104 BICS 24 (1977)

[ EURIPIDES] , ELECTRA 5 18-44

by David Bain

It would be surprising, I think, if anyone did not find that the dispute hetween Electra and the old retainer in Euripides’ Elecrru was remarkable or in need of c0mment.l Electra’s behaviour throughout is, to say the least, curious. When the old man adduces signs which suggest that Orestes has returned to Argos, Electra employs a plethora of sophistic arguments to discredit them. It would be pointless, she asserts, to compare with her own hair the lock of hair the old man saw on Agamemnon’s tomb: men and women have different ways of looking after their hair and in any case one lock of hair looks much like another. (Here the description of a woman’s hair as Kreuiupoi? BfXw in 1.529 is wildly inappropriate in Electra’s mouth. Her short, unwashed hair has already been mentioned several times (ll. 108,184,241, 335) and if Electra was costumed at alJ realistically, as perhaps we would expect in a Euripidean play, the audience would have a visual reminder of the ineptness of her argument.)2

The second sign, supposed footprints at the tomb, would also be of no help in effecting a recognition. On stony ground there would be no footprints and, even if there were footprints, comparison with her own would be pointless since a man’s footprint would certainly be larger than a woman’s. Nor would any help be gained from a garment that the young Electra might have woven and which the baby Orestes might have had with him when he was rescued from his mother and taken abroad: at the time in question Electra was too young to have been doing any weaving and, even if she had, Orestes is by now a young man and the garment would have to have expanded considerably for him still to be wearing it.

AU this is extremely puzzling and, at any rate at first glance, hard to accommodate to the dramatic context. What provokes Electra’s sudden argumentativeness and her wilful misunderstanding of what the old man is trying to say? Why are the second and third tokens introduced in such a vague and hypothetical manner?

Almost everyone would agree that the obscurities of the scene are at least partly explicable if one looks for an external reference.3 Euripides, through his character Electra, is making a point about the corres- ponding scene of recognition in Aeschylus’ Choephome where Electra comes to realise that Orestes has returned after she has seen these same three tokens, lock, footprints, and garment.

Until recently two sorts of reaction were evinced towards Euripides’ procedure here, both based to a large extent on the feeling that as a criticism of Aeschylus the scene was grossly unfair as well as on the belief that Greek tragedians did not (or should not) criticise each other so. Euripides was either con- demned both morally and aesthetically for a pedantic, illusion-breaking attack on a great predecessor - a view which found its most trenchant expression in A.W. von Schlegel’s famous discussion of the scene and in Wilamowitz’s equally famous description of Euripides behaving in exactly the same manner as the Aristophanic caricature of him that was later to appear on stage in R o s 4 - or else attempts were made to vindicate his good name by deleting the portions of the scene which offended. Wholesale deletion, taking out 11.518-44, was frst suggested by Mau in 1877. Others since then varied in the number of lines they removed, Mau’s deletion being largely ignored until it was enthusiastically restated by Fraenkel in an appendix to his Agamemnon-commentary in which he sought to discredit the mention of the foot- prints in the recognition scene of Aeschylus’ Choeph~roe.~ (This last question will not be discussed here: obviously if the mention of the footprints in Aeschylus’ play is interpolated, it becomes very hard to defend their presence in Euripides’ play.)

BICS 24 (1977) 105

Of late, however, the lines have been regarded in a somewhat different light and with a much greater degree of tolerance. It has been argued that Euripides was perfectly capable of ridiculing Aeschylus, that in any case to speak of ‘criticism of Aeschylus’ here is to oversimplify, that the scene is well integrated into its dramatic context, that we learn much about Electra’s character from it, and so on. Studies of the motifs and structure of recognition scenes in Euripides’ later plays have made it possible to regard the scene as characteristic in form and content. Also the realisation that there is at times a humorous sophistication in Euripidean tragedy which had for the most part eluded nineteenth-century critics has added weight to the arguments in favour of authenticity6

It might appear somewhat reactionary, then, once more to argue for deletion and since some of the arguments that have been adduced in favour of deletion have never seemed to me very impressive I must admit to finding much to agree with in the articles answering Fraenkel by Lloyd-Jones and Bond. Never- theless, it seems to me that good grounds do exist for entertaining serious doubts about the authenticity of Eur. EZ. 518-44. These are based in part on the general improbability of Euripides having composed such a scene and in part upon the textual difficulties which arise when one tries to accommodate the lines to their surroundings. This latter topic I shall examine first. I am painfully aware throughout that much of what I shall say is of a highly speculative nature and that both in my arguments concerning the state of the text and in the ones with regard to more general issues decisive proof is lacking. All I ask is that the debate on the lines will not be regarded as closed which I have the impression is the state of affairs obtain- ing at present.

I

Before adducing arguments which seek to show that ll. 518-44 do not cohere with what precedes and follows, it is necessary to counter the assertion that if we take out the lines we leave several loose ends.

It has been argued that later in the play we have a couple of references back to the passage. When the old man sees Orestes, he tells Electra to look at him:

pXiJlov vw kr r&S’, LJ T ~ K V O V , rib qxharov. 567

In the following line he obtains the reply:

nciXai GPSoprt~ , p+ ai, y’ O Q K ~ T ‘ €6 cppoviiic. 568

Electra’s nhAa here has been taken to refer back beyond 11.553 ff. to line 524 O ~ K 3 1 ’ hvbpck, LI yipou, oolpoij A&yeiq. This I suppose is possible if one follows Denniston ad bc. : ‘Electra means the Old Man to take SiSoprta in the physical sense at first, answering his flACJlou, until she rounds on him with p~ & y’ 0 6 ~ 6 ~ ’ d cppofii~’. Diggle, however, has demonstrated that L originally read cppovek and he is obviously right to put a high point after SiGoprta and treat what follows as a question ‘I have been looking for a long tine: have you gone mad?’.7 ly, but Electra is indulging in sarcasm and the exaggerated use of naXui is not uncommon (see Bruhn’s Anhng 5 247.22 where he gives as a Euripidean example Eur. Bucch. 824).

