly exploded .

No t’

having heard it , and n o t heari ng i t now (s ince allare toofu l l o f the presen t to in vest iga te the pa st) , he ca nno t contrad ict

i t ; bu t he igno res i t, here a nd everywhere, and h is igno rance

i s co ntrad ict io n eno ugh .

S o a l so i s h i s beari ng and h i s who l e persona l i ty. To

a pprecia te th is fu l ly,o n e must go to the orig ina l ; but as h i s

cha ra cter i s,from th i s po i n t o nwards

,a n important facto r i n

the effect,we must essay a summa ry descript ion o f i t. Tho ugh

no t an extraord inary person , bu t ra ther the contra ry, he i s for

th is rea so n wel l adapted to his funct ion in the drama . Ki nd,

loya l,genero us

,a nd ch iva lro us , he is , with allth is and above

all,wha t n o on e else i n the p lay c an be ca l l ed

,empha t ica l ly a

m an,a man i n the ful l v igou r o f h i s manhood , bu t a no rma l

man, o f the no rma l huma n pa ttern

,nei ther above n or below.

H is rel igio n i n part icula r,which the c i rcum sta nces bring i nto

p rom inence, i s, if one may so say ,superla t ively commo npla ce.

H is conduct and counsels are in rea l i ty gu ided by mo t ives

a l together mundane—na tura l a ffect ion,na tura l sympa thy

tha t des ire o f publ ic approva l a nd fea r o f genera l censure,

which were so strong i n the Greeks , pra eter la ndem n u lliu s

a va ris. I n specula t ion he ta kes , l ike the majo ri ty o f me n, l i ttl e

in teres t,a nd i s p roperly neither bel iever nor d issenter‘ . The

c urren t no t ion s about the gods he ra ther suppo ses to be true

and he warm ly approves tho se sem i -rel igio us Observances ,more importa nt in the Greek wo rld than they a re n ow

, which

o ffer to good men ,tha t i s

,to men genera l ly esteemed , the

pro spect of po sthumo u s remembra nce . B u t a persona l creed ,a pa ss iona te hope

,a theory of l ife a nd dea th a nd the Powers

above,these th ings are beyond him . H is ca lm a cqu iescence

i n the popu la r concept ion o f O lympus presen ts a n equa l

c ontra st to the waveri ng fa i th of Amph itryon o n the on e

1 S ee part ic u larly vv . 1 3 1 3- 1 339 .

1 2—2

hand , a nd o n the o ther, to the furious i ro ny a nd the lo fty

specu la t io n o f Hera c les . Tha t such a perso n has been in

contact w ith the unseen worl d , or has l ights from h is own

experien ce upo n the destiny o f ma n a nd the problem o f the

grave,i s a no t io n no t to be en terta i n ed with gravi ty ; and

as for h i s having been in Hades,a nd recently

,a nd with

H era cles , h is s ingle reference to tha t abode , a s the pla ce where

h i s fr iend ‘ wi l l go when he confirms the i rres i st ibl e

i nference from his s i l ence .

No morta l ha t h e sc aped m isfort un e’s ta in t

Nor God—if m in stre l - legends b e no t fa lse .

Have th ey n o t l inked t hem in u n l awfu l bon dsOf wed loc k , a nd wi th c ha in s

,to win t h em t hron es,

O u traged t he ir fa t he rs ? In O l ympus st i l lThe y dwe l l , by the ir tran sgre ssion s un a bash ed.

Wha t w i l t t ho u p lead, if, morta l a s t ho u art,

Tho u c ha fe aga in st t h y fa te , and Gods do n o t ?

Na y t hen ,leave Thebes

,su bm issive to the law

And un to P a l la s’ fortress c ome w i t h me .

T here wi l l I c lean se t h ine ha nds from ta in t of b lood,Give t hee a h om e , and o f my su bsta n c e ha lf.The g ifts my pe op le gave for c h i ldre n saved

Twi c e seven,wh en I slew the Knossian b u l l ,

The se wi l l I g ive t he e . All t hrougho u t the landH ave I demesn es a ssigned me : t he se sha l l be a rThy n ame he n c e fort h w i th men wh i le t ho u sh a l t l ive .

A nd wb en in dea th tb on g oest to H a desJ balls,

With sa c ri fi c e and mon ume n ts o f ston eS ha l l allthe A t he n ia ns’ town e xa l t th y n ame

For a fa ir c rown to win from Greeks is t h isFor u s, the g lory of a hero h e lped 2.

I s i t necessa ry or po ssible to d iscuss , whether th is speaker

i s suppo sed by the drama t is t to have sojourned , a l iving

pri soner, i n the worl d of the dead , a nd to ha ve escaped

therefrom , with i n the la st few days , by the a id of the ma n to

whom he i s speak ing ?

B u t on the o ther hand,equa l ly vis ible, i n the speeches

o f Theseus a nd i n h is co nversa t io n wi th Hera cles,i s the

o ccurrence from t ime to t ime o f a l l us ions wh ich wou ld be

1v . 1 3 3 1 ; and see H era c l es

,v . 1 247 .

2vv . 1 3 1 4

- 1 33 5 (Way).

1 82 A SOUL’

S TRA GED Y

ifya v 7”

o Rh ea /69 0131: 62 1100 13 11 .

HP . 0 1) woios fia fla ve'

pflev e’

u xa xo'

iaw div ;

®H. 1159 7 5 h ij/z a. n a vrds 2jv 5500-601) dwjp

With these fo u r a l l us ions we m ight jo i n,as po ss ibly

bea ring o n the top ic, a reference by H era c les

,address ing

Theseus,to the suppo sed Cerberus”. B u t as th is do es n ot

ment io n the rescue, and does no t, o n the fa ce o f i t, presuppo se

any co nnex io n between the th ing men t ioned and Theseus,

i t w i l l be best co ns idered sepa ra te ly. L e t us confine o u r

a ttent ion for the presen t to the rescue .

As to th is , we are presented with a p la i n a l terna t ive.

Either the import o f the who l e i n terview between H era clesa nd Theseus

,and o f the who l e p lay

,i s nonsense ; or these

a l l us io ns , however they may appea r a t fi rst s ight,do not

rea l ly , a cco rd ing to th e in ten tio n o f the drama t i st,refer to

Hades or to the recen t exped i t io n o f'

H era c les a t all. And

i t i s v is ibl e i n the a l l us io ns them selves,vis ibl e a t a seco nd

gla nce,tha t they do no t.

The mere wo rd ing o f them proves th is. A n a utho rwho

wro te o f Hades,o f the un seen wo rld

,the habi ta t io n of

departed sou ls,the abode o f S isyphus a nd Ta nta l us , the rea lm

of Plu to and Persepho ne—a n a utho r who meant to i nd ica te

tha t certa i n l iv i ng men of flesh a nd blo od had sojo urned

or travel led i n tha t wo rld , who had i n h i s tho ughts th ings

so terr ibly d ist inct as these,cou ld sca rcely fa i l , even in a

s ingle a l l us ion,to use some term or tu rn o f phra se wh ich

c l early a nd i nd i sputably mea nt wha t he mea nt. I n the co urse

o f repea ted a l l us io n s,he cou ld no t po ss ib ly fa i l . Fo ur times

we sho u ld have to suppo se,does Euripides say ,

o r i n ten d

to say , tha t h i s Theseus has been‘ i n Hades .

And yet n o t

once does he say i t. No t o nce do es he u se a word or

express io n wh ich i s a ppl i cable to a wo rld o f depa rted sou l s

a nd to no th ing el se . By mere a cc ident , we sho u ld have to

suppo se , all the references may ,upon the fa ce of them

referred to some to ta l ly d ifferen t ma tter,some inc iden t

munda ne , fam i l ia r, a nd commonpla ce. Such a seri es of

improbable a ccidents i s perfect ly impo ss ibl e .

1vv. 1 4 1 2

- 1 4 1 6.

2v. 1 386.

HERA CLES 1 83

We may prove th is by a d irect and s impl e test. Mr

Way’

s tra ns la t io n o f Eurip ides i s, as we have o ften seen

rema rkable for a c lo se a n d a lmo st verba l fidel ity,seldom

a ch ieved i n the fo rm o f verse. Unquestionably he intends

and suppo ses h imself to have represented Eurip ides,i n these

fo ur pa ssages,as exa ct ly as the Engl ish language perm i ts .

Bu t Mr Way comes to them with the tho ught, wh ich he

a ttributes to Eurip ides,tha t they refer to Hades . Now o f the

fo ur , o n e ‘ ca nno t be made expl ic i t i n th is reference witho u t

grea t a nd vo l untary a l tera t io n . Three,tho ugh they are

no t expl i c i t, c an be made so by sl ight and i nvo l un ta ry

a l tera t ion . Wha t i s the resu l t ? Tha t they are made expl ic i t,

tha t two o u t o f the three become , i n Mr Way ’s vers io n,

appl icable to Hades a nd to no th ing el se .

And to re qu i te the serv i c e don e of him

Who ou t of H ades saved me , t ame I,a nc ien t,

If a ugh t ye n e ed m in e h and or m in e a l l ies2

No ugh t rec k I of m isfort une , shared wi th t hee .

Fa ir lot ha t h fou nd m e—I da te i t from t h a t ho urWh en sa fe to-day thou brou ght

’st me from the dead 3

Tbesens. Who sees t hee p la y the woma n t hu s sha l l sc orn .

H eracles. L ive I , t h y sc orn ? O n c e was I n ot, I trow.

Tbesen s. A la s, yes Where is glorio us H era c les ?

H eracles. Wha t m an n er ofman wast t hou ’mz’

d H ades’ woes ?

Tlzesens. My strengt h of sou l wa s u t ter weakn ess t hen “

And s im i la rly, i n the suppo sed a l l us io n to Cerber u s 3 , which

we sha l l consider hereafter, Mr Way wri tes Cerberus,’

as any

ma n,who mea nt Cerberus , i nst i nct ively wou ld . B u t Eurip ides

Speaks o f a dog ,

a nd, un less we co rrec t him,o f ‘

an unhappy

dog,’

as n o man,who thought of Cerberus , po ss ibly co u ld .

Equa l ly decis ive i s the test by Eurip ides h imself, by the

play itself. Amph itryo n i s mea nt by Eurip ides to a ssert tha t

Herac les has pa ssed through Ta en arum ‘ i n to Hades 3,’

a nd he

1 At v . 1 336 Mr Way givesYea , th is requita l wil l I render theeFor sa ving me .

This is exac t and , l ike the Greek, doe s not suggest H ades even remo te ly.2v . 1 1 69.

3v . 1 2 20.

‘1v . 1 4 1 2 .

5v. 1 386.

3v. 24.

Says th i s, no t tha t Hera cles has gone among dead men . Lycus

th inks tha t Hera cles,being dead

‘ l i es with a nd says

i t . Megara , who agrees wi th Lycu s in th ink ing tha t her

husba nd,if he has gone to Ha des

has gone there a s a dead

ma n and canno t return,expresses her mea n ing in the na tura l

language o f ma nk ind ‘. The Chorus spea k o f the hero ’s

voyage ‘

to and o f h i s return (when they are c on

vin c ed of i t) from‘ the m ere o f A cheron

a nd‘ the house o f

H era c les,when he mea ns to describe h imself a s

ha ving travel led i n the underworl d o f popu la r rel ig io us bel ief,uses

,i n a lmo st every sentence

,term s whi ch ca nno t bea r a ny

o ther sense ‘ . Allthe personages o f the play somet imes use

o n th is subj ect language wh ich i s appl ica ble to th is subj ect

o n ly . And so wo u ld Theseus , a nd so wo u ld Hera cl es i n c on

versa t io n wi th Theseus,if the thought in Eurip ides

m in d had

been,tha t these perso ns were speak ing o f experi ences wh ich

they had shared in Hades . B u t s ince,a s a fa ct

,the five

a l l us ions ( i n clud ing the ca se o f Cerberus) a re allambiguo us

s ince allspea k in term s no t o f H ades,but on ly o f ‘ dea d men

‘ undergro und,

and the l ike,the inevi table i nference is tha t

they a re purpo sely ambiguous,a nd tha t

, a ccord ing to the

in tent ion o f the a uthor,the speakers do n o t refer to Hades ,

but to someth ing to ta l ly d ifferent .

Nor sho u ld i t be o verlo oked , tha t the in ciden t wh ich they

m ent ion,the rescue o f Theseu s by Hera cles

,i s a pparent ly n ot

recen t . For Theseus describes h is mo t ive for repaying i t as

d is l ik e o f a gra t i tude tha t ‘ grows old or‘ wa nes wi th

Now i t is po ss ibl e indeed,and the po ss ib i l ity is do ubtless

prov ided in tent iona l ly by the compo ser,to i n terpret th is

m ean ing tha t Theseus loves to repay services promptly.

B u t th i s i s n o t the o n ly po ss ible m ea n ing,n or the mo st

n a tura l . A hea rer who depended o n ly o n the wo rds,who

had n o preconcept io n a bo ut the ma tter,wou ld suppo se

Theseu s to reproba te the forg etting o f benefi ts,a nd therefo re

to have i n vi ew a service,wh ich m ight conceivably have been

1v . 1 45.

2vv. 297 , 49 1 .

3v. 42 7 .

3vv . 770

- 808 .

5vv . 607

—6 2 1 , 1 1 01 - 1 104, 1 2 76- 1 2 78 .

5v . 1 2 23 xdpw 66

wpdaxovo'a v éxfla fpw ¢O\wv.

1 86 A SOUL’S TRA GED Y

any ,b u t i nd ica tes pla i n ly, to educa ted specta to rs or,

readers o f

h i s day ,tha t i t i s some in c iden t o f th i s k ind , some na tura l

i n c ident,someth ing l i ke wha t was figured i n th is connex io n

by ra t iona l i st i c wr i ters,tha t h is Theseu s a nd h i s Hera cles

jo i n t ly remember.

When therefo re Hera cl es i n h i s madness declares tha t he

has del ivered Theseus from Hades ‘,he i s n o t merely invent ing

a ny mo re tha n when he says , i n the sam e co nd it ion , th a t he

has captu red Cerberus . The la tter delu s io n i s founded , a s

we sha l l se e , upo n a rea l c ircumsta nce o f h is recen t exped i t io n

to Ta ena rum ,the fo rmer upo n a mo re a nc ien t rem in i scence

o f which h i s confused imagina t io n d isgu ises n o t o n ly the

na ture but the da te. If the c ivi c thea tre o f A thens had

perm i tted , i n su ch a ma tter a s th i s,the perfect ly open

exh ibi t io n o f i nfidel v iews,th is pa rt icu la r tra i t i n the d ivaga

t ion s o f H era c l es wo u ld have been somehow brought to the

knowledge o f Theseus h im se lf : i t m ight have been in trod uced,

for example,in to the speech hoveri ng between san ity a nd

i n sa n ity,which the hero addresses to h i s fri end i n the

drama2,and which we sha l l co n sider present ly. And the

refuta t io n o f i t must then have been expl ic i t. To save

appearances,so pla i n a co nfro nta t io n i s avo ided ; a nd the

fa cts , tha t Theseu s i s ignora n t of the exped i t ion to Ta ena rum ,

and tha t the rescue, a s suppo sed in th is drama,to ok pla ce a t

ano ther t ime a nd i n o ther c i rcum stances, tho ugh conspicuo us

to in structed eyes , are co nveyed in such a way tha t the

ignora nt a nd the superst i t io us wo u ld o verlook them , and tha t,if the a uthor sho u ld be mo l ested (as o nce a t l ea st he was) by

a pro secut ion for impiety , there wo u ld be room for a fo rma l

defence.

Beyond the i nciden t o f the rescue,we learn no th ing abo ut

the rela t ion s be tween Theseus a nd H era cles, except i n genera l

th i s s ign ifica nt fa ct,tha t the adm i ra t io n of the lesser man (for

Theseus,though he has explo i ts to boa st ‘

,is fra nkly the

i nferio r) is to ta l ly free from superst i t ious imagina t ion, a nd

tha t h is grea t fri end , however glo r io us a nd ben efic en t h i s

career,is to him j ust a mo rta l man and no th ing more

1v . 6 1 9.

2vv . 1 255fo l l .

3v. 1 3 27. No te tha t the M ino taur is mere ly a bul l . ’

HERA CLES 1 87

Amph itryon co nt i nues,as befo re

, to c ite ba tt les o f gods a nd

giants ‘ , Theseus never ; and his ret icence adm i ts but one

i nterpreta t ion . Tha t the gods are no better than o thers , he

th inks very po ss ibl e as a genera l propo s i t io n a nd he cha ra c

teristic ally finds i t a reflexion ra ther conso l ing than o therwise.

Thei r ma l i ce,a nd i n pa rt icu la r the m a l ice o f Hera

,i s a n i dea

qu ite a cceptable to h is i n tel l igence ‘ : she i s do ubtl ess an

enemy o f Hera c les . B u t as to the pa rt o f Zeus in the parentage

o f h is fri end—he happen s n o t to express a n op in io n ‘ . And

th is example i s typica l . Wha t Theseus i s concerned for i s so l e ly

the reputa t io n o f Hera c l es a s a ma n,a nd h i s ho no ur i n the

eyes o f the world , which wi l l suffer, he says , by so weak and

i l l - cons idered a n a c t as su ic ide “. Mo st ea rn estly therefo re

do es he labou r to d issuade him from i t,a nd to prove by word

a nd deed tha t the friend o f Theseus may st i l l look fo rwa rd to

a to lerable future.

Such are the ma teria l s provided for the la st and noblest

scene o f the play,o n e o f the noblest i n Greek drama o r a ny

drama . With reveren t cu rio s i ty,pro fo und yet self- restra i ned ,

Eurip ides , for the fo unda t ion o f h i s tragedy , goes bo l d ly down

into tho se dim regions where sou l and body meet , yet so as

never to lo se i n vagueness a nd myst ic i sm the d ifference

between tha t wh ich i s obscure a nd tha t which is s imply

u nknown . To the exc i ted impo rtun i ty o f Amph itryon ,Hera cl es

,pro stra te a nd shro uded

,o ffers a res istance s i lent

but furio us ? Theseu s with a mo re ca lm ,tho ugh tender,

a uthori ty fo rces h im a t la st to look up a nd to speak “ ; but for

some t ime i t appea rs tha t even Theseus c a n effect no more.

Hard a nd untouched,Hera c les pa rries h i s a ffect iona te insis

tence wi th curt repl ies,wh ich co ver ra ther than d isc lo se the

sta te o f h i s m i nd . On ly i t is eviden t tha t between the two

fr iends there i s some Spi ri tua l ba rr ier, some gu lf o f tho ught ,unvei led a nd vei led aga i n i n a gl impse

H er. Ay, saw you everm isery tha t was more7 ?

Tlies. Nay, n ay , from eart h yo ur sorrows rea c h to heaven .

1vv. 1 1 92

—1 1 94.

2vv . 1 1 9 1 , 1 3 1 4 fo l l . , e tc .

3 And no te , in v . 1 3 1 6, the word dMfiXoco‘w4vv. 1 246

—1 254 and passz'

m. vv . 1 203- 1 2 1 3 .

5vv. 1 2 1 4

- 1 2 28 . vv . 1 239 fo l l . (A .W.

H er. And th erefore is my m ind reso lved to die .

T/zes. Th ink you your threa ten ing tou c hes Them a boveH er. G od ha t h his way lwi th the gods have m ine ‘.T/zes. Re fra in yo ur l ips, lest the b ig word inv i te

The heav ier b lowI am fu l l

,t here is n o p la c e

Form isery more .

B u t when th is a im l es s fenc ing has bea ten i tself o u t i n strokes

tha t do n o t meet

H er. Me n he lp n o t : H era wins '

And you a c c ep tA foo l ish dea th

,b y He l las d isa l lowed '

Hera cles,if n o t moved

,i s a t la s t pro vo ked to expla i n him

self”. If Theseus wi l l l i s ten,he may have a n a nswer, may

know tha t for H era cles to l ive i s , a s in tbe pa st it lia s been ,a

th ing unfi t . H is ca lam i t i es bega n,n o t

,a s Theseus imagines

to -day , but befo re he wa s bo rn , when h is mo therA l cmena was

wedded to a hom ic ide , the s layer o f h i s own grandfa ther, on e

who by break ing the sa cred cha i n o f l ife had proved h im self

unwo rthy to cont inue i t. H ow from such paren tage Sho u ld

a ught pro ceed but a th ing bo rn to be m i sera ble ? Thus , with

gha st ly compo sure , he begins , and thus he wo u ld have pro

c e eded,tra cing h i s who l e ca reer

,h i s fa l se g lories no less tha n

his la test explo i t i n the m urder o f h i s fam i ly ‘,to the same

sou rce,the ev i l i n the blood

,revea l ed a t la st to all

,but by

h imself long known a nd abhorred . Tha t i s why he must

d ie. Thus he wo u ld ha ve pro ceeded ; but here the compl ica ted

ho rro r o f the s i tua t io n becomes to o m uch for h i s self-ma stery .

The fa ther whom he deno unces,the a utho r o f his being a nd

h is m i sery , whom yet (th is i s the wors t an d a l so the best of

all) he tenderly loves, tha t fa ther is present, tho ugh Hera c les ,a bsorbed i n h is reve la t ion

,had fo r a momen t fo rgo tten him .

H e sees Amph itryon’

s a gony,a nd des ires to conso l e h im , to

conso l e him (how el se ?) by wounding him aga i n i n the very

hea rt o f h i s fo nd and foo l i sh pr ide,by a cknowledging him as

1v . 1 243 a i

zfiaaés 6 0668 “

1rpbs Be’

robs 67 16. No te the change o f numberand c ompare vv . 1 34 1 , 1 345 .

vv . 1 255 fo l l .v. 1 279.

90 A so ar s TRA GED Y

o f her o f a

therefo re pu rsu ing to tha t d id good to allh i s

wa s i nno cent —a nd with th is o utcry,broken

yet tri umpha nt,nei ther deity nor devi l

,but o nce aga i n a

m i serable,ra t io na l m an

,he bursts i n to saving tea rs ‘.

To u s,who ha ve fo l lowed the scenes o f the morn ing

,th i s

speech revea l s n o t o n ly the presen t sto rm,bu t allthe l ife- lo ng

labo ur o f the m ighty, m i sbego tten i n te l lect . B u t Theseus

has neither wi tnessed the fa cts , nor rece ived a n a cco un t o f

them,a nd i s mo reover no t fi tted to comprehend them fu l ly if

he had. Wha t Hera cl es mea ns he do es no t understa nd,bu t

he sees and i s deeply moved by h is tears “. He perce ives a l so

wha t is obvio us , tha t the so u rce o f them i s connected in some

way with h i s fri end’s theo logy

,a nd he o ffers a cco rd ingly such

comfort a s he c a n . Why be m i serable beca use the gods a re

wicked ? Theseus wi l l show him a better way . L ike men ,

the gods are no t above evi l , n o t by a ny means , if tho se say

t rue who pretend to know. The d iso rders o f O lympus,from

love,ambit io n

,and wha t n o t, equa l anyth ing to be seen below.

Y e t the inhabitan ts make the best o f i t , a nd are to lera nt o f

the ir imperfect cond it ion . Surely then,surely men Shou ld be

no t l ess pa t ient , bu t Sho u ld ta ke th ings , a nd them selves,a s

they are . Hera c les,being a hom ic ide, mus t do ubtless depart

from Thebes,as c ustom prescribes ; bu t A thens i s open .

Theseus i s ready,and happ i ly able

,to endow him with alltha t

1 S ee vv. 1 3 53—1 3 57 . Tha t th is weep ing o f one who n ever wept before oc c urs

first be tween the two grea t spee c hes o f H era c les (vv . 1 3 10 and aec om

pan i c s the sudden c hange o f his m ind there e xhibi ted , may b e fa irly in ferred ,

though i t is n o t sta ted. Wha t appea rs upon the tex t is tha t in the firstspeec h Hera c les is beside himse lf, staggering on , or ra ther over, the brink o f

insan i ty , but tha t in the se c ond he has re c overed, and is himse lf, c omp le te ly andfina l ly. Also tha t th is rec o very is effe c ted by his own body and m ind

, sin c e i twi l l ha rdly be a t tributed to the observa t ions o f Theseus. The sc ene wan ts on l yproper a c t ion to b e perfec t ly in te l l igible a nd e ven simp le .

2vv . 1 3 1 1

- 1 3 1 2 should probably b e assigned to the Chorus (Camper, Murray ,and o thers) . The fo l lowing sp ee c h of Theseus beg ins in the m idd le of a sen tenc e ,an d the first words seem to b e lost . Bu t of th is I am no t qu ite sure . A t v . 1 3 10

H era c les, who must stand u p for the pre c ed ing spee c h , flings himse lf aga in in a

passion of tea rs upon the ground (see v . Theseus kn ee ls beside him ,

c on so l ing . In these c irc umsta nc es we may he mea n t n o t to hear Theseus, t i l lhe has bee n spe aking , to the ear of H erac l es, for some t ime .

HERA CLES 19 1

a man c an des ire for th is worl d a nd the next—wea l th now,

chapel s a nd memo ria l ri tes hereafter ; gladly wi ll he thus

recompense his rescuer, now fri end less . ‘Whi le the gods

fa vou r , fri ends are superfluo us a nd the a id o f the god‘

lo ng a s he plea ses , i s enough .

‘ Here is the ma n for a friend ! ’ as Hera cles presen t ly

excla ims ‘ , with profound and meri ted gra t itude . B u t as a

sp iri tua l adviser i n the ca se, Theseus impo rts o n ly tha t to uch

o f the inadequa te , the inappropria te, i n short the absurd,

which is a s seldom a bsen t from the t raged ies o f l ife as from

tho se o f Eurip ides, and is n o t the l ea st po ignant part o f them .

The fra i l t i es o f the O lympia ns a re a stra nge comfort for

o n e to whom the O lympians a re but a sma l l a nd,a s he says 3 ,

a seconda ry ’ part o f tha t m i serable m i sconcept ion , tha t huge

error,by wh ich he h imself

,h i s l ife a nd work and very m ind ,

have been inextri cably entangled a nd d isto rted ; on e who

m ight perhaps have been happy a s wel l as grea t , if me n had

no t bel ieved i n Zeus a nd Hera,a nd wo u ld have let h im

deny such dei t ies,as i n h is true m in d he ever d id a nd now

with allso l emn i ty do es . Now,for the first t ime s ince we

have seen him,he is tru ly H era c les

,a nd h i s o ften quo ted

pro fess io n o f fa i th springs o u t, as the word for which we have

wa i ted

oino i'

Wripepya 50 7"

571 51 1; [Ca /663V,

617 12) 38 7 0139 057 6 Xé/c '

i? m) def/1.1.9a re

yew 110/rife) , Sea /sci 7’

éfa’

rew xepo'

fifiwa a'

vraivro '

weia op a i ,

ik k ov ci’

Mtov Bea n brnv Wecpvn éva t .Seira i v

ydp b 9669 , ei’

wep é’

a'r’

bpfla’

is 9669 ,

0128 6v a

orScb’

v Sba rnvm b yor.

Bu t th is i s n o t ime for a rgument ; a nd upo n the quest ion

o f the moment,the quest ion o f su ic ide

,he has come

,upo n

better thought,to agree pra ct ica l ly wi th Theseus . I n refus ing

h is burden there m ight be cowa rd ice ; he wi l l awa i t dea th

pa t iently,and meanwh i l e wi l l tha nkfu l ly a ccept the o ffered

refuge “. The n ew stra nge tears,S ign o f a grea t a nd perhaps

1 The c hange of numbermean s n o thing to Theseus, to H erac les (v. 1 345) i t does.

2v . 1 404 .

3v . 1 340 .

