[303] For the arguments see Jebb’s Introduction (pp. li-liv) to the Ajax. He thinks Antigone the earlier.

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

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

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

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

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

[309] vv. 450-70.

[310] Rhetoric, III, xvi. 9.

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

[312] See pp. 8, 15.

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

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

[315] vv. 1424-5.

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

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

[318] vv. 616-21.

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

[320] vv. 1331-3.

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

[322] vv. 774 sqq.

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

[324] See Aristotle, Poetic, 1454b.

[325] vv. 130-1.

[326] See pp. 127-8.

[327] vv. 124-5.

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

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

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

[331] vv. 758-64.

[332] vv. 1117-8.

[333] v. 1141.

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

[335] See Jebb’s Introduction, pp. xxxviii sq.

[336] vv. 575-7 (Jebb’s translation).

[337] vv. 547-9.

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

[339] vv. 719 sq.

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

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

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

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

[344] Jebb points out that Trach. 416 and Supplices 567 are practically identical.

[345] v. 1140.

[346] 268.

[347] vv. 9-14.

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

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

[350] vv. 1007-15.

[351] E.g. Mahaffy (History of Gk. Lit., Poets, pp. 309-12).

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

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

[354] vv. 1404 sqq.

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

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

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

[358] Or. 52.

[359] vv. 936 sqq., 987 sq., etc.

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

[361] v. 1455.

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

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

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

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

[366] v. 106.

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

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

[369] vv. 670-80 (Jebb’s version).

[370] See below, p. 185.

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

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

[373] vv. 1503 sq.

[374] King Lear, III, iv.

[375] vv. 1627 sq. Cp. 1 Sam. iii. 10.

[376] Deut. xxxiv. 6.

[377] Heb. xi. 22.

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

[379] v. 472.

[380] v. 506.

[381] vv. 964 sq.

[382] vv. 1422-5.

[383] See Jebb, Introduction, pp. xxi sq.

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

[385] See pp. 10, 12 sq.

[386] Ad Quintum Fratrem, II, xv. 3.

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

[388] De Subl. XV, 7: ἄκρως πεφάντασται.

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

[390] Birds, vv. 100 sqq.

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

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

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

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

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

[396] See pp. 15-17.

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

[398] O.T. 587-8:

[399] Electra, vv. 328 sqq.

[400] See p. 16.

[401] Electra, 303-16.

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

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

[404] Phil. vv. 287-92.

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

[406] Electra, 1165 sq.

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

[408] O.C. 607 sqq. The wonderful version of these first few fines is by Professor Gilbert Murray.

[409] Ajax, 815 sqq.

[410] O.C. 1586 sqq.

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

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

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

[414] The celebrated “tag” beginning πολλαὶ μορφαὶ τῶν δαιμονίων (vv. 1159-63), which is found also at the close of Medea (practically), Helena, Andromache, and Bacchæ.

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

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

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

[418] vv. 763 sq.

[419] vv. 280-325.

[420] Euripides the Rationalist, pp. 1-128.

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

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

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

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

[425] See pp. 21 sq.

[426] v. 389 sqq.

[427] Poetic, 1454b.

[428] Four Plays of Euripides, pp. 125-30.

[429] vv. 1381-3.

[430] v. 472: ἀναίδεια.

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

[432] vv. 801 sq.

[433] v. 450.

[434] v. 1367.

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

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

[437] vv. 309 sq.

[438] v. 454.

[439] vv. 930 sq.

[440] vv. 824-45.

[441] vv. 1081-1115.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[448] v. 638.

[449] v. 625.

[450] vv. 9 sq., 540.

[451] vv. 869 sqq.

[452] vv. 910 sqq.

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

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

[455] vv. 513, 563.

[456] Hercules Furens, vv. 151-64.

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

[458] vv. 240 sq.

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

[460] vv. 597 sqq.

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

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

[463] vv. 1035-7.