&ai is an exaggeration since Orestes only appeared fourteen lines previous-

A few lines later, Electra changes her mind and is at last convinced that it is her brother that stands before her:

hXA‘ O ~ K ~ T ’ L, yepad. uvpfl6Xciui rap rok 005 ninelupac evpou . . .

577

Here ou&5Xoroi TOE uok has been taken to refer to all four tokens of recognition mentioned since 1. 5 13, lock, footprints and garment as well as the scar (1. 573), the sign which eventually wins over Electra.’ The lock has been mentioned before the passage which is here under attack, but it only comes into prominence as a token in 1. 520. The footprint and the garment belong exclusively to the disputed section. I t is necessary therefore for anyone wishing to support Mau’s deletion to show that aupfloAoiac can refer solely

106 BICS 24 (1977)

to the scar mentioned in 1. 573. This seems perfectly possible. While there are occasions when &p@ha or T E K ~ ~ P L ~ indicate a genuine plurality of objects, there is one clear instance in Euripides where T E K ~ ~ W is used of a single item. This is at Eur. I.T. 822 where it is used of a hbyx~.’ There is no reason to doubt that dp@ha could likewise be used of a single object. Also, if 1. 577 is given a wider reference, this is to ignore the close verbal resemblance between the h e and the line which immediately precedes the reference to the scar (1. 572): noiov XapaKrijpa . . . hi neioopur -. aup@hoioi . . . n4neiupcu (a point stressed by Fraenkel, p. 822 n. 1 against Wilamowitz).

A further, more general consideration has been raised.” It has been argued that the visit of the old man to Agamemnon’s tomb and his sighting of the lock there are quite without point if they do not lead up to the discussion contained in 11. 51 8 ff. This is at first sight a more impressive objection and is given added weight if one compares other Euripidean recognition scenes and also plotting scenes where the action is held up for false avenues to be explored before the true solution or the operative plan is arrived a t . ] Electra’s perverse behaviour here would produce an analogous delay.

Three points may be made to counter the objection. First, the lock is an important ingredient of the legend ever since Stesichorus’ mention of it (PMG 217) as the token by which Orestes was recognised and i t would not be altogether surprising that Euripides should have felt he ought to make more of it than a mere passing reference in 1.91. Secondly, the old man’s mention of the lock on the tomb reminds the audience that the play is approaching its recognition scene, somethmg which might have been forgotten after his picturesque and half-humorous entrance. Tension is created as the audience awaits Electra’s reaction. Her failure to react might itself be thought a rather striking effect and also a hint to the audience that an allusion has been made to a traditional element of the legend which will have no function in the effecting of the recognition because in this case the dramatist is innovating.’* If these explanations are not accepted, there remains the strong possibility (to my mind the near certainty) that the text is lacunose after 1. 546 (a question discussed below) so that there may well have been some sort of reaction from Electra when she heard about the lock. She may have said for example ‘it must have been the [&oi who so honoured the tomb’ which reminding the old man of the purpose of his visit would lead nicely into d 6P .gvor nod; (1. 547).

Now to the arguments suggesting that 11. 5 18-44 are an intrusion. First we may note how the old man proceeds after he has told Electra that he has seen Agamemnon’s tomb adorned with the remnants of a sacrifice and an offering of a lock of hair:

K ~ & Z ~ C ( ( L O ’ , L nu-, Tic TOT’ avOpGjnwv ?rAq rp& I$* kh8& O ~ J r a p ‘ A p ~ & v 76 T K .

hhh’ 5x8’ iboc AOU odc KaoiyVllT0c Wpcrl, pohcjv 6 * k8dpaa’

516

h w d@v narpdc . Fraenkel (p. 823) found the thought of 1. 519 intolerably flat. He might also have noted that the meaning of the line is not immediately apparent to the listener who hasjust heard 1. 516 K M ~ c ( ( L o ’ . . . Here within the space of four lines we have the same verb used with quite distinct meanings, first k a s amazed’ then ‘did honour to’. On this linguistic phenomenon compare Dwight Bolinger’s comments: ‘The problem is a psychological one. When the reader encounters the same word on one line that he has just met two lines up, he tends to assume that it has the same meaning. The two different uses to which the writer has put it may be perfectly legitimate as far as the normal definitions of the word go, but the result is a kind of pun - not usually funny, just misleading’.14 Bolinger of course is writing about English and it may be countered that ‘insignificant’ or ‘unintentional‘ repetitions are much commoner in Greek poetry than in English prose and that Euripides who is regarded as being especially ‘lax’ in this respect provides several examples of just this type of ‘misleading’ repetition.” Also the repetition here comes from something meant not for the printed page but for delivery in a theatre by an actor. Even so I cannot find a repetition elsewhere in Greek drama which produces quite such an ambiguity as this one. No one would be seriously misled by Eur. EL 45 where aiq&opcu follows $quvw ebNi)i in 44 for, when a male

BICS 24 (1977) 107

speaker says aimduopal on a Greek stage, no one will think that he is saying that he has been seduced. Of the examples of repetitions collected by John Jackson where the second word has a different sense, Soph. Phil. 495 f. might be thought to provide a parallel:

iur~Xhou abrou ~KEUWW nipnou hirci~, abrourohou IripJ/avrci p’ &KU&U~L G ~ I . L O K .

There, however, following abr6oroXou it is not too difficult to accept n&$aura meaning ‘having escorted’ despite the presence of nipnwu ‘sending’ in the previous line. Nor does c(~0lqp1 occurring in successive lines at Soph. Phil. 1300 f. cause any red difficulty of comprehension or necessitate emendation although on its first occurrence it has to mean ‘fire (a bow)’ and on its second ‘let go (a person)’. There is no likelihood of the second word being misunderstood since an audience can see that Neoptolemus has laid hands on Philoctetes and that Philoctetes is struggling to free himself. In the Ekcrra passage, however, there is surely no such possibility of the ambiguity being alleviated by some kind of gesture from the actor. An audience would almost certainly think that ioadpao’ on its second occurrence meant ‘felt surprise at’ as it had done four lines previously and therefore be puzzled when the object was supplied. This is unclear, careless writing on a level with Eur. Med. 1077-8 where K U K ~ is used in consecutive lines in quite distinct meanings (‘troubles’, ‘evil’), only one of many obscurities in a passage which to my mind has rightly been regarded as an interpolation.16 1. 519 has often been emended, perhaps simply out of a mmethes variandi rather than out of the considerations I have been adducing, but Mekler’s tLri‘rov for a B A w indicates that he too was put out by the change of meaning of &O&pau’. F.W. Schmidt deleted the line. Others have changed the verb, trl;ur)a’ Canter, ~ K ~ U ~ V C J ’ Heiland, tnp&$3eua‘ Vitelli (clg. A. Cho. 488). Rather than resort to these expedients, I would draw attention to the fact that with Mau’s deletion the second tOdpao’ goes and point out that it may not be due to a temporary fad on the part of Euripides that 0au&’w occurs in the same specialised sense of ‘honour’ elsewhere in the play (1.84). Mght not an interpolator have borrowed it from there along with the pohdu which occurs in the same speech of Orestes (1.90)?”