4vv . 1 347 fo l l .

a la st ing change , cont inue to flow, wh i l e he bids fa rewel l to

h is fa ther a nd the dead , a nd dec ides , a fter pa thet ic hesi ta t io n ,tha t h is dead ly weapons , h i s gloriou s weapon s , Sha l l go with

him sti l l,and fina l ly takes l eave o f Thebes

,o f her so i l upon

wh ich he st i l l l i es pro stra te, a nd o f her people, to whom he

commends the memo ry o fhis fa te ‘ . H ere on ly,i n his references

to Thebes, do we perce ive a tra ce o f the cri s i s thro ugh wh ich

he has passed,a bla nk o f thought pers i st ing, a nd pers istent to

the end . When he trustfu l ly bids allthe fo l k of Thebes,as

fr‘ ien ds,to the funera l o f h is ch i ld ren , he shows tha t i n h i s

memo ry ther e i s an unrepa ired a nd perhaps irrepa rable ga p .

The sto ry o f Lycus , the fa ct tha t Hera c l es’ enem i es a ctua l ly

ho ld the town,allth is i s gone from him . S ince h e came to

h is senses,no th ing ha s been sa i d o f i t , a nd wha t was sa i d

a nd do ne befo re , even the S laying o f Lycus by h is own ha nds,

he has fo rgo tten . This na tu ra l to uch , given witho ut the lea st

empha s i s , a nd l eft , a s i n rea l l ife, to be ma rked or neglected

as the observer sha l l p lea se,i s v ivid ly cha ra cteri s t i c of

Eurip ides . No t l ess so i s the s ingle a nd fina l touch o f irony,wh ich wa rn s us tha t the fierce feel ings

,a nd even the insa ne

bel iefs,wh ich fi l l the preced ing speech”, may poss ibly st i l l be

revivedAllye of The bes

,toge t her mo urn u s all,

My de ad and me , toge th er all

By and wi th a sing le stroke .

From the hero’s profess io n o f fa i th

,a s we ha ve ca l led i t ,

down to these c lo s ing words , alli s va l ed icto ry, except a brief

pa renthes i s ‘,wh ich refers to his recen t exped i t ion

,the exped i

t io n to Ta enaru m , and i s d es igned to sa t isfy,so far as i s

necessa ry and su itable,the reader’s po ss ibl e cur io s ity upo n

a po in t h itherto untouched . I n the rumo urs a t Thebes, which

are exh ib i ted i n the p ro logue by Amph it ryo n ‘ , the purpo se

vv . 1 3 53—1 385 , 1 3 89- 1 393 .

2vv . 1 255 fo l l .

vv . 1 386—1 388

?v not TL, 6 176 6 17 , o bj/Kan" ddMou xvvos

xéru o rp’

és”Amos awxa rdarna ou noku

Aubry Tl. 1ra I5wV uh 1rd6w p ovobnevos.

So M SS . and Prof. Murray , add ing however al ov ex v . pra ec eden te tra iec tum

v ide tur.

’a b‘yxa p.

aqr xvvbs Pierson and o thers. Al'

aov norxvvbsF . G. Schm idt .4v . 2 3 .

c i rcumsta nces we a re no t to l d a nd ha ve no t the lea st i nterest

i n knowing) wo u ld , if l eft o n the ro ad,be exceed ingly u n

happy, is mo re tha n probable . B u t i t i s wo rth no t i ce , a s a

tra i t pecu l ia rly Eurip idea n,tha t Hera cles

,resto red to h imself,

though he is st i l l i n such d istress o f m i nd tha t he a sks for a

compan ion to pro tect him aga i nst su ic ide,has sympa thy to

Spa re for a neglected a n ima l . We are rem i nded of H ippo lytu s ’

appea l to the gra t i tude o f h is ho rses ‘,a nd the tenderness o f

I o n for the wi ld birds ’ . For alltha t i s defenceless and l iable

to suffer,women

,ch i ldren

,s laves

,Eurip ides has ever a wo rd

and when , as i n these ca ses, he wi l l descr ibe hea rt s more tha n

commo n ly noble a nd tender,he ha s a wo rd for the dumb

crea tures too . The ho no urable des ire o f H era c les to fulfi l

an engagement,however j ust ifiably suspended

,i s a l so a n

appropria te,though mo re commo npla ce

,tra i t.

A bo u t th i s dog ,as abou t the rescue o f Theseus

,the M iss

Ma rtha B u skbodies o f the day ,the co nsumers of fi ction who

were n o t co ntent witho ut the suga r a t the bottom o f the cup ‘,

co u ld probably l ea rn mo re,however l i tt le to the purpo se, by c o n

sulting ,as a Pa ttieson or Cle ishbo tham,

one of tho se ra t io na l

i z ing mythographers to whom we have before a l luded . The

capture o f Cerberu s was the very subj ect for such ha nd l ing as

tha t o f H erodoru s ‘ . O ne c ircumstance,tempting to such an

i n terpreter,i s i nd ica ted by the a l l us io ns o f Eurip ides . The

legends were i rreconci lable,or, a s some wo u ld prefer to say ,

dema nded recon ci l ia t ion . No t o n ly Ta enarum,but a l so the

cave o f the Subterra nean Demeter a t Herm ione, c la imed to be

the p la ce where the H el l-Ho und wa s dragged into l ight 5. To

bring him thro ugh Taen arum fi rst , a nd l eave him a fterwards

a t Herm ione for a t im e,was an exped ien t a s na tura l to the

reco nci ler a s i t was a l i en to the genu in e Spiri t o f l egend and

may wel l ha ve been a dopted by p ious narra to rs,who had

n o des ire to el im i na te the monster a l together. The effect

was no ne the less absu rd , a nd the next step , tha t of the

ra t io na l i s t , i nev i table . Some such pro cess may have pre

ceded Euri p ides ; a nd the resu lt i ng vers io n of the story m ight

1 H ipp . 1 240, with z’

b . 1 10- 1 1 2 , 1

2 1 9.

2 [on 1 79.

3 S ee the ep i logue to Old .M'

ortality .4 S ee Append i x , Hera cles 1 386.

5 Pausan ias 2 . 3 5. 7 .

HERACLES 1 95

be read into h is a l l us ion , by tho se who cho se, witho ut much

profi t i ndeed,but withou t o ffence . Bu t wha t Eurip ides

a ctua l ly gives us i s suffi c ien t ( let us repea t) for his purpo se ,a nd requ ires no further exp la na t io n but wha t a ny reader c anprovide for h im self.

A nd n ow,to retu rn to the drama

,alli s sa i d ; and no th ing

rema in s but to withdraw the a ctors . The brief d ia logue

i n wh ich th i s i s a ccompl ished o ffers no th ing for remark,

except the pa rt i ng—for so Hera cles conceives it—betweenthe son and the fa ther. I n the preced ing speech , H era cl es

has a ssumed tha t,when he a nd Theseu s have departed from

Thebes , Amph itryon wi l l rema i n and res ide there ‘ . I n fa ct,i n the a ctua l sta te o f Thebes ‘ , th is i s impo ss ibl e ; a nd tha t

Hera cles c an th ink o f i t shows o n ly, wha t was no ti ced befo re ,tha t about Thebes , a nd the present a tt i tude o f the Theba ns

towards h imself a nd h is fam i ly,h i s memory is no t yet

resto red . S o long as the A then ian a rmy rema i n s i n i ts

camp , Amph itryo n under thei r pro tect io n c an rema in , and

c a n perform,as requested by H era cles

,the buria l o f the

dead . Bu t whenever Theseu s a nd h i s force wi thdraw,the

who l e ho useho ld,un less the k ing of A thens propo ses to take

the town a nd expel the o ccupants , must depart a l so a nd we

m ay presume tha t the aged Theba n fri ends of Amphitryo n ,with thei r fam i l ies if they have a ny ,

wou ld n o t be forgo tten

for they wo u ld certa in ly have a pa i nfu l pa ssage to Hades ,if l eft to the dom i nant fa ct ion . I n Short , the departure must

be an a ffa i r o f nego t ia t ion ; and the no t ion o f Heracles , tha t

h is fri end and he are to se t o ff a t o nce a nd a t ea se for A rgo s 3 ,i s a l together i l l uso ry. A cco rd ingly

,when i t comes to the

po i n t and the gro up d iv ides,we find tha t every on e , except

Hera cles,regards the separa t ion a s momenta ry ; for between

Theseus,Amph itryo n

,and the Theba n elders , there pa sses

n o t so much as a good -bye. Hera cles,pursu ing h is idea

takes leave o f his fa ther pa ss io na tely,and his fa ther o f co urse

responds,for an explana t io n i s n o t to be ri sked “. The on e

vv . 1 3 58—1 366.

vv. 26—43 , 2 72—2 74, 54 1—543 , 588- 592 , 8 1 1—8 1 4, 1 163- 1 1 65 , and e lsewhere .

v. 1 387.

4vv . 1 408

- 1 409, 1 4 1 8- 1 42 1 .

1 3—2

th ing press ing i s to persuade the sufferer upon a ny term s to

qu it the gha st ly a nd beloved re l ics o f his ca lam i ty ‘ . Even

Hera cles a t the la st i s d im ly conscio us o f h is erro r, and knows ,i n a confused way ,

tha t h is fa ther i s n o t n ow to rema i n i n

Thebes,tha t they are to meet aga i n

,and shortly

,i n fa ct

immed ia tely :

H er. 0 sire , farewe l l !Amp/z . And fare t ho u we l l , my son !2

H er. Perform ,as I bade t he e , the b uria l of my l i t t le ones

Amp/z . And who , my son , wi l l perform m ine ?H er. Tb a t will

Ampb . Tho u wi l t soon ?

H er. A s soon as t/zese are

Ampli . Wha t t hen ?H er. I sballfete/z tlzee from Tbebes away to A t/zens.

The co nfus io n of his tho ught i s st i l l ma n ifest,a nd we may

co nceive the sympa theti c s igns and mo t io ns o f the o thers ;but the la st l i tt l e c lo ud seem s to be d isso lving ; a nd thu s

broken bu t res igned , and m urmuring his gra t i tude, he suffers

Theseus to draw him S lowly away towa rds the A then ia n

camp . The aged Theba n s , bewa i l i ng them selves for the

fa l l o f thei r m ight iest friend , fo l low after , whi le, Amphitryo n

having entered the house, the doo r c lo ses upon the mo urner

and the dead .

Whether th is p lay deserves to be ca l led an abort ion,

whether i t fa l l s i nto pa rts which have l i tt l e or n o co nnex ion,

whether,i n fine

,the usua l trea tmen t o f i t is fo unded upo n a

1vv . 1 406- 1 4 1 8.

2 We should remember tha t xafpe , as origina l ly ou r ‘

good-bye ,

’is n ot in i tse lf

a formu la of leave - taking, bu t of blessing . The ambiguity is frequen tl y u t i l iz ed intrag edy and is no t withou t signific an c e here .

3 Throughout this sc en e 7 11 266 3 and 7 611 001 , used by H erac les as terms of a fl'

t ion and p i ty , n ot mere ly o f age or re la t ionship , in c lude the mother,who , if we

c onsider the c areer of H erac les and the fa c t tha t h is three c hi ldren are infan ts,

may or even must b e supposed muc h younger than her husband . S ee espe c ia l l yvv . 1 380

—1 38 1 Téxv’

Ka i Ba/La pd’

, finds 6x6 1 : u a zboxrévovs 0063 , Where inthe word r a taoxrbvovs the in c l usion is forma l ly sign ified . After th is, the wife isnot separa te l y men t ion ed.

l i ke the man i n Vo l ta i re,knew o f these ma tters wha t has been

known in allt imes , tha t i s to say , very l i t tl e.

Given the po ss ibi l i ty of such a H era c l es , we may , I hope,agree tha t Euri p ides has made him t ragic , cons isten t ly t ragic ,and t ragi c beyond descript ion . Or if no t, if, when all i s

sa id,the play Sho u ld be st i l l a th ing abo ut wh ich we d iffer,

the mo re tru ly then does i t resemble the wo rld . For the

wo rld i s ano ther such th ing.

A F I RE FROM HELL.

(ORESTES . )

The most tremendo us of allth ings is the magna n im i t y of a dun c e .

SYDNEY 8 11 11 11 .

IT wou ld n o t be ea sy to imagine a grea ter co ntra st between

two plays , des igned by the same ha nd for the same thea tre,and nom i na l ly inc luded , as traged ies, i n the same species o f

d rama, tha n is presented by the H era cles

,from wh ich we

pa ss , a nd the Orestes, upo n which we are to enter. I n par

tic ular,they exempl ify a d ist i nct io n which

,tho ugh it i s for

Eurip ides o f much impo rta nce, i s l iable to be overlooked,

pa rt ly beca use obscured by the co nvent iona l n eces s i t ies o f

A then ia n pra ct ice,pa rt ly because forAeschylu s and Sopho cles

i t c an ha rd ly be sa id to exi st . This d ist i nct ion i s tha t o f

t ime, of the epo ch i n the wo rld’s h isto ry a nd i n i ts socia l

po l i t ica l,rel igious development, a t wh ich the stori es respe c

tively are pla ced . For the purpo se o f A eschylu s or Sophoc les,

if we a sk wizen the even ts a re suppo sed to pa ss,i t wo u ld

genera l ly be suffic ien t to reply,‘ I n a n t iqu i ty.

’ The t ime is

remo te,so remo te tha t w i thout Shock to the imagina t ion

much may be a ccepted as po ss ible, if the legend or the trea t

ment so requ ires , which co u ld n o t have been a ttributed to the

fi fth century. I n the P ersa e o f A eschylus, tho ugh the events

a re contempo ra ry with the aud ience, remo teness o f pla ce , i t

has been tru ly sa id,does the wo rk o f remo teness i n t ime : a t

Susa,i n the unknown scene o f a Pers ia n pa la ce, the appa ri t io n

o f a dead king,vis ibl e and a ud ible to his co unc i l lo rs, m ight

pa ss with the o ther strangeness o f the s itua t ion . I t wou ld

200 A FIRE FROM HELL

have been ano ther th ing to Show on the stage how the c on

tempo rary Pheid ipp ides enco untered Pan i n the pa ss o f

Pa rthen ium,orDema ra tus beheld the superna tu ra l pro cess io n

o f the in it ia ted moving a cro ss the p la i n of Eleus i s . B u t i n

genera l,remo teness o f t im e is the co nd it ion

,and i n th is

remo teness there i s l i tt l e d i scrim ina t ion . S l ight d ifferences

o f co lo u r there are : the wo rl d o f the Tra c/zin ia e i s somewha t

mo re fanc ifu l ly depicted than tha t of the P hiloc tetes ; the

A rgo s o f the S upplia n ts a nd th e A rgo s of the Ag amemnon

are so ci et i es n o t exa ct ly a l i ke. B u t there i s no system i n

these d ifferences,and genera l ly spea k ing allma rks o f da te

are sunk i n a ha z e o f po etry. For the in tended purpo se, th i s

method,common ly d ist i ngu ished by the name o f tbe ideal,

was n o t o n ly commendable but necessa ry : i n no o ther wayco u ld the hypo theses o f l egend have been made a cceptabl e,under the trying cond i t ions o f drama , to the given a ud ience.

A nd i t i s perfect ly l egi t ima te,a s a ma tter of ta ste , to prefer

such idea l drama to o ther spec ies . O n ly let us no t confuse

the spec ies,or a ttribu te to Eurip ides a n obscur i ty a nd negl i

gence i n the d i st inct ion o f t ime a nd c i rcumstance,which

wou ld have been a s i ncon s istent w ith h is purpo se,as i t was

necessa ry to tha t o f A eschyl us .

To bo rrow from a nt ique legend the names a nd rela t io n

sh ips o f the pri nc ipa l chara cters was, for the A t t i c traged ia n ,genera l ly necessa ry ; but we see from Eurip ides tha t th is

requ irement somet imes became,as was to be expected , pure ly

convent io na l a nd fi ct i t io us . The names tel l u s no th ing , i n

h is ca se,abo u t the co nd it ions o f the sto ry

,wh ich c a n be

l ea rn t o n ly from the play itself. They may be ant ique , a s

the l egenda ry names suggest,or they may no t. H era cles

a nd Orestes , a cco rd ing to l egendary chro no logy, were perso ns

nea rly co ntempo ra ry ; bu t the Eurip idea n sto ries bea ring

thei r names a re as wide apart as [va nboe and Guy M a n nering .

The soc ia l,po l i t ica l , a nd rel igious cond it ions of the two are

m utua l ly excl us ive,a nd the events o f each sto ry inco nceivable

i n the cond i t ion s o f th e o ther . The wo rl d o f the H eracles,

tho ugh n o t,l i ke tha t o f Sophoc les

Tracb in iae , m i ra cu lo us ,i s nevertheless far remo te from the age o f the drama t ist, and

a re prim i t i ve. No t o n ly i s,

the pa st co nceived a s m i ra cu lous ,but m i racu lo us sto ries

,rela ted o f a l iv ing and fam i l ia r person ,

tho ugh they exc ite much j ea lousy a nd scept ic ism ,a s a ssuredly

they wo u ld have do ne i n mo st Greek so c iet ies for ma ny

genera t ions before the t ime of Eurip id es , nevertheless obta in

a m ea sure a nd k ind o f a ssent,wh ich i n mo st so c iet i es o f the

fi fth century wou ld have been i nconce ivable . To find such

a c la ss o f perso ns a s i s represented by the Cho rus o f the

H era cles, to find even a n i nd ividua l Amph it ryon,wou ld then

have been sca rcely po ss ibl e in A thens , Co ri n th , or Syra cuse ,probably n o t ea sy i n Sparta ,

Thebes,or Tegea . At the da te

o f Hera cles,the popula r theo logy, wha tever may ha ve been

da red in specu la t ion by a so l i ta ry th inker,i s genera l ly a ccepted

witho ut quest ion a nd has a un iversa l i nfluence over priva te

a nd publ ic a ffa i rs . B u t i n the ‘

A rgo s ’ o f Orestes, as a t

A thens i n the age o f Eurip ides,tha t theo logy has not on ly

lo s t much of i ts ho l d upo n ind ividua ls,but

,wha t i s o f far

mo re impo rtance,i n ma tters o f l ega l a nd po l i t ica l a ct io n i t

rece ives n ot even the sembla nce o f respect . When a deed ,done wi th the previo us sanct io n o f the o ra cl e a t Delph i , i s

a rra igned before the A rgive a ssembly s i tt ing as a crim i na l

cou rt , the re l igio us j ust ifica t ion i s no t even pleaded . I t i s on

all s ides s imply igno red , a nd co ndemna t io n pa sses a fter a

deba te i n wh ich,so far as a ppea rs

,the name o f Apo l lo has

never been ment ioned ‘ . A nd i n the age o f Eurip ides , such a

cou rse,o n the pa rt o f a defenda nt befo re an A then ia n tribuna l ,

wou ld have been bo th probable a nd pruden t. Few d ica sts

wo u ld have been propit ia ted,a nd no t a few po ss ib ly exaspe

ra ted,by an a ttempt to bo l ster up a ca se o therwise i ndefens ibl e

with a n a l leged effus ion o f the Pyth ia n pro phetess. The

procedure i s i n perfect a cco rd wi th the rest of the p lay, a nd

wo u ld have agreed with the A ndroma c/ze or I on . B u t i t

wo u ld have been monstrous in the Oedipu s Ty ra nn u s, a nd

no t les s so i n the H era cles,

. the H ippoly tu s, or even the

[pb zgen ia in Ta u rica .

I nto the m id st o f such cond i t io ns , po l i t i ca l , so c ia l , a nd

rel igious,Eurip ides i n th i s p lay

,which d iffers widely even

1vv . 866 fo l l .

ORESTES 203

from o thers o f h is own upo n the same theme,has transpo rted

the a ncien t story, which to l d how a son,under the specia l

command of the Delph ia n god , avenged his murdered fa ther

by slaying the murderess a nd adul teress,h i s mo ther. I t was

a dari ng experiment . The co nd it ions changed are precisely

tho se upo n wh ich the legend depends for i ts i nterest ; and tofind a new interest, compa t ib le with the transference, m ight

wel l be thought impo ss ibl e . Sympa thy,genera l or a t l ea s t

predom i na nt , with the a venger, the fi na l j ust ifi ca t io n o f the

avenger,these are the pi l lars o f th e l egendary structure

must , we Shou ld suppo se , be the suppo rt o f a ny pra ct icable

d rama fo unded upon i t . Bu t by the change o f cond it ions

th i s suppo rt is destroyed . The ma tric ide i s n o longer de

fensible , a nd scarcely p i t iable . H is a c t i s a d ifferent th ing ;h i s gu i l t is mu l t ipl ied tenfo ld

,h i s plea s d isappea r a nd no th ing

i s l eft,o u t of the ma ter ia l presen ted by the origina l vers io n,

which c an suspend ou r j udgmen t or d ivide o u r emo t ions .

The names of A gamemnon a nd C lyta emnestra , of Orestes and

Pyla des,may rema i n ; but the mo ra l i n terest, which they

represented , i s destroyed . If i t were n ow convent iona l ly

necessary tha t the persons o f allplaysshou ld be ta ken ( l et u s

say ) from the h isto ry o f the seventeenth century, a playwright,who cho se nevertheless to exh ib i t the laws

,bel iefs

manners o f the presen t day , could n o t,witho ut i nvent ing

some ent i rely new l i ne o f i n terest,ta ke for h i s subject the

m urder o f the A rchb isho p o f St A ndrews . He m ight , witho ut

exceed ing the bo unds o f po ss ibi l i ty , Show a prela te put to

dea th by fa na t ics ; he m ight ca l l the vict im Sha rpe, the

a ssa ss ins Burl ey or Ra thillet , and the pla ce Magus Mu ir. B u t

if h is Sco tland was, i n re l igion , mo ra l s,and po l i t ics, the Sco t

land of the twent ieth century, then the ba lance o f pri nc iples ,the confl i c t o f r ights , the d iv is io n of sympa th ies, allwhich

ma kes the h isto r ica l i nc iden t su i table for a rt ist ic trea tment,wo ul d in the transference van ish . S o with O restes . H is

l egend,a s orig ina l ly conceived a nd a s ha nd led by A eschylus ,

rests upo n presumpt io ns which , i n the ci rcumstances given

by Eurip ides,cea se to be po ss ib l e. I t presumes, i n the fi rst

pla ce , the genera l j ust ice a nd no rma l to lera t ion of priva te

revenge. As the s layer o f h is mo ther, O restes may be open

to co ndemna t ion , but he i s pra i seworthy as the avenger of h i s

fa ther. Forslay ingA egisthu s, the a ccompl ice o fC lyta emnestra ,

the Aeschylea n O restes w i l l n o t even co ndescend to excuse

h im self‘,tho ugh Aegisthu s too was a nea r k insman n or has

tha t i nc iden t a ny effect upo n h i s subsequen t fa te or the fi na l

review o f his conduct. S o long as the sto ry wa s l eft i n the

o rig ina l a tmo sphere of a nt iqu i ty, th i s presumpt io n was na tu ra l .

Such had i n fa ct been the eth ics of the pa st. I t was ea sy

too,a nd Aeschylus does i t

, to strengthen the plea o f priva te

wro ng , i n ca se a ny do ubt sho u ld be en terta ined of i ts su ffi

c ien c y , by publ ic mo t ives o f the most respectable k ind— to

i ns is t on the fa ct tha t Agamemno n was a king,a lawfu l

governo r, tha t C lytaemnestra wa s gu i l ty o f trea son in k i l l ing

her husband,and o f usurpa t ion i n tak ing h is throne

,a nd tha t

the m an who pu l led down her and her pa ramou r, wha tever

m ight be h is po s i t io n as a son,wa s a c i t i z en o f the h ighest

mer it,the del iverer o f his co untry from a detestable despo t i sm”.

Fo r the A rgo s o f Euri p id es , a demo cra t ic sta te rest ing on fixed

laws,tribuna l s , a nd crim ina l pro cedure , no ne of these defences

or pa l l ia t ions are conceivable . Such a sta te co u ld n o t ex ist,un less priva te revenge were i tself a crime, d isa l lowed by

opin io n,a nd no rma l ly v is ited wi th pun i shment a s a n i nsu l t

to publ i c a uthori ty. The necess ity o f th is do ctri ne , a s a n

el ementa ry princ ip l e o f commo n sense,a rud iment o f tra

dition almo ra l i ty,fam i l ia r to every o ne who has a ny no t io n o f

r ight and wro ng,i s exp la i ned

,under co ntemptuous pro test

aga i n st the expla na t io n o f a th ing so obvio us,by o n e o f the

personages i n the p lay 3 ; and the behavio u r o f the A rgive

publ ic is,a s o f co u rse i t must be

,i n a cco rdance with tha t

expo s it ion . Doubtless i t was the duty o f a son to pro secute

the enem i es of h is fa ther, to pro secute them to the dea th

no t to a ssa ss ina te them . The law wa s ready to his ha nd,and

no o ther weapon perm i ss ibl e . S o tho ught , so must th ink ,the Argives o f such a n A rgo s as i s presen ted by Eurip ides .

Away then go es the fo unda t ion o f O restes’

. ca se, a s c on

1 Cboeplzori 989 (Dindorf).2 6710. 973 , 1046, E am . 63 1 etc .

3vv . 49 1 fo l l .

The fa ther o f C lyta emnestra,tho ugh detesting the cr ime o f h i s

daughter, a nd mo re tha n wi l l i ng to see her pun ished i n a l ega l

way ,ha s n o t a wo rd o f persona l regret forAgamemno n ‘—who

i n sho rt, wa s n ot regretted,a s i t seems

,by a ny who knew him ,

except i ndeed in a m i l i ta ry fa sh io n by some o f h is nobl e

compan ions i n arm s ‘ . Allth is i s very wel l,very na tu ra l

co ns i sten t with the po l i t i ca l a nd so c ia l frame of the picture ;but i t i s a mo st unhappy a nd d isa stro us prepara t io n for the

entra nce upon the scene o f a perso n cla im i ng,for the sake o f

A gamemno n , to defy law,mo ra l i ty , a nd na ture, a nd pl ead ing

a divin e,c omma nd .

An d the comma nd i tself,the sa nct ion o f Delph i , wha t

has become o f tha t ? H ere,i n the trad it io na l sto ry

,lay the

p i th o f the ma t ter. O restes i s a man d ivinely comma nded,

for specia l rea sons , to do a n a c t na tu ra l ly abom i nable. The

o ra cu la r comma nd,i ts rea l i ty a nd a uthori ty

,m ake the co rner

stone of his ca se. Sopho cl es i n h is Elec tra suppo ses th is j ust i

fic a tion to be so c lea r as to l ift O restes h imself above do ubt

or scruple,and commend him to unqua l ified sympa thy.

A eschylus , mo re fa i thfu l apparen tly to t rad it ion a nd h isto ry,represents i t as ra i s ing a pa infu l quest io n

,a quest ion , huma n ly

speak ing,i n so l uble . The Areopagu s o f A thens i s d ivided

upo n i t equa l ly. For bo th A eschylu s and Sopho cl es , the

superna tura l o rig i n of the message i s a certa in ty , a nd i ts

weight i nd isputab le . I n the Eu men ides,Apo l lo h imself proves

i t a s a witness i n co urt ; i n' the Cboep/iori we lea rn tha t i t

was given to O restes repea ted ly , by the mo uth (50 the

la nguage suggests) o f the God , and under a ppa l l ing pena l t ies

i n ca se o f d isobed ience. B u t i n o u r play, i n the modern i z ed

Orestes, wha t becomes o f allth is ? How co u ld i t po ss ibly

stand ? I n such a n A rgo s a s Euri p ides dep icts , wha t wou ld

i t ma tter tha t a n a c t condemned by law and publ ic opin ion

had been sa nct ioned,or suppo sed to be sanct ioned , by a

response from the woman o f the tripod ? S o much the

wo rse for Apo l lo . Some a re sca nda l i z ed ‘ , the majori ty

s imp ly i nd ifferen t “. I t i s as if n ow, i n some sta te where

vv . 496 fo l l . , and Tyndareuspa ssz’

2vv. 890

—900.

vv . 1 94, 807—843 , e tc . S ee the tria l (vv . 866 fo l l .) and passirn .