Just as there are problems at the beginning of the suspected passage, so there are difficulties at the end. After Electra has rejected the last of the old man’s tokens, speculation about the identity of the person who adorned the tomb is ended thus:

&AX’ ;7 TK &oi, T&W &noucr+ac .$&voc t erteipar’ 3 fiutie artonoi~ ~ d d v xeovht

ah06 in 1. 545 takes up neither of the two most recent singular references udwn (1. 544) and Ex01

(1. 543) but has to be referred back twenty six lines to narpk (1.519). In the meantime, however, the primary topic of conversation has been Orestes, not his father. Also ~ K E ~ ; ~ u T ’ is some distance away from the discussion of the lock which ended sixteen lines earlier. This second consideration is perhaps less troublesome than the first, but it reinforces the impression that ll. 545-6 are out of place following 544. Others have noted the difficulty. Dindorf s deletion of ll. 545-6 implies that he felt they were incom- patible with 518-44. Paley (followed with modifications by Weil) moved 11.545-6 to follow 1.531. F.W. Schmidt after noting the difficulty (p. 155) resorted more sw to violence. Here again I believe that Mau found the anker.

5 45

Warned off perhaps by Fraenkel’s ‘the puzzle of 545 f. cannot be completely solved’ scholars have tended to pass over this section of Mau’s argument.18 Certainly building hypotheses upon passages which contain serious textual corruption is not to be recommended and it must be admitted that 1.546 as well as being incomplete for sense lacks a caesura. Mau’s discussion, however, while not completely solving the textual problems does at least present the best diagnosis that has yet been made19 and for that reason alone would deserve an airing.

Mau states that 11. 545-6 contain an antithesis in which two sorts of person who might have honoured Agamemnon’s tomb are mentioned. Regardless of the corruption in 1. 546, this would seem to be valid (N.B. hhh’ f i ric . . . fi). Hence we have a contrast between some unknown ~Puoc. and - whom? A citizen perhaps? But Mau points out that the old man strongly denied this possibility at 1.51 7 ob -yup

108 BICS 24 (1977)

’Apyeiov 7.4 TK. Here Electra if she is the speaker would be ignoring what the old man said there or contradicting it without argument. This I suppose is possible, but for reasons which we shall see it is very difficult to believe that Electra is the speaker. If, on the other hand, the old man utters the lines, he would then be retracting without explanation the opinion he had expressed in 1.5 17. This unexplained change of mind seems much less possible and we are led to accept Mau’s assertion that the second alternative cannot have been a citizen. If so, then surely the only alternative that remains must be Orestes himself. There are three types of person that may be envisaged in this context, a compassionate stranger, a citizen daring enough to defy Aegisthus’ authority, or someone who was in a sense neither foreigner nor citizen, the exile Orestes. The first two being eliminated we are thus left with Electra’s brother. (One might envisage a fourth type of person, an agent sent by Orestes. Orestes sending the lock is though; of as a possibility by Electra at A. cho. 180. It is hard, however, to get this sense out of 1. 546 [Munay’s attempt will not do, see note 191 and would not such people be included in the category of t k ? )

If Orestes is indeed referred to in 1. 546, then Aapdv makes no sense. Orestes should not be taking with him or accepting uKmoi: he might either send them to make sure the coast was clear and perhaps to adorn the tomb or esle he rmght be eluding ortmoi, UKmoibeing spies or frontier guards. The second possibility is easily restored by emendation, Xddv having been suggested by Victorius (for the corruption cf. Ar. T h e m 1017 and for the phrase, Men. Asp. 41). We would now have the suggestion that Orestes may have returned eluding frontier guards that had been posted by Aegisthus.20 Perhaps these guards have been mentioned earlier in the play: UKO~G in 1.97 might be a genitive plural rather than a participle. The corruption is still not healed. We must assume a lacuna after 1.546 in which Orestes was named and in which there was a second verb, parallel to &Keiwr’ in 1. 545.21 Line 5 4 6 still lacks a caesura.

If Mau’s diagnosis is correct, ll. 545-6 are quite incompatible with ll. 518-44. If Electra is the speaker, she is suddenly contradicting the opinion she expressed so strongly in ll. 525-6 ‘my brave brother would never have come here ~pwrr&r). If the old man is speaking the run of the dialogue in ll. 541 ff. is not exactly convincing: hAA’ 4 T K . . . is no way for him arguments (this holds good even if Mads contention that the second half of the antithesis of ll. 545-6 is Orestes is rejected).

introduce his final acceptance of Electra’s

If one does not accept Mau’s arguments, one is forced to assume that Electra speaks ll. 545-6 and that she suggests alternatives, neither of which is Orestes, e.g. strangers and citizens, strangers and agents of Orestes. This involves considerable rewriting and the arguments adduced earlier regarding the references back in the lines strongly support Mau’s suggestion that they do not suit their context. Once ll. 518-44 are taken out, kKeL;Oar’ can refer to pOurp&youc KeKapp&vovc and &AX’ 4 ric makes excellent sense following d, yup ’AWE& y.4 TK and spoken by the old man:

. . . re xaim BOurp~ow K~KCW&OK. 515 KhBatjpau’, L nai, Tic nor’ &vepdrwv ErAq n p k nj& aeeiv- OWP ‘ ~ p y e i o v TC r K . &AX’ 4 T K aim6 rti4pav howrr;Oac t . 4 ~ ~ iKeL;Oar*, f i orton& ~ a 8 3 v x e d . . .

545

abrw it must be admitted still lacks an adjacent reference (we have to take it as referring to &oi) &IOU

in 1.509 which itself takes up n&repa in 1.507), but Agamemnon and his tomb are prominent in this con- text, much more so than in the passage ending at 1.544.

The difficulty of accommodating ll. 545-6 to their present context and the relative ease with which they can be attached to 1.5 17 suggest that we ought to regard ll. 545-6 and ll. 5 18-44 as alternatives. In that case either ll. 545-6 represent the mangled remains of an abbreviated version of the scene written by someone who wished to dispense with ll. 5 18-44 and we should follow Dindorf in deleting them or else ll. 518-44 have been inserted into the original context with ll. 545-6 being perhaps rewritten or docked to help accommodate the new material2* and we should follow Mau in deleting them. Evidence is

BICS 24 (1977) 109

more plentiful for additions to dramatic texts rather than cutting (I am excepting anthologies of lyric passages or editions of dramatic selection^),^^ but even without it the manifest difficulties that scholars have experienced with 11. 5 18-44 and the general consideration I am about to raise in the following section should expedite decision between these two hypotheses.

General arguments regarding the authenticity of 11. 518-44 tend, as was said at the outset, to involve moral and aesthetic judgements. ‘Are we really to believe Euripides capable of such unfair criticism of Aeschylus?’ ‘Why shouldn’t we? Euripides was capable of almost anything’. - ‘The criticism is not unfair: Aeschylus’ technique was unrealistic’. - ‘Would Euripides have stopped the action at such a point in order to criticise a rival? ‘Yes, because he likes digressions, but 1’11 grant you Aeschylus and Sophocles would never have done such a thing’.

While I believe that no amount of speculation on what Euripides might or might not have been capable of should ever overrule the results of detailed scrutiny of the technique and coherency of a given passage, there is another general line of approach, differing from the ones just outlined in that it does not involve aesthetics or morals which seems to me worth exploring in connection with this particular problem and infinitely more relevant than those which have up to now been brought to bear on it. Suppose one puts it in the form of a question: ‘Would Euripides, whatever his motives, have introduced at a critical point in the action of his play an extended digression referring in detail to a scene from a play last seen forty years previously, a digression that would have been incomprehensible to those members of the audience who did not recall that particular scene?’

To the question as put the answer can only be no, unless we assume a serious miscalculation on the part of the dramatist or have recourse to the dangerous argument that Euripides was interested only in earn- ing the appreciation of a select minority. That way lies Verrallism and its modern offshoot Vellacottism. The question of course is a loaded one and most of the items of its cargo require justification since they are unlikely to meet with immediate general assent.

‘An extended digression’. Contrast Lloyd-Jones (p. 179): ‘but can we really feel quite sure that he [Euripides] was incapable of holding up the action of his play for a few momenrs [my italics] in order t o ridicule the primitive technique of his distinguished predecessor?’ One may allow that 11. 5 18-44 would not take very long to play in a theatre and also that scholars have a habit of lingering over scenes which require comment, forgetting how quickly they would be over for an audience (cf. Bond, p. 6). Even so, twenty six lines are more than one line and the kind of reference to other plays elsewhere in tragedy that has been likened to t h s one tends to be brief and passing (e.g. Eur. Phoen. 75 1, Hel. 1056, Soph. 0.C 11 16).24 One suspects that such references are brief because in each case the writer did not expect that the majority of the audience would pick them up.

‘An extended digression’. Well, are not extended digressions the very stuff of Euripides, the trait for which he was famed in antiquity and an aspect of his technique which still today distinguishes him from his rivals.25 This is a fair question, but one must take into account the k i d of digression. Which brings to another item of the cargo.

‘Incomprehensible to those members of the audience who did not recall. . . ’. In H.F. there is a verbal slanging match between the villainous Lycus and the wretched old Amphitryon. Lycus trying to prove that Amphitryon might as well be dead contends that Hercules is not the great hero he has been made out to be: what does it matter then if his kinfolk are slaughtered? In his reply Amphitryon defends Hercules’ reputation answering at length one point in particular of Lycus’ attack. The bow is a n honourable weapon he says and goes on to produce a collection of arguments in favour of archery. The passage containing these arguments (Eur. HF. 188-203) could be subjected to the same kind of criticism as has been levelled

110 BICS 24 (1977)

against the Electru passage. It is an extended digression.26 It is coldly rhetorical. It arrests the action. What distinguishes it from the Ekctru passage is that it is complete and comprehensible as it stands. The audience need not supply anything from their own experience in order to understand it or to appreciate the cogency of the argument. It is easy to find other such passages in Euripides where rhetoric and delight in argument seem for the moment to take over at the expense of characterisation and action. In none of them is the issue that gives rise to the argument as obscure as it is in El. 518-44.27 Electra is asked to compare her hair with the lock. But where is the lock? Surely it is on Agamemnon’s tomb, yet the old man seems to be speaking as if it was there for Electra to see (as it is in Aeschylus’ play). The other two tokens, footprint and garment have a similarly shadowy existence, being plucked out of the air in a remark- ably hypothetical manner. Attempts to account for the obscurities require little attention. They tend like Radermacher’sZ8 (the extreme case, admittedly) to import meanings into the text that are not there and to expect far too much of an audience that has no time to ponder on what is supposed to lie behind the actors’ words. There is only one explanation of the obscurity which requires more than momentary consideration. The author is allusive and vague because he counts on his reader’s or listener’s acquaintance with the details of the recognition scene of Aeschylus’ Claoephoroe. (It might be argued that the story and its detail were familiar to Athenians through non-dramatic sources through epic or lyric poems which were their school- books. Even so one wonders how many Athenians were as familiar with such poetry as the participants in Plato’s dialogues. It is possible (cf. LloydJones, 180 n. 1) that Aeschylus took the footprints, if he used them at all, and the sampler from Stesichorus, but there is no mention of them in P.0xy. 2506, fr. 26, col. ii.11 = PMG 217 where Aeschylus is said to have borrowed the lock from him).