ORES TE S 207

ma rriage with a decea sed wife’

s s is ter i s recogn i z ed by law,

a ma n so ma rr ied were to comm i t b igamy,a nd were to

plead the opin ion o f his Spiri tua l d irecto r, tha t h is previous

co ntra ct was i nva l id . Even the s inceri ty o f such a pleawo u ld be questiona ble, a nd i ts we ight no th ing. S o with

O restes and h i s ora cle . H e , a nd he a lo ne,i s a ffected by it .

Pylades,h is co unsel lor a nd i n truth the a uthor o f h is a cts ‘

never ment ions the o ra cu la r command , and i s , as we sha l l

se e,a chara cter n o t conceivably o pen to such influence.

Electra,his o ther in st iga tor, ment ions i t on ly to compla i n

tha t i t has n o t been fo l lowed by support “. No o ne,who se

o pin ion carri es weight,none but women ‘ a nd rusti cs “

a l lows i t for superna tura l , and n o o ne a l lows i t for a u thori

ta tive . O restes'

h imself,though it seem s to have qu ieted

his scruples for a t ime,

finds i t impo tent aga in st h is remorse

a nd usel ess for h i s defence . H e pleads i t to h i s uncle, a nd

h i s uncl e sneers ‘ ; he pleads i t to h i s grandfa ther, a nd h is

gra nd fa ther ignores i t “. A t h is tria l he do es n o t plead i t

a t a 117. The h igh language, i n wh ich he exto l s the wisdom

o f Delph i a s un iversa l ly a cknowledged and obeyed”, is sucha s i n the fi fth century m ight doubtless have been frequent ly

heard,a nd st i l l represented someth ing rea l . Delph i was

m uch co nsu l ted , had much influence o n priva te a ffa i rs and

some o n publ ic . B u t i t d id no t then command i n A thens ,a nd i t does n o t comma nd in ‘ Argo s

’ tha t sort o f autho ri ty

wh ich co u ld serve an O restes . The comprom i se i s fam i l ia r,a nd a na logies abundant bo th in o ther t imes a nd i n o u r own .

I t fo l lows as a necess ity from the t ime a nd c i rcumstances

a dopted for th is play. B u t i t destroys the i nterest o f the

story,a s tha t i nterest was conceived by trad it ion .

We may i ndeed doubt whether the part of Delph i i s,

str ict ly speak ing,po ss ib l e i n the a l tered c i rcumstances ,

whether i n the s ixth or fi fth century a n encouragemen t to

m a tri c ide co u ld have been pro cured from the tripod a t all.

vv . 1 090, 1 1 58 .

2vv . 1 62 , 1 9 1 , e tc .

vv . 1 9 1 fo l l . , e tc . v . 955 , see vv . 866—870.

vv . 4 1 6—4 1 7 . vv . 59 1 fo l l . , and Tyndareuspassi/ n.

vv . 93 2 fo l l . vv . 59 1 fo l l .

B u t we do no t know the co ntra ry,a nd may be content

to suppo se wi th the drama t is t . Nor i n a ny ca se is the

doubt impo rta nt . Suppo se a yo uth so wro ng-headed and

weak a s the O restes o f th is p lay,and suppo se him to be

gu ided by such a foo l as Pylades a nd such a fi en d as Electra,

and then the murder o f C lyta emnestra i s the na tura l c onsequence o f the i r cha ra cters and s i tua t ion . The superna tu ra l

comma nd ’ i s a n extra,a nd a lmo st a su perflu ity . Apo l lo i s

a fly on the wheel .

O ther changes fo l low ,m i no r bu t n o t i ns ign ifica nt. As

presented by trad it io n , the enterpri se of O restes exci tes a

certa i n sympa thy by the mere peri l of the execut io n . I n

A eschylus he must ma ke h is way i n to a guarded fo rtress ; bo th

i n A eschylus a nd i n Sopho cl es he must susta in,by presence

o f m ind , the dangers of an imperso na t ion . Someth ing o f

th is rema i n s even i n the Elec tra o f Euri p ides . B u t i n o u r

play there i s no th ing to Show,n or i s i t probable

,tha t the

a ssa ss in s had any d ifficu l ty a t all. For anyth ing tha t

a ppea rs , Pylades and O restes may ha ve given thei r names

a t C lyta emnestra’s doo r. I n such a n A rgo s a s i s here

represen ted,no t even mu rderers wo u ld expect to be m urdered

or a t any ra te n o t by thei r so ns. When Menela us c an

suppo se tha t Orestes and h is mo ther a re l ivi ng pea cefu l ly

together ‘,we ca nno t suppo se tha t She wou ld refuse to se e

him ; nor wou ld she da re to refuse,cons idering the lega l

da nger in wh ich she stood , and h i s power to u se it2. Aga i n ,her rel a t ions with A egisthu s have n ot here, and cou ld n ot

have, tha t cyn ica l s tamp , wh ich in A eschylu s so powerfu l ly

d irects sympa thy to the hand wh ich pun ishes . The play

a ssumes tha t these re la t ions were known 3, but i t a l so a ssumes,

as a necessa ry cond it ion , tha t they had been so conducted as

to ca use n o open sca nda l .

Where then—we come back to the quest ion—co u ld l i ethe i nterest o f a n O restes so c ircumstanced ? Not i n the

mo ra l qua l i ty o f h i s a c t. I t i s pla i n ly i ndefens ib le and

i nexcusabl e . No t i n his fa te . Tha t i s a fo rego ne conclus ion .

H is l ife indeed , by Greek law a s i t mo st ly stood in the age

1vv. 3 7 1

3 73 .

2vv. 500 fo l l . 3

vv. 61 9—620, e tc .

2 10 A FIRE FROM HELL

fa te as bl ind ly as they have pursued thei r crime. And when

they are co ndemned,when no th ing i s befo re them but dea th

if then they have the cha nce to d ie k i l l ing, to stri ke, wo und ,

s lay some on e , a ny o ne , to avenge them se lves a t the co st

of huma n crea tu res,however help less

,however i n no cent

there anyth ing which they may n ot conceivably do,any

extrem i ty to wh ich,i n the nam e o f j ust ice

,they may no t

go ,a ny demon ia c sa cr ifi ce wh ich they may n o t rapturo us ly

so lemn i z e ’ ? Here i s ma teria l n ot exa ct ly for tragedy ( i t i s

n o t deep enough), bu t for a h igh ly sp iri tua l so rt o f melod rama .

I n on e th ing the tradi t iona l sto ry wa s favo urable to such

h and l ing : the three co nspi ra tors c an allbe co nceived a s

gro ss ly, to ta l ly i nexperi enced and igno ra nt o f a ffa i rs . O restes

i s but a b oy ,abo u t e ighteen or n ineteen yea rs old ‘, Pylades ,

h i s co us in a nd comrade, n o t o l der. Pylades has wi ld spi ri ts,

n o fea r , n o scrupl es, a nd n o sense . O restes , when the a ctio n

begins,i s ha lf i n sa ne with fever, a nd befo re i t ends, a man ia c .

Mo reover he is governed by Pylades . They are un i ted by

tha t boy ish sort“

of roman t i c devo t ion , which for Sheer

unrea so n surpa sses perhaps even love i tself, a nd a ttra cts the

l ike un rea sonable sympa thy. Am id allthe a tro c it ies wh ich

the pa i r perform ,a certa i n pa tho s c leaves to the hero i c

obst ina cy of the i r fo l ly . I n Electra,a woma n o f m idd l e

age‘,perhaps th irty or someth ing mo re

,i s concentra ted wha t

l i tt l e wisdom the pa rty c an boa st. The mo st fa ta l b l under

o f the two yo ung men wo u ld have been prevented by her,if She had had the chance “. B u t a s a woman she i s unable

a cco rd ing to the no t io ns o f tho se t imes a nd o f mo st t imes,

to mea su re publ ic forces or est ima te fa i r ly the po ss ib i l i t ies

o f a po l i t i ca l s it ua t ion . Fam i ly pride too ", i n her a s i n her

bro ther and co us in , fo rb ids respect for a demo cra t ic govern

1 S ee vv. 1—3 , whic h a re more true , as a c ompend ium of the seque l , than the

sp eaker in tends. H er c harac terist ic; a ssump t ion tha t gu i l t is a a vaqbopd befikarosis a lso n o t ic eable , and a key to the si tua tio n .

2v. 3 77 . The t ime of the p lay , ac c ording to the rec e ived c hrono logy of

Mene laus’ re turn ,is abo ut seven or e ight yea rs after the fa ll of Troy.

3vv . 201 fo l l . 4

vv . 846—850. S ee hereafter. 5 vv. 960- 1 01 2 .

ORES TES 2 1 1

m en t a nd equa l law ; she rega rds the A rgive a ssembly a s

the na tura l enem i es of her house ‘ . L a st ly,she i s a fiend

by her m i sfortune perhaps ra ther than by her fau l t,but a

fi end she i s. The crown ing horro r o f horrors i s her pa rt icu la r

wo rk ‘ .

Such i s the ma ch inery o f destruct ion,the spri ng of the

ca tapu l t. I t rema i n s to provide v ict ims w i th in range o f the

bo l t, _a nd a turn o f fa te to produce the d ischarge . The

so l ut ion o f th i s problem ,by mean s o f Menelaus and h is

fam i ly, i s the mak ing o f the p lay and a ma sterp iece o f

drama t ic i ngenu i ty. S ince the fa l l o f Troy,some seven

y ears , Menelaus wi th h is recovered H elen has been wa nderi ng ,

n o t u nprofitably , abo ut the worl d . Lo aded with wea l th a nd

Ori enta l trea sures , i nclud ing a tra i n o f eunuch s for the service

o f Helen , they rea ch the port o f Na upl ia o n the day before

tha t wh ich i s to determ i ne,a s between dea th a nd ban i shment ,

the fa te o f Orestes a nd Electra . Thei r entra nce in to Argo s,

a s here descr ibed,suggests tha t i n truth they dared no t return

sooner. The popu lar ha tred o f the Trojan war,i ts ca uses a nd

a utho rs, as imagined a nd used by A eschyl us i n the Ag amem

non,has i n the Orestes a st i l l wider a nd deeper effect. Even

so long a fter the wa r,H elen a nd her servants must be c o n

vey ed by n ight i nto the m a ns ion o f the fam i ly, now become

the pri son o f its i nherito rs ; a nd there She l ies concea led “.

She shows some a la rm,bu t n o t a tra ce of rea l remorse

,laying

the respons ibi l i ty of her co nduct upon compel l ing Powers w ith

the same fa c i l ity wh ich we observe,mod ified by temperament ,

in Electra “. She i s indeed fo r the present perfectly comfortable,a gita ted ra ther agreeably tha n o therwise by the emo t io ns

o f the hour,shedd ing ea sy tears for poo r s ister Cly taem

n estra so terrib ly taken away,poor Electra ‘ st i l l unma rri ed ,

p oo r O restes, so i l l , a nd bo th o f them i n such dreadfu l danger.

None o f th is d istra cts her from the usua l cu l t iva t io n o f her

p erson , or from the importa nt busin ess o f st i tch ing a piece o f

e mbro i dery,to be o flered i n token o f s i sterly sorrow a t poo r

v. 974. vv . 1 1 9 1 fo l l . S ee herea fter.

vv . 57 fo l l . , etc . v . 79, c ompare v . 2 .

1 4—2

2 1 2 A FIRE FROM HELL

C ly ta emnestra’

s grave ‘ . She has mo reover ‘

a certa in conso

la t io n,

as her n iece observes , i n reco verin g her da ughter

Herm ione , abandoned i n i n fa ncy, for the sake o f Pari s,

seventeen years ago ,a nd tenderly reared by C lyta emnestra ‘

This gi rl,a s impl e a nd bea ut ifu l figure

,mourn ing with in

no cen t a ffect ion for her mu rdered fo ster-mo ther,yet unable to

wish the dea th o f her co us ins , the murderers ‘ , Shows in such

da rkn ess l ike a d iamond . She becomes a t la st the p ivo t

o f the d iabo l i c engineering. Electra ha tes her.

Menela us,though i n cha ra cter vu lga r and below vulga ri ty

empha t i ca l ly 7 1 01277p a sA ri s to t le ca l l s him “,i s the ch ief l eve r

i n the mecha n ism o f the plo t ; and i t i s impo rta nt to est ima te

r ight ly n o t so much his a cts a nd mo t ives,wh ich are s imple

a s the d isturbed reflexion o f them i n the m i nds o f h is nephews

and n iece . Th is i s a mon stro s i ty , and yet a na tura l mon

strosity . The co ntra st between the commonpla ce o f h i s

behav io ur,selfi sh ly prudent

,ra t iona l ly mea n , a nd the a ppa l l i ng

tra i n o f pa ss io n to which , witho u t suspic io n , he appl ies the

spark , i s i n the best ve in of tha t na tu ra l superna tu ra l wh ich

Euripides loved to study. H e i s l i k e a so ld ier who,wa tch ing

the co uch o f a wo unded comra de , and choo s ing to l et him die

i n da rkness ra ther tha n to burn h is own fingers,shou ld dro p

a m a tch,which

,fa l l ing upon powder

,hurl s the who l e pla ce

i n to the a ir. A low-m i nded , sensua l , pro spero us ma n,he i s

sudden ly compel led to be e i ther a l i t t l e brave or a l i tt l e

d isho no urable . B ravery wi l l be qu ixo t ic,for i t c an do n o o n e

a ny go od , a nd i s certa i n to hurt him a l i tt l e. The d ishonour

i s purely sen t imen ta l , a nd wi l l have n o consequences . Na

tu rally he a ccepts the d isho no u r,— and Hel l open s u nder

h i s feet .

The ch i l dren o f A gamemno n see,and every on e sees

,tha t

A gamemnon’s bro ther

,the husband o f Helen , is bo und to

them by n o common t ie . Menela us has drawn upo n the

fra terna l i n terest so la rgely , tha t sca rce ly a ny co unter- cla im

c a n be excess ive ‘ . He a t l ea s t ca nno t w ith decency aba ndo n

vv . 1 2 2 , 1 43 1 fo l l . 2vv . 62—66, 1 340.

v. 1 3 2 3 , v . 1 345.

4 S ee no te in Appendix on Or. 1 554.

vv . 244, 448 fo l l . , andpassim .

suggest no po ss ibl e way ,because there i s none ; but with

the i r proper co ntempt for his d isrega rd o f d ign i ty and

sent imen t i s m ingled the convict ion,tha t he co u ld have done

somet/zing , and tha t by om i tt ing th is someth ing he has don e

them a crue l wrong. I n a vague way they seem to expect

the u se o f fo rce ‘ , a no t io n a s impra ct icable as o utrageous .

A nd they are especia l ly ind ignant tha t Menela us d id n o t

a ddress the A rgive a ssemb ly ‘ , a v iew wh ich does no t surpri se

u s,when we see wha t i s thei r knowledge o f such an a ssembly

a nd with wha t w isdom Pylades a nd O restes essay to m anage

i t . Their expecta t ion is a ch imera,bred

,l i ke allthei r idea s

o f ignorance and trucu len ce .

B u t i t proves a Ch ima era i ndeed,a mo nster brea th ing fi re

when,a fter the co ndemna t ion o f Orestes a nd Electra ,

ba rely

gra ced so far tha t they may escape ston ing by su ic ide , the

t rio meets aga i n a t the ho use. The furious Pylades,who se

pos i t ion , though d ifferen t , i s equa l ly despera te ", suggests tha t

they may n ot on ly pun ish the trea chery o fMenela us,bu t a lso

obl i tera te the reproach o f murder (sic ) , by glo riously execut ing

the abom i nable Hel en . Electra dextero usly engra fts upon

th is adm i rable pla n the a ssa ss in a t io n , d isgu ised as the capture ,o f her inno cent supp la n ter, Herm io ne . The scheme i s to be

con summa ted,if necessa ry , by burn ing the house over thei r

heads. The obj ect io ns o f O restes,la st effo rts o f a consc ience

va n ish ing i n fren z y, are st ifled o r th rust a s ide. The frightfu l

programme , frightfu l ly d ivers ified by m i sma nagemen t a nd

m i sadventure , pro ceeds crescendo to i ts fina l e. And when tha t

i s a ch ieved , when no th ing a nd nobody i s left to be saved or

to be blessed , the rea l tho ugh unseen Fu ries o f Arson , Murder,

and M adness res ign stage, a cto rs , and a ud ience to the no t

i nappropria te bened ict io n o f Apo l lo .

A S we have men t ioned the house, wh ich Sha res a nd pa rtly

determ i nes the fa te of i ts inhabitants , we may ca l l a ttent io n

here to the uncommo n impo rta nce, for th is p lay, o f conceiving

rightly the pla ce o f a ct ion . I t i s the ho use- in - town o f a nobl e

fam i ly, such as m igh t perhaps o ftener ha ve been found in

vv. 52 , 243 , 7 1 1 , and the rest of tha t speec h .

v . 1 056.

3 vv. 763 fo l l .

ORESTE S 2 5

Thebes , A rgo s , S icyon , or o ther a nt ique centre o f ci ty- l ife,than i n A thens , who se pe ople rema ined prin c ipa l ly ru ra l i n

habit un t i l fo rced to congrega te by the Peloponnes ia n war.

I t i s u tterly un l ike a nyth ing to be seen among ourselves ,though the c i t ies of I ta ly and o f some Roman provinces

presen t spec imens d ista ntly s im i la r . B u i l t for defence aga i nst

r iva ls or rebel l ions,i ts wa l l s o f stone

,two sto ries h igh and

perhaps more, are unbroken except for o n e grea t ga te,by

clos ing which i t i s instantly co nverted i nto a fortress . Un less

th is a rra ngemen t i s c l ea rly gra sped,the la tter part o f the play

wi l l be un in te l l igible ‘ . The in terio r structures,probably o f

wood and , i n the more sumptuou s port ions,o f precious wood ‘

surro und a nd are l ighted from a labyrin th o f l i tt le co urts . I nfront, a nd probably elsewhere, the parapet of the o uter wa l l i s

a ccess ibl e , for defence, from with in . Be ing old a nd somewha t

ou t o f da te,the house shows touches o f ru in . The parapet

i s lo o se 3, a nd ha lf-way up the sheer fron t, where the sto ries

jo i n , the l ine o fmetopa ,o r i n terspa ces between the beam- ends ,

shows a t l ea st o ne gap ,from the lo ss o f the c lo s ing stone .

Th is orifice , some twenty feet or mo re from the gro und , i s

a ccess ible from the ins ide to a c l imber suffic ient ly despera te “.

Befo re the ga te i s a ya rd or forecourt,represented in the

thea tre by the orchestra ". Tha t Orestes i n his fever Shou ld

l ie and be nursed here,ra ther than wi th in

,may perhaps be a

thea tri ca l fict ion , but may a l so be copied from l ife. The

A then ians o f tha t day knew no th ing o f domest ic sta te a nd

l i t t le o f domest ic comfo rt ; a nd l iv ing themselves chiefly in the

open a ir,wo u ld probably find i t na tu ra l tha t such a pa t ien t

sho u ld prefer the a ule‘. Th is ya rd is no t defens ible , but i s o f

course enclo sed , though the bo unda r ies are mo stly o uts ide the

scene ; one pa ssage, wh ich seem s to Speak o f loo k ing‘ through

them,suggests tha t they may pa rtly co ns ist o f a ra i l ing, g rille,

1 The scheme of Elec tra , for sec uring a hostage and then making c ond i t ionswi th Men e laus (and the governmen t ) , assumes this as an essen tia l c ondi t ion .

2v . 1 3 7 1 .

3v . 1 570.

4vv . 1 369 foll .

5 The a c t ion shows no trac e of a stage , and any suc h ere c t ion would have b eenon th is oc c a sion highly in c onven ien t . There may, however, be steps to the ho useand a spac e a t the top of them .

cbeval-de-frise, or the l ik e ‘ , bu t the deta i l i s o f no moment .

The a ppro a ches to the o rchestra (wépoSor) , one or bo th“,

figure

entra nces to the ya rd . The scen ic appa ra tus , then , i s no th ing

bu t a back -wa l l,pra ct icable from with in , with a doo r i n i t a nd

a l so a ho l e ; but n o t all the ma ch inery o f Bayreuth cou ld

a ch ieve a mo re hea rt- shak ing series o f effects than Euri p ides

has got o u t o f th i s .

Of the Cho rus we need say l i tt l e, and wo u ld glad ly say

no th ing. The plo t , l i ke many or perhaps mo s t o f the plo ts

best su ited for a drama,exc ludes

,as ma tter o f cred ib l e

rea l i ty , the presence througho ut o f a numerou s body , the

Cho rus o f the Greek thea tre. L ike the counsel s o f Medea ,the counsel s of Pylades a nd Electra co u ld no t conceivably be

executed,if known ; and the fifteen a ccesso ries , i n these

p lays a nd to some exten t e lsewhere,must be a ccepted a s a

conven tio n beyond cri t ic ism,a n exh ib i t n o t offered for c om

pet i t io n s. Greek women o f a ri sto cra t i c ca ste, l iv ing under

a demo cra t ic governmen t,wo u ld be a s nearly capable o f

a ct ing insane ly, i n a ma tter to uch ing thei r prej ud ices,as a ny

human beings,no t i nsane , cou ld be ; th is much a nd no more

c a n be sa i d for the Cho rus of the Orestes. A to uch o f bitter

humo ur is given to their fi rst appearance,i n the fa ct tha t , by

a n except io n perhaps un ique,they are as unwelcome to the

drama tis persona e“a s a ssured ly they were to the constructo r

o f the p i ece . I n a s ingle scene 3 the ir importun ity is u t i l i z ed

with some effect ; el sewhere, thei r presence being once for all

condoned,they serve to prompt a nd susta i n the exci tement

o f the Specta to rs “. Bu t thei r rea l funct ion is S imply to fi l l

w i th their odes the necessa ry pa uses i n the a ction ; a nd thisi s j ud ic io usly cu t down to a m i n imum .

There are hard ly any The S laves of the house

1v . 1 267 ; see no te in the Append i x .

2 More probably on ly one is used .

3 S ee p . 1 25 , and the end o f this essay . 4vv. 1 3 1 foil.

5vv . 1 3 1

—2 10.5 Espec ia l ly in vv . 1 246

—1 55 3 .

7 The servan ts who lead Tyndareu s (v . and those o f H e len , seem to be

all. Som e of the la tter, rema in ing for a momen t behind the ir m istress, are

apparen t l y addressed in v. 1 28 but see the end of th is essay.

play, the Orestes, exh ib its such uses o f the newer t it l e

(vv. 3 2 1 , as were a pparently st i l l n o t commo n .

The sa rca sm o f Elect ra a ccents th is modern i sm,expla in ing

i n wha t sp iri t the language o f Aeschylu s i s adopted ; a nd

though i t i s sca rce ly wi th i n the ru les o f art, no th ing co u ld

better s ign ify the a tmo sphere o f the play. For Euri p ides,the

s i ck delus io ns o f O res tes are o f co urse merely n a tu ra l (wha t

ever tha t may mea n ), and the powers infl i ct ing them need no

name bu t ma n ia i,fren z ies. ’

The po l i t i ca l no tes in the pro logue are S imple,except

a t on e pla ce,where a h in t may be d i fferently in terpreted .

The adul tery o f C lyta emnes tra , a s mo t ive for the murder o f

her husba nd,i s unfi t , says Electra ,

for a n unma rr i ed woman

to re la te, a nd i s therefo re ‘ l eft o bscure , a poin t for c ommon

H er do ubt i s i ron ica l,bu t no t a t allso the

suggest io n tha t the ma tter is proper for enqu i ry. The

dea th o f Agamemno n , a nd everyth ing co nnected with i t,

o ught lo ng ago to have been the subj ect o f a publ ic enqu i ry .

The ineffi cien t provis io n for j ust ice , where pri va te in it ia t ive

fa i led,wa s a common defect o f Greek sta tes , and o f modern

sta tes a lso unt i l recen t t imes . I t i s the o ne excuse for

Orestes,wh ich the c i rcum sta nces o f th is play adm i t ; imperfect

as i t is, i t wou ld , as we sha l l see , in allprobabi l i ty have

induced the a ssembly to spa re h i s l ife,if he had n o t h im self

been h i s own wors t enemy . For th i s rea son,i t i s properly

touched upon in the expo s i t ion .

I t need ha rd ly be a dded , tha t Electra i s a l so iro n ica l i n

a ffect ing,a t her age and i n her po s i t io n , the del ica cy of a girl .

The a ccusa t io n , from wh ich she th inks fi t to a vert her ma iden

thoughts,she has i n fa ct agita ted wi th dead ly pers i stency 2. She

1v . 2 7 665 1 001

da a¢69 év xowq’

axoa e’

iu . The rendering I wi l l not c onsiderth is in publ ic

’is in c orre c t , and would moreo ver imp ly a re fere n c e to the spe c ta tors

(sin c e there a re no o ther hearers of Ele c tra ’s so l i loquy) whic h Tragedy does n o t

permi t . Nor does I whoso wil l to guess’

(Way ) quite represen t thewords : év icon/ 1,3, howevermean t by the speaker, d ire c ts o u r thoughts to the pub l icassembly, 7 6 Kowbv.

2v . 6 1 9. The impa t ien t d ism issa l of th is subjec t by Tyndareus, assured ly no

friend to Clytaemn estra , is a no t ic eable touc h . We are c learly mean t to understand

ORES TES 2 19

i s bu t empha s i z ing,as el sewhere ‘

,the inj ury o f her enfo rced

cel iba cy, a topic taken over in to th i s p lay from previo us

vers ion s o f the sto ry by Eurip ides a nd o thers,but rece iving

here , l ike mo st topics,a new co lou r. I t i s no longer mere ly

a wro ng,bu t a phys ica l a nd mora l les io n

,the sou rce o f her

pecu l ia r w ickedness , ofa 81) r

. Her h ideous ma l iceaga in st the yo ung girl , her co us in , i s a t bo ttom no th ing but

the fam i l ia r vice o f a n old ma id,wro ught up to the pi tch o f

devi l ry by c ircumsta nce a nd o cca s ion . She i s a tragicc a t.

To her enters Helen,on who se cha ra cter we have touched

before. A brief conversa t io n o f ma sterly sk i l l revea l s the

who l e woman . I t i s eno ugh to ment io n the ma i n purpo se o f

her com ing o u t. She propo ses tha t,a s she (by the i l l - gu id ing

o f the gods) wi l l be i n da nger o f her l ife , if She qu its the ho use ,Electra sha l l be so k ind as to lea ve her bro ther

,S leeping for

the momen t the S l eep of exhaust ion , and go ,through the c i ty

wh ich has excommun ica ted her, to the gra ve o fC lyta emnestra ,

carrying gifts,which

, to d ischarge the tender feel ings o f Helen ,some o n e

,i t i s pla i n

,must presen t a t once ! A nd th i s she

proposes weeping, with abso l ute s i nceri ty, o ver the d istresses o f

the fam i ly ! The i ndu lgence o f the wo rld for a lo vely woma n

has destroyed in her the power to perceive a nyth ing but

wha t a t the momen t it su its her to perce ive. Even Electra,

wa tch ing her trick s,i s a lmo st a s much amused as i nd igna nt “.

The immed ia te quest ion , who sha l l be Helen’

s cboep/zoros, is

dec ided by a whims ica l s troke . Electra a fter some fenc ing

suggests H erm ione,to wh ich Helen inca ut io usly a nswers tha t

‘ the street i s no pla ce forma ids .’

Seeing tha t n o t on ly Electra

i s a ma id,

’ bu t H elen,wish ing to comma nd her serv ices , has

been plea sed to lay pa rt icu la r and repea ted stress upon tha t

po in t “,the a rgumen t is do uble- edged a nd i t i s rece ived with

a sm i l e wh ich ca nno t be m i sunderstood . Helen , i n some

confus io n , cha nges her tack , a nd wi thdraws withou t further

tha t there had been e xaggera t ion ,if no t fa lsehood , abou t i t ; and the fa c t is tha t ,

in the presen t se tt ing of the story , i t c eases to be importan t .1v. 205 , and see v. 72 .

2v. 3 2 .

3vv . 1 26 fo l l . 4

vv. 72 , 92 .

pressure her obj ect io n to send ing her da ughter, who i s sum

mo u ed a nd sen t a ccord ingly ‘

El. I c an n o t , wi l l n ot se e my mo t her’s grave !H el. B u t servan t ? S ure l y su c h were

F i t bearer !Why n o t send H erm ione

Your da ugh ter?Crowded stree ts are n ot for ma ids !

(Elec tra is silen t ; tlzey reg ard on e a n ot/zer; tb en H elen

con tin u es lzastily)Ye t a fter S ister fo stered her

And ha s a your suggest ion , g irl ,Converts m e sha l l go ;A good Ch i ld, Herm ion e !

The pa rt of Herm io ne , a l tho ugh sma l l,i s thea t rica l ly

importa n t , a nd even pri n c ipa l . H ere , though S i l en t , she i s

kept before u s lo ng ; for H elen has n o t on ly to give dire c

t io ns,but to cut

,a s a n o fferi ng to the grave

,a p iece ( i t shou ld

be a lock) of her own ha i r , a ma tter for ca re a nd eco nomy ‘ .

We have thus t ime to ta ke an impress o f the pa thet ic figure

her so l i tary bla ck , sto ne- co l d , rig id wi th the ho rro r o f her

bereavement,obeying wi thou t a wo rd the unk ind

,though

welcome , comm i s s io n o f th i s ido l -mo ther,allj ewel s and tea rs

who has come o u t o f n ight with the vo i ce a nd the fea tures

of th e fo ster-mo ther lo st 3 . The ri te wh ich she goes to per

form,the c/zoep/zoria o r commun io n o f the dea d

,wa s perha ps

the mo s t tender o f Greek o ffices a nd mo reover—a po i nt n ot

l ess relevan t to the u se eventua l ly made o f i t i n th is p lay

had been staged by A eschylus a s the centra l so l emn i ty o f the

1vv . 1 05 fo l l .

1 07 HA. rt 6’

obxlOwarpbs’

Epa 16vns 1réu 1re¢s déu a s;

EA. e 1’

s dxhov ?pirew wapflévozaw ob Kahbv.

Ka i “

rival. 7’

dv Tedvnxufa

Ka hd’

is 6h6£a s, weffiou a f 7 6 001 , Kép'

Ka i r éu ibou év 7 6 Own-Mp

“eb ‘

ydp 7 01 My ers.

The passage , for wan t of perc e iv ing the double edge of v . 1 08 , has bee n wrongl yd istributed , and o therwise m istaken . I t is possible tha t Ele c tra was made

a c tua l l y to repea t H e len ’

s words (v . 1 08) wi th emphasis, but th is would be no

improvemen t . Tha t He len sees the po in t a nd a cknowledges defea t is shown bythe x6p1) (ma iden ) of v . 1 10.

2vv . 1 26 fo l l . 3 S ee vv . 245 fo l l . , a s expla in ed hereafter.

a lmo st in cred ib l e , make the delus io n a s l i kely as i t i s sta rt l i ng,

wh i l e i t serves the purpo se o f showing tha t the superna tura l

percept io n s o f O restes are but fa nc ies,tha t we are n o t i n the

wo r ld o f the Eu men ides,where gho sts and furi es a ctua l ly

wa l k . H ere,a s i n the Ip/zzgen ia in Ta u ric a ‘

,tha t there may

be n o do ubt of th is , we a re Shown o f wha t they a re made .

‘Happierwere Menela us ,’ says Orestes

,ga z i ng dark ly a t Helen

More b le st he were had he esc aped a lon e :Sore ban e he bringe th , if h e bring h is wife .

El. As b ea c on s of reproa c h and in fam yThro ugh H e l las were the da ugh ters Tyndare us ga t.

Or. B e t ho u n o t l i k e the v i le on es —t h i s t ho u m ay ’stNot in word on l y

,b u t in inmost t ho ugh t !

El. Wo e’s m e

,my bro t her ! Wildl y ro l ls t h in e eye

Swift c hange st t ho u to madn ess, sa n e b u t n ow !

Or. Mo t her —besee c h thee , hark n o t t ho u on me

Yon ma ide n s gory-e yed and S h aky-ha ired !Lo t h ere —10 t here ! t he y are n igh— th e y leap on me

We see tha t Electra ,not perce iving the rush o f her bro ther’s

tho ughts from Helen to C lyta emnestra , i nno cently spu rs i t

by her a l l u s ion to the da ughters o f Tynda reus . A fter a

terrib l e s truggle,he breaks from the women , a nd raves about ,

repel l i ng the fiends with a n imagina ry bow and a rrows ( in

the a ncien t l egend rea l), which were given m e by Apo l lo for

such defence .

’ The a cme is rea ched when some o f tho se

wi th in,fa sc ina ted by exci temen t

,a re aga i n seen o n the

pa rapet. The man ia c fa nc ies tha t he is driv ing h is Furi es

i n to the a ir

D o ye n o t hear —n ot see the fea th ered shaftsA t po in t to leap from my far

-sm i t ing b ow?Ha ha

Why tarry ye ? S oar to the we l kin ’

s h e igh tOn wings !

They va n i sh , a nd he swoo ns 3 .

vv . 28 1—294 .

2v v. 247 fo l l . (Way) .

vv. 2 73 fo l l . (Way ). By wan t o f stage -d ire c t ions, th is sc en e is made

in c omprehensible . Ele c tra (v . 245 ) proves the a rriva l o f Mene laus by tha t ofHe len ,

a c onvin c ing proof—if i tse lf proved . Bu t the on ly c on c e ivable proof istha t H e len is seen . Moreover, without this outward o c c asion and the o therc onn e c ted c irc umstan c es, the abrup t a c c ess and ending o f Orestes’ fi t are inexplicable to the imagina t ion . For the u se of the roof and parape t c ompare v. 1 567 .

ORESTES 223

Recovering, he is helped to h is couch , a nd there bemoans

h imself a nd h is erro rs ‘. H is sa ner tho ughts are scarcely the

l ess d istress ing. Apo l lo has betrayed him ; Agamemno n

h imself wo u ld n o t ha ve co unsel l ed a deed wh ich has pro ved

so fru it less ; Electra ,so fa i thful , must peri sh too . V i ewing

these reflex io ns i n the l ight o f the who l e p lay,we no t ice here

a s i n alltha t he a nd h i s a ccompl i ces say , tha t o f crime a s

crime , a s a n o ffence aga i ns t law,they seem no t to have the

concept ion . B eyond h imself and h is fam i ly, O restes sees

no th ing. A rgo s i s no th ing but a mena ce. Tha t murder i s

a n o utrage aga i n st so c iety, a nd m a tri c ide aga in st huma n i ty,

a re tho ughts which his m i nd does n o t fo rm,a nd

,as we are to

see ,canno t gra sp. S o perfect a n i n sens ibi l i ty o f the c ivi c

nerves wou ld scarcely n ow be po ss ible,a t l ea st we may

hope so ,i n a youth nei ther du l l n or unfeel i ng ; a nd i t must

ha ve been abno rma l i n the republ i c o f A thens. B u t amo ng

the young members o f the aristo cra t ic trea son -clubs,someth ing

l ike i t may have been n o t uncommo n : the O restes and Pylades

o f th is play may help u s to conceive such a beta ireia ‘,i ts

effect upo n l ife a nd a ffa irs. The m utua l tenderness o f Orestes

a nd his s ister,the v iv idness o f their feel ings so far as they c a n

feel,whi le mak ing mo re consp icuous the na rrowness of the

range,susta i n o u r i n terest . For the momen t i ndeed we are

co nsc io u s ma i n ly o f thei r m i sery .

Electra having been with d iffi cu l ty persuaded to go i n a nd

take a rest,Menela us

,a rriv ing Short ly after from the po rt ,

i s rece ived by O restes (a nd the Cho rus) a lone . No t su s

pe c ting the gha st ly figu re o n the co uch to be h i s nephew , with

who se fea tures he i s o f course una cqua in ted , he expla ins his

d i sappo in tment a nd perplex i t ies to the sympa thet i c ladies .

O fh is chara cter we have Spo ken a lready. H e i s vu lgari ty i tself

a nd h is a ct ions,a pa rt from the inca l cu lable effects wh ich they

happen to pro duce,wo u ld ca l l for n o remark . A tra i t i n him ,

su it ing the rest , i s tha t, though witho ut rea l re l igion , h is

fancy i s gro ss ly superst i t ious,— l i ke a sa i lor’

s, a s Eurip ides

1vv. 2 77 fo l l .

2 The po in t is ac tua l ly indic a ted ; see v . 804, as respec t ive to the rest of tha tsc en e .

seem s to suggest ‘ . I t i s everywhere ev iden t tha t i n the

s itua t ion he i s n ot l i kely,a nd i ndeed n ot able

,to be of use.

H e is however genu inely Sho cked a t the cond i t ion o f Orestes,

and the dangers wh ich O restes describes . The po l i t i ca l part

o f th i s descript io n”Shou ld be read with scept ic i sm . I t i s,a s

we m igh t suspect from the igno rance and i so la t io n o f O restes ,a nd a s we a fterwa rds d iscover, a complete m i s representa t io n .

P la ced a s he i s, O restes pla i n ly ca nno t have a ccu ra te i nforma

t io n on the sta te o f a ffa irs , n or i s he qua l ified to estima te

r ight ly such info rma t io n a s he may have. The S layers o f

C lyta emnestra are n o t the obj ects o f a ny such genera l and

implaca bl e persecut ion a s he suggests n or (which i s st i l l mo re

impo rta nt) i s i t i n the lea st true, e i ther tha t the fri ends o f

Agamemno n are pa ss ive,or tha t thei r enem ies

,the fri end s

o fAegisthus,

‘ comm and the obed ience o f the c i ty 3 .’

Allth is,as

the pro ceed ings o f the a ssembly prove,i s a wi ld exaggera t ion

o f ha lf-known and un fam i l ia r terro rs,a tra vesty o f the rea l

s i tua t ion,wh ich

,though grave enough

,i s d ifferen t

,and no t a t

alldespera te . Fo r the present we wil l merely rema rk,tha t

the fo rm idable O iax,who

,a cco rd ing to Orestes, i s ben t on

hunt ing him o ff the fa ce o f the earth ,’

is never hea rd o f aga i n ,a nd tha t neither O iax, n or a ny friend o f A egisthus

so much

a s ta kes pa rt i n the deba te . O iax has no th ing to do with

the presen t ca se ; a nd h is enm i ty, if i t ex ists , co u ld n o t have

any i nfluence on the a ssembly . I n the sta tement abo ut him

we have inc identa l ly the device , beloved o f alldrama t i sts , by

which a Speaker i s made to cri t ic i z e unco n sc io us ly h is own

po s i t ion . The mo t ive for the suppo sed z ea l o f O iax i s

revenge for Pa lamedes , put to dea th by Agamemnon a t Troy.

The bro ther o f the s la i n,says Orestes ind igna ntly, v is i ts upo n

him,the son o f the S layer

,the deed o f h is fa ther,

a deed

No t m ine a t all! And ye t my l ife is sou gh tAt t hree removes“

1vv . 360

—369, 409, with whic h c on trast v . 4 1 7. The story about Glauc us, a

c harac terist ic p ie c e o f Eurip idean work , wil l be c onsidered hereafter, in c onn ex ionwith the appearan c e ofApo l lo .

2vv . 42 7 fo l l . 3

v . 4 36 ofrrof p.’

bfipfg'

ova’

13V 7 01v 101661 .

4v . 433 ME. Suvfixa

' Hahaufidovs fl aw/26 ? ¢6vos.

OP . of; 7’

ob nerfiv 616. Tpu'

bu 6’

drbhhvua t .

In 616. 1 72 13 11 , tlzreemj‘

; the preposi t ion is used, as in 61’

6My ov, a t a little distanc e, e tc .,

s tra i ts . And com i ng at th i s moment , he i s mo re tha n th is .

He i s the a nswer to the bl ind cry o f O restes for help . Here ,if we pity O res tes , or if he p it ies h imself, i s where he shou ld

have sought the key to the lo ck , the finger to the kno t ; a nd

we wo nder tha t we d id n o t th ink o f i t soo ner. Fo rwhy has

th is to tter ing man made the journey from Sparta to Argo s ?

Why is he here th is morn ing ? Why,o f allpla ces

,i n th is

h o use ? B eca use— it i s obvio us befo re he betrays it—he has

b een agita t i ng, a nd ba s n ot solved,the do lo ro us problem pre

sen ted to him by the com i ng tria l . Even i n modern l ife such

a po s i t io n m igh t be n o t o n ly pa i nfu l but d ifficu l t. When the

ma ch inery o f j us t ice depended so much a s i t d id in Greece

upon i nd iv idua l impul se , the perplex i ty wa s i n tense. Cly

taemn estra wa s a d i sho no ur to her fa ther,a bitter d isgra ce ;

but a fter allshe wa s h i s da ughter, a nd She had such rights as

belong to a crim i na l . The law,mo st venerable o f names to

the old Spa rta n ‘ , i s con cerned i n her rights . O f these rights he ,a s so ciety was then const i tu ted , i s a l ega l gua rd ia n a nd

the c i rcumstances,the so l e . I t i s his duty to pursue her

m urderers,if i t may be , to the dea th . And yet

,who el se i s

the na tu ra l d i recto r o f h i s m i sgu ided grandso n ? He has loved

the boy ( i t i s O restes who te l l s u s so‘

) l i ke a ch i ld o f h is own .

A nd n ow,though abho rring , tho ugh furiously ha t ing, he loves

h im st i l l , or he wo u ld n o t be here. A nd the boy i s a l i ve , and ,

by grace o f the law, may yet l ive . The k ing o f Spa rta cou ld

n o t decent ly , or perhaps lega l ly, address the A rgive a ssembly

o n such an o cca s io n i n person . B u t he co u ld,a nd he does ,

a ppea r by a represen ta t ive—by co unsel , a s we sho u ld say ,

though the a na logy is n o t exa ct . Must he no t so appea r ?

A nd if he sho u ld , wha t a re to be the i nstruct ions ?

The scene wh ich fo l lows is psycho logica l ly the best i n the

p iece,a s i t i s a lso the turn ing po i n t, tho ugh remo te

,o f the

ca ta strophe . To apprec ia te i t fu l ly, we m ust know ,tha t the

representa t ive o f Tyndareus i s fire only person ,who i n the

subsequen t deba te pleads aga i nst O restes “. The gra ndfa ther ,a s he te l l s u s

,had a l ready o nce dec ided on th i s co urse, but

h ad revoked the dec is ion . I n consequence of wha t n ow

1)1vv . 48 7 , 523 , and Tyndareuspa ssinz . vv. 462 fo l l 3

vv . 902-

9 1 6.

ORESTES 227

pa sses , he returns to i t ‘ . B u t the old ma n meant, so fa r a s i n

the storm o fhis feel ings he knew wha t he meant,—he hoped

he proves by seek ing th i s in terview,tha t i t wou ld end o ther

wise. A ffection in him so struggles wi th a nger,tha t i n the

m id st o f expo und ing to Menela us the eno rm i ty o f O restes ’

crime , he bursts in to tea rs , when he a ttempts to a ddress the

b oy h imself‘. H e comes to make the o ffender suffer a s he

o ught, to co nfo und h im ,crush him

, and break him to p ieces .He is i nd ignant—a nd th i s feel ing

,l i ke allel se i n the m i serable

s i tua t ion , i s i nevi tabl e—tha t he sho u ld have been fo rced toseek

,when h is pa rdo n and a id Sho u ld have been so ught . He

wi l l n o t adm i t tha t he has taken the fi rst step . He i s i n

A rgo s (so he says ) for the purpo se o f ca us ing o fferings to be

made " a t the grave o f h is da ughter—a th ing wh ich pla i n ly

cou ld n o t have been done witho ut a jo urney ! He has come

to the house (so he says), beca use , a fter so long a sepa ra t ion ,he co u ld no t keep away from his so n -in -law4—with whomnevertheless he instantly qua rrel s

,and whom he present ly

jo i n s wi th H elen i n a sentence o f sca th ing co ntempt 5 . He i s

a ston ished a nd sho cked (so he says ) to find Menelaus c o n

vers ing with the ma tric ide 3—tha n which indeed no th ing, i n tha thouse

,co u ld be more surpri s i ng ! Nevertheless he i s there ;

a nd when alli s sa id,he must have come there i n order to be

a sked , and to gra nt, fo rgiveness . B u t tha t fo rgiveness i s never

a sked . A nd yet O restes knows tha t he needs i t ; he c an

adm i t to Menela us , whi le the old man approa ches, tha t here

i ndeed i s o ne whom he has fo u l ly inj ured , who se lo ve he has

cruel ly repa id ’ . B u t h is fa te , tha t fa te which cons ists i n

a m a n ’s be ing wha t he i s,refuses him the chance to save

h im self by j ust saying ika t to h i s gra ndfa ther. Pa rtly by i l l

l uck,bu t ch iefly beca use he is perverse, conce i ted , a nd ha lf

cra z y,he gets to argumen t with his gra ndfa ther, and fixes in

1v. 609. Tyndareus to Orestes, p at hbv p.

air/6.56 18 61d 00V 6$6X062v ¢6vov,

Instead of winn ing me (ndkkor), thou wil t make me thy prose c utor aga in , wil trec allme to the seeking of thy l ife .

’The c ha nge o f du dEa s to a

vcii/z ets,‘ thou wilt

kind le me more’

(rec en tiores l ibri pauc i ) , or évdga s (modem ), is an error, and no t

insign ific an t .2vv . 526 fo l l . 3

xodsxeénevos, v . 472 , and see v. 6 1 1 .

4vv . 470 fo l l .

5vv . 5 1 8

52 2 .

3v . 48 1 .

7 vv. 459 fo ll .

1 5—2

the m i nd o f the o ne man,who c an pro tect him , the convi ct ion

tha t he is no fi t Obj ect for mercy .

I t i s h i s i l l l u ck tha t h i s uncle i s there. As Tyndareus

comes nea r , he cowers down , aba shed a nd co nsc ience- stri cken‘.

If the grandfa ther co u ld have found him so,and a lo ne, pi ty

m ight ha ve had the first word . As i t i s,the fi rst movement

o f Tyndareu s i s to defend h is d ign i ty by denounc ing h is

son - in -law (whom he desp ises,a nd suspects very j ustly o f

rega rd ing the yo ung ma n ’s ca se i n n o proper spi ri t) for havi ng

a nyth ing to do with such a vi l la in . To Menela us,the d isgra ce

of the cr im i na l , from wh ich the old k ing Shri nks as from a fire,

i s no th ing ; an d the imperio us tone o f the rebuke nettles h is

self- compla cency . Why shou ld he n o t sta nd by h is own

bro ther’s so n

,a nd h im so u n fortuna te ? Kin must have i ts

‘ Yo u have been too long a broad a n swers Tynda reu s,

r igid with ind igna t ion ;‘ I n Greece

,the first c la im i s tha t o f

the law.

’ ‘A nger a nd age ,’

reto rts Menela us,

m i s l ead yo u r

w isdom .

’ ‘Wisdom thunders the k ing,

D ispu te of wisdom—wha t is t h a t to Izim ?I f t h ere ’s a c ommon sen se of righ t a nd wrong,H ere is the du l lest foo l t ha t ever was !

There i s no th ing to be argued . A man must n ot ta ke the

law in to h i s own hands . If the mo ther wa s a vi le wretch,

a s she wa s, the co urts were Open , a nd the old ,the regu la r

way2. Any on e c a n se e , Menela us must see , tha t o therwise

the series o f murder must be perpetua l. Wicked wives are as

ha tefu l to Tynda reu s as they—Sho u ld be to the husband o f

H elen ! B u t on e must suppo rt the law,or we go ba ck to

savagery. S O he runs fluen tly o n . Bu t when he turns to" bis

grandson , gri ef and sheer pa i n overwhelm him,and the ora t io n

brea ks down in sobs a nd wi ld lamen t

1v. 467 . On the movemen ts see no te in Appendi x .

2 In v . 5 1 5 rpm/01201 6’

601001: dVTa ‘

OKTd VGLV 66 the arg umen t is not for

pun ishmen t a lways and on ly by exile . Tyndareus is a t th is verymomen t demand ingthe pena l ty of a l ife for a l ife .

’The po in t is tha t the murderermust b e pursued

through (pin/ a t, tha t is, by making him a defendan t (WWW ) and putt ing him to the

bar of the law,n ot by ano ther murder. The quest ion of dea th or ex ile is

sec ondary , and wil l depend on the c ase .

His Speech i s pa i nfu l ly i nterest ing. With the na tura l

eloquence o f s inceri ty and pa ss ion,i t has tha t pa tho s wh ich ,

apa rt from j udgmen t or i n Spite o f i t, must belong to a n a c t

o f unco nsc io us su ic ide, comm i t ted by o ne yo ung , inexperi enced ,and d istra cted by phys ica l a nd men ta l sufferi ng. B u t, fo r all

th is, i t revea l s a perverse a nd unk ind ly na ture,a n i n tel l igence

defect ive a nd twi sted , feel i ngs bl i nd a nd i rrespo ns ive to a pla i n

appea l . The lega l co ncept io n o f cr ime , the c iv ic co ncept ion ,i s so to ta l ly incomprehens ib l e to him

,tha t he fa nc ies h imself

to be refut ing his elder’

s h igh - so und ing ’ vind ica t io n o f law‘,

when he c la ims to he h imself a reformer o f the law ! After

his pa trio t i c deed,wicked wives wi l l no longer imagine tha t

ma tern i ty i s to pro tect them aga i nst thei r sons ; tha t i s

a‘ law

’ wh ich,tha nks to him

,wi l l be law n o lo nger ‘ . He

i ns ists on the sacred duty o f a venging h is fa ther,prec i sely a s

if th is,a nd n ot the way o f do i ng i t

,were the essence o f h is

a l leged o ffence s. Bu t mo re unhappy a nd repu ls ive tha n these

i n tel l ectua l erro rs i s the pervers io n of h i s feel ings,the inso l ence

and cruel ty (no softer term s are a dequa te) wi th wh ich he

hand les the wo unds i nfl icted by himse lf upo n h is progen ito r.

He begins i ndeed no t i l l , request ing a ud ience with respectfu l

hum i l i ty “. B u t th is modesty i s d ischa rged by the mere

profess ion . He i nstructs h i s a ncesto r i n the impo rta n t truth

( l ea rn t appa rently a t Delph i 5) tha t the fa ther, a s sower o f the

p lant,

’ i s the true pa ren t o f a ch i l d,the mo ther on ly the

ground i n wh ich i t grows—an i nferior Obl iga t io n “. He re

m i nds the pa ren t and k ing, tha t h is da ughter was no t o n ly

a m urderess bu t an a du l teress ; a nd en larging upon th i s

oppo rtune theme,he a rr ives a t the co nclus ion tha t Tynda reu s

h imse lf is a utho r o f allthe m i sch ief !

Thou,an c ie n t , in bege t t ing a v i le da ugh ter

D idst ru in me ; for, thro ugh her rec klessn essUnfa thered

,I bec ame a ma tric ide .

v. 57 1 165 0 1) 11 011 7 628 .

vv. 564—578 , espec ia l ly v. 57 1 réué

?n a u d a 1 0V y bu c u , a nd v . 576 c ompared

with v . 500.

3vv . 546

—563 , 579

4vv . 544

—545 .

5 Apo l lo , in the E u nzen ides o f Aesc hylus (v. has rec ourse to i t in a momen tof embarrassmen t . This would a lone suffic e to prove tha t Orestes, in the c on

c eption of Eurip ides, here speaks as a foo l . 5vv . 552

ORESTES 23 1

He m ight, he says ‘ , ha ve been virtuo us a s Telemachus,if he

had been given a mo ther l ike Penelope ! This stra i n of i nsu l truns through the who l e

,and reappears , wi th the improvemen t

o f a senten tio u s pi ty,i n the conc l us io n

Nay, say no t t ho u t ha t t h is wa s n ot we l l done ,A l be i t u n towardl y for m e the doer.

H appy t/ze life of men wlzose ma rriag es

A re blest : bu t tlzey for w/zom tlzey illbetide,

A t lzome,a broa d

,a re tbey u nfortu n a te.

B u t fo r the pra ct ica l effect o f the speech allthese th ingsare i nd ifferent . I t i s eno ugh for Tynda reus tha t the mu rderer

j ust ifies h is a c t . No soo ner do es he ca tch a gl impse o f

th is i ntent io n tha n he tu rns away “. Every wo rd serves to

bri ng him ba ck to the reso l u t io n,wh ich he n ow a nno unces

tha t he wi l l pro secute to the dea th so ha rdened a vi l la i n,

h im a nd h is s i ster a l so,the worse o f the pa i r. I t shou ld be

no ted here tha t Electra has l ived i n A rgo s , a t her home ,with in rea ch o f Tynda reus ’ observa t ion

,wherea s O restes has

been in Pho c is fo r years . Abo u t the cha ra cter a nd meri ts o f

h is gra ndda ughter,i t do es n o t appea r tha t the k ing ever

enterta i ned a ny do ubts3. With a threa t flung a t Menela us

he go es ; and Orestes,a fter defying him ,

turns to the rea l ly

impo rtant bus iness,a s he conce ives i t

,o f securi ng the a id o f

h is uncl e “

Tha t personage,now thoro ughly and mo st rea sonably

a la rmed,i s pa c ing to a nd fro ,

Tread ing the ma z es o f perp le x i t y,

a nd begs n o t to be in terrupted in studying the d ifficu lt ies of

the S i tua t ion . H is ch ief des ire, beyond do ubt, i s to get

decent ly o u t o f the house. Bu t to do h im j ust ice, the

in tent ions which he fina l ly announces 5 are the best po ss ibl e

1vv. 585

2 At v . 547 , I think. A mo vemen t is impl ied in dr ewérw ‘ GO awa ytben

(v . Orestes’ o n ly fee l ing is re l ief, tha t the ven era ble appearan c e of

his grandfa ther no longer embarrasses his e loquenc e .

3vv . 6 1 5—62 1 . The fine me taphor in v . 62 1 , 6101 130557111 6 61375 (impala -mg t u pf,

is a c ompend ium o f the pla y, bo th in the mora l aspec t and in the sc en ic . I takefrom i t the t it le of th is essa y. 4

v . 630.

5vv . 682 fo l l .

he wi l l try to recover Tynda reu s (th is o f cou rse he perceivesto be vi ta l ) ,

‘to persuade him a nd peopl e genera l ly to be

modera te i n extrem i ty " -tha t is,i n pla i n wo rds

,to be sa t isfied

wi th the pena l ty o f ex i le . Whether th is opera t io n is to lne l ude an a ttempt by h imself to address the c ivi c a ssembly

he does n o t decide, a nd rea l ly seems no t to know. A popu la rmeet i ng, he shrewdly rema rks

,however ho st i le

,wi l l give

surpris ing cha nces to the wa ry

Wh en the storm is l u l led,

L igh t l y a man may win his wi l l of th em .

Except a s to the a ssembly (where , if present , he does n o t

spea k,but on the o ther ha nd i s not wa nted a nd has n o

oppo rtun i ty), the p lay gives n o t the lea st evidence e i ther tha t

h i s prom i ses are performed or tha t they are n o t . Nor does

i t ma tter. I t i s pla in, on the on e hand , tha t he c an do l i tt l e

or no th ing, on the o ther,tha t if he co u l d he wo u ld no t

a t a ny cons iderable r i sk to h im self. Tyndareu s , the one man

who se cha ra cter , d ign i ty , and rela t io n to the ca se, ma ke even

h is neutra l i ty inva l uable to the a ccused , a nd h is lea st a id

a lmo st dec is ive i n thei r favo u r,Tyndareus

,who loved O restes,

the perverse and m i serable yo u th has rej ected , a nd sen t to

the s ide o f h is enem i es . Menela us,who canno t sa ve him

and who,tho ugh n o t i n d ifferent to h is nephew,

ca res mo re

for h is own l i tt l e finger,Menela us he very cons istently pesters

wi th en trea ty .