‘A scene from a play last seen forty years previously’. Here is the vital point, Obviously some of the first audience of Electru were familiar with Aeschylus’ play through reading it, but it is doubtful whether many present day scholars would claim that such a group would be a large one or that the tragedians counted on such people when they composed their plays.29

Where then would most of the audience acquire their knowledge of Choephoroe? There is evidence to suggest that tragedy might have been recited at symposia, but on closer inspection it turns out to be less than entirely c ~ n v i n c i n g . ~ ~ Most scholars I take it would assume that in the last quarter of the fifth century familiarity with the plays of Aeschylus was for the most part a product of recollection of performances that had been seen on stage. Some of those present at the first performance of Electru would have been survivors of the audience that had been present in the theatre of Dionysus in 458 B.C. to witness the first performance of the Oresteiu. Some of these may have retained vivid memories of one particular scene from one of the plays of that trilogy. Some may have reminisced about the scene with friends and family and thus helped to keep the scene alive.31 Even so and allowing for the liveliness of oral tradition in fifth- century Athens, I take leave to doubt whether anything like a half of Euripides’ audience had actually seen the first performance of the recognition scene of the Choephoroe or heard it discussed by someone who had. Those who wish the audience of Electru to be familiar with Choephoroe are surely compelled to assume that most of the members of that audience had acquired their familiarity from seeing a revival or perhaps several revivals of the Aeschylean play. It has now almost become regarded as established fact that such a revival took place shortly before the production of Electru. This is a view which is questioned in the appendix which will follow. Although I have no wish to deny the possibility of such a revival the kind of evidence that has been adduced in its favour I would seek to show comes nowhere near the status of a didascalic inscription or dramatic hypothesis showing Aeschylus competing posthumously with S o p h o c l e ~ ~ ~ or Euripides.

In fact the strongest evidence for a revival of the Oresteiu in the period shortly before the first production of Euripides’ Electru seems to me to be the passage which I am trying to discredit, 11.5 18-44. I find it hard to see how anyone can believe the lines are genuine without also believing in the Aeschylean revival. (It might be argued that throughout I am underestimating the level of knowledge of literature and of literary education in the Athenian audience. Unfortunately this is too large a topic to treat properly here. I confine myself to the dogmatic statement that I do not believe that we are justified in assuming a high level of literary attainment in the majority of the audiences just because (a) there are extensive references

BICS 24 (1977) 111

to myths in Greek tragedy33 and (b) there is a great deal of literary parody in Greek comedy.)34

Given the difficulties of the passage I have been discussing, I would like to suggest an alternative to the hypothesis that it was composed by Euripides more or less directly after a revival of Choephoroe. The author of El. 5 18-44 whoever he was35 wrote not with a recent Aeschylean revival in mind, but with a text of Choephoroe before him, not greatly caring whether what he wrote was integrated into its dramatic context or comprehensible to an audience in a theatre. I believe, that is to say, that the allusiveness of the passage may be the result of a reader of tragedy writing for readers of tragedy. Just as we can only make sense of large portions of P h o e n i s ~ u e ~ ~ or of passages in the finale of Seven against the be^^^ if we have access to a text of Sophocles’ Antigone, so, to comprehend Eur. El. 5 18-44 we must take down from the shelf a text of Choephoroe and study its recognition scene. What I find very hard to believe is that Euripides would have made such a demand of his audience or have expected each spectator to attend the theatre of Dionysus fl@;Ou hwu.

APPENDIX

Revivals of Aeschylus in the fifth century B.C.

Revivals of old plays at the city Dionysia did not begin officially until 386 B.C.,38 but it is clear well before then that there already existed some provision for mounting revivals of the plays of Aeschylus. In order to honour the poet’s memory it was decreed at Athens after his death that b pOuXop~voc might obtain a chorus so as to present Aeschylean works (Vit. Aesch. 12, Schol, ad Ar. Ach. 10, Quint. x.1.66, Philostratus, Vit. ApolL vi 11). Our sources suggest (the Aristophanic scholion states explicitly) that there were revivals of Aeschylus which were in a different category from the performances of old plays which we know to have taken place after 386 B.C. They also imply that they were not uncommon. Quintilian states that many producers were crowned for producing revised (correctas) versions of Aeschylus’ plays and the ancient biographer (Vit. Aesch. 13) asserts that Aeschylus had several victories ( O ~ K bAl !ac) after his death. More significantly since both these authors might be taking into consideration fourth- century revivals as well as fifth-century ones,39 there are two occasions in fifth-century comedy (Ar. Ach. 9 ff., Ar. Ran. 868 f.) when characters speak as though it was still possible to see a play by Aeschylus in the last three decades of the century.

This evidence has enabled scholars to believe with relative equanimity in the possibility of a revival of the Oresteiu shortly before the first production of Euripides’Electm. We are in an area where little is provable or disprovable and I would by no means discount this possibility, but it is worth remembering that it is still only a possibility. In what follows I shall attempt to undermine the evidence which has been taken to show that Aeschylus’ work was frequently revived long after his death.

If, as is reasonable to suppose and is perhaps even implied by the sources, we view the permission the Athenians granted for posthumous productions of Aeschylus as a measure enacted very shortly after the great man’s death, that surely being the most appropriate time to do him honour (so Wilamowitz, Aischylos Interpretationen, 234), we might also contemplate the possibility that such productions, whether of plays not yet performed at the time of his death or of plays already performed during his lifetime (as implied by Quintilian), were more likely to have taken place in the immediate aftermath of the decree and were perhaps likely to have become rarer as time passed. Here, however, an objector might point to the career of one of Aeschylus’ sons, Euphorion (TGrF 12) who is said by the Suda-life to have produced with success his father’s plays and is known to have won the tragic prize at the Dionysia of 431 B.C. (hyp. Eur. Med.). Here we have a man who might be thought to have had a motive for availing himself of the permission the Athenians had granted and who was still alive in the last third of the century, twenty seven years after his father’s death. In fact the Suda-life tells us nothing about revivals of Aeschylean plays. Euphorion is said to have been successful four times with plays of Aeschylus which had not yet been performed ( o k p+rw Gu ~ V ~ E ( ~ ~ ~ . C ( E V W ) . If like Snell (TGrF) one finds it hard to believe that at the time of his death

112 EZCS 24 (1977)

Aeschylus had sixteen plays ready or almost ready for production, one might argue that the Suda has mistakenly included what were in fact successful revivals along with a victory or victories with plays that had not yet been performed. Possibly, however, malice lies behind the report. Euphorion’s victories with his own plays might have been regarded by some as unacknowledged productions of his father’s work and this gossip might have established itself in the didascalic tradition.40 Such doubt seems to have been expressed about the creative ability of Iophon, the son of Sophocles (Ar. Ran. 73 ff.).