I n Spite o f his uncle ’s eviden t a nd qu ite j ust ifiable im

pa t ien ce , he i nsi sts tha t , befo re decis ion , h is uncle’s del ibera

t io n Sha l l have the benefi t o f h is arguments . Menela us , who

has hea rd him a rgue,i ron ica l ly co nsen ts

Spe ak ; tlzou lzast spoken well. S i len c e than speec hSome t imes is be t ter

,and tha n si len c e speec h 2.

Thus encouraged,a nd open ing with the remark tha t, for c lea r

n ess,i t i s best to be long, he del ivers a n address

,which the

1v . 704 d dpeu

w7 6 17 01 1 6 17220011 11 1 Ir bhw 7 6 Ma y xpfia da t Ka hd’

2v . 638 hé‘y

,617 yap 621m m 617 7 1 5

05 0172; hb'

xpefoawv yévotr’

in , 617 7 1 6’

017 017 73: Aby os.

Happi ly modern educa t ion , wha tever its defects , do es n ot

err i n th i s way or to th is exten t ; and we ca nno t but suspec t

Eurip ides,perha ps unj ustly

,o f over-pa in t ing . The o ra tor’s

unwi l l i ng a ppea l to the name of Helen i s more na tu ra l ly

turned , but becomes , fo r th is rea son,someth ing very l ike an

i n su l t to Hel en’

s husband ‘. The pero ra t io n , a fter prom i s i ng

better for a momen t,i s then ma r red by the co nsc io us

fo rma l i ty o f compo s i t io n

0 bro the r of my fa t her2, de em t ha t b eHears t h is, who l ie s

’n e a t h e arth , t h a t over t he e

H is sp iri t hovers : wha t I say he sa i t h .

Th is, urged wi th 3 tears, mo a n s, p le a s O f m isery,

Have I sa id, a nd h a ve c la imed my l ife Of t he e,

S eeking wha t allme n seek, n o t I a lon e “.

Menela us , whom we may suspect of n o t l i sten ing, rep l i es ,

a s we have seen , by a pro fess ion o f good wi l l,which may

or may n o t be s incere,a nd by an expla na t ion o f wha t i s pra e

ticable, wh ich co u ld n o t be improved “. He then hurri es Off,

pursued by the ta unts,prayers

,a nd curses o f the unhappy

O restes , who n ow gives h imse lf for lo st . With rapture

therefo re he wel comes the sudden retu rn o f his com rade a nd

confida n t,Pylades .

And if pl uck,a uda c i ty

,a nd devo t ion co u ld sav e him

he has fo und them i ndeed . Pylades i s ready for a nyth i ng,

1vv. 669

—672 .

215 811 0 171 6 0626 . The fla t tering equivoc a t ion in 0626 (adje c t ive or

substan t ive ) must n ot be m issed . NO na t ive ear c ould m iss i t , and suc h a spee c has this would not b e c omp le te without on e suc h de'z node’ dec ora t ion .

3 Ra ther ‘ in the way o f,

’ ‘ in the pa the t ic lin e’

(6: 7 6 6dxpva. xa i‘

ybou :

a vuqbopais) as c on trasted with the pra c t i c a l appl i c a t ion . B u t modern English

(fortuna te ly ) c an sc arc e ly g ive the e ffe c t .4 How pa the t ic in the murderer of his mo ther We may take o c c asion to n o te

tha t th is O restes, among o ther winn ing tra i ts, is a c oward , c on trast ing in thisstrik ingl y with Pylades, who is

‘as brave as a wease l . ’

5vv . 68 2 fo l l . The quest ion , whe ther Mene laus has any armed forc e a t his

d isposa l , is un answerable a nd imma teria l . I t is in c on c e ivable tha t he should bein a posi t ion to c on tro l the sta te . H e says tha t he has no forc e (v . and

,sinc e

he has been trave l l ing , n o t fighting , he probably speaks the truth—the more

probably that he does n ot pre te nd a ny m ora l obj ec t ion to v io len c e . Elec tra(v. 54) c a n know nothing e xa c t about the ma t ter, and wha t she says is on any

in terpre ta t ion vagué ; see MrWedd’

s no te .

ORES TES 23 5

n o t less so beca use, as he present ly rela tes ‘ , he has fo undn o co untenance in h i s na t ive Phoc is , has been turned o u t

O f doo rs by h i s own fa ther,a nd i s a ctua l ly

,as we say ,

‘ On the

street .’ Unhappi ly, wha t Orestes wa nts is a n i n tercesso r,which

Pylades ca nno t be,a nd a n

a dviser,wh ich he c an .

The report o f the appro a ch ing a ssembly , a nd the s ight o f

the prepa ra t io ns,have made him a lmo st a s exc ited a s Orestes ‘ .

I n a ra pid d ia logue (the ra pid i ty i s empha s i z ed by a cha nge

o f metre) the two yo ung me n,having fi rst inflamed each

o ther by reco unt ing the behavio ur Of the ir unna tura l k insfo l k ,

del ibera te (if the wo rd is appl icable) abo u t the tria l Orestes ,who appa ren t ly m i sappl ies the remarks o f h is unc le 3 , propo ses

tha t he Shou ld go to the a ssembly a nd Speak for h imself.

A modern reader may here be rem i nded tha t Orestes i s

no t i n fo rm a defenda nt , fo r the proceed ing i s n o t i n fo rm

j ud ic ia l ; a s an Argive by birth,he c an a ttend the a ssembly

if he pl ea ses. Pylades,upo n the ground tha t , S i nce the ca se

is o therwise despera te, to do someth ing i s a t wo rst ‘

a finer

way to decides tha t Orestes Sha l l go ,a nd—which indeed

fo l lows of i tse lf,for the fevered prisoner i s i n n o cond it io n

to go a lo ne—tha t he himself wi l l co nduct him a nd appea r a t

h i s s ide. The supreme co urage o f th is a c t,s ince Pylades ,

o nce known to be in Argo s,ca nno t hope to esca pe with

l ife 5,a nd the sympa thy for bo th lads, which their iso la t ion

a nd a tta chment exc ite,ma kes pa thet ic the i r pro d igio us m is

take . A specta tor,who knew wha t an ecclesia was l i ke—a nd

few A then ia n s were without th i s knowledge—must have beena lmo st in to l erably agita ted by the des ire to stop them . Wha t

O restes i s a s a n o ra tor, we have seen ; we know his opin io n

o f h is ca se ; we c a n a nt ic ipa te the sk i l l w i th wh ich he wi l l

adapt h imself to h is a ud ience , and the sympa thy with which

a sovereign a ssembly wi l l rece ive h is v iew o f .law“. Tha t

1vv . 763 fo Il.

2vv . 729

—73 1 .

3vv. 696 fo l l . 4

v. 78 2 .

5 Whe ther he is or c ould b e made amen able to the law of Argos, we are no t

to ld , exc ept by h imse lf (v . whic h is in c on c lusive. Bu t he is beyond the

pro te c t ion o f tha t law, m ight we l l b e lync hed (v . and wi l l c erta in ly beassassina ted .

3 Re fer to vv. 564-

578 , a nd tha t speec h genera l ly .

they sho u ld no t hea r i t, i s the o n e th ing n ow l eft to wishfor h im . B u t nei ther to Pylades n or to O restes does i to ccur—how shou ld such a co ns idera t ion

,or a ny rel eva nt

co ns iderat ion , o ccur to two boys,fra nt ic with ha ste a nd

despa i r , o f whom nei ther, we may presume , has taken pa rt

i n a po l i t i ca l meet ing, much less a dd ressed on e , i n h is l ifeit does n o t strike them , tha t speech c a n exa spera te as ea s i lya s propit ia te, a nd tha t to spea k or no t to spea k

, a s a quest io nO f po l i cy for a given o cca s ion

,depends upon w/za t y o u wi l l

say ,bow yo u wi l l say i t , a nd wbo a re to hea r !

Or. S ho u ld I go a nd te l l the peop leTha t t hou wrough test righ teo usl y ?

Or. Taking vengea n c e for my fa t her?Glad m igh t the y lay ho ld on t hee .

The fear o f vio l ence,the po ss ib le imprudence o f qu itt ing

the ho use,i s the o n ly ca ut ion which cro sses the co unsel lo r’s

m i nd a nd dec i s ion i s taken upo n the sentiment,tha t i t i s

‘ finer to do someth ing ! Co ncern ing the ba la nce o f publ ic

o pin ion a nd the proba ble co urse o f deba te, O restes has

no th ing to te l l,n or Pylades to a sk . S o utterly i s allth i s

igno red , tha t i n rela t ing the vis i ts o f h is gra ndfa ther a nd uncl e,Orestes does not even men tion t/ze deba te

,or tlze pa rt w/ziclz tlzey

willor may taRe in it. The determ ina t ion O f Tyndareus to

pro secute,the si ngl e th ing o f pra ct i ca l impo rta nce wh ich has

come o u t , he do es n o t no t ice. H is on e idea i s tha t Menela us ,who Sho u ld have saved him from execut ion

,has by Tynda reus

been frigh tened away ‘ . Pylades o n h is s ide i s equa l ly bl ind

to the qu est ion,whether an A rgive

,o n t ria l for a murder

comm i tted i n A rgo s,wi l l be recommended to favo ur by th e

compan ionsh ip o f h is fore ign a ccompl ice ; a l tho ugh h is own

la nguage ’ must suggest tha t reflexion to a ny experi enced

o r rea so nable person . H is po l i t i ca l wisdom exhausts itself

i n the suggest io n (such i t seems to be) tha t a demo cra cy , be ing

no to riously leadable,may be l ed by h imself a nd h is fr iend “ !

Nor Sho u ld we qu ite pa ss over, though less pert inen t to the

w 786—754

v . 77 1 , wi th the inim i table r dvra 7 a 1’

év duna aw (Alltb is depends upon t/ze

ey e) o f v . 785 .

3v. 773 .

o f the unfam i l ia r pro ceed ings has therefo re, espec ia l ly for

c i t i z ens o f A thens,allthe p iqua ncy o f prej ud ice

,igno ra nce,

a nd m isconcept ion . The select io n o f such a narra to r i s i n

my o pin io n a lone su fl‘ic ien t to d isprove the suppo s i tio n (which

o n o ther gro unds a l so appea rs to me no t enterta inable) tha t

Euri p ides i n tended his picture a s a sa t ire o n the pro ceed ings,

reflecti ng i nd irectly upon the ec clesia o f A thens . If he had

mean t a nyth ing Of the sort , surely he wou ld have put the

descr ipt io n i nto the mouth o f a person , whom a n a verage

c it i z en o f A thens,an average member of the ec clesia

,wo u ld

recogn i z e a s a t l ea st competen t to understa nd wha t he saw,

o ne fi tted by exper ience to es tima te fa i r ly the bearings o f

wha t wa s do ne a nd the intent ion s o f the a cto rs . A modern

drama t i st,who des ired to st igma t i z e some pro ceed ing o f

the Ho use O f Commo ns,wo u ld scarcely describe the deba te

thro ugh the mo uth o f a gi l l i e from Sutherla nd o r a game

keeper from Co nnema ra, who had somehow go t in to the

Strangers’

Ga l l ery . The Eurip idea n narra tor i s a person

who ,because of h is breed ing

,regards i t as monstro us tha t

the hei r o f Agamemnon sho u l d be tri ed for his l ife a t all,

a nd who,by h is manner o f l iv ing

,has been precl uded from

l ea rn ing how a n a rra ignmen t i s conducted,how such a n

a ssembly sho u ld be managed , and how, if a t all,such a

crim i na l may be saved or helped ‘ . The o n ly rea son or excuse

for choo s ing such a narra tor i s tha t a better- i nfo rmed a ud ience

may apprecia te h is m i sconcept ion s , which a re i n fa ct a s gro ss

a n d t ra nspa ren t as they po ss ibly cou ld be .

The facts,o f co urse , the th ings a ctua l ly done a nd sa id ,

we must suppo se him to sta te co rrect ly ; he is o u r a uthority

for them . Bu t h is commen ts we Sha l l of cou rse no t a ccept ;o n the co ntra ry , we sha l l presume tha t they a re absurd

tha t we are i n tended to co rrect them . The fa cts wh ich he

repo rts are these .

The quest io n ‘ whether O restes,a ma tri c ide

,Sho u ld o r

shou l d n o t suffer dea th ? ’ having been fo rma l ly propounded

by an officer o f the a ssembly, the l ead is taken by the fr iends

1 S ee the narra t ive passim .

ORES TES 2 39

o f Agamemnon . Ta l thyb ius,h i s d iploma t i c agent ‘

,speaks

ambiguo us ly,exto l l i ng h is la te l eader

,bu t co ndemn ing the

o ffender’s concept io n O f fi l ia l du ty . Ta l thybius i s fo l lowed

by ‘ the lord D iomede,

who se propo sa l, to infl i ct instead o f

dea th the more scrupu lo us pena l ty o f ex i le ‘,i s received with

c lamo urs o f approba t ion a nd a l so O f d issent . Next a pro fes

s io u a l ora tor,employed by Tyndareus

,a rgues for the heavier

pena l ty . The a rgumen t i s n o t given,beca use we have hea rd

i t a lready ; he i s n o t on ly instructed bu t prompted by

Tyndareus,a nd h is l in e therefore i s tha t o f the k ing o f

Spa rta : priva te vengea nce canno t be to l era ted , a nd severi ty

i s necessary for the vind ica t io n o f law"

. Bu t hereupo n ‘

d ifferen t person ’ s tarts up

NO da in t y prese n c e , bu t a ma n fu l ma n“,

In town an d marke t - c irc le se ldom found,

A yeoma n—su c h a s are the la nd ’s on e stay ,Ye t shrewd in grapp le of words

,when t h is he wou ld ;

A sta in less m a n,who l ived a b lame less l ife .

H e moved t ha t t he y sho u ld c rown Agamemnon’s son

Orestes, sin c e he dared avenge his sire ,S la y ing the wi c ked a nd th e godless wifeWho sapped o u r streng t h —n on e wo u ld take sh ie ld on arm

Or wou ld forsake h is home to marc h to wa r,If m en

s ho use -wa rders b e sedu c ed the wh i leBy sta yers a t home , a nd c o u c hes b e defiled.

To hon est m en h e seemed to speak righ t we l l ;A nd n on e spa b e af ter. Tli en [by brotlzer rose

A nd sa id

wha t we know tha t he wi l l say ,a repet i t ion , vari ed for the

a ud ience , O f wha t he sa id,with such ha ppy effect , to h is

grandfa ther5. H e (so he says) i s the del iverer o f A rgo s he is

1 xfipvg, v . 896 ; we ,

have n o desc ript ion exa c t ly c orrespond ing to th is as usedin the fi fth c en tury ; ‘ hera ld ’

is qu ite in c ongruous. A‘m i l i tary se c re tary ’ and an

a ide -de -c amp have part ia l resemblan c es. We may no te tha t the same name is

g iven to the c lerk o f the ec clesia (v .

2v . 900. No te 6 1306736211 .

3vv . 249 1

5 25 .

4vv . 9 1 7 fo l l . (Way ).

5 Compare vv . 93 2—942 with vv . 564

57 1 , and espec ia l ly the re feren c e to

‘ law’in v . 94 1 with tha t in v . 57 1 .

the champio n o f h i s fel low- c it i z en s,a s men , aga i nst the S lavery

to which they must S i nk,

‘ if murder o f the ma n be perm i tted

to woma n And therefo re,

if ye sha l l indeed sl a y me,

Law is a n n u lled.

Whereupo n he i s condemned to dea th , a nd th i s wi th such

a n imo s i ty tha t he c a n sca rcely Obta i n perm i ss io n to escape

by su ic ide,with i n the day ,

the horr ibl e A rgive pun ishmen t

o f ston ing.

Upo n the substance o f th is sto ry,the co u rse o f the

pro ceed ings,an d the a ctua l resu l t

,the commen t o f a n average

rea sonabl e m an i n the Eurip idea n age , or a ny o ther c ivi l i z ed

age , wo u ld be, one wo u ld suppo se , a Shrug o f the sho u lders .

The who l e th ing i s i n essence a nd effect so obvious,SO

pred ictable,tha t for th i s very rea so n ( I presume) Eurip ides

sel ects an i n competent na rra to r,i n o rder to a n ima te

prej ud iced a nd ignora n t comments,wha t o therwise must have

fa l len fla t . I n a ny age o f law a nd c ivi l i z ed governmen t,

and befo re a ny respectable tribuna l tha t co u ld ex ist , a de

fendant , gu i l ty o f such a crime tha t the mo st he cou ld hope

for was a m i t iga ted pun ishment,wo u ld

,a nd s/zould

,be held to

prove h im self bo th incorrig ibl e a nd da ngerous,if he in su lted

h i s j udges by tak ing the tone o f a publ ic benefa cto r. The

a tt i tude o f O restes i s su i c ida l and,l i ke allh is pro ceed ings

scarce ly compa t ible wi th sa n i ty . The ma i n po i n t wh ich the

report bri ngs ou t,and throws into Sha rp rel ief

,i s tha t h i s

co ndemna t io n to dea th,the rej ect io n o f the m i t iga ted pena l ty,

i s h i s own wo rk,the na tu ra l o utcome o f tho se wise prepara

t ions wh ich we have witnessed in the course o f the play.

Had he propi t ia ted h i s grandfa ther,or even spa red to defy

a nd i nsu l t him,had he stayed a t home

,as Electra or a ny

perso n o f sense wo u ld have a dvised , h is l ife ( i t i s pla in )1v. 93 5 62 a

poévwv ¢ bu os

607 m 7 011 11 1511: 6a i c s, 00 ¢0dvo17’

Ovyjaxow es, 2) 7 1111018 dovh eba v xpe u’

The gen era l i ty o f 617202711 and 7 011 77 must not b e l imited to‘ husband ’

and wife .

To defend the posi t ion of Orestes, tha t a son may avenge on e of his two paren tsu pon the o ther, the c la im of superiori ty in sex is essen t ia l .

242 A F IRE FROM HELL

comprehens io n , gives vent to his rude but honest feel ings,

a nd presents the excuse o f O res tes,such as i t is

, to the

utmo st adva ntage . O restes , he says , has pun i shed a so rt o f

wickedness, wh ich o ught , i n the publ i c i nterest , to rece ive the

severest pun ishment . Th is is t rue,a nd i t go es home ; for no

one ven tu res to reply . The oppo s i t io n , weak from the first,has

co l lapsed and the mo dera t ing propo sa l,if n ow pu t

,i s ce rta i n

O f success . Bu t the defenda nt,be ing present

,must be hea rd

if he wi l l . His i n terpo s i t ion is a t best m i sch ievo us ; for the

mere s igh t o f the ma tr i c ide m ust provoke a rea ctio n . And

then,i n stead of mak ing the humble apo logy which is expected

he po ses as a pro tecto r a nd superio r,a resto rer o f manhood

a nd l iberty,—a defender o f the law !

And l est these m i s s i l es sho u l d no t st ick,he begi n s by

persona l ly in su l t ing the A rgives as such . He begin s by

rem i nd ing the a rb iters of h i s fa te , tha t, a ccord ing to thei r

l egenda ry h isto ry , they, as‘ Da na i da e

a re descended from

crim i na l women , the daughters of Dana us , who ( l i ke Cly ta emn estra ) S lew thei r husbands, a nd were a bso lved i n the very

pla ce where the a ssembly is n ow s itt ing ‘ . They are

Lords of the land of I na c h us,

P e lasg ia n s first , b u t Da n a ids a fterwards.

Orestes wou ld reca l l them to the vi rtue,which they po ssessed

before tha t vic io us blo od had corrupted them ! The resu l t

o f th is e loquence, tho ugh i t surpri ses the rust i c na rra tor“,cou ld su rprise no o n e a cqua i n ted with a ffa irs . The insu l ted

c it i z ens are i n stantly co nvi nced , as Tyndareus wa s convinced

befo re, tha t they have before them a dangero us , irrec la imable

m i screa nt . The extreme sen tence fo l lows o f co urse, and

i nc ludes the S i ster.

The pro ceed ings a re mea nt to represent wha t wo u ld

happen , under the c ircum sta nces , i n a ny ec clesia,i nc l ud ing

1v . 93 2 13 7 7311

Iv0’

1xov 1101 7 77116 401,

1rd7\a 1 H eha a ‘

yol, Aa va fda L 6? OGUTGpOV .

The po in t Of the address is expla in ed by the men t ion (v . 8 72) o f the legend tha tthe Arg ive p la c e of assembly was first c hosen for the tria l of the Dana ids. The

legend is in troduc ed for the purpose o f the address, a nd ne i thermust b e struc k ou t.2 W 943

ORESTES 243

tha t o f A thens , —save tha t the ment ion o f sto n ing as a lega l

pena l ty wou ld a t A thens so und ha rsh ly ‘, and i s probably

(bu t n o t certa i n ly) a n ana chron ism even for Argo s . If wem ust co ns ider

,tho ugh i t sca rcely belongs to l i tera ry a nd

drama t i c cri t i c ism ,how the A then ia n ec clesia

,a s here repre

sented , Sho u ld be est ima ted by a h i storia n o f law and

c ivi l i z a t ion,we sho u ld say ,

I th ink,tha t

,for j ud ic ia l purpo ses

i t had the defects wh ich a re i nheren t i n a popu lar a ssembly,wh ich wo uld be d isp layed

, for i n stance , by the Ho use o f

Commons,if i t Sho u ld unhappi ly revert to the pra ct ice of

a tta inder. I t wa s,for j ud ic ia l pu rpo ses

, too m uch influenced

by feel ing and i nc iden t . The resentment pro vo ked by

Orestes , tho ugh just , i s too vio len t ; a nd o n the o ther ha nd,

the sensa t io na l explo s io n o f the yeoma n obta i ns for his

o pin ion more effect tha n jud ic ia l m inds wo u ld a l low. A S

to the j ust ice of the sen tence, i t i s pu re ma tter of Op in ion .

My own j udgment,if o n e must be a j udge i n the court o f

Argo s a s wel l as i n tha t o f drama, i s tha t , i n the given

c i rcum stances,a tru ly j ud ic ia l m in d wou ld have awa rded

dea th ; but tha t mo st tr ibuna l s wh ich have a ctua l ly ex isted—in co ns idera t ion o f th is a nd tha t

,the youth a nd nobi l i ty o f

the defendant “,and so forth—wo u ld have awa rded exi le

a majo ri ty o f the A rgives wo u ld have do ne, if Orestes had

l et them . The condemna t io n to dea th i s , m erely a s j u st ice,defens ibl e ; a nd if any specta to r regrets i t , Orestes a nd h is

a ccompl ices so on d iss ipa te tha t feel ing, a nd ma ke u s heart i ly

wi sh tha t allth ree, by sto n ing or a ny way wha tso ever , had

been qu ick ly eno ugh expunged from the world .

O ne Observa t ion however wi l l o ccu r to a mo dern reader,

which more nea rly co ncerns us as cri t ics , beca use we canno t

be sure how Eurip ides wou ld have rece ived i t. To be po ss ible ,the story requ ires tha t genera l i n terd ic t, by which c i t i z ens o f

A rgo s are proh ibi ted from i n terco urse wi th the crim ina l s 3 .

If,during the previo us week

,tho se fr iends o f A gamem non ,

such a s Ta l thyb ius or Diomede, who underta ke the ca use

o f h is ch i ld ren,had been i n commun ica t ion with them , the

1v . 946 ; see Aesc h . E u ni . 1 89 .

2 S ee v . 784 . Pylades is right en ough so far.

progno st ica t io ns o f O restes must ha ve been d ifferent,a nd h i s

beha viour m ight. A nd i n th is a spect,the in terd ict seem s to

u s unrea sonable a nd cruel ; though i t i s n o t mo re so tha n

certa i n a rrangements,such a s the refusa l o f co unsel to all

crim ina l s or some crim i na l s,which were ma in ta i ned among

o urselves , with genera l approba t ion o r i nd ifference,down to

very recen t t imes ; n o t more perhaps tha n the rej ect ion o f

a defendant’

s o a th,which was mod ified

,am id murmurs

,on ly

yesterday ; n o t more tha n some o ther th ings,which i t

i s n o t o u r bus iness to deno unce . Eurip ides i n th is play

a ssumes the interd ict,i n a n aggra va ted ca se o f murder

a n a ccepted th ing . Wha t he tho ught o f i t does not c learly

appea r ; my own impress io n,from the course o f the story

wo u ld be,tha t he tho ught i t dangero us , if n o t cruel . I t i s

n ot known,so far a s I am aware

,how the pra ct ice wa s

re la ted to tha t o f h is own age , whether a t A then s , a t A rgo s ,or el sewhere—B u t let u s pro ceed with the play.

The lyri c lamen t o f Electra,o ver the a ppro a ch ing end

o f her glo rious hou se ‘,has l i tt l e drama t ic impo rt, and was

probably i nserted for the benefi t o f a mus ica l performer.

I t do es however i l lustra te the a ri sto cra t i c sent imen t o f re

bel l ion aga i n st a po pu la r tribuna l “,which i s on e element

i n the scenes to fo l low ; an d i t a l so condemn s i n adva nce ,upon the mo urner’s own prin c iples

,the fury wh ich leads her

to ext ingu i sh,i n the perso n o f H erm ione

,the o ther branch

o f the fam i ly . Abo u t the retu rn o f O restes , a nd the drama t i c

a rrangemen t o f the scene,some rema rks wi l l be fo und in the

H is new a nd a pparent ly ba sel ess fa ncy, tha t

Menela us ha s purpo sely destroyed him and h i s s is ter with

an eye to the so l e success io n “,i s a s ign ifican t supplemen t to

the pa rt ia l lamen ta t ions o f Electra .

B u t i n Orestes,the mo st mena c ing symptom s are physica l .

H is feebleness,st i l l v is ible a t h is approa ch " , i s re invigo ra ted

by the fa ta l fo rces o f fever a nd m adness ; exha ust ion i s

repla ced by a ct iv ity,energy

,vio l ence , a nd fina l ly by a strength

mo re than na tura l,whil e the o rga n o f tho ught proport iona l ly

fa i l s, and a t la st is utterly overthrown . Very so on we perceive1vv . 960 fo l l . 2

v . 974.

3 On v . 950.

4v. 1058 .

5v . 10 1 5.

246 A FIRE FR OM HELL

impo ss ib le to ca l cu la te, i n wha t exa ct propo rt ions feroc ity

and fren z y, igno ra nce pure a nd igno rance wi lfu l , are combined

i n such imagina t ions as these.

I ndeed,when they a re sta ted coo l ly and in pro se , they

seem th ings impo ss ibl e even to be imagined or suggested .

Perhaps they are such ; a nd i t i s certa in ly a cri t ic i sm to which

the scene i s l iable. When every a l lowa nce has been made

for the cha ra cters and ci rcum stances,we may do ubt whether

a rea l Pylades or Electra wo u ld ha ve fo und these pretexts

en terta inable ; and therefo re, s ince , unscrupu lo us as they a re ,

they are n o t qu ite capabl e o f murder witho ut a pretext , we

may doubtwhether thei r a ct ions are adequa tely a cco unted for.

A lmo st any sto ry, i n wh ich v io len t pa ss ions a re made to

produce sta rtl i ng inc iden ts, wi l l be a t some po i n t open to

th is do ubt. The sk i l l o f the drama t is t i n such a ca se i s

shown by ho ld ing the doubt in abeyance, by preven ting

u s from feel ing i t a t the t ime ; a nd here Euri p ides i s strong.