The best evidence for Aeschylean revivals is the two Aristophanic passages. Neither, however, quite excludes the possibility that revivals became more sporadic as the century progressed. The Aristophanic Aeschylus’ statement at Ar. Ran. 868 that his poetry did not die with him has been taken, probably correctly, as a reference to the decree which authorised revivals of his plays.41 I hesitate before taking it as firm evidence that his plays were still being performed around 405 B.C. The speaker is not an historian of literature, but a dramatic character haggling about the conditions of the prize-fight that is to follow.

More positive evidence comes at the beginning of Achmnians where we find Dicaeopolis telling the audience about his many misfortunes of the previous year. Not the least of them consisted of waiting for an Aeschylean performance and then being told that the play would be by the frigid poet, Theognis. The reference is explicitly to tragedy (&Ah’ seem to provide firm evidence that an Aeschylean performance in the theatre of Dionysus was still regarded as a possibility in 426 B.C.42 Even so we cannot gauge the frequency of such performances from what Dicaeopolis says and we must remember that Aristophanes represents old men like Dicaeo olis as being ‘uncritically fond of Aiskhylos while ridiculing Euripides and other contemporary poets’.’’ Aeschylus is chosen as the poet Dicaeopolis expected to see so that the contrast between his expectations and what actually happened, a performance of a work by the modern Theognis, may be at its greatest and his dis- appointment made most clear. It may be too that expectations were really hopes and that Dicaeopolis might have seemed to the audience to be indulging in wishful thinking.44

~ T E P O U a.5 ~ p a y o d u t d u Ar. Ach. 9) and would

The present evidence then seems to me to fall some way short of proof that the Choephoroe was revived before E l e ~ f r a , ~ ~ but the matter cannot be left there since Newiger’s ingenious attempt to prove just this. His argument which uses along with the evidence I have just reviewed allusions he sees to Aeschylus’ Oresteia in Aristophanes’ clouds has met with a great deal of favour$6 but it seems to me quite unconvincing.

Newiger contends that the first production of Clouds (423 B.C.) was shortly preceded by a revival of the Oresteia and that the parabasis of Clouds which we possess and which was obviously not written for the first production was composed directly after Euripides’ EZecfra was perf0rmed.4~ He believes that the famous comparison, contained in the parabasis, of the comedy searching for a recognition token like Electra had done (Ar. Nub. 534 ff.) shows Aristophanes taking account of the recognition scenes of both Choephoroe and Electra and siding with Aeschylus.

With regard to Ar. Nub. 534 ff., I see no reason for dragging in Euripides and regard as far-fetched the suggestion Newiger makes that there is in it an implied contrast between the ‘active’ Electra of Aeschylus (helping to justify the inaccurate {q7&a’ of 1. 535) as against the stationary Electra of Euripides. It is not even certain that the lines contain a reference to Aeschylus’ play either. As was said above the lock is since Stesichorus an important ingredient of the story: krteivr)~ in 1.534 rather than referring to ‘that Electra of Aeschylus you saw on stage not so long ago’ might simply imply ‘that famous Electra of legend’ (cf. Men. Dysc. 153 f. b II~ppo& . . . ~ K E I Y o c ) .

Newiger finds other reminiscences of the Oresteia in Clouds, three of which he regards as particularly impre~s ive .~~ First there is the passage in Clouds where ‘Wrong’ (to use Dover’s terminology) demonstrates that Atkq does not exist by recalling how Zeus maltreated his own father without suffering for it (Ar. Nub. 900-9). The chorus of Eumenides had used this exemplum against Apollo to refute his argument that Zeus favours the father against the mother (A. Eum. 640 ff.). While there is a resemblance between the passages, particularly in the emotional reactions of the characters who have the story used against them,

BICS 24 (1977) 113

it is not necessary to believe that Aristophanes is dependant upon Aeschylus. The story, a perpetual problem for the devout (save for the blandly perverse Euthyphro), was known long before Aeschylus (see Dover on Ar. Nub. 905 f.) and was obviously frequently used in arguments about rehgion in Aristophanes’ time (cf. Eur. H.F. 1317 f., Plat. Euthyphro 6a7).

Here and in his next alleged reminiscence, Newiger seems to me overliterary in approach. He believes that Ar. Nub. 1380-90 derives from A. Cho. 750-62. Surely by 423 B.C. Aristophanes’ inspiration was more likely to be from personal experience than from a reading of Aeschylus.

Finally Newiger adduces the ‘Aeschylean’ morality of Cbuds and in particular the famous Theodizee’ of Ar.Nub. 1458-61. But is this necessarily the outcome of reading or viewing the Oresteia? The ideas about divine justice to be found in clouds are commonplaces of Greek religious thought?’ familiar to t(s particularly from Aeschylus and to us most of all from the Oresteia (and perhaps Persae). We, however, possess only a small part of Aeschylus’ output and are not in a position to say whether the Oresteia pro- duced a moral impression or left a moral legacy markedly greater than any of his other works. It is dangerous in any case to regard tragedy as the only moral educator of fifth-century Athenians. The assertion that the gods punish evil men and that they put bad notions into the minds of those whom they wish to destroy could have been. heard by an Athenian at his mother’s knee or in conversation with his friends or in the assembly or law court from a speaker trying to convince his audience of another man’s guilt or folly.

Even if one were to accept Newiger’s case that clouds was written with Aeschylus very much in mind, one would not be compelled to believe that Aristophanes wrote under the spell of a recent revival: the author of Cbuds, whatever he thought about intellectuals, was surely a member of the reading public.

uiriversity of Manchester

NOTES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

This is a revised version of a paper given in October, 1977 to the Oxford Philological Society and I am grateful to those who participated in the discussion that followed its delivery, not least to those who disagreed with me. My especial thanks go to Dr O.P. Taplin who read and commented on an earlier draft and made many helpful suggest- ions. The following works are cited by author’s name (for further bibliography see Bond and Fraenkel): C.W. Bond, ‘Euripides’ parody of Aeschylus’ Hermathena 118 (1974) 1-14, J.D. Denniston, Commentary on Euripides, Elecrra (Oxford, 1939), E. Fraenkel, T h e footprints in the Choephoroe’ Appendix D of Aeschylus Agamemnon (Oxford, 1950) pp. 815-25, H. Lloyd-Jones, ‘Some alleged interpolations in Aeschylus’ Choephori and Euripides’ Elecfra’ CQ n.s. 11 (1961) 171-84, and A. Mau, ‘Zu Euripides Electra’ Cbmmentafiones Phibbgime in honorem Thmdori Momrnseni (Berlin, 1877) 291-301.

This is in answer to Bond (p. 6) who says that ‘the grotesqueness of the suggestion [that Electra should put Orestes’ lock to her hair for comparison] is not obvious because it is not worked out on stage’.

Cf. Lloyd-Jones (p. 179): ‘It is common ground that whoever wrote the scene must have written it in order to ridicule the corresponding scene in Aeschylus . . .’. For Schlegel’s discussion see Kritische Schriften und Briefe herausgegeben wn E. Ldhner (Stuttgart, 1966) Bd. V pp. 116,118. Wilamowitz’s dictum comes on p. 169 of his commentary on Choephoroe. Cobet (Varhe Lectiones2 563) talking of ‘puerile elements’ in Euripides singles out Eur. EL 542 ff.

F.W. Schmidt, Kritische Sfudien zu dengriechischen Dramatikern Bd. 2 (Berlin, 1886) 153 ff. deleted II . 532-44 and was followed in this by Radermacher before he recanted and later by R. Bahme, Hermes 73 (1938) 203 ff. C. Vitelli (RIFC 8 [ 1880) 460 n. 1) suggested that the interpolation might begin at 1. 524. Tucker in his Choephoroe- commentary took out ll. 520-3 and 525-44).

See for example R.P. Winnington-Ingram,Arethusa 2 (1969) 127 ff. and W.G. Arnott, GIR 20 (1973) 49 ff.

SeeJ.Diggle,IllinoisUassicalStudies2(1977) 116f .

114 BICS 24 (1977)

H.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

2 3.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

(Y‘. Wihniowitz, Hertties 18 (1883) 236 n. 2,Dennistonad loc. and Bond, p. 11

Bond (p. 14 n. 45) is misled by A. Vbgler, Vergleichende Studien zur sophokleischen und euripideischen Elektra (lleidelberg 1967) p. 168 who asserts that the reference here is a plural one. Is this a slip or does he assume that knowing the objec: U f I d where it is hidden is enough to justify a genuine plural? Eur. ffel . 291 which Vugler also mentions is too vague to tell us anything.

See Bond, p. 5.

See Bond, pp. 11 f.

Something akin to the ‘loci rudimentales’ detected by T. Zielihki, Tkugodumenon libri tres (Cracow, 1925) 1 ff.

Cf. the sequence of dialogue at Soph. O.T. 107 f. where Oedipus’ 016’ ebt’rroii y i c ; in 1. 108 immediately takes up Creon’s mention of aL7oCurar.

D. Bolinger, Aspectsof Language2 (N.Y., 1975) 611.

I t is often very difficult to be sure whether a repetition really is insignificant and considerable disagreement is possible regarding some of the examples chosen by John Jackson to illustrate the phenomenon (hfurginuliu Saenicu 220 ff., 243). S e e P.E. Easterling, Hermes 101 (1973) 14 ff. On Euripides in this connection, cf. Schmid-Stlhlin I 3 795, Denniston on El. 44-5, Diggle on Phuethon 56 and Easterling, 34 n. 3. On repetition where the repeatzd word has a different meaning see Wilamowitz on Eur. H.F. 329.

Cf. G. MUller, SIFC 25 (1951) 73 and M.D. Reeve, CQ n.s. 22 (1972) 55.

1. 519 is the only occasion (out of five) in Euripides where the object of Oau&w meaning ‘honour’ is not a person or persons.

One cannot be absolutely certain that ll. 545 f. are not part of the interpolation which began at 1.518.

To mention only those which do not involve violent rewriting and/or transposition, Elmsley’s O K O T O ~ AoOwu kK&T’ 5 r j ~ 6 e xeou& [sc. 7 1 ~ 1 produces an unlikely construction, while Murray’s suggestion that 1.546 was going to mean ‘aut per speculatores ipse misit’ but was interrupted by the old man before Electra could utter the main verb is implausible and does not account for A a G u . Murray’s reference to L 354 is misleading since U K O T O I ~ inep$e ro6abe rijv i p i j v d u there means not ‘he sent these scouts’but ‘he sent these people to inspect my K U K ~ ’ .

Elmsley assumed they were frontier guards. Cf. the situation implied by Eur. Hel. 1174.

This is also Denniston’s diagnosis, but he assumes a contrast between a [Cum and an &or&.

‘The mutilation of the sentence beginning with hAA’ +j TC . . . may perhaps not be due to mechanical destruction or accidental loss but to a deliberate attempt of the interpolator to cut out what proved to be untenable after the addition of 51 8 f.’, Fraenkel, p. 826 n. 1.

See Fraenkel, SBAW 1963,55 f. and Kleine BeifnYge I. 41 3 for a discussion of this topic. Perhaps the clearest example of cutting and insertion of a shortened alternative is Plaut. Stichus 55 f. where dialogue replaces lyric. Dr Taplin tells me that he believes that there are quite a few lines in tragedy which were originally meant to replace longer stretches. For an edition of selections from comedy see Turner on P.0xy. 2655.

A more extended allusion might be found in Eur. Suppl. 845-56 (see Winnington-Ingram, op.cit. 129 f.), but even if there is a reference to Aeschylus in these lines, the passage does not make the same kind of demands on the audience as Eur. El. 5 18-44 does.