The qua l i t ies o f the three perso ns are so adro i t ly ada pted

for mutua l impress ion,tha t the na tu ra l madness o f O restes ,

as Euri p ides in a n earl i er scene b ids us no t ice ‘,seem s to

i nfect the o thers ; and the i r a cts , though n o t tho se o f sane

persons,do no t a t the t ime seem unna tu ra l . A S ingle

i n stance may be given . Pylades is a n o utca s t from h is fam i ly

a nd h is na t ive Phoc is,i s as completely ru ined

,he to l d us ,

as Orestes h imself“. I n spite O f th is, O restes , as we saw,

when h is fren z y begins to work , bids Pylades return to h is‘ pa terna l ho use a nd comfo rt of h is Th i s O restes

does s imply and na tu ra l ly,because h is bra i n is giving way ;

a nd to a coo l observer such a n i nc ident wo u ld have given

pause."

B u t because Pylades,though n o t i nsa ne

,i s a wi ld

pro ud foo l , fu l l o f ho t a nd s i l ly romance,he enco unters or

evades the suggest ion,n o t by reca l l i ng the facts

,but with a

ro domontade abou t the impo ss ibi l i ty o f excus ing h imself to

the Pho c ia ns for such a crim e as the abandonmen t o f h is

friend “. -In th i s way , by mutua l decept ions , the co nspira to rs

seem gradua l ly to lo se,witho u t becom i ng incred ible

,alltouch

v . 793 Orestes to Pylades : ebhaflm’

} 71 6 7 01074621: 7 73: 611 7'

vv . 763- 767.3v . 1077.

4vv. 1085

—1097 .

ORESTES 247

with the worl d o f rea l i ty. And the terse,vigo rous , impetuo us

versific ation helps to sweep us a long. Extravagant a s the

a ct ions a re,few

,whi le reading Eurip ides

,wi l l be consc ious o f

any stra i n upo n bel ief.

Having thus agreed to mu rder thei r aunt and to capture

their co us in , the ma lefa cto rs appropria tely sea l the compa ct

by a conj u ra t io n,an i nvo ca t ion o f Agamemnon

,m im i ck ing

with h ideous fidel i ty tha t ri tua l o f the dead,which Herm io ne

has been perform ing i n pure a ffect ion a t the grave of Cly

ta emn estra .

El. Come fa ther, c ome , if t hou in e arth ’s embra c e ‘

He arest t h y c h i ldren c ry , who die for t hee .

Pyl. My fa the 1’s kinsman

, to my pra yers wi tha l ,Agamemnon , hea rken ; save t h y c h i ldren t ho u .

Or. I slew my mo t herB u t I grasped the sword !

El. I c h eered t hem 2on , snapped tramme ls of de la y !

Or. S ire , for t h ine he lp !El. Nor I a bandon ed t hee !Pyl. Wil t tho u n ot hear th is c ha l lenge—sa ve t h ine own ?

Or. I po ur t he se tears for o fferings“ !El. Wa i l ings I !

The structure a nd style of th is pa ssage are clo sely cop ied

from the invo ca t io n o f Agamemno n perfo rmed by h i s ch i ld ren

i n the C/zoeplzori“,when they a re about to a tta ck h is adu l terous

mu rderers a t the ri sk o f thei r l ives . The effect Of it i n the

presen t c ircumstances i s d ifferen t .

Th is done,the two men go with in , to in terrupt the progress

o f Hel en’

s need le-wo rk by cutt ing her throa t. Electra a nd

the obed ien t Cho rus keep wa tch,to s igna l the appro ach

o f chance-comers , or of Herm ione , who , we are to ld , Sho u ld

by n ow be return ing. From th is po in t to the end of theplay the a ct ion i s prec ip ita tely rapid , and the thea trica l

i n c idents exc it ing to the h ighest degree .

Am i d the agita t ion o f the sent inel s,we sudden ly hea r the

cry o f Helen for help , fo l lowed by o ther no i se with in . She

1vv . 1 2 3 1 fo l l . (Way).

2 {b ee MrW’

ay . S ee a lso Appendi x , v . 1 236.

3v . 1 239 60Kp1901 : 11 07 1107 61460: 06 , i .e . the adjura t ion is in tended to have the

forc e , so far as i t may, of the ri tua l xoal, whic h in Aesc hylus are offered rea l ly.4vv . 3 1 5

509 , espec ia l ly vv. 479 fo l l .

cr i es aga i n ; a nd a lmo st a t the same momen t Herm ione is

seen a pproa ch ing. Her ri te has found a cceptance ‘, and she

retu rns somewha t conso l ed . B u t the no i se from the house

has a la rmed her, and st i l l , though subdued , con t inues .

Electra expla i n s tha t the young men are appea l i ng to Helen

for i n tercess io n,a nd begs the suppo rt o f her cous in . She ,

with a touch i ng express io n o f forgiveness—‘I do n o t wi l l

yo u r dea th —ha stens to the doo r, where O restes and Pylades ,vis ib l e for a momen t

,se i z e her, st ifle her scream ,

a nd drag

her with i n . Electra fo l lows ; the ga te is shut , a nd lo cked

(as the sequel shows) from with in .

The Cho rus brea k into o utcr ies , bu t a few moments la ter

relapse i n to S i lence “ ; for thei r a nx iety to know , wha t has

been done o r i s domg with in , i s ra i sed to i n tens i ty by a fresh

inc ident . Some o ne—Herm io ne ? H elen ? we know n o t who

i s frant ica l ly pu l l i ng a t the doo r. O ther vague sounds fo l low ;and then—a t the Open metope

“,h igh a bove the gro und , ha lf

na ked,bleed ing

, a nd gha st ly, appea rs o n e o f the eunuchs ,the Troj an slaves o f Helen . He flings h imself down

“, rema i ns

for a whi le i na n ima te,and then crawls pa i nfu l ly to the centre

o f the scene,where u tterly exhausted he l ies i n a da z e . The

women ga ther abou t him “.

1v . 1 3 23 hot/3017011 n pevu éva a v.

2v . 1 365 .

5 S ee vv. 1 369 fo l l .4 The abandoned c ouc h of Oresteswas proba bly used to make th is prac t ic abl e .

5 A scholiu m asserts, tha t the wo rds of the Chorus whic h a c c ompan y theen tran c e o f the eunuc h , vv. 1 366

—1 368 dhhd K7 u 71'

yap t idpa Bamkefwu I017 77007

" 6510 ydp 7 1 : 6196011 41 p c’

bv, Iof) 17 600611 600a 67m) : 6461 , havebeen in terpo la ted or a l tered by a c tors, who subst i tuted for the c l imbing o f the

metope , as supposed in vv . 1 369 fo l l . , an en tran c e by the door. Tha t th is lattermode of performan c e was some t imes adop ted , we c an perhaps be l ieve ; for to the

p erversions o f a c tors in d iffi c ul ty there is n o l im i t . Bu t suc h performan c e was

absurd , as c on tradic t ing the te xt and the Si tua t ion . I t is in c on c e ivable tha t thec onsp ira tors should leave the door in suc h c ondi t ion tha t i t c ould b e opened

by any on e , e xc ept themse lves ; the ir who le sc heme , and indeed the ir c han c e o f

dying a to lerable dea th , now depends on the possession of i t .Whe ther, as the sclzoliu m suggests, the text has been a l tered in vv. 1 366 foll . ,

is a quest ion of l i tt le momen t , but appears to me (as to Pa ley and o thers) doubtful .The sta temen t is apparen t ly an in ferenc e from the a ssumpt ion , tha t M or e? xhfibpa ,

‘ there is a no ise of the bo l ts, ’ re fers to a c tua l open ing . Bu t i t would be sa t isfiedby a t tempts to open , suc h as any fug it ive must na t ura l ly make be fore th inking

s i tua t io n,be con tempt ibl e and com i c

,- all th is is certa i n ;

a nd a l so,tha t Euri p ides has expo sed allth i s with unspa r ing

a uda ci ty. I n the very first wo rds o f the crea tu re ‘,h i s rel i ef a t

hav ing esca ped i s m i ngled with a ston i shmen t tha t he shou ld

have a ch ieved the cl imb—no mea n fea t , we may suppo se,even for a man properly t ra in ed a nd dressed— in h i s A s ia t i c

co stume ! When O restes bu rsts o u t upo n him swo rd in ha nd “,h i s grovel l i ngs

,fla tteries

,screams

,writh ing

,shudders

propit ia tory j ests,d iffer sca rcely a t allfrom tho se with wh ich

the S laves a nd va l ets o f comedy exc ite ro a rs o f sco rn fu l

merrimen t . I n the m id st o f a brea th l ess rec i ta l,he mus t

needs ment ion wi th a n a ir o f impo rtance . tha t , when th e

a ssa ss i ns entered,he was engaged in perfo rm ing upo n Hel en

wha t he ca l l s the Phrygia n custom o f the fan “. Everyth ing

abo ut him i s described so tha t readers wi l l na tura l ly laugh . Bu t

d id the Specta tors la ugh ? Tha t i s the quest io n . If they d id ,the scene wa s a gro ss a nd Oflensive fa i l u re ; for tha t Euri p ides

meant to ra i se a laugh over the fa te o f Herm io ne , H elen ,or even the mu rderers

,to me a t l ea st

,i nco nceivable . B u t

d id the specta to rs la ugh ? Befo re we fix o u r impress ion s, l et

u s remember tha t th is p lay was ‘

famo us upo n the and

l et u s be qu i te sure tha t we rea l i z e the th ing,a nd see it done,

a s if we were t/zere . S O imagin ing,and speak i ng formyself,

I ca nno t conceive the po ss ib i l i ty o f a sm i le .

A t first the suspense,a nx iety

,curio s i ty

,the feel ing tha t,

a s the Cho rus say ,

n ow we sha l l know wha t has pa ssed

with in,

avert a nd proh ibi t allemo t io ns i rrel eva nt to the fa te

o f the wretches impri so ned with in the ho rr ib l e wa l l . The

wa nderings o f the na rra to r merely irr i ta te o u r i n tense des ire

tha t he Sho u ld go o n“. A nd then h is broken effem i na cy ,

h is u tter d istra ct ion,d islo ca t ion , d isso l u t ion o f m i nd and body,

appeari ng as pa rt o f the horro r, ta ke the same co lou r.

Le t u s p icture the th ing . When the doo r i s swung i n

upon Herm ione a nd hercapto rs,every o ne feel s tha t the human

crea tu res with in—an d we know them to be no t a few, though

allhelpl ess—a re lo st . I n some way , the worse the more

1v . 1 369.

2v. 1 506.

3v . 1 426.

4 Hypotb esis I I . 5 vv . 1 394, 1 45 1 .

ORESTE S 2 5 1

l i kely,they must allperish , with the demons who a re ma sters

o f the house. Sooner or la ter these fiends,if i t comes to the

wo rst,as i t must, wi l l burn down the house over their heads .

Pylades has wa rned u s ‘ . A nd t/i eir vic tims ca nnot g et ou t.

This ho rrid sensa t ion po ssesses us , a nd i s burnt i n to o u r

conscio usness by the va i n a ttempt made upo n the doo r. Then

o ne,j us t o n e

,by a way fo r him m ira cu lo us

,does get o u t ; on e

l i ving crea ture ha s esca ped,or may escape , the impend ing

ago ny Of sword and fire . Wha t , i n God’

s name,do es any o n e

ca re,wha t sort o f d ign i ty the wretched being has, o r wha t

ma nner o f d ress i t i s , which ha ngs in rags upo n h is pa l pi ta t ing

body ? H e is ou t ! A nd wba t of tbose wit/t in .3’ Wha t s ign ifies

a nyth ing,except th i s ? There he l ies

,m ingl ing

,l ike a sort

O f Madge Wi ldfi re,bi ts o f h is sto ry wi th scraps o f na t ive

song “, un intel l igible and irreleva nt .‘Wha t are they do ing ?

say the women ,‘Tel l us aga in . We ca nno t Nor

c an we ; a nd o u r ba ffled exc i temen t becomes a po s i t ive pa in .

Even when the na rra to r becomes more lu c id,o u r ch ief

sensa t io n is . still,tha t he canno t get to the po i n t , nor ma ke

th ings c lea r,when he do es . A t la st th is much comes o u t

some o f the s laves have been k i l led,mo re ma imed

,the res t

hunted i nto h id ing- pla ces “ ; but Helen has n o t been k i l led,o r

el se, which the Phrygia n seem s to th in k equa l ly probable, her

body has ‘ d isappea red The a ssa ss ins , i n the very a c t o f

despa tch ing her, were ca l l ed to the doo r by the a rriva l o f

Herm ione ; a nd when they go t ba ck , —‘

O ea rth a nd a ir, 0 day

a nd n ight she was gone,

‘ va n ished by magic c lea n away !’

Wo unded then a t mo st (we infer) she , l i ke the o ther fugi t ives ,must be con cea led somewhere in the bu i ld ing. The narra to r,favoured ,

so far a s can'

be made o u t or as he understa nds,by

the fa ct tha t he happened to be in wa i t ing o n Helen a t the

t ime,and wa s suffered to rema i n in the fro nt part o f the house

when h is fel lows were thrust o u t o f the way ,scrambled up to

the metope, Heaven knows how,a nd go t o u t as we know

1 See vv . 1 1 49—1 1 50.

2vv . 1 385

- 1 386 , 1 39 1—1 392 . v . 1 393 .

4vv . 1 445 fo l l . , 1 474 fo l l . 5 Compare vv. 1 470 fo l l . with vv . 1 490 fo l l .

5 The story is no t mean t to be e xac t ly in te l l igible , but th is seems to be the

upsho t . The 611111 11o Of v . 1 475 is a c onfusion ; the n arra tor, i t seems, c anno thave been on e Of these fugit ives. And the who le is in the same style .

He has rea ched th is po i n t , when there o ccurs—the o n e

th ing perhaps wh ich now we co u ld n o t expect ‘ . He i s

pursued . The doo r i s flung back , a nd Orestes,swo rd i n hand

rushes o u t,l eaving the ho use o pen beh ind him . I t needs no t

his wi ld gestures a nd wo rd s to tel l u s,tha t he i s n ow l i tera l ly

a nd abso l utely m ad . His a c t i s eno ugh . A nd i t a l so proves

tha t h i s a ccompl ices,who a fter allare n o t

,properly spea k ing,

i nsa ne,c a n n o lo nger restra i n him . Probably

,when the door

i s opened,they are j ust seen

,va i n ly a ttempt ing to preven t h is

ex i t “. Discovery from the town m ust be imm i nen t ; it may

come a t a ny moment,no r

,so long as the ho use is clo sed

i t ma tter when . To the pro spects,rea l o r imaginary

,o f the

a ssa ss in s,the o n ly th ing ma teria l i s to keep the doo r shut

a nd the escape o f o ne vi ct im i s i n s ign ifi ca nt . Nor i ndeed i s

i t the purpo se O f O restes to stop him : he says so,but he is

beyo nd the ca pa c ity o f a purpo se . I n horrid play,l i ke some

fel in e monster,he fo l lows step by step over the scene h is

crawl ing capt ive,the two together presen ting human i ty in

the utmo st extreme o f mora l and phys ica l degrada t ion .

Orestes. D idst t ho u n o t to Me ne la us shou t the resc u e - c ry bu tnow ?

P bryg ia n . Nay, O na y,— b u t for t h ine he lp ing c ried I wortb ier

a rt tlzou .

An swer—did the c h i ld of Tyndare us by righ teo usse n ten c e fa l l ?

Righ teo us—who l l y righ te ous—t ho ugh She had t hreet hroa ts to die wi tha l .

Da stard,

’tis t h y to ngue t ha t tru c kle s in t h y h eart tho u

think’st n ot 50.

S hou ld sh e n ot,who H e l la s la id

,a nd Phrygia

’s fo l k in

ru in low3 ?

Such i s the d ia logue ; wh ich , if we ful ly heard i t , m ight ma ke

us la ugh,or

,more l i ke ly

,make us S i ck . B u t we scarcely

sho u ld hea r i t. The a ct io n wo u ld fa sc ina te o u r senses . A t

a ny momen t Orestes may stri ke . Bu t he has n o purpo se to

stri ke,he ha s no purpo se a t all a nd the S lave

,perce iving his

co nd it ion and ca tch ing a gl impse of hope,keeps up a ru n o f

1Ira n/611 6K ra n/ 13V

, v . 1 503 .

2 There is no t , and c ould no t be , any Sign o f this in the text ; but i t wouldexpress the si tua t ion . I t is wha t , I th ink , a stage -manager should order.

3vv . 1 5 1 0 fo l l . (Way).

B u t the man ia c knows i t n ot. He knows n o t even tha t

the ho use i s bu rn ing. A lo ne he is l eft , the o n ly fi t a ctor,to fin ish the in sa ne programme o f the co nspira cy. Menela us ,a t la st retu rn ing , ha s me t the escaped eunuch

‘a wreck o f

terro r ,’

and lea rn t from h im the awfu l news,tha t Helen has

‘ van ished’

a nd H erm io ne i s a prisoner. The ‘ va n i sh ing ’ he

o f course d ism i sses a s a n absu rd ity,an i nvent io n (a s he sup

po ses) of the cra z y ma tric ide ‘ . I n th is he i s o n ly so farwrong,

tha t the idea , suggested o rig ina l ly by the imagina t io n of the

O ri en ta l “, has n ow lodged itself,tho ugh with more diflfic ulty ,

i n the burn ing bra i n o f the Greek “. Menela us however ha s

heard eno ugh to convince him tha t h is wife is beyo nd

rescue,and he ha stens to save h is da ughter. The ho rro r

o f the rea l s i tua t ion he ha s n o t t ime to see completely.

Sca rcely has he en tered , when O restes appea rs a t the pa ra

pet,with Herm ione, a l ight burden to the strength o f

m adness , i n h is a rm s . The girl is unco nscio us , for th ro ugho ut

the scene wh ich fo l lows she nei ther moves nor cri es ; i t may

be hoped , a nd i s probable, tha t she i s dead . O restes flings

the body upon the parapet, a nd, sta nd ing as i n a c t to

decapita te i t, ca l l s to Menela us, who i s beat i ng a t the doo r

below . Look ing up , he perceives the figures,am i d gleams o f

fi re and wisps o f smoke .

‘ To rches ! A nd the murderers

upon the wa l l !’

H e starts ba ck i n a da z e . Between uncl e

a nd nephew,the o n e scarce ly less frant ic tha n the o ther

,there

pa sses a wi ld parl ey, Menela us begging n ow for the body o f

Hel en and n ow for the l ife o f H erm ione, Orestes a nsweri ng

wi th furio us mo ckery . The wicked mo ther sho u ld have d ied,

but has been Spi ri ted away ; the da ughter sha l l d ie n ow ;

C lyta emnestra ,Hel en

,Herm ione, a fi t success io n ; fo r all

1v . 1 559 7 00un7 p01<7 6u ov wold) : yéhws, where means,

n ot device, but in ven tion , con ception , as o f an art ist .2vv . 1 495 fo l l .

3 A t vv . 1 533- 1 536 Orestes st i l l assumes the p la in truth , tha t H e len is e i ther

dead or e lse alive a nd in lz ispower. Bu t in the last dia logue (vv . 1 580, 1 586) he ,l ike the Phrygian (v . 1 496) though more vague l y, seems to assume herm ira c ulousesc ape . This no t ion , so far as c on c erns the rea l p lay , is wha t Men e laus c a l ls i t ,sheer absurdi ty. ’ The ep i logue (vv. 1 629 fo l l .) deve lops i t w i th iron i c a l grav i ty.

ORES TE S 2 55

‘ wicked women’ the pun ish ing swo rd sha l l be ready !‘ The

bewi ldered Menela us , hoping to get someth ing a t l ea st

i n tel l igible from a n in terlobu to r no t o u t o f h i s senses , appea l s

i n a lo uder vo i ce to the invis ible a ccompl ice “ : S harest tho u

too i n th i s m urder, Pylades ?’ There is a pause ; but n o

Pylades a nswers,beca use no Pyla des hears . ‘H is silen ce sa il/1

expla i n s the ma n ia c,—and the d ia logue rushes on

a ha i l o f cro ss ing inv'

ect ives,unt i l Menela us excla im s 3 i n

despera t ion ‘ Wha t am I to do ?’ The chance wo rd reca l l s

Orestes to the programme , which he a brupt ly propo unds‘ Go ,

plead wi th Argo s . ’ P lead ! A nd for wha t ? ’ For

o u r l ives ! A sk the c ity for tha t .’—‘

A nd tha t o n ly wi l l save

my ch i ld Even so .

’ Menela us,tho ugh h i s rea so n to tters

has enough left to perceive by th is tha t all i s o ver.

A ttempt ing n o reply,he breaks in to lamenta t ions : H elen !

H elen o n ly to be s la i n alltha t I d id

1vv . 1 576

- 1 596. In v . 1 589 714177 64005 by the c on te xt,is ambiguous be twee n

Cl ytaemn estra ’

(mo ther o f Orestes) and H e len (mo ther of H erm ion e ) . The

ambiguity is in ten t ion a l , a nd should n o t b e de term in ed e i therway .

2 There is no suggest ion in the text , e i ther in this sc en e or in tha t whic h fo l lowsthe appearan c e of Apo l lo , tha t Pylades or Ele c tra is sta nding with Orestes on

the pa rape t . After the appe aran c e of Apo l lo , they may jo in him ; be c ause thena nything , however impossible , may o c c ur, the more impossible the be tter for thec fle c t ; but the ev iden c e is aga inst supposing 50. H ere , where we are st il l dea l ingwith rea l i t ies, they c ann o t b e there , for a reason whic h we a lready have d iv in eda nd whic h the un c onsc ious madman griml y c on firms. The no t ion tha t Pylades,though a c tua l ly stand ing by Orestes throughout , ismade si len t (v . 1 592) be c ause thedrama t ist had n o t an ac tor to spare , imp l ies in Eurip ides a n in ep t i tude sure l yinc on c e ivable . If he was in suc h a d iffic ulty , why expo se i t , by making Men e lausaddress to Pylades a quest ion on this hypo thesis n eedless, sinc e the c omp l ic i ty andadhesion of Pylades would b e proved by his presen c e ? Nor c ould the di ffi c ul tye x ist : sma l l ‘ fourth parts

’ were a l lowed ; and i t would a lso have been easy ,if ne c essary , to u se the tri tagon ist for Pylades a t v . 1 592 , and then to rep lac e himby a mute , so tha t he m ight appe ar a t v . 1 625 as Apo l lo . I t is possible tha tPylades appears for a momen t be tween vv . 1 567 a nd 1 574 (where see 7 015066 ,

whic h , ifwe press i t stric t ly, though tha t is not n e c essary , would imp ly as muc h) .H e may appear for a mome n t , taking leave of his Orestes with a wild gesture , and

p lung ing aga in in to the house . This would b e effec t ive . A fter th is he is c erta in l yseen n o more . Tha t Orestes imag ines both Pylades and Ele c tra to hear him ,

bo th here a nd a t vv . 1 61 8- 1 620, is a n a tura l tra i t of his insa n it y . The ir a c tua lpresen c e throughout is assumed by e xposi tors on ly to make n a tura l , wha t Eurip idesmeans to b e pla in ly impossible , the subseque n t perfo rman c es of Apo l lo .

3v . 1 6 1 0 .

2 56 A FIRE FROIlI HELL

for i s too in thy hands ! ’—wh ich

O restes punctua tes wi th taunts . Then , sudden ly impa t ient ,F i re the ho use

,Electra he scream s

,a s the smo ke

goes up th icker ;‘ Burn down these

dea r surest fri end ! H ere,here A rescue !

comes the answering scream o f the maddened Menela us ;‘ Sons o f Danaus , ch iva lry o f A rgo s

,to arms ! A rescue

a rescue ! Here i s a m a t ri c ide,fo u l w ith h is mo ther’s blo od

wo u ld wrest bis life from allthe power o f yo ur sta te ! ’

Cu rta in qu icb . S O wo u ld Eurip ides d irect n ow. S O

wo u ld he then have d irected,if he co u ld ; and such a term i

na t io n,in such ma nner a s the co nd it io n s o f h i s thea tre

perm i tted,he does a ctua l ly express . Unfortuna te ly for him

he had no curta i n ; a nd wha tever m ight be the fa te o f h i s

perso nages,h i s a cto rs

,dead or a l ive

,m ust wa l k O ff. Nor wa s

he free, as a ma tter o f fo rm , even to ki l l them . The murderers

o f h is sto ry,the ma tri c ide a nd h is s i ster a nd h i s fri end

,mu st

indeed certa i n ly d ie . The sto ry i s so shaped,co loured

conducted,tha t n o o ther end ing is e i ther co nce ivable or

des i rable . B u t s i nce, be ing compel led by convent io n to

borrow names from a nc ient h istory , he has for th i s o cca s io n

bo rrowed tho se o f Orestes a nd Electra , Pylades a nd Herm io ne,h istory demands tha t b er perso nages , when the dram a t i st ha s

do ne with them ,sha l l be res tored i nta ct. Acco rd ing to ber,

they were ma rri ed , O restes to H erm io ne, Pylades to Electra .

There were probably among the a ud ience perso ns who cla imed

descen t from these un io ns , wh ich had a l so some po l i tica l

impo rtance . Helen aga i n,i n a sso cia t io n with her bro thers

Ca sto r and Po l l ux , was a n obj ect o f wo rsh ip . H istory then,

or l egend,must a t l ea st i n form be sa t i sfied .

These pra ct ica l d ema nd s,i n pa rt pecu l ia r to the Orestes

among extan t p lays , bu t pa rt ly fam i l ia r to Eurip ides , he

meets , a s e l sewhere ‘, by the deu s ex ma cb ina,tha t i s to say ,

by a fina l scene,tra nspa rent ly perfuncto ry a nd i ron ica l

which a superna tura l perso nage,who se very being is in c om

1 S ee for e xamp le the I on and lpb zgen ia in Ta u ric a .

2 58 A FIRE FROM HEL L

passe’

e,with her humo urs a nd her need le-work—i n to a perso n

conceivable i n her new s i tua t ion . He may m a rry h is Orestes

to h i s Herm ione,but ca nno t m ake the imagina t ion o f such

a n a l l iance between the persons so named i n the play a ny

th ing el se but revo l t i ng. H e may marry Pylades to Electra .

B u t a l tho ugh we are to ld i n the play ‘,tha t the two yo uths

i n the ir wisdom,and a fter the fa sh io n o f thei r k ind

propo sed to cemen t the i r fri endsh ip by th is connex ion , we ,as specta to rs

,do n o t wan t thei r des ign to be rea l i z ed ; we

know i t canno t , a nd the very tho ught wou ld be revo l t i ng,if

i t were n o t so impo ss ibl e a nd so ri d icu lo us .

Menela us,forso o th

,i s to sett le a nd re ign i n Spa rta ! B u t

how wo u ld he be rece ived there by the Tynda reus o f the

play,and how a re we to suppo se

,tha t an a l l eged fia t o f

Apo l lo wo u ld be executed by Tyndareus,upon whom the

a u thori ty of Delphi,when c i ted in fa vo u r o f wha t he condemns ,produced n o impress io n wha tever ? Or wha t o f Argo s a nd

her c it i z ens,her laws , a u thori t i es , orga n s , a nd publ ic o pin io n ?

O f allthese ‘ Apo l lo’

,the a cto r suspended upon the cra ne

c an d ispo se n o do ubt , if words co u ld do i t, i n two verses

I w i l l to Argos rec on c i le t h is ma n,

Whom I c on stra in ed to sh ed his mo ther’s b lood.

Tha t i s to say , he wi l l a ssure the Argive a ssembly , a s i n

the Eu men ides he a ssures the A reopagus , tha t he, Apo l lo ,i s

respons ibl e for the ma tric ide . B u t how are we to conceive

the appeara nce o f such a god before the ec clesia depicted i n

the play ? Or wha t co u ld he there effect ? H e m ight a s wel l

have propo sed to a ttend next day the A then ia n ec clesia O f

the yea r 408 , a nd d icta te some dec is ion , mo ra l ly a nd po l i t ica l ly

detestable,abo ut Samo s o r A l c ibiades . The ecclesia o f the

play co ns ists o f me n l ike tho se o f the fifth cen tu ry. Tbey do

not believe in a ma tric idalg od, a nd wou ld no t receive as

Apo l lo a perso n profess ing tha t cha ra cter. They wo u ld s imply

o rder the impo sto r to be stript o f h is co stume a nd sco urged .