I believe that ‘digression’ is one of the meanings of rreplrraroc at Ar. Run. 942. On ancient views of Euripides in this connection see Bain, CQ n.s. 25 (1975) 15.

Only slightly less extended if we take out ll. 191-2 on which see MD. Reeve, GRBS 14 (1973) 149.

This is very fairly brought out by Bond, pp. 4 f.

L. Radermacher, Zeitschriftfid. Osterr. Gymnusien 66 (1915) 1 ff.

BICS 24 (1977) 115

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

See on this topic, E.G. Turner, Arheniun Books in the 5th und 4th centuries B.C. (London, 1952), P. Walcot, G&R 18 (1971) 35 ff.. L. Woodbury, TAPA 106 (1976) 349 ff. and especially F.D. Harvey, REG 79 (1966) 585 ff.

See Dover on Ar. Nub. 1364. In any case symposia were surely the preserve of the middle and upper classes.

Some plays and incidents from plays do seem to have remained long in the memory of the Athenians. To judge by its popularity with vase painters and the frequency with which it is mentioned in comedy, Euripides’ Telephus was such a case. It could be argued that constant parody helped to keep its memory alive. Vit. Aesch. 5 suggests the entry of the Eumenides was often discussed.

I cannot follow Del Como and other diehards in believing that we actually possess such a document in P.0xy. 2256.3.

So H. Lloyd-Jones, TbeJusticeofZeus (Berkeley, 1971) 124. I believe that what Aristotle says i n h e t . 1451b25 would have held good for the fifth century as well as the fourth and that Antiphanes fr. 191 is tainted evidence.

For such an attitude see A. R(rma,ABAW 22 (1902). For an attack on the naivety of such a view see K J. Dover. Aristopbanic Comedy (London, 1972) 188 f. Even if one is prepared to attribute to the Athenian man in the street a very high level of knowledge of tragedy, one should ahvays remember that there was so much more tragedy for him to have to get acquainted with than there is for the modern professional scholar who is so expert in the small selection that has survived and so keen to look for echoes and allusions within that small selection.

LL 518-44 would not be the only extensive interpolation in the play. See M.D. Reeve, GRBS 14 (1973) 151 ff.

See E. Fraenkel, SBAW 1963,100 ff.

See R.D. Dawe, CQ n.s. 17 (1967) 25 who demonstrates that [Aesch.] ScT 1038 ff. is an answer to Soph.Anr. 249-52.

See A.W. Pickadcambridge, The Dromutic Festivuls ofAthens ed. 2 revised by J. Could and D.M. Lewis (Oxford, 1969) 72 ff. Helpful discussions on the topic of Aeschylean revivals are to be found in D. Del Corno, Dioniso xix 3-4 (1956) 277 ff. and A.F. Garvie, Aeschylus’Supplices: Pky and nidogy (Cambridge, 1969) 19 ff. See also PickardCambridge, opcit . 86, R. BOhme (who comes to somewhat startling conclusions) Buhnenbetvbeitungen RschyZeischer Pugc7dien I1 (Basel, 1959) 122, H.-J. Newiger. Hermes 89 (1961) 422-30 (for an assembly of the evidence, 427 n. 9) and A. Wartelle, Histote du texte d’Eschyle &ns I’antiquitb (Paris, 1971) 55 ff.

On the likelihood of such a confusion see Del Corno, 284 and Garvie, 23.

See E. Cappq AJph 28 (1907) 191 f. who adduced other examples of alleged plagiarism. I am not so inclined to dismiss the idea as is Garvie, 22.

So PickardCambridge, 86.

See PickardCambridge, 86 n. 1. Dicaeopolis is undoubtedly describing his expectations of a performana at the theatre of Dionysus, this narrative being an account of what happened in the city during the previous year.

See Dover on aOrds, 135 3-90.

It has been put to me that Aristophanes would not have wanted to make Dicaeopolis look a fool particularly so early in the proceedings and that if Aeschylean revivals were a thing of the past by 425 B.C. he would not have brought on Dicaeopolis claiming that he was expecting one. 1 would concede that this passage excludes the possibility that it was, say, twenty years smce an Aeschylean play had been put on; it does not seem to me to rule out the possibility that such revivals were few and far between by 425 B.C.

The theatre of Dionysus was not of course the only place where dramatic performances might take place in Attica in the f i t h century (see PickardCambridge, 45 ff. where as Dr Taplin points out to me the important passage Plat. Rep. 4754 is missed) and it might be argued that the fust audience of Euripides’ Electru would have become familiar with Aeschylus through seeing his plays revived all over Attica. It is reasonable to suppose that there were in the fifth century local revivals of plays that had first been performed at the Dionysia, but the only positive evidence for that kind of revival comes from the fourth century. There is ahvays a possibility that those fifth- century tragedies known to have been performed during the fifth century at somewhere other than the theatre of Dionysus were some of them not revivals but were being given the Athenian equivalent of a pre-West End tryout or else had been refused a chorus for the Dionysia or Lenaea. The well known Aixone decree (I.G. 112 3091) can no longer be regarded as evidence for local performances in the fifth century. See W. Luppe,APf 19 (1969) 147 ff. for an extremely plausible elucidation of it.

116 BICS 24 (1977)

46.

47.

Cf. Winnington-Ingram, op.cit. 139 n. 20 and Bond, p. 8.

With Electru's traditional date of 41 3 B.C. much of this scaffolding would collapse. I do not believe, however, that R. Leimbach (Hermes 100 11972) 190 ff.) has demolished Zuntz's case against the traditional date (G. Zuntz, me Ibliticul Phys of Euripides [Manchester, 19551 64 ff.).

Some of the less significant echoes he adduces are not very impressive, e.g. Ar. Nub. 359-A. Ag. 735 (see Dover ad loc. for the difference between them).

48.

49. Cf. Dem. 24.121 cited by Dover in tk addendum to &.Nub. 1458 ff. and also And.l. l lY., Lyc. Leocr. 92 and Aeschines 1. 19Of. It seems likely u fortiori that such arguments were also used in the fifth century (cf. K J . Dover, JHS93 [1973] 60n. 6).