The pla i n fa ct i s,tha t

,i n co nnex ion with th is p lay , an

ep ipha ny such as tha t o f Apo l lo a nd H elen is a bsurd,a nd

1 vv . 1078 , 1 207 .

ORESTES 2 59

c an serve o n ly to announce,tha t we have done with serious

imagina t ion . We may recur to o u r former i l l ustra t ion,a

suppo sed play turn ing on the fa te o f a m an,who comm i ts

b igamy in Melbourne upo n the strength o f h is own convict io n,

or tha t o f h i s con fessor,tha t m arriage with a decea sed wife’s

S i ster i s a nu l l ity. When the hero had received the i nevitable

co ndemna t ion,a nd had a nswered i t by bra i n ing a warder

a nd fi ring the ga o l,wha t wo u ld be the effect of i ntroduci ng

som e ca no n i z ed Do cto r of the Law,suspended i n the a ir

declare from tha t eleva t io n his agreem en t wi th the o ffender,a nd to order tha t he be d ischarged a nd prom o ted to hono ur ?

Wha t sort o f ep iphany co u ld rea l ly be imagined i n the

days o f th is play,by wha t sort o f person , a nd i n wha t c i r

c u msta n c es,Eurip ides i s carefu l to show. Menela us a nd his

sa i lors have seen a superna tura l person , or so they bel ieve

For to u c h ing Agamemn on’s fa te I kn ew ,

And by wha t dea t h a t his wife ’s hands h e d ied,Wh en my prow tou c h ed a t Ma lea : from th e wavesThe sh ipman

’s se er

,the u n erring God, the son

O f Nere us,Gla u c us

,made i t known to me .

For fu l l in v iew he rose,a nd c ried i t to m e

The sto ry reca l l s,a nd pro fesses to co rrect , tha t o f the

Ody ssey , i n wh ich the same d isclo sure i s made to Menelau s

i n Egypt by the sea -

god Pro teu s . Le t then the two

vers ions be compa red,i n reference to the quest ion whether

the compo sers,the epi c ha rd a nd Eurip ides respect ively,

i n tend,for the purpo se o f their a rt ist ic work , to co nvey the

impress io n tha t someth ing superna tura l rea l ly o ccurred . I n the

ep ic , need less to say ,no th ing el se i s for a n in sta nt suppo sable .

I n Eurip ides the contra ry i s as pla i n . Sa i lo rs o fEuri p ides’

day a nd ci ty m ight doubtl ess have been fo und to say , tha t on

some lonely sho re they had seen a nd spoken with Gla ucus .

B u t how ma ny people,and wha t sort o f people, wo u ld have

bel ieved them ? They spoke with some wanderer o f the

bea ch,tra nsfigu red by supersti t io us im agina t io n . L i ke the

s im i la r sto ry i n the Ipb zgen ia in Ta u ric a“

,where two commo n

mo rta l s are fa lsely iden t ified , by foo l i sh rust ics , as Ca stor a nd

1vv . 360 fo l l . (Way) .

2vv . 260 fo l l .

1 7—2

Po l l ux , the ta l e o f Menela us serves to Show tha t,fo r the

purpo se o f the play,we a re to p la ce o u rse lves a t a n epo ch

when , for sober j udgmen ts a nd under c i rcumstances o f pro o f,

ep ipha n ies do n o t o ccur,a nd when the ep ipha ny o f Apo l lo

i n a po l i t i ca l a ssembly i s a gro tesque suppo s i t io n,stamped by

the mere sta temen t a s no t serio us .For these rea son s a nd o thers ‘

,the dens ex ma c/zin a o f the

Orestes c a n be n o pa rt o f the serio u s d rama,but is a pretence

necessa ry to get o ff the a ctors an d repa ir the brea ch wi th

l egend . The scene i s n o t a de’

nou emen t. And indeed we

sho u ld remark,tha t though the u se o f superna tura l personages

for the purpo se o f defnou emen t, tha t i s to sa y , to effect some

th ing requ ired by tbc story but n o t ea sy to be worked o u t,i s

common ly a sso c ia ted wi th the name o f o u r a utho r,he d id i n

fa ct , so far a s we know, but ra rely so emp loy them . The

M edea,the very exampl e c ited by Ari sto t le

,i s a lmo s t the o n ly

on e n ow extant , tho ugh we Sho u ld perhaps add the H ipp o

ly tu s. I n the M edea,a th ing wb icb tbc a u tbor requ ires for b is

story ,the escape o f the hero i ne , i s a ch ieved by a superna tura l

d evice,the dragon - cha rio t

,to which the sto ry do es n o t l ead .

We have d iscu ssed the ca se i n a previous essay “. B u t the

A po l lo o f the Orestes, l ike the A thena o f the Ipb zgen ia in

Ta u rica ,ha s

,for the sto ry , no th ing to do . We know tha t

rea l ly the house was burn t down , a nd the persons i n i t , tho se

who were n o t dead , peri shed ; we ca nno t even des ire , and

we ca nno t suppo se, tha t a nyth ing el se sho u ld fo l low ; a nd

all the dei t ies o f the property-room co u ld n o t a ffect o u r

imagina t ive bel ief. A po l lo i s merely fo r the thea tre ; a nd a s

readers,we have n o concern with him a t all.

No r,i n allprobabi l ity , had the fi rst a nd o rigina l specta tors

o f the play . Next to the M edea,the Orestes i s , o f allthe ex

tant p lays , the o n e wh ich o ffers the strongest i n terna l evidence

tha t i t wa s n o t origi na l ly co nceived a s having a Chorus , and

therefo re wa s no t first planned fo r the thea tre o f Dio nysus .

The presence and c o - opera t ion o f Electra’

s fi fteen vis i tors ,

1 On the histrion ic a l lusion to the suc c ess of the p lay (vv . 1 650—1652 ) see

E u rip ides tb e Ra tion alist, p . 1 7 1 .

2p . 1 2 7 .

a nd whether she sa t a t the head or the feet co u ld ma ke no

apprec iable d ifference . The a uthor o f the quest io n,

‘ why in

the wo rl d Electra does n o t sit a t O restes’

hea d,

’ d id n ot mean

to lay stress o n the la st wo rds ; he meant s imply‘ why do es

she n o t s i t by her pa t ien t,i n the pla ce proper to a nurse.’

The trad it io na l arrangemen t o f the Open ing scene, an a rra nge

ment qu i te cons istent w ith the text,was evident ly tha t Electra

from the first shou ld be sta nding ,a nd a sfa r a spossiole fronz

Orestes. The a utho r o f the quest io n,po ss ibly A r is topha nes ,

tho ught th is pos i t ion n o t the mo st na tura l ; a nd i t i s n o t.

B u t he tho ught i t m igh t have been adopted,and i t m ight , i n

o rder n o t to bring the Chorus to the couch . The blunder o f

ou r wri ter wou ld n o t be worth no t ice , but for the doubt

wh ich i t open s,whether he right ly understa nds wha t h is

a utho r mea nt by the wo rds 301.1 c 051} 7 61} xopov d 7rom7'

Si a o /c evcia a t . O u r wri ter, o u r copyist, probably or certa in ly

took Bi a a ic evdo a c i n the sense ‘a rrange

’ co rrespond ing to his

own 75Bia a /c evw‘

y 7 05) Spa/Lam e, the a rrangemen t o f the play’

a nd I have tra ns la ted i t a cco rd ingly. Bu t the quest io n a nd

so l u t io n have more mea n ing,purpo se

,a nd po i n t , if we take

Sia a lc evdo a i i n the l i tera ry sense,

‘reca st

,reto uch

,a l ter.

The a uthor perceived wha t i s the fa ct,tha t with a Cnoru s the

open ing o f the play canno t be qu i te na tura l ly a rra nged . And

knowing ,or believing himself en titled to a ssume

,tha t t/ze play

was origi nally desig n ed wit/tou t one,he suggests tha t the

a rrangement a ctua l ly adopted wa s a modifica tion ,in troduced

for the sa ke o f the Chorus . Euripides , he mea ns , has framed

a n o pen ing,which seem s unsu itable to thea tr ica l cond it io ns ;

i t may be h i s excu se tha t o rigina l ly he d id n o t con templa te

tho se cond it ions .

Th is i s the mo re probable,s i nce we are a l so to ld (a nd on

very h igh a utho r i ty) tha t o u rM edea was a‘ revi sed

or‘ reca st ’

vers ion,the origina l being a ttri buted to a certa i n Neo phro n ‘ .

I th in k i t n o t improba ble tha t the tra nsform a t io n o f o u r

M edea from a domest i c to a thea tri ca l p lay 2 had someth ing

to do with the orig in o f th is pu z z l i ng trad it io n .

I7 6 (Spam 60m ? br ofia kéofia t rd N66¢povos Bi a oxevdo

a ts, tbs Auralapxos

Hypothesis of t/wMedea .

2 S ee above , pp . 1 25 fo l l .

ORESTES 263

However th is may be, interna l evidence in bo th ca seswarrants

,i n my opin ion , the a ssumpt io n tha t neither the

M edea n or the Orestes was origi na l ly pla nned for a Chorus .

O n e or two fri ends , deeply a tta ched and i n t ima te friends o f

Electra,wo u ld certa i n ly be needed in the open ing ; a nd there

is a tra c e of t/zem in tne text. When Electra says l Did yo u

see ( eZ’

Be-re), how Hel en cut o n ly j ust the t ip o f her

whom do es she address ? The Chorus are n o t yet come ;a nd a cco rd ing to the tex t a s i t s tands

,we sho u l d na tu ra l ly

suppo se Electra to be n ow a lone,except for her sl eep ing

bro ther“. The a ud ience are n o t to be tho ught o f ; i t wou ld

be com i c. We c a n perhaps suppo se wha t n ow seem s necessary,tha t some a ttenda nts o fHelen rema i n fora moment when Helen

goes in , a nd rece ive Electra’s rema rk . Bu t the suppo s i t ion i s

stra i ned ; an d my bel ief i s tha t th i s D id yo u see ?’

is s imply

a n overs ight. I t was o rig i na l ly addressed to c onfidan ts o f

Electra ,who ,

if they were n o t‘o n

from the first,came on

befo re th is wa s sa i d . The a rra ngement wa s a l tered,when

room had to be made som ehow for the in troduct io n o f

the importuna te fi fteen ; but the‘ Did y o u see ?

was in

advertently left .

Con fidan ts, i n t ima tes , on e or two,we c an even conceive

without extra vagance a s present througho ut , a nd as pa rt ies to

the horrors o f the la ter scenes . U n less the reca st ing was i n

th is pa rt very extens ive, some such figures were a lways

requ ired . The sma l ler the number, the mo re na tura l or

a ccepta ble wo u ld be the a ssumpt io n ", tha t thei r devo t ion toElectra i s pro o f aga in st the stra i n wh ich i s put on i t. B u t

th is we canno t determ i ne. Happi ly we need n o t a t all

events suppo se tha t Euri p ides,o f h is own wi l l , a ssumed the

a cqu iescence and c o - opera t ion o f fifteen .

From a domesti c vers io n o f the p lay,Apo l lo ,

as wel l a s

the Cho ru s , wo u ld o f co urse d isappear. The c on fida nts,if

they had n o t go ne befo re, wo u ld a t alleven ts fly,as na t ura l ly

they sho u ld and must,when they become awa re tha t the

house is,or soo n wi l l be

,o n fi re 1 537 and we

1v. 1 28 .

2 S ee the stage-d irec t ions ofMrWay .

3 M . 1 103—1 104.

shou ld be rel i eved o f the prepo sterous a ssumption,necessari ly

a ttributed to the a ctua l Chorus tha t they c an do

no th ing sa fer ’

for them se lves tha n to rema i n where they a re .

A t 1 624 Menelaus wou ld rush o ff ; Orestes,sei z i ng the

body o f Herm ione,wo u ld leap ba ck from the pa rapet in to

the ho use a nd the p iece wo u ld end forma l ly where,for every

purpo se of serio us art,i t n ow virtua l ly does.

I . NOTES ON THE ANDROMACHE.

on. 24 fo l l .I A

8, if Q IKa yo) 3op u s row apcrev eva TLKTO) Kopov,

wka fie’

io" ’

AXLKK£'

ws 7ra t8i,Sen or”7 ,

Ka i 7rp’

w “Ev e’

v Ka xol’

m Keep e'

vnv dym;

Ou r-L'

s p.’

7rpoo~ijy e a wee

w os réxvov

dikmiv rw’

cfipei’

v Koim xoupnm v 36pwv.

3 I Q I Aer a 86 T1)V Aa xawa v Epp uomyv yap.“

I I A ITov/Lov 7rapw0

a s Sovkov Aexos,A 3 A I 9 I

xa xo cs 7rpos a ums crxerk tou; eka vvoy a t

24 . apa eva‘rL'

rw L,dpo

wix‘rw reliqu i codd. ,

ipo ev’

Barnes ; 133i Eva. (finalwa i’

Sa yet/£0911 1. scho l .— 28 . Soywv BO (yp .

xa xdiv B ), xa xo‘

iv re11. —See Prof. Murray’s appara tus, to which I

refer throughout.Eva and 86mm are probably righ t . The om ission of Eva , the

conjec ture xa xw‘

v, and Elmsley’

s xdm xoécfiww forxdm xofipna w,assume

tha t the Elwris of o . 2 7 is Andromac he’s hope that Mo lossus m ight

l ive ; but if this were so , we should next hear of his present danger,which is no t mentioned unti l 47 . Transla te, ‘ There was a timewhen, low though I had fa l len , I was used as a wife, in the hopetha t

, by the preserva t ion of a ch i ld,he m ight ga in some support

and s trengthening to his fam i ly. B u t since,

he e tc . Wi thr poafi

ye supp ly fl ? 860 71-67 37, and Cf. wka eei

o-a . For

o wfie’

w os re’

xvov Cf. Aesch . E am. 660 (Dindorf) n’

xret 3’

6 epeimm w,

dwep fe'

vq) fit/17 ]Zo wo ev v os, aim. pf?) BMW/37 9669. Un t i l

Neop to lemus married, the fam i ly was anxious tha t he, the on lychild of a n only ch i ld and having b u t one chi ld himself

,should have

more qu asi- legi t ima te children, a’

Amfiv’

n va, support of a kind

woman who,if a slave, a t lea s t had been a princess. B u t after the

birth of Mo lossu s (about 8 years old a t the t ime of the act ion ) therewere only disappo in tmen ts. Afterhis marriage 29) her importanceand the connexion ceased.

268 ANDROMA CHE

The phrase épa eva xépov (a male boy requires exp lana t ion . I t

sugges ts tha t TL’

KTGLV xépov does n o t here mean primari ly and properlyparere filium, bu t p a rere fa stum, pa rere in inria nz maris (from theancient a nd fam i l iar equ ivoca t ion of xépos, viés or 53pm), i.e. to

b ecome a mo ther in the circums tances o f Andromache . V irgi lapparen t ly understood it so

,and represen ts the sense, though

n ot the equivoca t ion,in A en . m . 3 20 fo l l . Andromache speaks

O fe l i x u n a an te a l ias Priameia V irgo ,hostilem ad tumulu m Tro iae su b mo en ib u s a l t isiussa m ori , qua e sortitu s n on pertulit ullos

n e c vic toris eri te tigit c apt iva c u b ile .

nos pa tria in c ensa d ive rsa per aequ ora ve c tae

st irp is A c hilleae fl zstzts z

u ve nemqu e superozim

servitio e nixa e tulimn s ; qu i de inde se c u tu s

Ledaeam H ermion en La c edaemo n iosqu e hym enaeos

me famulo famulamqu e He leno transmisit habendam .

Here the very p ecu l iar phrase en ixae tulimu s fa stu s iu ven emone,

which has ra ised d ifficu l ty, is d icta ted by n’

xrw xépov in the do u b lesense . In o ther po in ts a lso the passage is influenced by tha t of

Euripides, and has been composed wi th the Androma c/ze in m ind .

0. 1 47 . No lacuna here . V7) . 1 47— 1 54 a nswer ( 1 54) the last

words of the Choru s, which H erm ione, su rprising them ,hears.

They speak of her as a‘ tyran t

’ they are no t slaves,n or is

she properly their m istress. She replies t h a t the princess of Spartamay say and do in Ph t h ia wha tever she p leases.

1 69. Read 013 Hpia ptos, 01332 v o fis (DOCc

El t’

xs r ék ts.

xpvo os M ss . for which Pro f. Murray refers (sed qu a ere) to Tro . 995 .

—v mis, of Cbry sa , the H omeric town,is an adjec t ive formed to

ba lance‘

Emeg. Chrysa wa s the sea t of the Tro j an Apo l lo ,and

Eixa; 7 6m,as Opposed to v crds, signifies the people whose cen tre

and leaderwas D elphi— a fac t , b u t no t fortuna te forHerm ione .

or} . 2 1 5—2 3 1 . Though susp icious of - transpositions, I think the

seven l ines 2 1 5—2 2 1 mu st fo llow the next seven , 2 2 2—2 28 . Thus

‘ if your husband had l ived in Thrace, the drenched-wit/z-snow’

xtow rv‘

yv xa ro’

tppvrov, where X i o'

m. i s empha t ic by posi t ion—is exp la ined

by the words preceding,‘

yo u would fa in keep your husband from

a drop of ra in .

’As the snow to the ra in-drop , so is the l iberty of

Thracian husbands to tha t of o thers. Thus a lso the rem iniscenceof Hec tor comes in n atura l ly after ‘ even if she have a b ad

270 ANDROMA CHE

sons-in -law. In th is scene, a lmost every pa ssage exh ibi ts somethingof this k ind.

or) . 668—677. Genuine, not interpo la ted. The consumma te

impudence of «is 3,

a firws dvilp Iyvva fxa pxnpa ivovo‘

a v c’

v 367 mm zxwv,from the husban d of H e len mus t be Eurip idean . The argumentis as inapp l icable to the fac ts as allthe rest , b u t n ot more ; and i tserves equa l ly wel l the speaker

s only rea l purpose, to provoke theanger a nd con tempt of Peleus.

701—702 . Much l ike the say ing that

‘any man could b e a

Shakespeare if lie lzad tne mind.

’ The disl ike of Eurip ides form i l i tary power did no t prevent him from perceiving the fu t i l i ty of

vu lgar sarcasms on mi l i tary ta lent . Common men could b e c om

manders,if they had the daring and the wi l l .

‘ Ge t away, w i th your oa rren daughter !’

Certa inly ;that is why Menelaus has arranged to take her away.

73 3 . min ; u s. No a l lusion to con temporary po l itics (Argos ?)should be sough t . The pre text is too flimsy to have meaning.

745 . m ad. aivn’

o rorxos,‘ the shadow which wa lks (a reixet) the

reverse way’

(to that of the su n ), and‘c an do no thing but speak

( tel l the t ime)—does no t this a l lude to the prin ciple of the sun

dia l ?

or) . 752—756. Drama t ica l ly signifi cant. If Menelaus rea l ly

sought the l ife of Andromache,o f cou rse she would n ot be ou t of

danger. H is easy surrender has a larmed her,as i t would a larm any

reasoning person . Bu t Peleus is past reason ing.

or} . 766 fo l l . This ode , l ike the preced ing and fo l lowing scenes,is ful l of irony, of po in ts on which the circumstances furnish a com

men tary n o t designed by the uninformed Speakers. The advan tage ofb eing wel l-born (o r) . 766—77 1 ) is supposed to be exemp l i fied by thecase of Andromache the feel ing of the Chorus is tha t no t so muchconcern would have been felt abou t themselves. B u t this ma t ter isseen in a different l ight by us, who know n ow for certa in , wha t sort ofadvantage and pro tection is accru ing, by virtue of her nobil ity, toH erm ione. Only a princess of the first importance would, or

perhaps could, b e used and treated as she is by her father and herc ou srn .

ANDROMA CHE 27 1

89 1 . At the approach of Oreste s, the a t tendan ts and Chorusarrange themselves so as to concea l from him

,if possib le, the

d ishevelled Herm ione ; see on . 8 77—880

,where (Spas/a e

m indica tes t ha tthe spea ker has observed a stranger. H ence he c a n pretend n o t to

be aware of her presence, un t i l she rushes forward .

900. This p ious appea l to the god of Delphi is an adm irabletouch .

929 . The op ta t ive ( Zn-c r, wi thout div, is a surviva l,in a fixed

co l loquia l formula,of the archa ic op ta t ive for impera t ive, mean ing

s tric t ly, n ot as some one would say ,bu t a s let some on e (ao supposed to)

say . See Aesch . Ag . 945 (Dindorf), a nd the Indices to my ed i t ion sof the Agamemnon and the C/zoepnori, s.o . Op tative .

o . 93 7 . S ure ly genu ine ; i t is n o t in tended, n or proper, tha tH erm ione sho u ld su sta in the p i tch of d igni ty. This who le speech,w i th i ts genera l suggest ion t ha t somebody else (the Chorus

instance, as the nearest persons) is rea l ly responsib le for H ermione’s

errors, is merely an extravagance of fright. V2) . 943 fo l l . are sen t imen ts which the drama t ist would deprec ia te and ridicule. The

women receive her insinua t ion s w i th a sort of p i tying contempt

ao . 964—992 . No te tha t he ac tua l ly drops here his pretence

about ‘ Dodona ’

Being now qu i te sure of his prey, his so le

object from this po in t, and on ly reason for delay, is to preclude her

from fu ture rebel l ion by lay ing as much founda t ion as possib le forthe story— which of co u rse w i llbe his version—tha t she eloped wi thhim

,and was in fac t his accomp l ice. Hence the reci ta l , worse

than useless so far as she is concerned,of his old cla im on her hand ;

it is for the benefi t of the Choru s. She , whose on e though t is to ge t

away‘before my husband arrives

’evades the suggest ion very well ,

as size t/zinés,by the referen ce to her fa ther, b u t speaks ambiguou sly ,

les t,as she fears, her cousin may st i l l refuse his aid. The untoward

inciden t na tura l ly in creases her anxie ty to end the scene ; and at

o . 989 she ac tua l ly begins to go , Orestes fo l lowing.

7121 . 995—1 008 . To su ppose this in tended for the hearing of

H erm ione,or heard by her, is impossible. At the first h int of i t ,

she would have shru nk from Ores tes in horror. Nor in fact would

she hear i t . The movemen t is this. The exit begins a t o . 989 (see

2 72 ANDROMA CHE

preceding no te) at 99 2 H erm ione and her wa i t ing-woman,has t i ly

preceding, pa ss ou t, w . 993—994 be ing spoken

‘a fter ’

her. I n

t/ze rema in ing fou rteen verses size is not addressed,which a lo ne would

show t ha t the si t u a t ion is changed. At 994 Orestes, slowlyfo l low ing her, stops ; and wh i le she con t inu es

,as we presume, to

hurry forward , del ivers the rest for the b enefi t of the o ther women

(the Chorus) and wi th the same purpo se which promp ts therem iniscences of no . 964 fo l l. , tha t is, to provide for the fu tu redevelopmen t of a susp icion tha t she shared his p lot. That is wha t

when allcomes o u t, many in Ph th ia and elsewhere would certa in lybelieve. H e runs no risk by the menace. H aving de l ivered i t , heins tan t ly goes and before it could even be comprehended, he is off,in the carriage (see 99 2 ) which of co u rse is ready. The duenna

see 803 a slave devo ted to the persona l service of

Herm ione,na tu ra l ly goes wi th her, a po in t n o t u nimportan t to the

effec t of the scene. By perm i t t ing this, Orestes, in t he rea lc ircumstances, loses no thing wha tever ; and he ga ins a t the momentthe appearance of good fa i th. I n the sequel there is necessari lya flaw

,b u t sma l l and pu rely thea trica l . The women , who hear the

menace, o u ght, as they adm it (o . to report it in the house a t

o n ce , though i t would make n o prac t ica l d ifference if they did. Bu t

the thea tre they canno t, beca u se t/zey a re t/ze Cfioru s a nd mu st lzere

sing a n in terlu de. Flaws of this k ind however are so common and

inevi tab le in choric drama , tha t Greek audiences must have becomeindifferen t to them .

on . 1 03 1 fo l l . No te the unusua l and, I bel ieve, elsewhereunknown version of the mu rder of C ly taemnestra .

Apyo’

9€y 1r0p€v9€fs

is a deta i l n o t exp la ined by o ther accou nts, and (£815e art/3a;m ai l/mu , though apparen t ly corrup t , po in ts to some o ther divergence.

The story a l luded to here mus t have b een to ld somewhere,and -was

probably'

told in the preceding p lay. The pecul iari t ies were n o

doubt designed to sui t in some way the part icular charac terisa t ionof Ores tes.

1 053 . S ee on on. 995 fo l l .

o . 1 1 1 3 . m yxtiva 8’

v énm’

por; means, I think ,‘ he succeeded in

the sacri fice,’i.e.

‘ob ta ined favourab le omens ’ for his consul ta t ion

from the vic t im or from the ashes of the a l tar,— a n effective touch .

Not ‘ he was engaged in sacrifice,’as if with el l ipse of div.

274 ANDROMA CHE

inhabi ts a sea -cave, b u t may a lso refer only to the undergro u ndchamber of the tomb-chapel represen ted on the scene

,the Ka ra O'

Ka dnjs

xnm s of Soph . An t. 89 1 e tc. According to the ep i logue, The t is wasa goddess but for the rea l ist ic story she must be supposed merely a

woman ; see p . 3 7 , note 6. The amb igui ty is precisely of the samek ind as those respec t ing the rescue of Theseus in the H era cles ; see

pp . 1 76 fo l l .

I I . NOTES ON THE HELEN.

Z) . 5 , in connexion wi th 8,mus t suggest prima fa cie tha t

‘ thishouse,

’ the house of the drama , i s in Pharos. For a precise

para l lel see Androma c/ze 2 1,25 . Ta ken by itself, 5 would merely

imp ly that Proteus lzad l ived in Pharos, though Theoclymenusl ives on the ma inland ; and if such a d istinction between thetwo houses were anywhere indicated, we migh t suppose that theapparen t bearing of 5 on 8 was a n oversigh t . Bu twhen we findtha t

,throughou t bo th pro logue and p lay, the house is a lways that of

Pro teus, and tha t no separa te house of Theoclymenus is anywheremen t ioned or suggested, we

may b e sure there is no oversight, andtha t the audience are rea l ly meant to suppose, in some sense and

for some purposes , tha t the drama t ic house is on the island. Theking of Egyp t, who rece ived there Paris and Helen, was a lso namedin legend Pro teus (H erodo tus 2 . 1 1 2 bu t

,wi th this con cep t ion

o f the person age, there is no p lace in the s tory for the islandof Pharos. The incongru ous and unna tura l sugges t ion , tha t tlzisPro teu s

,t/ze king , l ived, l ike the sea -w iz ard of the Ody ssey ,

Pharos,was

,I be l ieve

,invented by Eu rip ides simp ly to make a

sort of basis for his domes t ic a l lusions.

o . 9 . Wi th the rough metre of this verse compare tha t of

29 1 is fi pflok’

ékddvres (pa vepd pto'

vo c9 div 17V, and of 700

Meve’

Aa e,Ko

tnoi 1rp608o-re

n 7 739 17801479 . The Sim i lari ty ind ica testha t all three are genuine, n ot corrup t . S ee a lso 86 dmi p cf

7r6t9ev ; n’

vo ; éfa vSEiv (re xpn'

,wh ich is in the me tre of comedy, and

88 Telta p uiv, Ea txalt is 8Ewa r-

7029 9p€¢a o d 71 6, wh ich goes beyondt he ordinary l icense of tragedy. In such a work as this, we may

wel l suppose e i ther a certa in negl igence, or the del ibera te and

cri t ica l im ita t ion of faul ts. This should be considered throughoutin dea l ing w i th the text .

1 8—2

276 HELEN

2 1 . Note tha t the empha t ic suggest ion of a doubt abo u tthe legend of Leda is, for this p lay, irrelevan t and absurd.

p lay assumes the tru th of i t (no . 2 1 4, 2 57 , 6 1 6—6 1 9 , 1 1 44

— 1 1 50,

especia l ly the last verse). This s trengthens somewha t the suppositiou

,tha t the c f G a <j>i19 057 09 A67 0; is to be taken as app lying,

part ly at lea s t,to the word 8t

wyp. a, the metrica l stress on which , to

a native ear,would

,I t h ink , be obvious and sign ifican t .

1 79 . The epi the t xva vo a Be’

s, referring to the dark sed imen tcarried and deposi ted by the Ni le, is the nearest approach I c an

find in the play to a men t ion of the subjec t which Aris tophanes

(T/zesm. 8 56—857) nevertheless selec ts for his leading po int of

attack . Manifes t ly i t affords n o exp lana t ion wha tever of his gibe,even if readers of fi e/en happened to remember the ep i thet.

23 7—243 . Here as elsewhere (p . 1 1 4) we should rememberthat the opposed goddesses, Aphrodi te and H era ,

a re apparen t lyrepresented by images on the scene.

437 . The old Portress,a purely com ic figure, and u tterly

inappropriate to her supposed si tua t ion in the pa lace of the k ing o f

Egyp t , may fa irly b e supposed to be long to the ac tua l househo ld of

Eido . Probably the rea l slave p layed the part. Any one cou ld

p lay i t ; and the worse it were done, the bet ter for the effect.

5 1 3 The quo ta t ion of the 27mg is a compl imen t tosome poe t , l ike Shakespeare

s quo ta tion of Marlowe (As You Like

I t, 1 1 1 . 5. perhaps to Aga thon.

or) . 61 6 fo l l. Leda ’s ch icken, he thinks, has suddenly fo u nd her

w ings.

o . 756. This sen t imen t has n o relevance to the dramaticsi tua t ion

,but is very pert inen t to

‘ Theonoe ,’ the in tel l igen t and

enl igh tened heiress of wea l th acquired by trade .

77 1 . No te the amusing ambigui ty of 829 Avwnfief‘

nev dy . To

Menelaus, having before him t he very same woman (to all

appeara n ce ) who was a c tua l lywi th him in his voyages, the repe t i t ion

must seem singu larly awkward. H e len sees the inn u endo and

retrac ts her quest ion .

or) . 9 1 9—923 . No te tha t this ‘ man t ic ’ passage po in ts n o t onlyto the signi ficance of the pseudonym T/zeonoe, b u t more direc t ly to

278 HELEN

or) . 1 348 fo l l . The attemp ts to show tha t Eurip ides professes toconnect the subjec t o f this ode wi th that of the p lay, depend on thesupposi t ion tha t of) v w? 1 3 56) is addressed to H elen . Th is seems

on the face of it improbable. A return to the theme of the p laywould surely be marked by some expression n ot l iab le to bem isappl ied. For reasons exp la ined in the essay, we should no t

seek any in terna l pretext for the ode , though, if on e could be found ,it would make n o difference to the genera l effect of i t as an

arbitrary digression.

In the uncerta in ty of the text,the po in t of m) . 1 3 53

— 1 3 57 mustrema in doub tful . B u t I think it a lmost certa in ( 1 ) tha t e

iipwo a s

should be reta ined, (2) tha t a va a eBt

Covo-a (Seidler for of) o efi’ié

ovo a ) i srigh t , (3 ) that (3 v m? i s addressed, w i th p layfu l fam i l iari ty, to Aphrodite. The genera l sen se, as many have supposed, is tha t Aphrodi te,though she had comm i t ted a grave offence in prac t ising uponPlu to (5p ), nevertheless

‘ s tayed the wra th ’

of the in jured Mo ther bythe prominen t part which she took in the powerful prop i t ia t ion

1 3 58) of the ri tes.As I have sa id in the Essay, I do not find in Eurip ides a ny true

para l le l to this ode , in i ts rela t ion to the p lay. I n considering thisques t ion, we mus t d is t inguish , as n o t para l le l, such examp les as themedi tation on children in the M edea ( 1 08 1 or t he Pythian odein the [p/zzgen ia in Ta u rica ( 1 2 3 4 In these

,though the

interlu des are no part o f the drama t ic story, the themes are sugges tedby the p lay, and harmoniz e w i th it. No one could feel it to besu rprising, tha t the top ic o f children should be though t of in c on

nexion wi th the s tory of Medea , or the top ic of De lphi in connexionwi th tha t of Iphigen ia and Orestes . The l ink of tho ugh t is visib leand obvious . And genera l ly in Eurip ides, the freedom of t he in ter

lude seems to be l im i ted by this na tura l and reasonable cond i t ion .

Bu t in the Helen , as it seems to me and to o thers,there is not

the least reason why the legend ofDemeter and Kore’

should occur to

the m ind at all. The top ic is to ta l ly foreign . The narra t ive form

a lso , and the con trast be tween this and the preceding odes, increasethe abrup tness of the effect. I t must therefore ( I think) surprise

a nd perp lex the audience, un less they had an extraneou s cue .

or) . 1 3 66—1 368 .

6 13 86'

vw dp a crw

pBalte (reta il/a

pdvov mixers.

Here éwépBaAe seems wrong (see but probably gives the

HELEN 279

sense, é’

Ba XAe or something Sim i lar.

‘ The moon shed upon themfa ir day l igh t ,

’ tha t is,upon the gods, the performers of the ri tes

(o . the passage on the efficacy of the ri tes 1 3 58— 1 3 65)

being paren the t ic. The fina l verse is w i th reason regarded as

gibberish . Even if the clause had sense in the context,i t could

n o t be appended thus abrup t ly. Wha t we want is apparently a

descrip t ion of the moon ; perhaps p opcfia novel/77x69 ,‘ floa t ing

‘ swimm ing in lonely beau ty,’ l ike a swan, the s tars being ext inguished

by her bri l l iance. For the form see du n/777079 .

1 3 74. Read perhaps

Kaittltwra 861"

tmjp ‘

v 7 6x77milk/Mo ra 8

11 67 89 rjp'

a o ev n ixy 71150 19,

or some thing l ike th is . For the bearing o f the first l ine, she

(Theonoe) was indeed very happy in ca tching u p the po in t of n éo-ts,’

se e p . 1 1 7 . The punning t u rn of the transi t ion would fit the genera lco lour. Bu t Dindorf

’s sugges t ion—

‘ versus ab interpo la tore fic tu s

lacu nae explenda e causa’— is very probab le.

1 627 . May no t the speaker (a man, see p . 54) be the sa i lor

h imself? Tha t lie should in terfere in the circums tances would bethe most effect ive of pro tests . The Chorus being, I think , exc luded,there is no on e else, unless we suppose a fou rth ac tor, since one is

required for the ep i logue

I I I . NOTES ON THE HERACLES .

4. The references,here and w . 2 5 2 , 794, to the m iracu lo u s

Theban legend of the armed men who sprang from the dragon’s

teeth,tho ugh n o t connected w i th H eracles, are very much to the

purpose of the p lay. S u ch tradi t ions are a na tura l preceden t forfresh inven tions in the same s tyle. So a lso the ‘

o ffspring of Zeus ’

in o . 3 0. In 1 64 a rank of hop l i tes is described by the abrupt

and obsc‘ure me taphor 8op69 f axeta v dkoxa , comparing the sudden rise

of the spears to t he growth of b lades from a furrow. I suspect tha ti t a l ludes to a ra t iona l is t ic in terpreta t ion of the m en/979 GwapTGV

roixvs where note the last word .

on . 240. apparen t ly meant for bombas t .Parnassus is more than 30 m i les away ; and nei therh i l l c an have beensupposed by Eurip ides to be as near Thebes as is here imp l ied.

257 . Take Kcixt0'

09 7 63V ve'

wv together‘ Worst of the n ew

genera t ion , because a foreigner.

’o i ve

or are the fac t ion n ow tri

umphan t, those who have brough t in Lycus (o . 3 7 Theexpression is charac teristic of the aged speakers, and should no t hechanged . The object o f dpxet, so far as i t has any, i s 7 631) Ka 8y et

452 may perhaps be reta ined.

‘Where is he t ha t sha l lslaughter these poor things, murdering, a las

,the very l ife of me ?

L i tera lly‘ the slaugh terer o f them

,or in ot/zer words slayer of me.

S ee a sim i lar expression in 53 7 201/no n e re’

k y’

re d/ a 8’

67 05,‘when my children were to die , i t was I that was to perish .

Bo t h mark the specia l rela t ion of the mo ther.

47 1 . 8a t80'

.l\ov (i.e. Aa t8ciltov) tj/ ev81'

i 860 11, (MSS.) is probablyright. The mace

,we are to understand, was sa id to be a miraculous

282 HERA CLES

845 . Read perhaps 7 89 for and otkots forqSL’

Aow, thus

f inds 1" w,

O‘dK dya c drjva t

‘ And my o ffice is such as one would n ot be apt to adm ire. ’ Thearcha isms for ad ore for (ta ming, and op tat ive wi thout dv, allcharac teri z e the expression as a fixed locu t ion or proverb . For theop ta t ive see on Androma c/ze 929 . The who le phrase perhaps comesb odi ly from some old author.

1 1 70 (and 1 41 5) ve’

pbev. As these ambigui t ies are of cardina limportance, I wi l l repea t here the substance of wha t is sa id aboutthem in the text . The expression ve

pbev (oryfis ve’

pdev) regularlymeanst/ze u nderworld

,Hades

,a nd in tragedy

almost a lways does . I t is soused, wi th in ten t ion of course, in this very p lay (or) . 497 , Thecon text in these ca ses happens to show the mea n ing ; but evenwi thou t any specia l ind ica t ion, a reference to H ades would be

presumed, unless exclu ded. And i t is in tended by the drama t ist,

tha t a referen c e to H ades sha l l be presumed (by the uninstructed and

unwary) in the a l lusions of Theseus and Heracles to t he rescu e .

B u t the term ve’

pbev is nevertheless ambiguous . The word in i tselfmeans on ly below or from below. And the fact

,tha t the four

a l l u sions are all ambiguous, is sufficien t , when we contras t thelanguage of the p lay elsewhere, to prove tha t the ambiguity isin ten t iona l .These passages therefore, so far from impugning those c on

clu sions, as to the purpose of the p oe t, which are requ ired by thewho le p lay, are n o t only consis tent wi th them,

b u t posi t ively support

them .

1 386. Cerberu s. I have p urpose ly absta ined from discussingin deta i l

,wha t may have been the ra t iona l is t ic version of this legend,

to which Eu rip ides here a l lu des ; partly because, so far as I'

candiscover, we have not ma teria ls to de term ine i t , b u t ch iefly becausethe deta i ls are for Eurip ides irrelevan t and imma terial, as he shows

by no t giving any. The various forms o f the legend, in theirinconsis tency and extravagance, in vi ted the ra t iona l ists, and wehave evidence that it engaged them early. Pausanias, who himself

mentions as many as fo u r places wh ich cla imed the honour (Troe z en

2 . 3 1 . 2,Herm ione 2 . 3 5. 7 , Ta enarum 3 . 2 5. 5, a nd the sanc tuary of

Zeus Laphystiu s in Boeo t ia 9 . 34. frank ly abandons the mons ter,a nd favours the version of Heca taeu s. According to this, ‘ the

HERA CLES 283

H ound of Hades ’ was n o t a dog at all;‘ hound ’

was mere lypoe t ica l and signified

‘a t tendan t ,

as when the Hydra is ca l led ia 5m

A e’

pva s by Eu rip ides h imself (H era cles 420 and the crea turewas rea l ly a deadly snake, which inhabi ted the cave of Taenarum

and was brough t to Euryst heus by H eracles. This early a t temp t,however

,canno t be mu ch commended, if only because i t takes

n o a ccoun t of the varia t ions in p lace ; we c an hardly suppose thatthe k ing of Argos co l lec ted remarkable rep t i les. We may fa irlyassume , a nd Euripides indica tes, tha t be tween He c a tae u s and theda te of his p lay there had been improvemen ts, part icu larly by

Herodo tus, who trea ted the legend of Heracles. For on e th ing, the

ra t ion a l ists had fa irly faced t he ‘ dog’

; in the Ta enarian case,Eurip ides p la inly supposes a dog, properly so ca l led. A lso , we may

a ssume, they had perceived the advan tage thu s obta ined in embracingriva l loca l i t ies ; if Eurys theus commanded the services of a grea thun ter, no thing could be more reasonab le than tha t he sho u ld co l lecta pack . More dimly a nd uncerta inly we may perhaps d ivine howt hey dea l t w i th the

‘ three heads. ’ Three p laces in tlze P eloponnese

seem to have con tended for the anima l,Taenarum ,

Herm ione, andTroe z en . Two a re upon

‘ headlands ’and the third near to a head

land . Wha t more ea sy , i t m ight be sa id, than a confusion be tweenrp u c a

pa vo c. mil/ 69 and Tptxdpa vo9 Kuwv ? A sim i lar twis t,mu ta tis

mu ta ndis, is indica ted (H era cles 4 1 9) for the legend of the Hydra , the‘ heads ’

of which do u b t less be longed to d ifferen t snakes. Whe t h eri t was supposed tha t the various dogs l ived in , or were connectedw i th

,caves, on e ca nno t say ; bu t tha t would no t be necessary. If

Heracles brought back a dog from an expedi t ion to Taenarum ,

somebody, Herodoru s would say, was su re to p ick u p the no t iontha t i t was ‘ the dog of Hades

’and was go t from the lowerworld.

In rea l i ty, i t was just a hound‘of the Spartan k ind

’desired by

Eurys theus as a breeder.

Bu t i t is need less and u se less to pursue w ith guesses Specu la t ionswhich, as Eurip ides saw

,had a fundamen ta l vice . Wha tever the

fac ts supposed, they would n o t fa irly account for the rise of a legend

witliou t t/ze exerc ise of imagina tion ; and to make the pro cess rea l ly

probab le, the imagina t ion , through which the fac ts were passed,should be a w i ld ,

confused, and in short a n insa ne imagin a tion .

G iven th is,t he transforma t ion is possib le and psycho logica l ly

in terest ing. Also ,which is the ma in po int, i t b ecomes a possib le

founda t ion for tragedy. Andon the o therhand, given this, to fix the

284 HERA CLES

fac ts in deta i l is superflu ous. When we have been to ld tha t thej ourney of Hera c les to Taen arum had some connexion w i th thebringing o f a dog to Argos, and tha t the dog was left for a t ime a tHermione , we have , w i t h an insan e Heracles, allt ha t we wan t . Wehave a sufficien t origin for the m iracu lou s a ccoun t the developmentwe may suppose as we p lease.

286 ORE STE S

v. 658 . This reference to the sa cri fice of Iphigenia is , so far asI have no t iced, the only anachronism in the p lay, the only inciden tof the s tory which could n o t (on e would say) be supposed in thesocie ty described. Negl igence on such a po in t is so unl ikeEurip ides , that we shou ld suspect some exp lana t ion , probablyn ot n ow a scerta inab le. The legend of Au lis had received vario u sfan tast ic developments (such as the m iraculous transforma t ion or

transla t ion of Iphigenia ), which had n o doub t produ ced in their turnthe usua l crop of ra t iona l is t ic equiva len ts. Wha t Eurip ides hereassumes

,I cannot say b u t he does n ot mean , in allprobabi l i ty, that

the niece o f his Men elaus was actua l ly and del iberately k i l led a s a

v ict im .

v. 694. P u nctua te thu 5 °

U p txpo'

icrt ydp rd y eydlta 7rt39 t o c div ;

mil/mo w ; 671 0629 Ka i 7 0floriltecrda t roi8e.

H ow c an grea t (objects) be a tta ined w i th sma l l (means) ? By efi'

A foo l ish hope !’ When the power is inadequa te , i t is useless to

struggle you must use cu n n ing and watch your opportunity . See the

who le con text . If 1TO’

VO tO'

LV IS jomed to t he previous sen tence, theword is superfluous, an d the me trica l emphasis upon i t not just ifi able .

v. 950. S ome of these ‘ friends ’ probably appear w i th Orestes

(o therw ise they would hard ly be men t ioned) and silen t ly taketheir leave

,wi th embraces a nd the l ike, upon the stage. Hence

the fact,apparen t in the text , tha t un t i l v. 1 020 he does n ot face

Elec tra . There he tu rns to lier, and the despa ir in [us ey es’ evokes

her ‘second ’

c ry (oi ju dk’

A guard or guards also

probab ly appear, and then re t ire. In the preceding scene, just

before the tria l,it is for the first t ime indica ted (v. 760) t ha t the

wa tchers o f the house are visible. The dispositions proper to such

an o ccasion were of course fam i l iar to the audience, and would berepre sen ted as far as the condit ions a l lowed.

v. 1 1 82 . Read perhaps n’

n o t rw’

1j8owjv To defer

( tell ing) good news is n o p lea sure,’a formula of impa t ience. The

o ther reading is in terpre ted thus :‘ Speak , since the fac t tha t thou

art ab ou t to speak conso l ing words has in itself a sort of p leasure.’

This seems ra ther odd and obscure.

v. 1 236. Read perhaps

éyu’

; En d Kdn élkva’

6Kvov.

ORESTES 287

‘ And I to o (set hand to the sword), inasmuch a s I coun sel led

and inci ted.

’—6yu) 8,

7r67806lt6v0 a MSS .

v. 1 267 . A curious question , bu t of n o grea t importance,arises here. d a s 8ta i. Boo

rpiixwv miv'

ry (d a to t 85807 6 MSS . )is supposed to mean tha t the Chorus are to look ‘ throu gh theirha ir’

or‘ their eye lashe s .

’ MrWedd (ad loc .) is eviden t ly dissa t isfiedw ith th is

,and it seems absurd. Why should the ha ir of the women

be over their eyes ? Or how shou ld Béo rpvxm mean ‘ eyelashes’

If Bo’

a rpvxm is the right word, we should suppose some secondarysense. Possib ly iron ~work , crown ing a wa l l , decora t ive sp ikes or

a grille, m ay have b een so ca l led and the forecourts of grea t housesmay have been part ly enclosed in t h is way. N o thing of the k indneed, or should

,have been ac tua l ly exhibi ted , the boundaries of the

a nti being su pposed ou tside the scene. The Chorus a t this po in t goto t he p a rodoi, and some of them probab ly are at times heard only ,and no t visib le.

v. 1 554. Aristo t le (P oetics 2 5. 1 9) ci tes the charac ter of

Menelaus in this p lay as an in stance of wha t he ca l ls ‘ depravi ty of

charac ter w i thou t (inner) necessi ty,’ tha t is

,a degree of w ickedness

not required for the work ing ou t of the p lo t . H e classes this faultw i th ‘ irra tion a l i ty

by which is here meant the assump t ion

of an u nl ikely behaviour, where the prac t ica l resu l t m igh t have beenreached in a probable way and natura l ly accoun ted for.

As to‘ irra t iona l ity,

’ i t is a b lem ish,and should be avo ided ;

though in tru th few stories, an d hardly any stories sui tab le fordramatic trea tmen t

,are who l ly free from i t and an art ist who was very

punc t i l ious on this score wou ld a ssuredly n o t earn , and possiblyn o t deserve, the grati tude of his audience. On many ma t ters

would far sooner accep t an unl ikel ihood than be troub led wi th an

explan a t ion . In the very case ci ted by Aris to t le, the‘Aegeus in

Eurip ides’

(meaning probab ly the Aegeus of the M edea,whose

odd proceedings a t Corin th are singularly opportu n e) we may doub t

whe ther on e spec ta tor in a thousand would care to be prepared forthe inciden t ; we have o ther things to think of. The prin cip lehowever is undoub ted ly sound ; in ciden ts should be accoun ted for,so far as they convenien t ly may.

Bu t as to the ‘unnecessary depravi ty,’ even the princip le is dubiou s .

As Professor Bu tcher observes (Aristotle’s Tlzeory of P oetry and Fin e

Art p . 2 24, and e lsewhere), the rules abou t character la id down in

2 88 ORE STES

the P oetics are‘too rigorous on their ethica l side,

’and canno t be

accep ted w i thou t qua l ifica t ions, which Aristo t le himself does no t

sufficien t ly indica te. I t c an by no means be adm i t ted,tha t vice in

character should be lim i ted to wh a t is necessary for the mechanismo f the p lo t ; such a canon would condemn some o f the best s toriesin the world

,the best in every possible sense.

This being so , we have the less in terest in considering, whe therthe princip le, if conceded , would b e app l ica b le to the case ci ted , theMenelaus of ou r p lay ; nor is i t easy to do so

,wi thou t a more

ful l exp lana t ion from the cri t ic. The bad ac ts of Menelaus are

necessary to the p lo t ; so far we may go w i th Aristotle . Before thetria l

,he leaves Ores tes a lone, and thus w i thou t an adviser ; a fter the

tria l , he does no t reconduc t him to the house ; he keeps, for a t ime,o u t of the way. Bo th ac t ions are necessary to the p lo t . The firstleaves an opening for the counse l of Pylades, the second for the

atroci t ies of Pylades and Elec tra . Further,though the first ac t ion is,

in the Circumstances and the hurry o f the momen t , excusable , thesecond is inexcusable, grossly indelica te and u nk ind . And as a fac t

both ac t ions proceed from the same vice of charac ter. Mene la u swould n ot have done ei ther if he had n o t been extremely defec t ivein sen t imen t , ca l lous in feel ing, a low,

vulgar, prac t ica l’man .

There Eurip ides leaves the ma tter. H e does n ot provide any

reason , excep t the character of Mene laus and his actua l rela t ionswi th the p u b l ic of Argos, why Menelaus did n o t wa lk through the

stree ts, from the assemb ly to the house, by his nephew’

s side. Thecri t icism of Aris totle should mean ( 1 ) that a be t ter Menelaus m ight

(for some reason) have been kep t away , and therefore (bu t this isquestionab le) a be tter Menelaus would have b een more proper

to art ; and (2 ) tha t , at alleven ts, his go ing away and his s tayingaway should have been o therwise accoun ted for than they are .

To consider this view,we . sho u ld l i ke to hear from Aristotle,

wha t o ther way precisely he would have preferred . Pending thisexplana t ion , it i s no t

,I hope, impert inent to express a doub t

whe ther on e co u ld improve upon Eurip ides.I t is of course true tha t , in some species ofd rama

,there would

n ot be room for such a charac ter a s o u r Menelaus,n or for any o f

the charac ters in the p lay, nor for the fac ts and the story genera l ly .

And the principles of the P oetics, if taken rigorously , may po in t tothe conclu sion tha t the species of drama

,wh ich does adm i t such

charac ters, fac ts, and story, is inferior, if no t i l legi t ima te. We wi l ln ot pursue fu rther the various possible inferences.

Orestes (con t .)1 058 , 244 ; 1 075 62, 245 ; 1077 , 246 ;1 078 , 258 ; 1 085

—9 7 , 207 ;

1 1 03 f. , 263 ; 1 106, 245 ; 1 1 07 , 245 ;1 1 3 1 , 245 ; r1 3 1 ff.

, 245 ; 1 1 49 f. ,25 1 ; 1 1 50 , 25 3 ; 1 1 53 , 66 ; 1 1 58 ,207 ; 1 1 8 2 , 286 ; 1 1 68 , 201 ; 1 1 9 1 ,

245 ; 1 204, 245 ; 1 207 ,258 ; 1 2 1 1 - 1 5 , 221 ; 1 2 3 1 fl .

, 247 ;

1 236, 286 ; 1 239 , 247 ; 1 246- 1 553 ,21 6 ; 1 248 , 249 ; 1 267 , 21 6, 287 ;1 3 23 , 21 2 ; 1 3 23,

—45. 248 ; 1 340.

21 2 ; 1 345 , 21 2 ; 1 365 , 248 ; 1 366- 8 ,

248 ; 1 369, 21 5 ; 1 369 ff. ,1 502 , 250; 1 3 7 1 , 21 5 ; 1 3 85 f. , 251 ;1 39 1 ff , 250; 1 43 1 , 21 2

1 445 ff ,251 ; 1 45 1 , 250; 1 47o ff.

25 1 ; 1 474 if ,251 ; 1 475 , 25 1 ,

1 490 ff. , 251 ; 1 495 ff , 254 ; 1 496,254 ; 1 503

—36, 252 ; 1 506, 250 ;

1 5 1 7 , 253 ; 1 52 1 , 25 3 ; 1 52 2 , 253 ;

1 523 , 253 ; 1 5 2 7—36 , 253 ; 1 53 3

36,254 ; 1 537

—44. 253 ; 1 539 f 25 3 ;

1 54 1 f. , 25 3 ; 1 55 1 , 25 3 ; 1 558 , 253 ;

1 5 59, 254 ; 1 567 , 222 ; 1 567-

7425 5 ; 1 567

—1 624 , 255 ; 1 570, 21 5,

1 576-

96, 255 ; 1 580, 254 ; 1 586,

245 ; 1 6 1 8—20, 255 ; 1 62 2 , 257 ;

1 624, 263 ; 1 625 , 255 ; 1 625-

256 ; 1 629 ff .

,254 ; 1 650

—53 , 260;

1 664 f. , 258 ; 1 67 1 f. , 257

Plzoen issa e

54 , 1 3 1

Rhesu s, bypot/z . 23

Troades

995 , 268

H ERODOTU S2 . 1 1 2 if , 275

H ES IODT/zeog . 1002 , 84

HOM ERll. 3 . 445 , 69

0d . 4 . 354, 75 ; 4 . 366 , 80H ORACEOdes 1 . 30. 8 , 92

PAU SAN IAS1 . 1 , 69 ; 2 . 3 1 . 2

,282 ; 2 . 35 . 7 ,

1 94 , 282 ; 3 . 2 5 . 5 , 282 ; 9. 34. 4 ,282

PLATOP /za edr. p . 2 29, 1 38PLUTARCHCon ing . Praec .

, P rooem . 92

SOPHOCLESAjax 1—1 3 3 , 1 68A n t. 8 23 , 1 23

El. 1 32 2 , 100

O. T. 1 30,95 ; 1 007, 55 ; 1 1 49 , 55

P /z il. 1 465 , 1 1 2

Tra ck . prol. , 1 34 ; 1 , 95 ; 1 0,

5 23 , 1 50; 555 , 1 34

TH UCYD IDES1 . 1 26—2 7 , 32

V I RG I LA en . 3 . 3 20 ff. , 268

CAMB RIDGE : PR I NTED BY JOH N CLAY , M .A . AT THE UN IVERS ITY PRESS .

essays on our plays of euripide andromache helen · pdf filevi p refa ce agreement with the...

Documents

euripide - index ouvroir hermetique · 2016. 3. 7. ·...

phaedra phaedra sarah bernardt. fonti e modelli e...

future of education and skills 2030: curriculum analysis ·...

individual diﬀerences in executive functioning and theory...

through suffering, despair? euripides’ trojan women 2...

fenicienele - euripide

through suffering, despair? euripides’ trojan women 1...

di luigi lo cascio - cssudine.it · la caccia di luigi lo...

signore sean n 200708 ma - university of georgia ·...

translinguality transmodality & differenc -...

la figure mÉlancolique dans une tragÉdie du xvii...

the universits musical...

making sense of corporate social responsibility: a study...

andromache’s recitativo, aria and subtext for quarter-tone...

reading/language arts (cont'd) sem 1 sem2...

croyance et incertitude ou le nouvel euripide

the trojan war - ron...

euripides: electra. orestes. iphigeneia in taurica....

amelia tong and ela klecun towards accommodating gender...

alcestitranslate this page · euripide alcesti personaggi...